Hell Is Immoral [Punishment’s Purpose]

A transcript of my YouTube video with the same title. Video included for the non-readers.

Introduction

What is the purpose of punishment? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves when considering the idea of Hell. Eternal punishment, and the possibility that there is anything one could do that would be deserving of never-ending torture.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to ignore the fact that it is questionable, at best, as to whether the Bible actually speaks of a real place of eternal torment. What I’m going to be talking about is the modern-day, evangelical Christian version of Hell. The place where people go to suffer in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

The Purpose Of Punishment

So what is the purpose of punishment?

Punishment is a corrective mechanism. It’s meant to regulate behavior, whether that punishment is rendered by a society upon an individual, a parent disciplining their child, or a God upon an individual. The idea is that, following the punishment, the offending party will learn a lesson from the punishment and will modify their behavior in order to avoid further chastisement.

When considering punishment, we must also consider the method of that punishment as it relates to the degree of the offense. Does the punishment fit the crime? In order for punishment to be effective, the punishment must not be too harsh, as this will only breed anger and resentment in the individual being punished – leading only to a repeat of the behavior in question, and possibly more severe disobedience done spitefully in the face of the inappropriate corrective action taken against the individual. If the punishment is too weak, the punishment will have no effect. Simply put, the punishment must be reasonable with respect to the offense.

Punishment With Respect To God

Taking these arguments into consideration, let’s look at the idea of punishment within the framework of the Biblical God and whether or not Hell would be compatible with successful modification of behavior through punishment.

The Bible says that nothing man does is good enough for God – man is in a fallen state and there is nothing we can do of our own volition that could allow us to avoid Hell. In Romans 7:18, Paul says,

“For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing.”

In Genesis 8:21, God says,

“the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

And, of course, there’s Romans 3:23.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Because there is nothing man can do which can be considered “good” in God’s eyes, we are left to consider degrees of evil. Certainly all actions are not equally evil. You wouldn’t consider being a coward or not believing in God just as evil as murder, would you? These things certainly are not deserving of the same punishment.

Would you give a child the same punishment whether he stole from the local convenience store or simply ate a cookie before dinner? Certainly not. But, the message we get from the doctrine of Hell is that every wrong action, no matter how minor, is equal in God’s eyes, and is deserving of eternal punishment.

Punishment Or Revenge?

The famous verses in I Corinthians, chapter 13 are universally thought of as the Bible’s definition of love. And this is important. In I John 4:8, John says,

“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.”

Now I want to direct you back to I Corinthians, chapter 13, specifically to verse 5. The verse says about love, it

“doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.”

Love is not easily provoked.

Now, with this in mind, let us consider eternal punishment in terms of what we have previously discussed. We’ve said punishment is a corrective mechanism. That this punishment must fit the crime, as punishments which don’t fit the crime will not be effective in changing behavior.

But, most importantly, punishment is done for the good of the person who has committed the offense. It is to help them to modify their behavior in order to be a better person, or to better fit in with society – to behave in a more acceptable manner.

When actions taken against an individual are no longer fitting for the crime, and the severity of those actions far outweigh the offense, this is no longer punishment, but revenge. And revenge is not founded on seeking the highest good of the offending individual. Revenge is about being provoked and taking action based upon anger, the expression of hatred and a lust for seeing another person suffer because of how their actions make the revenge-seeker feel.

Back to I Corinthians 13, again. This time to verse 7. It says that love

“Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

This tells me that a God who is all about love could endure these sins of cowardice, fear, or even murder. But, clearly, if God feels every action that man takes is deserving of eternal punishment, this is certainly not punishment, especially when taking into account that man was created imperfect.

(Free will is not an excuse here because God, being all-knowing, understood beforehand that Adam and Eve were destined to fall.)

So God is taking revenge upon those whom He created, not punishing them in order that they may have an opportunity to improve and become better people, but simply to pacify his anger and lust for suffering. This is not love, and it does not seek the highest good of His creation.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, we have seen quite clearly that the idea of eternal punishment is not only immoral, but is totally out of character for a God who is claimed to be the very embodiment of love. It is not moral to conclude that every “wrong” action is equally evil and deserving of the same punishment.

Punishment should be done with the hope of seeing the highest good arise from the one being punished. It should not be done with the goal of making the one administering the punishment feel better. That is called revenge, and is done out of hatred, not out of love.

Eternal torment, by definition, never ends, and therefore cannot fit into a reasonable definition of punishment. The individual has no opportunity to correct their actions following the punishment. Hell is God’s place of eternal revenge.

