Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[Guest Guest]

They "eye for an eye" passage in the Bible is about compensatory justice, not retribution.  Look it up.

"Cheap" ad hominem attack?  Paul's career is based on something he's denouncing as morally unjust.  And I clearly offer him the opportunity to try to explain himself (not tha he's likely to take it).

Where were you when David Paszkiewicz was on the receiving end of cheap personal attacks, anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. What was one person going to do with another person's eye?

[Guest Paul]

God is fair because . . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let’s consider a hypothetical example of two youths, both of whom are born in 1989, and their fathers. The youths are named Hassan Ali and Mustapha Chowdhury. Their fathers are named Habib Chowdhury and Muhammad Ali. Hassan and Mustapha, who are best friends and attend most social functions together, are born into devout Muslim homes, and practice Islam devoutly throughout their childhood and into their youth. They have both heard of Jesus and Christianity, having even attended Christian services on one occasion, but both sincerely believe that Allah is the one true God. Therefore they do not accept Jesus as their Savior, but follow instead the teachings of Islam, believing that they are being faithful to God.

Tragically, Hassan is killed in an automobile crash in 2006 at the age of 17. His friend Mustapha, who was in the car with him, survives solely because the impact occurred on Hassan’s side of the car. Because Hassan died without accepting Jesus as his Savior, he is dispatched promptly to hell upon his death, where he spends eternity (trillions and trillions and trillions of years, and he’s no closer to the end of it than he was on the day he died, since there is no end to it) writhing in agony because his flesh is being burned by a fire that never damages or consumes a single nerve ending. The pain is every moment without remission, and God makes sure that he never loses or diminishes in consciousness because this punishment is just and he must not be allowed to miss a moment of it. There is no hope for his redemption. He suffers the most exquisite pain possible forever without a moment’s rest.

A week after the accident, when Mustapha awakens from his coma he is visited by a charismatic Christian evangelist who convinces him to renounce Islam and follow Christ. Within a month he converts because of a sensed presence experience caused by his brain damage (he incorrectly imagines that Jesus has visited him personally), and spends his remaining days rock-firm in the belief that Jesus is his Lord and Savior. Tragically, the accident has caused a brain injury, which causes large quantities of a hormone that triggers sexual aggression to be released into Mustapha’s blood stream unpredictably. Mustapha becomes a serial rapist and killer of girls under the age of twelve, raping and killing thirty of them within the next two years. However, he is extremely clever and avoids detection. Three years after the accident, Mustapha’s father Habib, who is utterly distraught over his son’s religious conversion, takes a butcher knife and threatens to kill his son unless he converts again to Islam. Throughout the course of a long and bitter argument, Mustapha holds firm for Jesus, and in the minute before his death his brain releases another chemical, this one triggered by acute stress superimposed on organic changes in the brain from the original injury. The chemical reaction causes his memory of the rapes and murders to be transformed into the butchery of thirty chickens, which he now believes is morally reprehensible and an offense against God. He sincerely asks God’s forgiveness, which is granted. A moment after his father inflicts a fatal knife wound, he is whisked away to heaven where his brain injury is healed and he spends blissful eternity in heaven at the right hand of God.

Habib Chowdhury is so distraught over his son’s murder, which he has committed, that he goes insane, imagining himself to be Judas Iscariot for the remainder of his life. In his demented state, he repents of his betrayal of Christ (psychiatrists suspect that he is merely projecting an image of his murdered son) and lives his remaining days on his knees rocking back and forth in his padded cell asking for forgiveness. This is how he spends his remaining days, and how he dies.

Meanwhile, Hassan’s father Muhammad Ali is so impressed with the evangelist that he contacts the evangelist and becomes a Christian. Had Hassan lived, Muhammad would no doubt have brought the evangelist to see his son, who (being an obedient son) would probably have converted to Christianity.

Questions:

1. Because his beliefs were sincere, why is it “fair” for Hassan to be punished at all?

2. Even assuming that Hassan merits some punishment, why is it “fair” that he suffer eternity in hell? Doesn’t the punishment vastly exceed the --- you want to call belief in Islam a crime? Do you see where that leads?

3. Because Hassan and Mustapha were equally devout while they both lived, why is it “fair” that Mustapha had a greater opportunity to accept Jesus than Hassan? Why is it “fair” that Hassan’s eternal fate rests on the chance that he happened to be sitting on the wrong side of the car?

4. Why didn’t God send an evangelist to talk to Hassan? All Hassan got was some half-baked pastor in a church struggling to survive. Why didn’t God send him the real deal? What’s fair about that?

5. Mustapha’s conversion is based on a delusion. Does it count? Yes or no, why is that fair?

6. Mustapha’s last-moment repentance is also triggered by a delusion based on organic brain damage. Does that one count? Is it relevant to whether he goes to heaven? Explain and justify your answer. Why is the result fair?

7. How do you justify that one of these boys spends eternity in heaven, while the other one suffers in hell? Why is that fair?

8. Habib converts to Christianity from his insanity. Does it count? Does he go to heaven? Why or why not? What is fair about that?

9. Muhammad converts to Christianity and goes to heaven. That’s fair, right, a no-brainer? And you don’t even see your biases.

10. Why didn’t God give Muhammad a chance to bring the evangelist to his son? What is fair about that?

Bonus question: The evangelist gets a special place in heaven because throughout his life he saves one thousand souls. God recognizes that without him they would have gone to hell forever. What is fair about everyone else not getting the benefit of an equally talented evangelist?

