The Good Father

@philokalia said
So, in a sense, if you are not willing to provide debate material for those two questions, there is no debate.

I keep addressing what you say and answering your questions but you seem unwilling to address what I say or answer my questions. This is the dysfunction in this debate.

@fmf said
Philokalia, if your stance on the moral coherence of eternal torture for a lack of Christian belief is IT IS WHAT IT IS...stop dancing around and say so.

I am asking you about the moral purpose and moral justification for eternal torture, and instead of offering a moral analysis, you appear to be reciting bits of dogma that blame the non-believer victim [or talk in a wishy-wshy way about how some might be spared] without touching upon the matter of moral coherence, which all in all gives your "argumentation" the feel of being merely an "it is what it is" assertion.

@fmf said
You are not answering them. You are sidestepping them. Here they are again:

1] What would be the *moral purpose* of torturing people, after they die, for finding the religious beliefs that you espouse to be not credible during their lifetimes?

2] And what would be the moral purpose of keeping all this stupendous, vengeful, supernatural violence secret from the non-believers who are still alive?

(1) Nobody is tortured for finding the religious beliefs not credible. People send themselves to hell for the sins which they have committed and for which they do not repent, and/or through the rejection of God, but these are only statements that I can make based off of my understanding of the Bible.

It is known that God is merciful, and whatever his judgments will be, will be just.

The truth is, that we do not even merit heaven: it is an act of infinite goodwill that such a path to heaven exists for people like us, who are the authors of much atrocity and much decadence on earth.

(2a) It is not kept secret; the Gospels are everywhere, and those who believe and humbly pray for faith will receive it.
(2b) You are right that absolute proof of it is not offered up. This is for the same reason that absolute proof of God is not given to people: if we were certain of all things that were to come, we would no longer be in the business of self-improvement and praise of God for the sake of this action itself, but for the sake of a reward.

It would be like a monetary transaction - put in your time & get your ticket stamped to go to heaven.

it does not make sense when we are appraising man and meting out cosmic justice.

For someone who does not break the law simply because they will get caught is not a righteous person; but a person who does not break the law, even though they know that they are above it or know that they would not be caught, can be said to be doing something morally righteous.

@philokalia said
(1) Nobody is tortured for finding the religious beliefs not credible. People send themselves to hell for the sins which they have committed and for which they do not repent, and/or through the rejection of God, but these are only statements that I can make based off of my understanding of the Bible.

What would be the moral purpose and moral justification for torturing them for not believing in the God figure you worship?

What would be morally coherent about torturing people for not believing that they have to "repent" to the God figure you just so happen to believe in?

@philokalia said
(2a) It is not kept secret; the Gospels are everywhere, and those who believe and humbly pray for faith will receive it.

You have no evidence whatsoever that such a supernatural mechanism for keeping people 'alive' after they die so that they can be tortured exists. I don't believe it does. What would be the moral justification for using that supernatural torture mechanism on me? If your "moral argument" is merely THE BIBLE SAYS SO, and IT WHAT IT IS, just come out and say so.

@philokalia said
(2b) You are right that absolute proof of it is not offered up. This is for the same reason that absolute proof of God is not given to people: if we were certain of all things that were to come, we would no longer be in the business of self-improvement and praise of God for the sake of this action itself, but for the sake of a reward.

What would be the moral justification for torturing me for finding this unbelievable and, to be frank, a rather parochial and kind of medieval man-made ideology? Can't good people just agree to disagree about what is and isn't credible?

@philokalia said
It would be like a monetary transaction - put in your time & get your ticket stamped to go to heaven. it does not make sense when we are appraising man and meting out cosmic justice.

So, let me get this straight...

IT IS WHAT IT IS BECAUSE COSMIC JUSTICE IS COSMIC JUSTICE

...is that the long and short of it?

@philokalia said
For someone who does not break the law simply because they will get caught is not a righteous person; but a person who does not break the law, even though they know that they are above it or know that they would not be caught, can be said to be doing something morally righteous.

a person who does not break the law, even though they know that they are above it or know that they would not be caught, can be said to be doing something morally righteous.

Are you, then, now "morally righteous" because you have converted to Christianity?

someone who does not break the law simply because they will get caught is not a righteous person

I am a person who does not break the law BOTH because I don't want to get caught AND because I am governed by my moral compass.

BUT, I am an atheist.

So, does that mean, despite behaving just like you, and for very similar reasons - we are both governed by our moral compasses - that I am "not a righteous person"?

@fmf said
What would be the moral purpose and moral justification for torturing them for not believing in the God figure you worship?

What would be morally coherent about torturing people for not believing that they have to "repent" to the God figure you just so happen to believe in?

Nobody is tortured by God: they make a series of decisions which send themselves to hell.

Hell is not something externally imposed, but it is resultant from one's disposition towards God.

Those who love God, accept Him, and follow Him, will have the flame on Judgment day feel as His Divine love, shining upon them. Those who have rejected God, and have turned themselves diametrically against him, will feel the flame as a great, burning fire that cannot be withstood.