Ray Comfort’s “Special Introduction” To Origin Of Species Undermines Intelligent Design Movement

This is the transcript of my most recent YouTube video on Ray Comfort’s most recent blunder… writing a special introduction for Darwin’s 150th anniversary edition of “On The Origin of Species,” publishing it and distributing it on college campuses around the country. I’ve also included the video in this post as well. Enjoy!

Feel free to watch the video if you’re not interested in reading…

Hello, everyone.

From the title of this video, you’re probably well aware of what I’m going to be talking about. But, what may not be so obvious is how happy I am that Ray Comfort decided to attach his creationist nonsense as introduction to Darwin’s work.

I’m sure Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron were just chomping at the bit for the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s book to arrive. They knew that had to do something to celebrate. There had to be some way to use this event to promote some type of creationist propaganda.

Seeing that Darwin’s book is in the public domain, meaning there is no copyright attached to it, Comfort decided the best way to get the message out about how real and believable the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, he’d write a special introduction to Darwin’s book and release it on the 150th anniversary date.

Now, this is very important, because notice what Comfort has done with this publication. Recall back to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case where Judge John E. Jones III ruled against intelligent design being taught in the Dover science classrooms, because it was nothing more than a re-branding of creationism, or religion.

In his ruling, Judge Jones said,

“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

Now, I haven’t read the entire introduction yet, but what I did notice was what Comfort has done by publishing this “introduction.” The deciding factor in Judge Jones’ ruling was whether or not intelligent design was religious in nature. And here, in one fell swoop, Comfort has associated intelligent design not only with creationism and religion, but specifically with the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

On page 49 of his introduction, the topic heading is “Do It Today.” The first line of his introductory paragraph says,

“To receive the gift of eternal life, you must repent of your sins (turn from them), and put on the Lord Jesus Christ as you would put on a parachute—trusting in Him alone for your salvation.”

Documentation of the association of intelligent design, religious belief and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, the next time someone says intelligent design should be given equal time in the classroom, be so kind as to show them a copy of Comfort’s special introduction to Origin of Species. Intelligent design is, after all, nothing more than religion.

To conclude, I’d just like to say thank you to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for making it that much easier to keep intelligent design out of our school system. You guys really are as smart as I thought you were.

Have a nice day!

The End Of GodKillzYou [An Atheist Matures]

Cross-posted on In Case You’re Interested…

Introduction

For anyone who’s at all familiar with my writing, this blog or me personally, you’ll know that I’ve used the name GodKillzYou for pretty much all of my internet activity. Any account I’ve ever registered basically had that screen name associated with it.

So where did that name come from? Well, when I first de-converted from Christianity I was angry. I slowly began to realize that everything I believed was founded upon my own faulty reasoning, and that God was something I wanted to exist – not something that could be shown to exist. And because I’m a person who tends to take things to extremes, the result of my apostasy was my new screen name: GodKillzYou.

Good or bad, I went with it. I tended to adopt a point of view and portray an image that a name like GodKillzYou would put forth. I became the snarky, cynical, condescending, skeptical atheist that a name like GodKillzYou would fit.

Of course, I wasn’t like that all of the time in my writing. As my writing, as well as my personal journey into Atheism progressed, I found myself growing more and more understanding and sympathetic toward believers; not only of Christianity and other religions, but also of those who believe other things (ESP, Dowsing, Astrology, Psychic Abilities, etc.).

But my sympathy and understanding does not translate into acceptance of those claims. I simply understand more clearly how we arrive at those conclusions, and my attitude has come to reflect that. My intentions are much more driven by the desire to reach a common understanding with those whom I disagree with.

Re-Branding Myself

So, in this attempt to re-brand myself I’m hoping that my new screen name, TheSkepticalAtheist, will bear a closer resemblance to my worldview. “TheSkepticalAtheist” doesn’t carry with it that angst-ridden, spiteful, cynical tone that I’m looking to get away from.

I also realize that doing something like this is akin to changing a phone number. I will still leave my http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/ (In Case You’re Interested…) blog up. There is a lot of useful information there, aside from my writings on religion – tech stuff, iTunes fixes, etc. I’ll also still respond to comments on that blog, as I still get plenty.

And with that, I’m saying farewell to GodKillzYou and any stigma the goes along with it. I am branding myself TheSkepticalAtheist.

My new blog can be found here: https://theskepticalatheist.wordpress.com.