[Strife767]

Uh, excuse me, but it's your burden of proof to prove prophecies RIGHT, not mine to prove them false.

Actually, I don't believe it is Strife, you first made the assertion that all Bible prophecies are false

Um, excuse me? Read this post again; don't ignore it and act like I'm the one who 'started it,' okay?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...5533;entry57204

The above poster was the one who "first made the assertion"--that "recorded scripture" contains "fulfilled prophecy."

Furthermore, my so-called "assertion" was nothing but calling the bluff of that person's actual assertion--could they provide a supposed 'fulfilled prophecy?' If anything, I was helping them by giving them criteria so that they don't make themselves look dumb by giving an example that's a prophecy of a building falling (inevitability) or something like that.

So how about you turn around, stop making your bias so obvious, and press THAT guest to back up HIS/HER assertion? Sheesh.

[Strife767]

At least not until Judgment Day:

Which is another baseless assertion--there is absolutely no reason to think such a day will ever come. I expect Judgment Day like I expect February 35th.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

You're welcome. You have a kind spirit, and I appreciate that, though your arguments are not persuasive to me.

What you call design is better explained by natural forces, and besides, I cannot fathom why a loving and omnipotent god would make the world so that most of the sentient creatures would have to kill and eat each other to survive. This is an argument Matthew made in Paszkiewicz's class that first week. You might be interested in hearing that part of the discussion. Listen to how the students react. They didn't know how to handle the argument, and said the wildest things. The class that day never calmed down after Matthew made that point.

What the Bible has to say about man's "conviction" means nothing to me in itself, and in addition there is still no explanation of any set of values that would support eternal torment. People have claimed that this most extreme of all imaginable punishments is "fair," a claim that isn't persuasive to me in the least, and even that claim doesn't explain why a loving god would do it. As a father, I care deeply about the welfare of my children. "Fair" is not my first concern, and punishing someone forever with no hope of redemption is not my idea of fair. Punishment has to serve a purpose to be "fair" and to be just. What purpose would eternal torment with no hope of redemption serve? That is the question that the defenders of this idea either do not grasp or cannot address.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Design cannot be simply explained away by forces of nature. In fact, the forces of nature are actually subject to the design argument. I'm sure you're familiar with the old watchmaker illustration for the design argument. If you were to walk into tho woods and find a watch, what would your first thought be? Would you reason that the forces of nature by chance, over eons of time caused stray bits of elements to collide and form the watch? Of course not. The series of springs, gears and cogs which form the mechanism of the watch would indicate precision and intentionality. You would conclude that there must be a watchmaker (designer). It ought to follow then that when ones observes precision and intentionality in such things as cells, organisms and the universe, they must have a designer as well.

By the way Paul, It may surprise you, but I believe the designer of the universe was a Humanist! There seems to be an anthropic principle behind it, as if it were created with man's survival in mind. Scientists tell us that the degree of precision of the universe is such that to alter many of its parameters even slightly would destroy all life on earth. Consider just a few suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross:

1. If the axial tilt of the earth were altered minutely, the surface temperatures of the earth would not support life.

2. If the earth were slightly closer to the sun or slightly farther away, it would not have a stable water cycle. (the water would either freeze or boil off).

3. If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transfered from the atmoshere to the crust. But if the crust were thinner, there would be too much volcanic and tectonic activity.

4. If the the gravitational interaction with the moon were greater, the tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. But if it were less, the earth's orbital obliquity would change too much causing climatic instabilities.

5. If the gravity on the surface of the earth were stronger, the atmosphere would retain too much amonia and methane, which is poisonous. But if the gravity were less, the atmosphere would lose too much water.

6. If the length of a day were greater, the temperature differences would be too great to sustain life. But if the day were shorter the atmospheric wind velocities would be too great to survive.

You see Paul, the designer was actually a Humanist!

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos-mind behind the universe), and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." Gospel of John 1:1-3,14.

See, the designer had man's best interest in mind from the beginning:

1. perfect conditions to sustain man's in his world.

2. he entered the very world he created for man and dwelt among men.

3. Ultimately he suffered on the cross in that flesh for man.

Perhaps Jesus can be considered the greatest of all possible Humanists!

[Guest Paul]

Several of us have asked the question before, and always the right-wing fundamentalists have dodged, ducked, avoided and flat-out refused to address it: If we are to take Jesus (God's divine son according to them) as our moral, ethical and spiritual example, by what values can we believe in a god whose concept of justice includes eternal torment? . . . .

I predict this question will not be answered by the right-wingers who have posted on this site calling themselves Christians. They may respond with some evasion or attack, but they will not provide any explanation of values that addresses this question for the obvious reason that they can't. Let any or all of them prove me wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I predicted, the people who think eternal torment in hell is justice cannot identify why they think that. After all, if God is good and hell is in his armament for justice, then hell must serve the good. But how does it serve the good? What purpose does it serve?

All we have from the fundamentalists defending eternal torment in hell as justice so far are (1) a claim that eternal torment in hell is “fair” because at two points in ancient history, according to fable, all the people on earth knew who God was, and (2) a claim from Bryan that inability to tolerate imperfection is in God’s nature.

The first of these claims is deficient on a great many grounds, including:

1. It lacks any basis in fact;

2. It lacks any explanation why some people should be punished for the acts or failures of others, which is obviously unfair; and

3. Even if some punishment could be justified, there is no explanation whatsoever why the punishment must be eternal torment without hope of redemption: How does the punishment fit the crime? Plainly it does not.

