Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[Bryan]

A just act serves a purpose. If it serves no purpose, it has no point and therefore is not just.

You're apparently assuming an outcome-based morality. Gavin referenced Kant's philosophical imperative. You seem to have ruled Kant's philosophical imperative as unjust in principle.

I don't think you can justify an outcome-based morality without in turn basing it on an objective and absolute moral foundation (which removes the illusion of morality being based on outcomes).

I don't think Paul is equipped for that discussion, unfortunately. He should keep running away while pretending to having depth to his understanding.

What purpose would eternal torment serve?

Justice. I already told you that. Why would it need to serve any other purpose?

I keep asking this question, but no one seems able to answer it.

I've answered it repeatedly. Paul apparently reserves the right to ignore answers that do not share his assumption that morality is outcome-based. Now, that's understandable if Paul is narrow-minded, but is it reasonable?

Of course not. There is no answer because it serves no purpose. It is gratuitous suffering, which is not justice.

In the course of three sentences (primarily the latter two), Paul confirms that he assumes an outcome-based morality--without argument--and underlines the fact that his approach to the issue fallaciously begs the question.

We keep coming to an impasse in the discussion because Paul wants to assume his moral system in order to judge hell. Little old narrow-minded me, I'm aware that Paul's is not the only moral system available to judge the situation. So I point that out to Paul and ask him to provide reason why his system is fit to sit in final judgment.

He flees the issue, calling it "silly" and "not germane." Then he keeps popping up with the claim that nobody can answer the question.

By this evidence, Paul is not a reasonable person.

I wrote Paszkiewicz months ago asking him to contact me. The only time we met personally, in February at the Board meeting, I reached out to him and shook his hand. He knows the door is open. I haven’t given up on him at all. In fact, I said in the note I sent him that I expected reconciliation and a miracle that we would work together to create. That was in December. I haven’t gotten a response.

But where's the candlesticks?

I suggest you read the two letters he wrote to the Kearny Observer. He defended himself and his proselytizing in both, denying however that is what it was.

Here's the text of one letter, and there's not a word in it concerning his actions in the classroom.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=41612

I invite Paul to offer a citation referring to whatever other letter he might be talking about.

From Bryan's next post comes this gem of an exchange:

QUOTE(Paul @ Jun 20 2007, 12:13 PM)

There's another problem with your argument. People can look up the law. There aren't competing versions of it, and the existence of a legislature that makes laws is universally known.

Bryan: “Huh? Is the law the same in the United States and China? Or even Mexico? Legislatures are a dime a dozen.”

When you’re in the USA, you obey the laws of the USA. When you’re China . . . good God (pardon the expression), do I really have to explain this?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In terms of your argument, yes.

There aren't competing versions of the law?

The existence of a legislature that makes laws is "universally known"?

Paul seems to like taking my questions as something other than a request for him to make his statements appear coherent.

Even within the United States there are competing versions of the law, such as when one federal district rules on a case out-of-step with the established interpretation of the other districts.

I keep expecting "universal" to mean something like "universal," so perhaps it's my fault that I don't understand the latter part of LaClair's argument.

[Guest Guest]

Again, you mean?

Jesus appeared as a man, not as the glory of God.  Note God's words to Moses in Exodus 33.  Note also the account of the transfiguration of Jesus.

One wonders what type of Catholic you were for twenty years if you need these issues explained.  The objections makes sense from somebody who knows very little of theology or the Bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, they fed you this slop and you swallowed it.

And you criticize other people for not dotting their last i?

[Guest Guest]

You can rationalize it any way you like.  You sue for money to punish.  There are certainly cases where a person deserves to be compensated.  However, the law profession has turned this into a multi-billion dollar industry.  As it relates to doctors and drug companies, it's lawsuits that have caused costs to the consumer to skyrocket.  Sometimes I'm amazed that anyone would want to become a doctor or that a company would want to research and develop a new drug with lawyers just waiting to pounce.

I suggest you watch a little daytime or late night television and take a look a some of the wonderful peers you have in your profession.  I'm sure you and your firm only take legit cases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are also cases where someone deserves to be punished, like the cigarette manufacturers who covered up the effects of smoking for decades, and then deliberately marketed poison to children; or the companies in several industries who released products into the market knowing they were defective. Some of these companies even had internal memos saying they weren't going to pull the products back because it would be cheaper to pay on the claims - even though they knew that deaths were likely. Money speaks very loudly in our country, and nowhere more loudly than in the corporations, where everything is driven by the bottom line.

