What's the difference?

[Electric Sceptic]

Imagine the following scenario (which is, as far as I know, an accurate one given the existence of the Christian God and the traditional view of hell):

A being exists who states that if we do not believe in him and follow him, we will be tortured for eternity. It is not him who tortures us (he claims) but we who torture ourselves, for this torture is simply the consequence of not believing in and following him.

Now imagine the following (fictional) scenario:

A man comes up to you with a bulge in his pocket, pointing at you. He tells you it is a gun, pointed at you, and if you do not give him your wallet, he will pull the trigger and shoot you dead. It is not him who kills you (he claims) but you who kill yourself, for your death is simply the consequence of not believing in his gun and giving him your wallet.

My question: what is the moral difference between these two scenarios?

 

[CuteAlien]

The difference seems to be that the creator of the earth is allowed to make it's rules (that's the usual line of reasoning i heard so far about this). Also it's hard to bind an omnipotent entity by human moral laws (just my opinion *g*).

 

[ego licet visum]

The difference seems to be that the creator of the earth is allowed to make it's rules (that's the usual line of reasoning i heard so far about this). Also it's hard to bind an omnipotent entity by human moral laws (just my opinion *g*).

You know what they call someone who wields supreme authority through force?

 

[Krysia]

You know what they call someone who wields supreme authority through force?

A tyrant?

 

[Corran]

You know what they call someone who wields supreme authority through force?

My Mom??

 

[Krysia]

My Mom??

LOL

 

[CuteAlien]

You know what they call someone who wields supreme authority through force?

It's the difference of making the rules versus playing by the rules. So in christian religion you could only see the life of Jesus as an example of god acting within the rules.

I don't say life is game, but games can be used as an analogy to highlight the difference. The maker of a game will have to think of a completly different set of rules than those who are playing it. He has to think of making it interesting, fun, challanging, keeping up the motivation of the players, etc, while the players necessarly are bound by the rules of the game to advance somehow. So how do you call this supreme authority now? Well, i guess you could call it a bad, a good or a non-existant creator, that's your choice .

 

[ScottishJohn]

Can I offer a different scenario?

Imagine a the same man with the bulge in the pocket - except he wants to give you HIS wallet, and if you do not accept you will be shot. This is maybe a little closer to the Christian understanding, although not the best analogy.

 

[Moncubus Gwazz III]

Can I offer a different scenario?

Imagine a the same man with the bulge in the pocket - except he wants to give you HIS wallet, and if you do not accept you will be shot. This is maybe a little closer to the Christian understanding, although not the best analogy.

So the man in that scenario goes from mugger to looney?

 

[ScottishJohn]

Basically yes, although those are your words. He goes from being someone trying to remove somthing from you, to somone trying to offer something to you ehich is more in keeping with what Christians believe.

 

[Zaac]

A tyrant?

The thing is, God never said this was a democracy. He is God ALONE and what we THINK of His commandments and methods is irrelevant.

Our lives are full of choices. He has told you what choice you need to make in order to have eternal life. If you don't , oh well. You were given the consequences and you chose the consequences.

God created the heavens and earth. He created man to glorify Him. Not th eother way around. And if folks don't like that, so what? It's not changing. SO folks can bow up and try to act all hard and defiant and chase after all these other things. In the end , it will change nothing. God will still be on His throne. And Jesus Christ will still be the only way.

 

[PromiseSeeker]

Can I offer a different scenario?

Imagine a the same man with the bulge in the pocket - except he wants to give you HIS wallet, and if you do not accept you will be shot. This is maybe a little closer to the Christian understanding, although not the best analogy.

What a way to look at things! AMEN to that!!

 

[CuteAlien]

The thing is, God never said this was a democracy. He is God ALONE and what we THINK of His commandments and methods is irrelevant.

Hm, just in case you'd find some contradictions in those commandments (one possible beeing the one described by the original poster), would you still follow them? Or might you in this case start considering if maybe "his commandments" could also be the writing of someone who, beeing human, could have gotten the meaning somewhat wrong?

Not to question commandments has let to some seriously bad doings in the name of religion over last few centuries by people who thought they'd do the right thing to reach heaven...

 

[elman]

The traditional view of hell is not the only view. There is a lot of scriplture that suggests that hell is death or non existence.

Prov 11:19

19 The truly righteous man attains life,
but he who pursues evil goes to his death.
(from New International Version)

 

[Krysia]

Can I offer a different scenario?

Imagine a the same man with the bulge in the pocket - except he wants to give you HIS wallet, and if you do not accept you will be shot. This is maybe a little closer to the Christian understanding, although not the best analogy.

Ok, but what if some epople can't see the man at all, and therefore can't see the bulge. They don't hear him offer his wallet. And, in fact, have not seen nor heard anything to make them think there's a man at all, yet he still shoots them because they didn't take his wallet? Does that seem loving or fair/just?