The second of these claims is nothing more than a supposition with no basis in fact and no connection to any values at all. It’s really amazing to watch how far people will go to defend a horrid idea they have been trained to accept.

What would be so horrible if people stopped believing in hell? I can recall my days as a Christian, blocking thoughts out of my mind, refusing to think about them if they challenged what I thought of as a core belief. What the fundamentalists will see if they open their eyes --- is the light. Don’t take my word for it; try it.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

, I cannot fathom why a loving and omnipotent god would make the world so that most of the sentient creatures would have to kill and eat each other to survive.

Part of the reason that you can't fathom it Paul, is because it didn't happen that way. God created both man and the world perfect.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

"God saw all that he made, and it was very good..." Genesis 1:31

It was man's sin that brought death and suffering into the perfect world God created.

"To the man he said, because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life...By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground....

Genesis 1:17,19a

The Aposle Paul comments on this as well:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12

Again, the biblical position is that God created a perfect world and a perfect Adam and Eve. It was man that corrupted it.

However, God loved man and did not forsake him

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus as recorded in John 3:16

[Guest Paul]

You people want to imagine that some of us (maybe most of us!) are going to suffer that kind of intense pain every moment for eternity. And you want us to believe that the God who loves us not only allows this to happen, but calls it justice.

We want you to believe it, not because we do, but because God ordained it.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Jesus Christ as recorded in John 3:18-19

You see, Hell is not a "church doctrine" but a Bible doctrine. Your argument isn't with Christians necessarily, but Jesus himself. He himself claims that he came to save the world. However, rejecting his sacrifice for your sin leaves you condemned. That's right, "condemned." Hell was never intended as a place of rehabilitation. It is a place of eternal condemnation for rejecting the love offering of God in your place on the cross.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, that's how I know the story is not true. Given a choice between condemning or rehabilitating your own child, which would you choose? If you can't say it personally about your own child, then how can you imagine that God would say it about his (since you must believe that is what we are)?

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

You see, that's how I know the story is not true. Given a choice between condemning or rehabilitating your own child, which would you choose? If you can't say it personally about your own child, then how can you imagine that God would say it about his (since you must believe that is what we are)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, it sounds like you didn't even read the story. God told the man in advance that he would die if he disobeyed and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

"And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16

You see Paul, man had advance warning. The beautiful thing is that God knew what man would choose and chose to create him anyway even though it would require His own life to redeem him.

Paul, you keep equating "Justice" with "rehabilitation," they are apples and oranges. Justice by definitition is fairness. Rehabilitation has to to with restoring something to its former state. The two are separate and distinct concepts. However, taken together, they form a concept called "redemption." Which is exactly what Christ did on the cross. He paid the price for man's sin's satisfy the requirements of justice and restored him to his former, perfect state before God. Of course this redemption is accessed only by belief in Christ. (Refer to John 3:16)

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

1. Because his beliefs were sincere, why is it “fair” for Hassan to be punished at all?

"Paul, lots of people "sincerely" believe false things, but that does not change the truthfulness of what they believe. The object of faith is what determines whether a religion is true or false, not the sincerety of its adherents."

Unfortunately for some, God is like the courts of the United States, "Ignorance is no excuse before the law." Are the courts of the US also unjust?

Concerning "those who have never heard," I dealt with that in some detail in a previous reply. Your story was tragic, however, the truth is what it is:

God provided 5 witnesses to himself:

1. Nature

2. Man's Conscience.

3. The Hebrew Prophets.

4. Recorded Scripture

5. Jesus Christ Himself

By the way, even the Quran witnesses to the resurection of Jesus. (Surah 4:157-8)

[Guest Paul]

Design cannot be simply explained away by forces of nature. In fact, the forces of nature are actually subject to the design argument.  I'm sure you're familiar with the old watchmaker illustration for the design argument.  If you were to walk into tho woods and find a watch, what would your first thought be?  Would you reason that the forces of nature by chance, over eons of time caused stray bits of elements to collide and form the watch?  Of course not. The series of springs, gears and cogs which form the mechanism of the watch would indicate precision and intentionality.  You would conclude that there must be a watchmaker (designer). It ought to follow then that when ones observes precision and intentionality in such things as cells, organisms and the universe, they must have a designer as well.

By the way Paul, It may surprise you, but I believe the designer of the universe was a Humanist!  There seems to be an anthropic principle behind it, as if it were created with man's survival in mind. Scientists tell us that the degree of precision of the universe is such that to alter many of its parameters even slightly would destroy all life on earth.  Consider just a few suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross:

1.  If the axial tilt of the earth were altered minutely, the surface temperatures of the earth would not support life.

2.  If the earth were slightly closer to the sun or slightly farther away, it would not have a stable water cycle. (the water would either freeze or boil off).

3.  If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transfered from the atmoshere to the crust.  But if the crust were thinner, there would be too much volcanic and tectonic activity.

4.  If the the gravitational interaction with the moon were greater, the tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.  But if it were less, the earth's orbital obliquity would change too much causing climatic instabilities.

5.  If the gravity on the surface of the earth were stronger, the atmosphere would retain too much amonia and methane, which is poisonous.  But if the gravity were less, the atmosphere would lose too much water.

6.  If the length of a day were greater, the temperature differences would be too great to sustain life.  But if the day were shorter the atmospheric wind velocities would be too great to survive.

You see Paul, the designer was actually a Humanist!

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos-mind behind the universe), and the Word was with God and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."  Gospel of John 1:1-3,14.

See, the designer had man's best interest in mind from the beginning:

1.  perfect conditions to sustain man's in his world.

