MrDarwin

Much has been made of the "problem of evil" but I think atheists find another aspect of Christianity even more troubling. I call it "the problem of punishment out of proportion to the crime".

In another discussion I had this exchange with luvluv regarding how God can be both just and merciful:

to which I replied:

According to Christians, there is only one punishment: eternal damnation (or separation from God, or whatever you want to call it). Many (most?) Christians go on to describe this punishment in the most horrifying terms. Catholics have somewhat softened this by inventing Purgatory, but for everybody else, it's all or nothing: salvation or damnation. And the punishment of damnation is not for theft, or for murder, or for torturing other people; it's for not obeying God (disbelief apparently being an act of disobedience). Once you're there, that's that. You're stuck for all eternity, with no possiblity of ever getting out, no matter what you do. And I think the major inconsistency many atheists, agnostics, and even some Christians see in Christianity is that this seems like an awfully steep price to pay for simply being, quite frankly, as human as this God supposedly created us to be.

braces_for_impact

This is all very true. I have theists all the time comparing god and his followers to a parent punishing a child. Time and again I have to remind them that no parent I have ever seen punishes their child to torture for all eternity.

As far as being just and merciful at the same time...

Is not the act of dispensing justice partially mercy in itself? If one is to demand justice, are they not requesting recompense or punishment that is fair in nature? I.E. It fits the crime, neither being to light of a sentence, nor too heavy for the infraction? Obviously hell as thought of in most Christian doctrines does not fit this criteria.

Magus55

The problem lies in your lack of understanding sin and God's nature. Can't really explain it so you'd understand since atheists have no desire to understand God's ways. And do we claim to know everything about God? comparing God's intelligence and ways to us, is like comparing us to bacteria - they don't compare.

God is infinite, perfect, and holy - any crime against him ( even as tiny as a lie ) deserves death because you are commiting a crime against an infinite perfect being. And until people grasp the concept that a crime against holiness, is a crime equal of death - no matter how trivial and minute it seems to us - then you will never understand his ways.

But knowing we would sin against us, and even though we deserve death - God gave us an escape plan for whosoever believes in him and his Son, Jesus.

Unbelief is in fact the worst crime, its blasphemy against the holy spirit - known as the unpardonable sin. God made the rules not us, our minds are too primitive to understand all his ways.

MrDarwin

So... you're saying that, even if I change my mind now, believe in God and repent for my wicked ways, I will still be punished for my life of unbelief?

Tajapooh

Therefore all unbelievers deserve death? May I assume, therefore, that it is in line with God's intent that believers kill unbelievers?

lpetrich

Magus55 gives what I call the "God's Thin Skin" defense.

And being thin-skinned is not normally considered a virtue.

Especially when a being like that could make it psychologically impossible for any entity to commit sins.

And if we are microbes by god's standards, then we cannot be in the likeness of said being.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Magus55
And until people grasp the concept that a crime against holiness, is a crime equal of death

What is the penalty for a crime against non-holiness, then? Should a crime against unholiness be punished?

Also, I wouldn't think much of someone who was so petty that they punished their children for the slightest offence. "You spilled your milk? Bend over, scum!" Yet you seem to be saying that this is what your god does, if the most minute crime meets with a death sentence.

But knowing we would sin against us

Do you mean "we would sin against him" or "he would sin against us"? I'm aiming for the latter.

Unbelief is in fact the worst crime, its blasphemy against the holy spirit - known as the unpardonable sin.

Then why bother repenting and converting, if this sin can't be pardoned?

God made the rules not us, our minds are too primitive to understand all his ways.

Speak for yourself; my mind is capable of recognizing a psychopath when I see one.

braces_for_impact

Magus55, I was a Christian for many years, went to Christian school, attended church and bible study, went to religious extra curicular activites. I accepted Jesus into my heart and allowed the holy spirit to interpret the scriptures for me. I have a pretty thorough understanding of Christian dogma, more I suspect, than you have. My evidence to posit this is various comments you have made in other threads regarding biblical history and doctrine.



This is a cop out, and a lousy one at that. In fact, I call this the "teenie weenie human brain" argument. If in fact, god is unknowable, then how can you know or understand anything about him? Including the many conclusions you have come to about his nature?

This is a non sequitur. You have to demonstrate how a crime commited against a perfect being is "worse" than a crime commited against another imperfect one. I won't even get into the perfection argument with you. Perfection does not require absolvence, love, or pity. It's perfect and thus would have no needs or wants. We feel emotion in response to the unknown. Since your particular deity is supposedly omniscient and perfect, he would have no emotion, as he has no desires. Desire stems from imperfection or inbalance. Here I think you comment about bacteria is interesting. If bacteria loved me would I care?

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one according to your tradition. So basically what you are saying here is that God created us, created the rules, and then sent his son to die for the very rules he himself created? God's divine plan is laughable. Children could do better than this.

If I am a criminal, then so be it. If I were created by a god who also gave me the ability to reason, and then sentenced me to eternal damnation for using that reason, then I would prefer not to be in his presence anyway. Especially since using my reason to conclude he does not exist when he hides the way he does seems to me the only intellectually honest position I can take and still be honest with myself.

You see Magus55, unlike you, I did a lot of research to arrive where I am. It took a lot of study, and it was a very conscious effort to remain unbiased. I went where the evidence led. I did NOT seek evidence for what I already believed, and then became convinced it was "The truth" simply because I already concurred with the findings. To do this is dishonest and lazy. It was also difficult, because I had to face the fact that by accident or on purpose, there were many religious leaders who were willing to lead plenty astray with their lies and contempt. I used to be like you, regurgitating stolen christian apologetics as the answers. But when you look at the issues closely and honestly, you will realize that those answers aren't really answers. In fact, they rarely even address the question.

DMB

I've always been puzzled by this too. There is no comparability between an infinite life span and one even of 100 years. Yet this loving god is supposed to have arranged for living creatures to have a brief period of learning and trial which then determines their infinite future. (Mind you, it's not so clear for non-human animals.) I simply can't see what the point of the finite terrestrial life is, if what really matters is the infinite, otherwhere afterlife. Why not just have the single infinite life?

Ojuice5001

There's another problem with luvluv's quote in the original post. In luvluv's analogy, the father mitigates the punishment in order to compromise between mercy and justice. Thus there is both justice (a reasonable punishment) and mercy (a bearable punishment). This father is merciful and just to the same person.

But that's not what the God of Christian theology does. Sending everyone to hell or heaven is a less rational way to compromise between mercy and justice. That system purports to be mericful to some people and just to others. Now allowing mercy to some people but not to others who deserve equal punishment cannot be in accordance with justice. It's merciful to the saved, but not to the damned. The thinking implied by the analogy would mean that God bestows moderate punishments and rewards on everyone. That's a better thing to do, but not what Christian tradition claims that God does.