No one said punishment is never justified. The argument is that punishment must serve a purpose. If punitive damages make companies less willing to endanger comsumers, that serves a purpose.

What's wrong with that?

[Guest Paul]

Really??? Where did you leave your integrity when encouranging your son to record his teacher without his knowledge? Did you leave it at your office that day?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was his decision, but I do stand by it. The teacher was out of line and Matt caught him not only proselytizing the class, but trying to deny it later. Matt was absolutely right, and his integrity is impeccable, as testified to by the large number of people who have honored him for his actions.

You're just upset that your boy got caught. You'd like him to keep preaching not only in church, but also in class. You may assume that your prejudices amount to truth, but they do not.

[Guest Paul]

I wrote Paszkiewicz months ago asking him to contact me. The only time we met personally, in February at the Board meeting, I reached out to him and shook his hand. He knows the door is open. I haven’t given up on him at all. In fact, I said in the note I sent him that I expected reconciliation and a miracle that we would work together to create. That was in December. I haven’t gotten a response.

I was at that meeting, I was right behind Mr. Paszkiewicz when his was leaving. He reached out to you. When he went down the stairs you were at the bottom against the wall with your family. He came to you and shook your hand and Mathews.

You only shook his hand because he came to you.

Again you are trying to make yourself to be this kind and innocent person and Mr. P. the evil guy that won't even try to make peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not my recollection, but it's on video recording if anyone really thinks it's that important. More important, since you're obviously one of his supporters, and now know that I've tried to discuss this with him, why don't you tell him that the door is still open? We still have a divided community, which he should be acting with us to heal. Isn't it interesting that you completely ignore the most important facts.

[Guest Paul]

Listen numbnuts, we're talking about lawyers here.  Specifically lawyers that make their living with personal injury cases.  And we're talking about punishment also.  And if going after an individual or a corporations money isn't seeking to punish them than I don't no what is. 

I already said there are valid cases but the vast majority are just a money grab.  Maybe Paul and his firm are the only good guys out there.  He says they are careful about the cases they choose.  Just remember there is a reason the phrase "ambulance chaser" is so iconic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of my colleagues has a shirt that says "99% percent of the lawyers are giving the rest of us a bad name." I told you, I know that a lot of my colleagues do a lot of things I don't like. In the end, people with legitimate cases get hurt because the bad cases create perceptions like the ones you're posting here, and when people let their anger overcome their reason, as you seem to be doing, it's very hard in some venues to get a fair jury.

We agree there are valid cases, yet you insist on making this personal to me. Do you know me? I'm quite sure you don't, or at least you know virtually nothing about how I practice because if you did you wouldn't say those things. I'm just finishing up my current trial with a summation on Monday, and am scheduled to start another trial in early July. Both of them are medical malpractice cases.

I've never taken a case for punitive damages to trial. I've drawn complaints for punitive damages in probably a handful of cases (five or fewer I would estimate) over thirty years of practice. I never said punitive damages were never appropriate. Sometimes they are. But those cases are the exception, not only for me, but also for the vast majority of my colleagues, including the ambulance chasers.

The point about punishment is that it should serve a purpose. In order to be just, it must serve a good purpose, and good values. That is not only good philosophy; it is also the law. A jury may not award punitive damages in a civil case without an excellent reason. That is my point about punishment and justice.

Look, you can be as rotten to me as you want to be, but you don't have a reason for it. And if you want to criticize my arguments, great, that's what forums like this are for, but at least criticize what I've written; don't distort what I write and then criticize me for your distortion. How about calming down and having this discussion civilly.

[Guest Paul]

I love all of these people that claim to know the mind of god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed.

You think about what you just wrote.

[Guest Paul]

OK, that's your claim. So answer the question you've been asked over and over.

Which question is that?

You may be right.

How do you figure? Doesn't it keep active murderers out of heaven, at minimum?

Why doesn't hell accomplish that purpose?