2.  he entered the very world he created for man and dwelt among men.

3.  Ultimately he suffered on the cross in that flesh for man.

Perhaps Jesus can be considered the greatest of all possible Humanists!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep reading and thinking, my friend. The argument from design has been poked so full of holes there's virtually nothing left to it. Don't be so sure you have the final answers quite yet. There's a lot of thinking still to be done, and that story about Jesus coming as a savior is full of irreconcilable problems.

[Strife767]

Nonsense. What was one person going to do with another person's eye?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Couldn't have said it better myself. Some "compensation."

[Guest Paul]

, I cannot fathom why a loving and omnipotent god would make the world so that most of the sentient creatures would have to kill and eat each other to survive.

Part of the reason that you can't fathom it Paul, is because it didn't happen that way. God created both man and the world perfect.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

"God saw all that he made, and it was very good..." Genesis 1:31

It was man's sin that brought death and suffering into the perfect world God created.

"To the man he said, because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life...By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground....

Genesis 1:17,19a

The Aposle Paul comments on this as well:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12

Again, the biblical position is that God created a perfect world and a perfect Adam and Eve. It was man that corrupted it.

However, God loved man and did not forsake him

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus as recorded in John 3:16

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Allowing a mistake by the first two people to change the entire nature of life for all the sentient creatures on earth doesn't make any sense either. It certainly isn't fair. Why would a loving god do anything so patently unfair, not to mention pointless? What would be the point?

Why is it so hard for you to see that these stories are just that: stories that men made up a long time ago to explain what they could not understand. They were trying to give meaning to a world that sometimes seemed cruel and meaningless, and of course they had to explain the brutality of life, which at time was brutal and short. Why isn't that a more reasonable explanation of the story's origins? It's the explanation you give to all the other stories of this kind, so why not this one? Honestly, can you explain in an objective way that doesn't operate from the assumption that the story is true? I don't think you can. Make sense of it on its own terms, and when you give an explanation let it be an explanation that makes sense. If you can't come up with an explanation that makes sense, then why believe the story? "God punished all the animals and all the other people because the first two people disobeyed him" does not make any sense.

[Strife767]

Design cannot be simply explained away

For something to be explained away, it must have been present to begin with. You haven't given any reason for anyone to think there ever was any design that 'needed' to be "explaned away" by anyone.

I'm sure you're familiar with the old watchmaker illustration for the design argument.

Oh, come on--are you guys conspiring to toss out as many clichéd, old, failed arguments at once as possible? First Pascal's Wager, then the "just a theory" nonsense, and now the freaking watchmaker analogy? Unbelievable!

If you were to walk into tho woods and find a watch, what would your first thought be?  Would you reason that the forces of nature by chance, over eons of time caused stray bits of elements to collide and form the watch?  Of course not. The series of springs, gears and cogs which form the mechanism of the watch would indicate precision and intentionality.  You would conclude that there must be a watchmaker (designer).

"...anthropologists Richerson and Boyd note that, though one woman may make a watch, the know-how that the watchmaker uses consists of the accumulated learning of many generations of technology workers that managed to make minor improvements on the traditions of prior generations. That is, the cultural evolution in watchmaking from generation to generation demonstrates the very Darwinian accumulation of variations between generations in a population that creationists try to use the watchmaker analogy to disprove." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Challenges_to_the_Watchmaker_Analogy

Also:

"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies." --Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 81

It ought to follow then that when ones observes precision and intentionality in such things as cells, organisms and the universe, they must have a designer as well.

Nope. The problem with that conclusion is outlined above.

By the way Paul, It may surprise you, but I believe the designer of the universe was a Humanist!  There seems to be an anthropic principle behind it, as if it were created with man's survival in mind. Scientists tell us that the degree of precision of the universe is such that to alter many of its parameters even slightly would destroy all life on earth.

And yet, the paradox is such: if any of those parameters were any different, we wouldn't be able to be here talking about how they wouldn't work if they were different. So as unlikely as the 'odds' may be, the most likely explanation is that they were 'beaten'--it is certainly more likely than your 'explanation' which only adds an unnecessary variable (and makes no effort to explain where it came from, on top of that)--Occam's Razor makes it very clear: there is most likely not an intelligent designer. At best, such a designer would have to be either 'unintelligent' (there are several easy ways humans could have been 'designed' better (what are we doing with quadrupeds' ribcages and spinal structures, I'd like to know?)) or not all-powerful (since even an 'unintelligent' designer who was all-powerful could, in an instant, correct mistakes in a repeating cycle until we WERE perfect, and we'd have no recollection of it 'cause such a designer could easily wipe the slate clean (including our memories) each time).

[Strife767]

It was man's sin that brought death and suffering into the perfect world God created.

Really? Disregarding the absurdity of taking Genesis literally for the moment:

So how would this "perfect world" cope with the very quick problem of overpopulation that would occur if there was no death/suffering of any kind? Certainly this 'deathless' world was one in which its creatures still needed to eat, since before Adam and Eve sinned, they still were given food to eat from god (from basically everything in Eden except the tree of knowledge), and he wouldn't offer them food if they didn't need it (giving the benefit of the doubt that god isn't an idiot). So how could you address this redundancy?

Either there was always SOME consequence to not eating (which means that there WAS suffering/death (you can't eat without killing something) before sin), or there wasn't and god was being an idiot by giving his creations something they had no use for.

So which is it?

P.S. Also, plants are alive, so eating/picking them counts as death.

[Bryan]

As I predicted, the people who think eternal torment in hell is justice cannot identify why they think that.

