YouOnlyScienceOnce
Member
Can somebody explain me how it is moral to torture someone in hell for eternity?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
morality explained
- Thread starter YouOnlyScienceOnce
- Start date
By defining moral in a way that makes torturing someone in hell for eternity moral
YouOnlyScienceOnce
Member
A frubal was given that day.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
To explain morality, you must first define it. It is rightful or correct behavior, but behavior in what context?
Personally, I see morality as a set of rules that permits humans (and other intelligent beings) to interact with each other safely and comfortably. That makes morality a relative concept, because it can differ according to context.
I suppose that some believers see the ultimate safety and comfort in the context of pleasing their deity (or deities). Humans who disobey God, then, place the rest of humanity at risk, if God is seen to take offense at such disobedience. Abrahamic doctrine originally defined sin in collective terms, and the progeny of Adam and Eve "inherited" sin. So their logic often drives them to try to suppress what they view as God's will. Morality then becomes "fixed" or "objective" in the sense that God's will ultimately overrides all contexts. Hell, would be there as a final warning to deter people from disobeying God's will.
I don't see much in religion that is logical, but there is some consistency of thought in that mindset. The problem, of course, is that there is no single religion with a doctrine that defines God's "will" once and for all. Hence, "objective morality" becomes as arbitrary as the number of religious doctrines out there, some of which may just be defined on a personal level. It comes down to a matter of which doctrine can muster enough force to suppress its competitors.
What is really going on, IMO, is something else. Heaven and hell are concepts that span many religions historically, and their reason for being is to keep the faithful from adopting a competing religion (or losing faith altogether). When a religion is powerful enough, it tends to enforce the threat of hell with worldly punishment, which can be much more effective against nonbelievers.
I don't think it would be.
But I also don't believe in hell or eternal torment, so.....
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
If its what that individual desires for their eternity, they can have it. Not that there are likely to be many of those.
I would have said it was immoral before your recent plethora of so-similar thread creations.
Now I'm kind of rooting for it.
Gui10
Active Member
It isn't because they want it that it is moral.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
It's certainly subjective whether it is moral, or immoral. But I'll say this - It's similar to asking how moral is it to not rehabilitate those who done evil.
I don't believe in any eternal torment.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
A banal avatar should do the trick.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
I can't think of a better qualifier.
Gui10
Active Member
What a person truely wants for eternity is what you consider to be morality?
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
In every conversation I have had it is either pointed out that,
A) The Christian doesn't believe in the eternal concept of hell and that somehow makes torturing someone for 10,000 years okay (or however long they decided to make up or assume)
B) The Christian doesn't believe hell is a place of torture at all. (My personal favorite) <-- Not sarcastic incase it appeared that way.
C) The Christian says you can't question God and he is the authority of morality. When pressed on the matter it ultimately comes down to, "God is more powerful thus anything he says is moral." In other words, might equals right. So if Hitler would've dominated the world holocausts would be good moral things because he had more power than the rest of us.
I find C) quoted often amongst Christians in my community and its difficult to swallow and is the most repulsive stance of all. A) seems to think brutal torture is okay when our own systems of law are more graceful than this Gods (who is supposedly the most gracious person of all time, except when he isn't).
So to try and answer your question. It isn't moral, no person in their right mind would consider it moral on earth. It is only when dealing with this God who is "taught" to be loving, and just happens to be all powerful, do people suddenly find horrific acts moral. This God was wrong when he commited and ordered genocide, he was wrong when he advocated rape of virgins, it was wrong when he ordered the brutal stoning of a man who picked up sticks on a Sunday, It was wrong when he sent bears in to maul innocent children (who he loves) for calling some random dude (from their perspective) a bald head, he was wrong when he forced people to sacrifice their best animals (that a lot couldn't afford to give up) for rules that he made up, it was wrong of him to make the consequences of 2 people eating a piece of fruit be everlasting damnation for an entire population, and it was wrong for him to consider the bloody, brutal sacrifice of his son a good idea(even if he resurrected and lived the good life forever after) to make up for 2 people EATING A PIECE OF FRUIT!!
Last edited:
The subtleties are still being worked out, but for the most part good things are those that heal, bring understanding or avoid damage, while evil things are those that bring suffering, anxiety or other kinds of damage.
It is really not too different from the conceptions from not (strongly) theistic religions such as Confucianism, Shinto, Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism.
If you want to, I strongly recommend "The Moral Landscape" from Sam Harris and "The Life You Can Save" from Peter Singer as written references. Singer, particularly, is a very sensible and pleasant read.
davidthegreek
Active Member
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Don't twist what I said.
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
It is not always clear what is 100% good. Sometimes there can be many good decisions and sometimes a bad decision can create a good outcome. (Ex: You have to kill 5 people to save 1 million) While stealing maybe considered bad, most people wouldn't call Robin Hood a bad guy. So there isn't always an absolute, it varies with the situation. If stealing from a billionaire, who watches millions starve to death everyday, saved 10 million people then that to me would be a "good" outcome.
However, generally, it comes down to "ouch that hurts, I bet that hurts someone else too, lets test this (punches someone) okay, it hurts them too. It may be better for both of us if we don't punch each other"
Last edited: