Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeWolf
I think you are confusing the issue with things
that we learn to believe as children through
the five senses. ...
So, I hope you see that "choosing to believe" is
in fact a daily occurrence in our lives.
|
I'm just going to have to disagree. I think we're really talking about different things here, and I don't really feel like debating that point right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeWolf
As for hell it is as much a deterrent as going
to prison for a crime.
|
That's one of my problems with hell. It's a threat, simply to coerce people to behave a certain way. Let's say you have two people.
Person A does not believe in hell. He does what he believes to be right, based on his desire to do good and for people to treat him the way he treats them.
Person B believes in hell. He does what is right because he is afraid he will be punished at a later time for what he does.
Who is more moral? The person who doesn't rob a bank because he knows robbery is wrong, or the person who doesn't rob banks because he will go to prison?
Person A will do what is right because he believes it is correct to do so. He does not need a system of reward and punishment to be moral. Person B does what is right because he fears punishment. If the threat of punishment were removed, person A would continue to do what he believes is right. Person B may continue to do what is right, but there is also the chance that without the threat of punishment, he will do whatever he wants, to whoever he wants, simply because he knows he will get away with it.
Beyond that, the qualifications for going to hell are not moral. Person A has led a saintly life, done what is right, avoided every possible wrong he could have done, but he does not believe in Jesus. Person B is a horrible mass murder. He has committed every crime he could think of, tortured people for his own entertainment, caused suffering to innocent people at every chance he got. But person B believes in Jesus.
According to the bible, person A will go to hell despite leading an exemplary life. Person B will go to heaven, even though he has committed the worst possible crimes. Going to your prison analogy: A bank has been robbed. The police catch two suspects, A and B. They investigate, and find no evidence pointing to A, but every time they turn around, they find another bit pointing right to B. The police go to B and say "You're guilty! Apologize!" B says "I'm really very sorry.", and the police let him go. They go to A, and say "Apologize for robbing the bank!" A says "I have nothing to apologize for." The police then throw him in prison for the rest of his life.
Another point against hell is the punishment far outweighing the crime. The bible says that those who do not accept Jesus will go to hell to be punished for eternity. A person is capable of only finite acts. Hell is an infinite punishment. If a person was capable of infinite crimes, infinite punishment would be fitting. But infinite punishment for finite crimes is far beyond being moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeWolf
I guess it matters what side you are on over these
issues. The same logic can apply with the need for
hell.
|
I still do not see the "need" for hell. If hell exists so we will behave, then it is morally wrong. An omnibenevelent, loving god would not be able to commit such an unjustifiable act. Also, if god is omniscient/omnipotent, he knows what will happen, and in fact causes it to happen. If god wants us to be good, he can cause us to be good, and skip the threatening.