What baloney.

Hell is just because imperfect beings cannot have fellowship with a (morally) perfect being. And you've heard the explanation before--you just dismissed it in order to go right on making your fanciful claims which in turn you do not support.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=5863

I remain willing to discuss the issue at greater length; Paul insists on continuing to misrepresent the truth while avoiding discussion.

After all, if God is good and hell is in his armament for justice, then hell must serve the good. But how does it serve the good? What purpose does it serve?

Wow, what a surprise. The implicit appeal to ignorance for the umpteenth time. Testing how many times you can trot out that fallacy your minions start to notice, or what?

http://info-pollution.com/ignorance.htm

All we have from the fundamentalists defending eternal torment in hell as justice so far are (1) a claim that eternal torment in hell is “fair” because at two points in ancient history, according to fable, all the people on earth knew who God was, and (2) a claim from Bryan that inability to tolerate imperfection is in God’s nature.

How does that reflect an inability to say why I think that hell is just ("the people who think eternal torment in hell is justice cannot identify why they think that")???

I'm completely serious: It's astounding that a lawyer could be this bad at putting together an argument--and this is typical of him!

The first of these claims is deficient on a great many grounds, including:

1. It lacks any basis in fact;

What type of "fact" do you want in order to settle an issue of morality? Are you ready to explain how you cross the is/ought divide (with a deeper explanation than "Abracadabra!")?

Lacking that explanation, complaint #1 is a red herring fallacy.

2. It lacks any explanation why some people should be punished for the acts or failures of others, which is obviously unfair; and

We still seem to be lacking an explanation as to why it would be "obviously unfair" for some people to be punished for the acts and failures of others, as well as an example supporting the claim.

Complaint #2 lacks substance (it lacks exactly what it asks for from the other side).

3. Even if some punishment could be justified, there is no explanation whatsoever why the punishment must be eternal torment without hope of redemption: How does the punishment fit the crime? Plainly it does not.

And another fallacy of appeal to ignorance (Paul wonders how it could be explained, lacking that he concludes that the explanation does not exist: "Plainly it does not").

http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch6/ignoran.htm

The second of these claims is nothing more than a supposition with no basis in fact and no connection to any values at all.

As if to again imply Paul's ability to cross the is/ought divide as though by magic?

This is what I referred to when I expressed doubts about Paul's ability rather than his mere general unwillingness to argue these issues to any depth. He apparently doesn't realize the absurdity of his argument. Indeed, I believe he has yet to even acknowledge the difficulty of deriving an "ought" from an "is," which is probably prerequisite to his philosophical awakening concerning issues of morality.

He eagerly points out the lack of his opponent's basis for morality in fact (whatever that's supposed to mean--sure looks like an invitation to cross the is/ought divide) as though it is some sort of weakness that his view doesn't share to the hilt.

It’s really amazing to watch how far people will go to defend a horrid idea they have been trained to accept.

It's amazing to watch a lawyer argue at approximately a fallacy-a-minute (appeal to outrage/appeal to ridicule).

Reader, review Paul's numbered points. Note that two are fallacies and one lacks substance. Note the fallacies in his statement immediately above.

Is Paul LaClair to be taken seriously (other than perhaps as seriously handicapped in terms of logic)?

What would be so horrible if people stopped believing in hell?

It might diminish the correspondence between reality and one's perception of reality.

I can recall my days as a Christian, blocking thoughts out of my mind, refusing to think about them if they challenged what I thought of as a core belief. What the fundamentalists will see if they open their eyes --- is the light. Don’t take my word for it; try it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This coming from the guy who routinely argues using fallacies and refuses to engage rebuttals to most of his arguments.

Astonishing.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

I can recall my days as a Christian, blocking thoughts out of my mind, refusing to think about them if they challenged what I thought of as a core belief.

Paul, it sounds to me like nothing has changed since those days. Bryan and I have taken your challenge from different angles. Your response is simply to claim victory, argument over, its my ball and I'm going home.

The idea that justice is bound to serve your values and that justice has to have rehabilitation in mind is your personal conception of justice. It is not the traditional conception of justice in the Western tradition and it certainly is not biblical.

[Bryan]

<snip the hilarious-yet-tragic tale>

Questions:

1. Because his beliefs were sincere, why is it “fair” for Hassan to be punished at all?

Because he sinned. His beliefs have nearly nothing to do with sin unless he's living in a possible world where moral relativism holds sway. And wouldn't that kind of mess up the whole purpose of the story?

2. Even assuming that Hassan merits some punishment, why is it “fair” that he suffer eternity in hell? Doesn’t the punishment vastly exceed the --- you want to call belief in Islam a crime? Do you see where that leads?

Belief in Islam could be a crime depending on the specifics accounting for that belief, but once again Paul is distracting from the real issue. Regardless of Islam, Hassan is guilty of sin and that's why he would go go hell as a result (minus acceptance the work of Jesus). It's not a matter of being condemned for believing in Islam. Believing in Christianity minus the work of Jesus would have the same end effect (hell).

3. Because Hassan and Mustapha were equally devout while they both lived, why is it “fair” that Mustapha had a greater opportunity to accept Jesus than Hassan?

Why isn't it fair? Note how Paul freely distributes the burden of proof away from himself--he does owe an explanation for his judgments (on the basis of fact if he can do it!).

