It seems sort of unfair, somehow, to be burned for eternity for a metaphor.

Dalrymple could have saved himself a lot of time by simply positing that god is evil.

Antony Flew, in "Atheistic Humanism," has an ironclad argument to show that 1) if there is an all-powerful creator and 2) there is evil, then the creator has to be responsible and, therefore, that punishment of his creations is immoral.

Flew is the only philosopher who is funny. In a footnote he says he treasures a Catholic pamphlet he picked up in his youth (1930s) from a series called "Treasures of the Faith." Title of this pamphlet: "Eternal Punishment."

When you punished your children were you immoral?

Harry --

Of all the arguments for atheism, the one I find least compelling is that G-d, if He exists, is vengeful, unfair, cruel, has rigged the game, etc. This may well be true, but it makes worship that much more urgent than otherwise. I'm not sure, as it happens, that this is really a species of atheism at all as opposed to rebellion. In any event, the idea that ours is a loving G-d strikes me as the triumph of hope (or, better, faith) over experience.

The story of Eden is right on point here. As Orrin points out, the game was rigged from the start. Adam and Eve had three choices: obedient, short-lived ignorance; disobedient, immortal ignorance; and, the actual result, disobedient, short-lived knowledge. What makes this particularly unfair is that they had to eat of the tree to even have a concept of sin, and yet they were expelled from the Garden for the sin of eating of the tree. Of course, an omniscient G-d knew from the beginning (and I do mean the beginning) how it would turn out.

This leaves us with four possibilities. There is no god or He is entirely indifferent to us; G-d is loving and the Fall was in our best interests; G-d is cruel; and (although this isn't exclusive) we're not the point of creation.

So who's first to be received into the arms of the church? Hitchens or Dalrymple?

"G-d is cruel; and (although this isn't exclusive) we're not the point of creation."

This is closest to my view. Not that God is cruel, but indifferent. A cruel god presupposes a personal god, a god of intentions. I have yet to hear a coherent theory of the universe that would explain its workings as the intentional acts of a personal being, whether good or evil.

Robert--watch it, you are clouding the issue with logic.

Robert:

Why would He have Created us and given us rules if He's indifferent?

Who said he gave us rules? We've made our own rules, and attribute them to him, no matter how contradictory those rules have been. As Abraham Lincoln observed, god cannot be both for and against the same thing, as man's rules often are.

He said. Your fatuous argument though raises a few questions: do you have kids? Do you make rules for them? Do you think they'll be able to abide by them always? Are you therefore evil? Then why is God or why is His Creation difficult to comprehend?

OJ:

Speaking of fatuous arguments--yours is a whopper of a category mistake.

I make rules for my kids. I punish them when they transgress the rules.

I don't randomly mete punishment for the heck of it.

Parents do the former. God, if he exists, and isn't utterly ignorant of, or indifferent to, our existence, does the latter.

Jeff:

I know you think it's all about you, but how does God punish you? If you believe life itself is punishment why did you bring kids into the world? How does that differ from God?

I just finished Flew's "Atheistic Humanism." It's the first time I've ever read any systematic attempt to defend atheism. Up to now, I've just poked holes in the feeble arguments of the theists.

Among the many problems of Original Sin (and of the general behavior of the God of the O/NT) is that is forces the believer to accept as right behavior that is obviously immoral. The usual response -- one of Orrin's rare orthodoxies -- is to say that we mere humans cannot recognize the deeper morality and judgments of a deity.

I'll happily grant that, since it means that believers must confess their inability to distinguish between moral and immoral conduct.

As for David, my reaction to a cruel god would be just the reverse. Rather than knuckling under, defy him. The result will be the same either way, might as well maintain some self-respect for a while.

I can think of worse eternal punishments than being frozen in a lake of ice. Knowing that during your one opportunity to act like a man you chose the coward's way out would be one.

Did you teach your kids they were cowards if they listened to you and that in reality they should do whatever they pleased? No, didn't think so. You made them "cowards". like yourself.

Yes, of course I make rules for my daughter and punish her when she disobeys them. That is how people act. The universe doesn't act that way. There is no evidence that there is a lawgiver that does the same for us. Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Like I said, the universe is indifferent.

Robert:

Punishment isn't the question. Do you make rules that you know no person could possibly obey at all times? Are you aware that her life may be filled with immense sadness even that evil may befall her--though we would hope not? Are you then evil for subjecting her to this reality? Is your decision to have a child incoherent?

The default setting of humans is clearly not "evil".

Anyone who looks about the world and decides that no more evil could be done, is delusional.

Even "secular" Europe seems to be quite a pleasant place to live, so much so, in fact, that hordes of religionist immigrants swarm to it.

oj:

You misread Harry's last post.

Michael:

Then why don't Europeans bring any children into that world?

Original Sin requires that we be punished for sins we do not commit, even for sins that we do not even know exist.

For the Unchosen People, it's a no win situation -- punished for not adhering to the message of a god who they never heard of and who explicitly rejected them.

How's that moral?

Yes, I made rules for my children and (rarely) punished them for flouting them. But I did not punish Orrin's children for not adhering to my rules.

oj:

What's your point ?

That Europe is not a pleasant place to live ?

That Europeans are evil ?

Or, that religious people who immigrate to Europe are making a mistake ?

Harry:

No--you too are sinful because of Original Sin.

We're all God's children, so there's no difference between yopu making rules for yours and Him making them for us.

Michael:

Europe is a place where selfish people have chosen to die. It is evil. Perhaps the Muslims will redeem it.

OJ:

Your question: "When you punished your children were you immoral?"

To my reply, this response: "I know you think it's all about you, but how does God punish you?"

Look, you were the one who brought it up in the first place.

Presuming there is a God, we are all God's children. But you have buried your assumption in your assertion. However, It may well be He isn't making any rules for us at all.

Oh, by the way, nice dodge on the Unchosen People thing. A gigantic camel in the tent, and you just ignored it.

What Unchosen People? What camels?

If I get the OT right, God created Unchosen People as a foil for his Chosen People. Just exactly like a doctor creating a testtube baby to get some organs or something.

Disposable life.

Your God also punished people for things that only a maniac would regard as sin -- Lot's wife, for example.

You've said you don't believe the story of Lot's wife, but you've not said on what grounds you reject Sacred Scripture. I presume you reject the parts you don't like.

Me, too.

I do believe the story of Lot's wife--she should have done what she was told.

Christianity is Judaism for the Gentiles.

Camel is still there.

You're defending the god of might makes right again, Orrin.

That's very OT of you. Jesus was not a very admirable character, but he had advanced beyond that.

And last year you said you didn't believe the story of Lot. Which is it?

She's a salt lick.

Jeff:

Joe Camel?