How would you know somebody had changed? Because they said so? Or should you let the murderer out every 2 million years to see if he murders again, then when he murders put him back in hell for another 2 million (or should it be a much shorter time than that?)?

Given an eternity, that system could result in an infinity of murders. Does that seem wise?

Because the text very probably means that all will be forced via the exercise of judgment to acknowledge God's sovereignty. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it very probably doesn't mean that each sinner will come before God in courtly grace and offer his sincerest respect.

Why not?

You must have some nutty idea of what the free will argument is.

Hmmm. I thought I said that hell was about "justice," not "retribution." How did we accomplish that transformation?

Wheee! Let's jump from an illicit change of terms to a personal attack!

What fun!

This idea of God getting his pound of flesh makes no sense. It's based on how people deal with each other in a finite world of scarce resources. How does burning someone's flesh without damaging it, and never changing that course, help anyone?

See? You can't even justify the argument you're trying to force on me that I never made. It's a about justice, not retribution. Maybe you should start your argument over again from scratch.

And if it doesn't do any good, how can it be justice?

That's the big question, isn't it?

Your side tends to hint that it can't imagine the answer, therefore the answer is that it isn't justice--which is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Is it reasonable to argue using fallacies?

Notice your implicit appeal to outcome-based morality ("If it doesn't do any good ..."). That's the form of morality that tends to produce ends-justifies-the-means ethical reasoning.

You really think hell can't be justified with ends-justifies-the-means?

That's why I've kept pressing Paul for his moral foundation. I know that he can't sustain his position logically any more than you can.

You can't just claim that God has to have it that way for no good reason.

What if I'm not using ends-justifies-the-means reasoning, and it just happens to be objectively good because god's innate, eternal moral nature dictates that it is good?

Why wouldn't that work?

Don't tell me it's because you say so, okay?

God would have a reason, because according to you God is completely just.

You seem to be assuming that an outcome-based morality (with the ends potentially justifying the means) is the foundation for justice.

Is that a solid assumption, or are you perhaps thinking even more narrowly than I am.

Justice isn't a dogmatic rule in a vacuum.

Obviously, since no rules would be needed in a perfect vacuum. In this scenario, the existence of a god and a hell have been posited. That should lay your vacuum idea to rest. Now deal with the real argument.

It's what is best under all the circumstances. So how can eternal torment with no hope of redemption, even if the person repents and reforms, be justice?

That's the question.

I've answered that question. Apparently you and Paul don't count my answer because it fails to answer in terms of your own moral assumptions, and we end up with a counterargument along these lines.

Bryan says hell is just because of X.

I don't believe that hell is just because of X.

Therefore, Bryan's answer is false.

Don't fight. Contemplate. Reflect. Think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Follow your own advice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, I've told you my moral foundation. It is our common humanity, and what follows from that is a long list of values, some of which I posted. I don't see you denying any of them, but I don't see you employing them either.

Your argument in response to this post is pathetic. All you've done is shift the discussion from eternal torment to some punishment of whatever degree. Everything else you write is meaningless once you make that shift.

In addition, you keep ignoring the fact that an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering someone without tormenting forever in a fiery hell.

If you're going to write posts this long, at least make them worth reading.

[Guest Paul]

The key term is "unmistakable," which implies that nobody could make the mistake of thinking that god does not exist.  Logically, that leads to a state of affairs in which all are effectively coerced into believing in god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it would just mean that the facts are clear. I always knew my father. I recognized his face, knew his voice and his body build, etc. There was no mistaking who he was. I think that's pretty common experience. It didn't take away my free will in how I treated him. This isn't a hard concept if you're not determined not to understand it.

[Guest Paul]

You're apparently assuming an outcome-based morality.  Gavin referenced Kant's philosophical imperative.  You seem to have ruled Kant's philosophical imperative as unjust in principle.

I don't think you can justify an outcome-based morality without in turn basing it on an objective and absolute moral foundation (which removes the illusion of morality being based on outcomes).

I don't think Paul is equipped for that discussion, unfortunately.  He should keep running away while pretending to having depth to his understanding.

Justice.  I already told you that.  Why would it need to serve any other purpose?

I've answered it repeatedly.  Paul apparently reserves the right to ignore answers that do not share his assumption that morality is outcome-based.  Now, that's understandable if Paul is narrow-minded, but is it reasonable?