One explanation is the universal and objective (I use this in the sense that Paul uses it--or at least that's what I'm trying to do) provision of choices to each of the men. One repeatedly turned from the light, while one turned toward the light at various moments in the past. God responded (we can suppose) by sovereignly making one of them wrongly think that Jesus had visited him (though if God was responsible we would be justified in wondering how we can judge it as a false experience--perhaps Paul just wanted God to appear capricious for the sake of argument!).

Why is it “fair” that Hassan’s eternal fate rests on the chance that he happened to be sitting on the wrong side of the car?

Perhaps he didn't just "happen" to sit on the wrong side of the car. Perhaps each one was sitting there as a result of his own choices.

I know that making that suggestion might keep the scenario from begging the question it seeks to address, but that's the breaks sometimes.

4. Why didn’t God send an evangelist to talk to Hassan? All Hassan got was some half-baked pastor in a church struggling to survive. Why didn’t God send him the real deal? What’s fair about that?

(Implicit appeal to ignorance, again)

Hassan may have rejected the light with many of his past decisions, resulting in an expiration of further opportunities.

Paul will probably prefer to beg that question in terms of his scenario, however.

5. Mustapha’s conversion is based on a delusion. Does it count? Yes or no, why is that fair?

I don't know that we can call it a delusion without rigging the scenario unjustly.

Based on the supposition that God permitted the impression that Jesus had visited with Mustapha, yes it counts.

Based on both having an opportunity to respond in progressive steps to reach the point at which both were in the car, yes it seems to be just (though again it won't surprise me if Paul insists on begging the question on that point).

6. Mustapha’s last-moment repentance is also triggered by a delusion based on organic brain damage. Does that one count? Is it relevant to whether he goes to heaven? Explain and justify your answer. Why is the result fair?

The scenario specifies that Mustapha goes to heaven, so obviously it counts unless Paul has decided to change the scenario in retrospect (justification occurs above, since question 5 is extremely similar to question 6).

Perhaps Paul has some special idea in mind regarding the repentance issue. I'll hope for some additional explanation (also noting that Paul has injected a number of hints of causal determinism into Mustapha's decisionmaking--which appear to encompass the acts of aggression for which he later repents).

7. How do you justify that one of these boys spends eternity in heaven, while the other one suffers in hell? Why is that fair?

Strictly speaking, it's not fair. Both should be in hell for eternity (each being punished according to his works, as the Bible states). Fortunately, God had compassion on otherwise-doomed humanity and provided a potential solution for those who would accept it.

There is a sense in which salvation is patently unfair, which is why the Greek scriptures emphasize the concept of grace. On the other hand, the plan of salvation appears to otherwise satisfy the requirements of justice (via substitutionary atonement).

8. Habib converts to Christianity from his insanity. Does it count? Does he go to heaven? Why or why not? What is fair about that?

This could be answered either way, since the scenario is ambiguous concerning Habib's eternal fate and the precise nature of his conversion experience. I don't believe that causally determined decisions are a moral issue. Clarence Darrow didn't either, at least when it came to his defense of murder suspects.

9. Muhammad converts to Christianity and goes to heaven. That’s fair, right, a no-brainer? And you don’t even see your biases.

One wonders how Paul detects the biases of the other side without the interference of his own bias. We're still waiting on Paul to establish a coherent moral foundation, after all.

10. Why didn’t God give Muhammad a chance to bring the evangelist to his son? What is fair about that?

Well, if we do not assume at the outset that the only fair arrangement is to provide an unlimited number of chances to Hassan, then we can suppose that Hassan had chances (to respond to the light) and rejected them. We might discuss what is and what is not a fair number of chances if we can agree that it makes sense to limit the number of chances.

Paul probably won't want to talk about that issue, however. He says that it's "silly," as I recall.

Bonus question: The evangelist gets a special place in heaven because throughout his life he saves one thousand souls. God recognizes that without him they would have gone to hell forever. What is fair about everyone else not getting the benefit of an equally talented evangelist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's fair about consistently shifting the burden of proof onto the other guy, when it comes to that? For Paul, it's enough to imply that it's not fair, regardless of whether or not he has established an appropriate foundation from which to judge ("objective," "universal," --right). He illicitly places that burden on others.

God, being omniscient, knows that he need not rely on humans to accomplish anything whatsoever (He omnisciently knows that he is omnipotent). God could give everyone on the planet a bump on the head making them think they'd encountered Jesus--and who's to say he hasn't done that, except perhaps Paul with a scenario that begs the question?

Here's one question for you, LaClair.

1. Don't you think it's time you attempted to justify your claims to an objective and universal morality?

[Strife767]

The idea that justice...has to have rehabilitation in mind is your personal conception of justice.  It is not the traditional conception of justice in the Western tradition and it certainly is not biblical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is never just to punish in excess. Since Hell's punishment is invariably infinite, it is also invariably in excess, compared to one human's lifetime, an infinitely short speck of time by comparison.

If you argue that punishing in excess is just, your argument is a self-contradiction. If not, then you have no choice but to admit that Hell is not just. Either way, you are forced to concede the argument (if you are intellectually honest, that is).

[Guest Guest]

Allowing a mistake by the first two people to change the entire nature of life for all the sentient creatures on earth doesn't make any sense either. It certainly isn't fair. Why would a loving god do anything so patently unfair, not to mention pointless? What would be the point?

