Philip Osborne

I agree that both are required for your position. I guess I would say my intuitions do not agree with the first, that one always ought to prevent unjust states of affairs. I'm thinking of mercy and forgiveness.

We can at least say that it is always morally permissible to prevent unjust states of affairs. This makes room for the possibility of forgiveness and mercy, while preserving the integrity of the original claim. This does deal with your original question (i.e. "So according to your Christianity, punishment for the sake of punishment is morally permissible?")

I guess this just bothers me because it implies so much uncertainty here.

This seems to be more a criticism of moral realism than of Christianity in particular. Although I would concede that Christianity is committed to at least some form of moral realism (even the Divine Command Theory must suppose God's moral commandments to be objectively true), it would be straying too far off topic to address that here.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"We can at least say that it is always morally permissible to prevent unjust states of affairs. This makes room for the possibility of forgiveness and mercy, while preserving the integrity of the original claim. This does deal with your original question (i.e. 'So according to your Christianity, punishment for the sake of punishment is morally permissible?')"

I'd say it's always morally permissible to prevent unjust states of affairs, ceteris paribus. Now I'm just wondering why it might not be better always to forgive everyone; it seems just as morally permissible.

"This seems to be more a criticism of moral realism than of Christianity in particular. Although I would concede that Christianity is committed to at least some form of moral realism (even the Divine Command Theory must suppose God's moral commandments to be objectively true), it would be straying too far off topic to address that here."

I am indeed interested to learn that Christianity seems to require moral realism, and I agree that this is not the place for a treatment thereof.

s0uljah

ashibaka-

If she was in Heaven, she can't feel pain, regardless of where her husband choose to be.

Keith Russell

Souljah:

So, as I said, 'heaven' would have to be some kind of brainwashing--if it could cause a person to forget human love.

(Wouldn't this also violate the Biblical command to 'love your neighbor as yourself, if heaven causes us to forget our fellow human beings, even those in Hell?)

Just another theistic contradiction...

Keith.

s0uljah

Keith-

I wouldn't paint it as "brainwashing," more like, complete awe in being with God.

Also, the commandments, and other earthly things, apply to this lifetime. That doesn't mean that we can sin in Heaven, though. There is a lot that we just don't know about Heaven, except that is supposed to be real cool.

TollHouse

Welcome to the forums, s0uljah
I think that's the problem there, we simply have no knowledge of Heaven or Hell, except for the idea that those who adhere to 'x' religion go to Heaven while those who don't go to the Hell (Of course not all theists believe this, which is another problem for our world relgions).

Come to think of it, doesn't this sound a little bit fishy to you? Please join our religion, God loves you and wants you to get your Heavenly reward. We promise you it will be really cool. Now go out and win us some more converts with the good news.

IMHO, Christianity is a "your check is in the mail" religion in this regard.

Animesh

Is it just me, or does anyone else get images of the ending of "Childhood's End" at the talk of us being transformed when brought before God, transformed into something that doesn't dispair over loved ones burning in hell? I dunno, but I found that ending pretty disturbing.

How about this one:

(1) Perhaps there is no hell. The born-again wife is united with her atheist hubbie, no problem. I was under the impression that Hell isn't even mentioned in the old testament?

(2) Perhaps there's some mega-time dilation taking place, so that no one has to wait until their friends and loved ones can join them.

(3) Perhaps it's like those aliens from that Star Trek episode "The Menagerie" (aka, "The Cage"): the born-again wife lives for eternity with an illusion of her husband (and perhaps even illusions of her kids, even though they might still be alive), not at all aware that he's burning in hell. Whoa, would this make heaven basically a great dream state?

MadMordigan

How about this one:

When you are dead you stay dead.

TollHouse

There are certainly no need for magical candy-lands in that scenario. It may just be the cold hard truth.

Religionists will not like that for a variety of reasons:
1) You cannot use the threat of Hell or the promise of Heaven as a marketing ploy for your religion.
2) Some see it as depressing.

Personally, I see it rather depressing that people are living for the life they think they'll achieve in Heaven instead of living the life right here, right now.

Animesh

Not to mention, you can't use the "sure, it isn't fair that you were born into a poor family while some other bozo will have a great life 'cause he was born into a rich family, but follow our rules and you'll have a totally awesome afterlife" method of social control.