In the course of three sentences (primarily the latter two), Paul confirms that he assumes an outcome-based morality--without argument--and underlines the fact that his approach to the issue fallaciously begs the question.

We keep coming to an impasse in the discussion because Paul wants to assume his moral system in order to judge hell.  Little old narrow-minded me, I'm aware that Paul's is not the only moral system available to judge the situation.  So I point that out to Paul and ask him to provide reason why his system is fit to sit in final judgment.

He flees the issue, calling it "silly" and "not germane."  Then he keeps popping up with the claim that nobody can answer the question.

By this evidence, Paul is not a reasonable person.

But where's the candlesticks?

Here's the text of one letter, and there's not a word in it concerning his actions in the classroom.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=41612

I invite Paul to offer a citation referring to whatever other letter he might be talking about.

In terms of your argument, yes.

There aren't competing versions of the law?

The existence of a legislature that makes laws is "universally known"?

Paul seems to like taking my questions as something other than a request for him to make his statements appear coherent.

Even within the United States there are competing versions of the law, such as when one federal district rules on a case out-of-step with the established interpretation of the other districts.

I keep expecting "universal" to mean something like "universal," so perhaps it's my fault that I don't understand the latter part of LaClair's argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're not at an impasse. We just don't agree. You're trying to defend a valueless and purposeless concept of justice because you can't support eternal torment in hell any other way. That explains why you refuse to say what values eternal torment would serve except to reiterate your claim that it somehow serves an omnibus, undefined "justice" that you refuse to define, and that you absolutely won't define by reference to any values.

For me, justice looks to the outcome, you're absolutely right about that. And since people decide what values systems they prefer, let anyone who has taken the time to read this discussion decide whether they want a system of justice that is grounded in values and focused on whether it makes things better or worse, or one that isn't. That's how simple you've made it, Bryan.

[Guest Guest]

Indeed.

You think about what you just wrote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes sir.

Don't worry Paul I won't include you. I know you already know all. You've been telling us for months.

[Bryan]

Bryan, I've told you my moral foundation. It is our common humanity, and what follows from that is a long list of values, some of which I posted. I don't see you denying any of them, but I don't see you employing them either.

Well, don't worry your pretty little head about it, Paul. Even if I have naught but hatred in my heart and I painfully murder every human I meet, your position is unfalsifiable because you'd just claim that I know all of the values perfectly well but I just don't pay them any heed.

As I've pointed out before, this makes an excellent parallel to arguments such as "atheists hate God" or "there are no atheists in foxholes."

Paul thinks he addresses the issue by simply asserting over and over again that this morality is universal and objective.

Somehow I doubt he's accept that approach from anyone advancing an argument with which he did not agree.

Pa-the-tic.

Your argument in response to this post is pathetic. All you've done is shift the discussion from eternal torment to some punishment of whatever degree. Everything else you write is meaningless once you make that shift.

You completely left out that part where I identified (repeatedly) the importance of you establishing your grounds for judging justice (beyond the assertion phase, which you repeated yet again for us above).

Why did you leave that out?

Stupidity?

Carelessness?

Dishonesty?

Have I not repeated the point enough for it to sink in?

In addition, you keep ignoring the fact that an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering someone without tormenting forever in a fiery hell.

Untrue. I addressed that point by reducing it to absurdity.

If omnipotence allows god to do absolutely anything, then hell can be just because god can make it so.

That puts the responsibility right back on you to suggest a coherent way in which God could provide the solution you suggest.

You seem to think nothing of claiming that I'm not addressing your points even when I have. Is it that you're not reading my replies (as you sometimes hint) and you therefore do not realize that I've addressed the issue--but the you make the claim anyway even though you have no idea whether or not it's true?

If you're going to write posts this long, at least make them worth reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've enjoyed all of them so far.

Why don't you skip reading them and just pretend you know what I wrote (or are you already doing that?)?

[Bryan]

We're not at an impasse. We just don't agree.

I referred to an impasse in the progression of the argument, owing to your repeated refusal to justify your allegedly universal and objective moral system. The issue itself is not at an impasse because you have no leg to stand on to judge whether or not hell is just.