Why is it so hard for you to see that these stories are just that: stories that men made up a long time ago to explain what they could not understand. They were trying to give meaning to a world that sometimes seemed cruel and meaningless, and of course they had to explain the brutality of life, which at time was brutal and short. Why isn't that a more reasonable explanation of the story's origins? It's the explanation you give to all the other stories of this kind, so why not this one? Honestly, can you explain in an objective way that doesn't operate from the assumption that the story is true? I don't think you can. Make sense of it on its own terms, and when you give an explanation let it be an explanation that makes sense. If you can't come up with an explanation that makes sense, then why believe the story? "God punished all the animals and all the other people because the first two people disobeyed him" does not make any sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's fair about suing doctors, scientists, drug companies, hospitals, etc.?

You want to punish them. Right, Paul?

[Guest Paul]

Paul, it sounds like you didn't even read the story.  God told the man in advance that he would die if he disobeyed and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

"And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."  Genesis 2:16

You see Paul, man had advance warning.  The beautiful thing is that God knew what man would choose and chose to create him anyway even though it would require His own life to redeem him.

Paul, you keep equating "Justice" with "rehabilitation," they are apples and oranges.  Justice by definitition is fairness.  Rehabilitation has to to with restoring something to its former state. The two are separate and distinct concepts.  However, taken together, they form a concept called "redemption."  Which is exactly what Christ did on the cross.  He paid the price for man's sin's satisfy the requirements of justice and restored him to his former, perfect state before God.  Of course this redemption is accessed only by belief in Christ.  (Refer to John 3:16)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read the story many times and know it very well. There are many stories like it in mythologies all over the world. They are stories. They tell of events that never happened. There is no way for any us to know that this actually happened, and many excellent reasons to believe it did not. So that's the first problem. There is no good reason to believe that your story was true, and that fact alone is enough to remove any justification for eternally tormenting someone for not believing it. If there was a god who really wanted us to believe it, we would all believe it, just like we all believe that water is wet. That is how obvious it would be. Else God would be conditioning someone's eternal fate on guessing the right answer, and as you can see most of the people in the world don't believe your story. It's not because they're bad or disobedient or inherently sinful or evil, but because they sincerely believe something else. So tell me why a god in his right mind (as God surely would be) would do it like this. He wouldn't, and that's another way I know the story is not true.

The second obvious flaw in your story is that even if you assume that "God" told someone 6,000 years ago not to do something and he did it anyway --- what has that to do with me? Why is it just that en entire species be presumptively condemned for the actions of the first two people? And why is this question never answered by you folks?

Third, the idea of justice. I do not equate it with rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is part of it where applicable. Justice is more than what you're calling "fairness." You keep insisting that's all it is, but you don't say why. I offered a list of values. Why aren't they part of justice? You don't address that. Why not? I omitted order/harmony from the list, another extremely important value. To me, justice is whatever is best under the circumstances. It's not about keeping score from the past and continually trying to even it up. That seems to be your idea of fairness, but in fact that is just trying to re-do the past and even it out. It's not the best way to approach life, and therefore it is not justice. Other approaches are more creative and harmonious, which is one way of looking at what is best. Justice is what is best, not some cramped idea of what is fair that looks more to the past than to the future. If you want make your argument, make it, but you can't just keep saying it and expect that I'll be persuaded.

As for your idea of redemption, I've already told you how I know the story isn't true. You can't just repeat it and expect your repetitition to make a difference to me. How do you answer the points I made about it? If you want to help me, do that. Maybe you'll surprise yourself and help yourself instead.

[Guest Paul]

1. Because his beliefs were sincere, why is it “fair” for Hassan to be punished at all?

"Paul, lots of people "sincerely" believe false things, but that does not change the truthfulness of what they believe. The object of faith is what determines whether a religion is true or false, not the sincerety of its adherents."

Unfortunately for some, God is like the courts of the United States, "Ignorance is no excuse before the law." Are the courts of the US also unjust?

Concerning "those who have never heard," I dealt with that in some detail in a previous reply. Your story was tragic, however, the truth is what it is:

God provided 5 witnesses to himself:

1. Nature

2. Man's Conscience.

3. The Hebrew Prophets.

4. Recorded Scripture

5. Jesus Christ Himself

By the way, even the Quran witnesses to the resurection of Jesus. (Surah 4:157-8)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not believe the story is true. In fact, I am certain that it is not.

[Guest Paul]

What baloney.

Hell is just because imperfect beings cannot have fellowship with a (morally) perfect being. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stopped reading right there. How, then, do you explain Jesus hanging out with all those prostitutes and other sinners, and learning from him? Really, Bryan, your arguments are quite childish.

[Guest Paul]

I can recall my days as a Christian, blocking thoughts out of my mind, refusing to think about them if they challenged what I thought of as a core belief.

Paul, it sounds to me like nothing has changed since those days. Bryan and I have taken your challenge from different angles. Your response is simply to claim victory, argument over, its my ball and I'm going home.

The idea that justice is bound to serve your values and that justice has to have rehabilitation in mind is your personal conception of justice. It is not the traditional conception of justice in the Western tradition and it certainly is not biblical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What makes you so sure that traditional concepts are always right? Carol Gilligan wrote a book about justice in the 1970s from a feminist perspective, arguing along the lines that I am now that justice is caring. John Rawls conceptualized justice in a couple of books in the past few decades. Most modern thinkers recognize that justice-as-fairness-only omits the best parts. People keep thinking about these ideas all the time, and as they do they may add something of value.

Besides, you folks are the ones who keep telling us what sinful creatures we humans are. Has it ever occurred to you that traditional concepts might have been part of the problem? Don't resolve the matter on those terms. Open yourself to what I'm saying and try it on for a while. It's only fair. I practiced your religion for the first 21 years of my life. Now you give mine a try. You might like it.