As it is written:

"The uncreated glory, which Christ has by nature from the Father, is paradise for those who self-centered and selfish love has been cured and transformed into unselfish love. However, the same glory is uncreated eternal fire and hell for those who have chosen to remain uncured in their selfishness."

Which also provides us this interesting idea:

The experience of paradise or hell is beyond words or the senses. It is an uncreated reality, and not a created one. The Franks created the myth that paradise and hell are both created realities. It is a myth, that the damned will not be looking upon God; just as the "absence of God" is equally a myth. The Franks had also perceived the fires of hell as something created (e.g. Dante's Inferno). Orthodox tradition has remained faithful to the Scriptural claim that the damned shall see God (like the rich man of the parable), but will perceive Him only as "an all-consuming fire". The Frankish scholastics accepted hell as punishment and the deprivation of a tangible vision of the divine essence. Biblically and patristically however, "hell" is understood as man's failure to collaborate with Divine Grace, in order to reach the "illuminating" view of God (paradise) and selfless love (per Corinthians I, 13:8): "love….. does not demand any reciprocation"😉. Consequently, there is no such thing as "God's absence", only His presence. That is why His Second Coming is dire ("o, what an hour it will be then", we chant in the Laudatory hymns). It is an irrefutable reality, toward which Orthodoxy is permanently oriented ("I anticipate resurrection of the dead…"😉

Western Christianity emphasizes this concept of a separate heaven, separate hell, because after the final days of judgment they speculate in there being a quite separate and distinguished eternal heaven. This seems to be true, but this is uncreated, as is hell, and the final judgment is actually the visitation of the uncreated light upon everyone.

Some more on this:

The Apostle Paul expresses this (Corinthians I, 3 :13-15): "Each person's work, whatever it is, will be tested by fire. If their work survives the test, then whatever they built, will be rewarded accordingly. If one's work is burnt by the fire, then he will suffer losses; he shall be saved, thus, as though by fire." The righteous and the unrepentant shall both pass through the uncreated "fire" of divine presence, however, the one shall pass through unscathed, while the other shall be burnt. He too is "saved", but only in the way that one passes through a fire. Efthimios Zigavinos (12th century) observes in this respect: "God as fire that illuminates and brightens the pure, and burns and obscures the unclean." And Theodoritos Kyrou regarding this "saving" writes: "One is also saved by fire, being tested by it", just as when one passes through fire. If he has an appropriate protective cover, he will not be burnt, otherwise, he may be "saved", but he will be charred!

So, we see that nobody is actively being tortured by God, ut that one's own disposition and character determines their interaction with the uncraeted glory of God.

@fmf said
You have no evidence whatsoever that such a supernatural mechanism for keeping people 'alive' after they die so that they can be tortured exists. I don't believe it does. What would be the moral justification for using that supernatural torture mechanism on me? If your "moral argument" is merely THE BIBLE SAYS SO, and IT WHAT IT IS, just come out and say so.

This is covered in my above post.

@fmf said
What would be the moral justification for torturing me for finding this unbelievable and, to be frank, a rather parochial and kind of medieval man-made ideology? Can't good people just agree to disagree about what is and isn't credible?

Also covered in the above post.

@fmf said
a person who does not break the law, even though they know that they are above it or know that they would not be caught, can be said to be doing something morally righteous.

Are you, then, now "morally righteous" because you have converted to Christianity?

someone who does not break the law simply because they will get caught is not a righteous person

I am ...[text shortened]... similar reasons - we are both governed by our moral compasses - that I am "not a righteous person"?

1 - I am not righteous, and whtever sliver of righteousness I possess is due to the grace of God.

2 - You follow your own moral compass. Just as every other atheist. This is inferior to that of God's, because it is man-made and naturalistic. But I am glad that you have principles that you stick to - even if they are not the right ones.

@philokalia said
People send themselves to hell for the sins which they have committed and for which they do not repent, and/or through the rejection of God

Leaving aside the nonsensical nature of what you are saying for a moment; let me explore this premise with you. I’d appreciate straight answers please.

Firstly; Do people therefore send themselves to Heaven?

@philokalia said
(2a) It is not kept secret; the Gospels are everywhere, and those who believe and humbly pray for faith will receive it.
(2b) You are right that absolute proof of it is not offered up.

Words in a religious book written thousands of years ago will not constitute as even evidence, let alone proof, that a God exists who has purposefully created a place of unimaginable suffering for those people who do not believe in him.

No, there is no proof, absolute or otherwise that a God has purposefully created a place of unimaginable suffering for those people who do not believe in him.

Why is that there no “proof”. Considering the nature of the eternal torture juxtaposed with the loving nature of God it seems odd to hide the punishment away don’t you think?

@philokalia said
Nobody is tortured by God: they make a series of decisions which send themselves to hell.

According to the interpretation of elements of the book of Revelation by sonship, yourself, and others God does indeed torture people.

Unless of course you don’t regard your version of Jesus being personally present in hell with his angels, and him overseeing the billions of human beings being “cast into a lake of fire where the smoke of there suffering goes up forever” as being “torture”?