You're trying to defend a valueless and purposeless concept of justice because you can't support eternal torment in hell any other way.

You're just throwing excrement at the wall hoping something will stick.

There's no such thing as valueless justice. It's an oxymoron. All I have to do is say that hell is just and I've supported my argument as much as you have yours.

You're such a hypocrite, LaClair. The hilarious thing, I think, is that you're so clueless about philosophy that you don't even realize what a king-sized hypocrite you're being. Though I leave open the possibility that you're just hugely disingenuous.

That explains why you refuse to say what values eternal torment would serve except to reiterate your claim that it somehow serves an omnibus, undefined "justice" that you refuse to define, and that you absolutely won't define by reference to any values.

Again, LaClair puts his cluelessness in the display window.

I asked Paul, IIRC, why I should need to define justice beyond stating that hell is the just result of sin. I haven't glimpsed any reply--Paul's pattern suggests that he ignored the question or dismissed it as "silly" or the like.

The justice of hell is itself a value, so there should be no need to further justify hell in terms of values. And even if there were, each value offered in justification would need to be justified in turn.

And that's the just the tip of the iceberg. I've pointed out to Paul more than once the difficulty of crossing the is/ought divide--unless Paul has figured out a solution to that problem, there will never be any kind of empirical evidence for any foundation of values. But Paul ignores this argument. Is it beyond him? Probably so--but he continues this charade of pretending that his argument is respectable.

For me, justice looks to the outcome, you're absolutely right about that. And since people decide what values systems they prefer, let anyone who has taken the time to read this discussion decide whether they want a system of justice that is grounded in values and focused on whether it makes things better or worse, or one that isn't. That's how simple you've made it, Bryan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll remind those inclined to settle the manner in that respect that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

I recommend that people consider the issue on the basis of logic instead of fallacies.

Try not to think too harshly of Paul for his constant use of such fallacies. His work as an attorney surely has him conscious of the fact that these types of fallacious appeals tend to work pretty well on juries.

The point, again, is that Paul has established no basis for judging hell unjust. He makes claims for an "objective" and "universal" system and fails to back up those claims.

He gives every appearance of being a charlatan on this issue.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Paul]

(1) There's no such thing as valueless justice.  It's an oxymoron.  All I have to do is say that hell is just and I've supported my argument as much as you have yours.

(2) I asked Paul, IIRC, why I should need to define justice beyond stating that hell is the just result of sin. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) Exactly. So tell us what values hell serves.

(2) Because if you don't, then your "justice" is no more than a word, an empty non-concept. It's not like Love or wisdom or generosity, which are more specific. People have used and misused "justice" to mean anything. That is why terrorists can fly airplanes into buildings filled with people and call it justice. Justice is not a value in itself, but a conclusion. Supported by the right values, it is an omnibus term for all of them. Supported by wrong or false values, justice is actually injustice. If you don't have any values in your concept of justice, then it is empty and meaningless --- which is exactly what I've been telling you.

[Guest Guest]

That's not my recollection, but it's on video recording if anyone really thinks it's that important. More important, since you're obviously one of his supporters, and now know that I've tried to discuss this with him, why don't you tell him that the door is still open? We still have a divided community, which he should be acting with us to heal. Isn't it interesting that you completely ignore the most important facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is important, because it speaks to your integrity. By the way, it was on video, it was on CBS news and I saw Mr. P reaching out to you. Your back was to the wall. He very obviously came to you.

About reaching out to the community, is that what you're doing on this forum? I would suggest abandoning your hubris and sarcasm. These things tend to prevent "healing."

[Guest Guest]

I wrote Paszkiewicz months ago asking him to contact me. The only time we met personally, in February at the Board meeting, I reached out to him and shook his hand. He knows the door is open. I haven’t given up on him at all. In fact, I said in the note I sent him that I expected reconciliation and a miracle that we would work together to create. That was in December. I haven’t gotten a response.

I was at that meeting, I was right behind Mr. Paszkiewicz when his was leaving. He reached out to you. When he went down the stairs you were at the bottom against the wall with your family. He came to you and shook your hand and Mathews.

You only shook his hand because he came to you.

Again you are trying to make yourself to be this kind and innocent person and Mr. P. the evil guy that won't even try to make peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not post the letter Paul?