By the way, do you seriouslly suggest that the values I put on my list are only "my" values? Aren't they also your values? Values like Love, Truth, wisdom and compassion? Aren't they your values, too? If not, why not?

[Guest Paul]

Because he sinned.  His beliefs have nearly nothing to do with sin unless he's living in a possible world where moral relativism holds sway.  And wouldn't that kind of mess up the whole purpose of the story?

Belief in Islam could be a crime depending on the specifics accounting for that belief, but once again Paul is distracting from the real issue.  Regardless of Islam, Hassan is guilty of sin and that's why he would go go hell as a result (minus acceptance the work of Jesus).  It's not a matter of being condemned for believing in Islam.  Believing in Christianity minus the work of Jesus would have the same end effect (hell).

Why isn't it fair?  Note how Paul freely distributes the burden of proof away from himself--he does owe an explanation for his judgments (on the basis of fact if he can do it!).

One explanation is the universal and objective (I use this in the sense that Paul uses it--or at least that's what I'm trying to do) provision of choices to each of the men.  One repeatedly turned from the light, while one turned toward the light at various moments in the past.  God responded (we can suppose) by sovereignly making one of them wrongly think that Jesus had visited him (though if God was responsible we would be justified in wondering how we can judge it as a false experience--perhaps Paul just wanted God to appear capricious for the sake of argument!).

Perhaps he didn't just "happen" to sit on the wrong side of the car.  Perhaps each one was sitting there as a result of his own choices.

I know that making that suggestion might keep the scenario from begging the question it seeks to address, but that's the breaks sometimes.

(Implicit appeal to ignorance, again)

Hassan may have rejected the light with many of his past decisions, resulting in an expiration of further opportunities.

Paul will probably prefer to beg that question in terms of his scenario, however.

I don't know that we can call it a delusion without rigging the scenario unjustly. 

Based on the supposition that God permitted the impression that Jesus had visited with Mustapha, yes it counts.

Based on both having an opportunity to respond in progressive steps to reach the point at which both were in the car, yes it seems to be just (though again it won't surprise me if Paul insists on begging the question on that point).

The scenario specifies that Mustapha goes to heaven, so obviously it counts unless Paul has decided to change the scenario in retrospect (justification occurs above, since question 5 is extremely similar to question 6).

Perhaps Paul has some special idea in mind regarding the repentance issue.  I'll hope for some additional explanation (also noting that Paul has injected a number of hints of causal determinism into Mustapha's decisionmaking--which appear to encompass the acts of aggression for which he later repents).

Strictly speaking, it's not fair.  Both should be in hell for eternity (each being punished according to his works, as the Bible states).  Fortunately, God had compassion on otherwise-doomed humanity and provided a potential solution for those who would accept it.

There is a sense in which salvation is patently unfair, which is why the Greek scriptures emphasize the concept of grace.  On the other hand, the plan of salvation appears to otherwise satisfy the requirements of justice (via substitutionary atonement).

This could be answered either way, since the scenario is ambiguous concerning Habib's eternal fate and the precise nature of his conversion experience.  I don't believe that causally determined decisions are a moral issue.  Clarence Darrow didn't either, at least when it came to his defense of murder suspects.

One wonders how Paul detects the biases of the other side without the interference of his own bias.  We're still waiting on Paul to establish a coherent moral foundation, after all.

10. Why didn’t God give Muhammad a chance to bring the evangelist to his son? What is fair about that?

Well, if we do not assume at the outset that the only fair arrangement is to provide an unlimited number of chances to Hassan, then we can suppose that Hassan had chances (to respond to the light) and rejected them.  We might discuss what is and what is not a fair number of chances if we can agree that it makes sense to limit the number of chances.

Paul probably won't want to talk about that issue, however.  He says that it's "silly," as I recall.

Bonus question: The evangelist gets a special place in heaven because throughout his life he saves one thousand souls. God recognizes that without him they would have gone to hell forever. What is fair about everyone else not getting the benefit of an equally talented evangelist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's fair about consistently shifting the burden of proof onto the other guy, when it comes to that?    For Paul, it's enough to imply that it's not fair, regardless of whether or not he has established an appropriate foundation from which to judge ("objective," "universal," --right).  He illicitly places that burden on others.

God, being omniscient, knows that he need not rely on humans to accomplish anything whatsoever (He omnisciently knows that he is omnipotent).  God could give everyone on the planet a bump on the head making them think they'd encountered Jesus--and who's to say he hasn't done that, except perhaps Paul with a scenario that begs the question?

Here's one question for you, LaClair.

1.  Don't you think it's time you attempted to justify your claims to an objective and universal morality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll answer Bryan's one legitimate question, which is "why isn't it fair" that Mustapha have a greater opportunity to obtain salvation than Hassan. The answer seems obvious. We're talking about someone's eternal fate according to this bizarre story. If those are the stakes, fairness dictates that everyone have an equal chance. In fact, considering the stakes, everyone should have as many chances as are possible, including multiple lifetimes if necessary. Look, you guys can't have it both ways, arguing on the one hand that fairness is everything, and then saying unfairness is OK whenever it suits your purposes. You're still not addressing my main point which is: on what basis do you assume that a morally superior god would be as narrow in his thinking as you are in yours. You've squeezed all the values out of God, including Love, and you still don't see the problem.

I told you many times that the basis for objective and universal morality is our humanity itself. If you don't want to believe it, then don't, but I know it to be the basis for the best system I have yet seen.

The only other observation I'll make here is that I am very glad to have been "saved" from Bryan's dark vision of the world and the people in it.