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

In addition, you keep ignoring the fact that an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering someone without tormenting forever in a fiery hell.

Yes Paul, an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering and experiencing Hell, if He chose to do so. However, I have to believe that God wants man to reciprocate His love, not because they are progarammed to, but because they legitimately have chosen to appreciate Him and Love Him in return. Anything less would not be real. God could not show real love and man could not return proper appreciation for that love.

In addittion, the Scriptures also say that an attribute of God is Goodness. Paul, could God be considered legitimately good if He created pre-programmed robots?

By the way Paul, sin is punished in Hell, not just murder:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

The wonderful thing about God is that He redeems sinners that will come to Him without exception:

The Apostle Peter denied Christ three times and God forgave him.

King David committed adultery and murder and God forgave him.

The issue is genuine repentance:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and forgives our sins and purifies us from all unrighteousness." I John 1:9

God loves you Paul. There is an anonymous proverb that reads like this: "If you love something, set it free. If it returns its yours, but if it doesn't, it never was."

In a sense, this is how it is with God. He gave His life for you and He gave you free will. Now the choice is yours Paul.

"

[Guest Guest]

One of my colleagues has a shirt that says "99% percent of the lawyers are giving the rest of us a bad name." I told you, I know that a lot of my colleagues do a lot of things I don't like. In the end, people with legitimate cases get hurt because the bad cases create perceptions like the ones you're posting here, and when people let their anger overcome their reason, as you seem to be doing, it's very hard in some venues to get a fair jury.

We agree there are valid cases, yet you insist on making this personal to me. Do you know me? I'm quite sure you don't, or at least you know virtually nothing about how I practice because if you did you wouldn't say those things. I'm just finishing up my current trial with a summation on Monday, and am scheduled to start another trial in early July. Both of them are medical malpractice cases.

I've never taken a case for punitive damages to trial. I've drawn complaints for punitive damages in probably a handful of cases (five or fewer I would estimate) over thirty years of practice. I never said punitive damages were never appropriate. Sometimes they are. But those cases are the exception, not only for me, but also for the vast majority of my colleagues, including the ambulance chasers.

The point about punishment is that it should serve a purpose. In order to be just, it must serve a good purpose, and good values. That is not only good philosophy; it is also the law. A jury may not award punitive damages in a civil case without an excellent reason. That is my point about punishment and justice.

Look, you can be as rotten to me as you want to be, but you don't have a reason for it. And if you want to criticize my arguments, great, that's what forums like this are for, but at least criticize what I've written; don't distort what I write and then criticize me for your distortion. How about calming down and having this discussion civilly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd say that percentage isn't all that far off the mark.

[Guest Guest]

All I have to do is say that hell is just and I've supported my argument as much as you have yours.

The justice of hell is itself a value, so there should be no need to further justify hell in terms of values.  And even if there were, each value offered in justification would need to be justified in turn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with religious fundamentalism. Values are their own justification: Things like honesty and compassion, pretty much all the values on Paul's list. We don't need an explanation to know why they are good. Living provides all the explanation we need.

Bryan not only ignores all of this, he turns it inside out, and not only that, he turns God from all that is good into something profoundly evil. You can't say God is Love, and then believe in a god who is without Love, or who tortures for no purpose. Considering God's infinite power, it is hard to imagine him torturing at all. And you couldn't devise a less effective punishment than eternal torment with no hope of redemption. The very fact that there is no hope of redemption defeats the purpose of the punishment.

Fundamentalists like Bryan tell us that if they understand the Bible in a certain way, anything not only can be justified, but is absolutely necessary and if you don't agree, then you're stupid. I don't think so. I don't think the fundamentalists know any more about God than the rest of us, and there are plenty of reasons to think they know less - a lot less.

To illustrate the point, imagine you are fifteen years old. You have grown up in a stable, loving home with two loving parents. One night at 3 a.m. you are suddenly awakened in your bed by a pair of rough hands. They belong to a man, but you cannot see who the man is. The man overpowers, then abuses and tortures you over the course of several hours. Is the man (a) your loving father or ( an intruder and a criminal? The only way this is your loving father is if he has suddenly gone mad. Completely, totally, tragically mad. Since God can't go mad, when Bryan describes him like this, we know he isn't accurately describing God. You know your father. Your father is loving and kind and generous and good. This is not your father.

This is a truth you know from within. You can't prove it from without, and you have no need to do that. And if you don't understand it, no one can teach it to you.

How ironic that this simple observation is so devastating against the fundamentalist's way of thinking. The person who thinks he knows "revealed truth" is completely blind to the greatest revealed truths of all. The person who thinks he knows all knows the least.

Rigid fundamentalists like Bryan think they are at God's right hand, but in fact they don't the slightest clue where God is or what he is like. But then, that isn't surprising when you think about it.

[Guest Guest]

There are also cases where someone deserves to be punished, like the cigarette manufacturers who covered up the effects of smoking for decades, and then deliberately marketed poison to children; or the companies in several industries who released products into the market knowing they were defective. Some of these companies even had internal memos saying they weren't going to pull the products back because it would be cheaper to pay on the claims - even though they knew that deaths were likely. Money speaks very loudly in our country, and nowhere more loudly than in the corporations, where everything is driven by the bottom line.

No one said punishment is never justified. The argument is that punishment must serve a purpose. If punitive damages make companies less willing to endanger comsumers, that serves a purpose.

What's wrong with that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you're saying is that you're so dopey that you didn't realize that taking smoke into your lungs could damage your health? You honestly think that because some idiot ignored common sense and died from smoking his family is entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Guest Paul]

I love all of these people that claim to know the mind of god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

[Guest Paul]

I love all of these people that claim to know the mind of god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm reading an excellent book by Sankara Saranam called God Without Religion. In the preface he writes: ". . . I came to realize God as a spiritually expansive substance extending throughout the cosmos --- a much more universal presence than that proposed by many organized religions. God, I found, was everything, and being godlike meant identifying with, and not merely tolerating, more and more people. Understanding that the idea of God signified absolute unity, I concluded that anyone advocating unquestioning loyalty to a restrictive group such as a faith, ethnicity or nation was in fact promoting the fall of humanity by advancing its division."

That is very well put and is appropriately filed under "by their fruits shall you know them."

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

In addition, you keep ignoring the fact that an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering someone without tormenting forever in a fiery hell.

Untrue. I addressed that point by reducing it to absurdity.

If omnipotence allows god to do absolutely anything, then hell can be just because god can make it so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Powerlessness is not an absurdity. It is a fact of life. Bryan is obviously smitten with philosophy, but one wonders whether his professor, or perhaps his high-school philosophy teacher, thought as highly of his work as he does. Most people recognize that philosophers make all kinds of questionable assumptions. It's not a very rigid or precise field of study, not to mention that most of its claims are not verifiable.

His comment about omnipotence is just a claim that God can make wrong right. If you can't tell the difference between God and Satan, what's the point of religion, and for that matter how do you know you're not worshiping the devil? Bible-thumpers are among the first to tell us how devious Satan can be. How do they know they haven't fallen into his trap? The practical point here is that Bryan's way of thinking washes the good out of religion, and again the question is what is the point of having religion at all if you're going to do that.

Bryan conveys a sense of absolute certainty about what he says. He seems to be absolutely convinced that anything he says or writes is absolutely correct. What he obviously doesn't realize is that for most of us that is a reason not to listen to him. He isn't anywhere near as smart as he thinks.

[Guest Guest]

There's no such thing as valueless justice.  It's an oxymoron.  All I have to do is say that hell is just and I've supported my argument as much as you have yours.

. . . .

The justice of hell is itself a value, so there should be no need to further justify hell in terms of values. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, there's no moral or spiritual or ethical difference between loving someone and tormenting someone.

He couldn't have made the argument againist himself easier or more obvious. What a knucklehead.

[Guest Guest]

That's not my recollection, but it's on video recording if anyone really thinks it's that important. More important, since you're obviously one of his supporters, and now know that I've tried to discuss this with him, why don't you tell him that the door is still open? We still have a divided community, which he should be acting with us to heal. Isn't it interesting that you completely ignore the most important facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right, it was on CBS News, I saw it. Your back was to the wall and Mr. P extended his hand to you. About that letter you sent him, I'd love to see it. I'm guessing that's not all you said. Post it.