Why the threat of Hell fails to motivate good behavior.

so not Christianity?

The final sacrifice to end that practice we're talking about something from 2000 years ago where religions regularly practiced sacrifice.

Again you're not talking about Christianity people don't do that for Christ.

 

Doubting no there's nothing in there that says you're not allowed to have the slightest doubt.

If you want to talk about what it says in this passages you should probably read them.

 

It is entirely Christian.

The point you're missing is that the Christian God demanded a sacrifice if his creations ('sinners') sought a ticket to heave/everlasting life.

Whether that sacrifice was performed 2000 years ago, or if Jesus ('God's son') stepped in to offer himself as the 'sacrificial lamb' or whatever is not the issue. The issue is the sacrificing of a life to appease a deity. Essentially, Christianity retained the traditional pre-Christian Roman/pagan ritual of blood sacrifice.

Blood Sacrifice: The Connection Between Roman Death Rituals and Christian Martyrdom
it is clear that Romans’ use of death as a purification ritual represents a significant cultural and ideological influence in the evolving understanding of martyrdom in a specifically Christian context.
https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=honors_theses

So, like a Roman blood sacrifice, Jesus represents the Christian martyr whose death appeases God & thus 'purifies' the sins of the people.

Other than killing millions in holy wars/Crusades & invasions, genocides, and the Inquisition in the name of Christ, the point again (as I stated above) is the sacrificing of a life to appease a deity.

 

on planet Earth? Show me where Christian's practice sacrifice.

no the Christian God is Christ that's what's called Christianity. Jesus never wrote in any of the gospels or anywhere in the Bible after his new covenant that anybody should perform any sacrifices I don't know where you're getting your information but you're way off.

show me where all of these Christian sacrifices are happening?

I'm not really interested in your interpretations I want to know where these sacrifices are happening and who is being sacrificed.

If you can't give me that information that's not a practice within Christianity.

No the crusades were about survival. And people don't have the holy words there's no such thing.

 

religion can be used to control people for good or bad, leaders know this

 

And THIS is just one cornerstone of my lack of belief.

 

I disagree, not that people are prone to hypocritically ignoring the planks in their own eyes, while sharply seeing the splinters in the eyes of others, but that this is the reason that the threat of hell, does not make believers, better behaved. I would submit that what makes it easy for people to indulge in all the self delusion, you speak of, is our ability to not be concerned about consequences, which are not immediate. If the threat, no matter how severe, seems far away, it is very difficult to keep it ever foremost in our minds-- as the here and now, is always beckoning our attentions. For example, if instead of some story of a hell-- of which you would be hard pressed, even to imagine the reality-- you were imprisoned by some jailer with a cattle prod, who told you that any time you used the Lord's name in vain, you would receive a serious jolt of electricity, I would wager that you, or anyone, would quickly teach themself to be ever-mindful of their words. The same would go for any "sin:" if the punishment is tangible, and delivered with relative swiftness, it holds a far greater deterrent potential, than even some far more significant, purported penalty, that is perceived to be far off in the distance. This can be compared, in a rough way, to trying to teach your cat to not do something, by spraying him with water, rather than at the moment you catch them in the offensive act, a week after the fact.


Lastly, it should be noted that, while sins may be clearly defined, just how much and what degree of sinning will result in eternal damnation, is an extremely obscure calculus. This allows the penitent the undying hope that, in the end, he will be forgiven.

 

Who said anything about the slightest doubt? I doubt that god exists so I deny his existence, is it fair that a person who denies the existence of god, for whom no evidence exists, should experience eternal punishment?


For that matter, is there anything a human can do that warrants eternal torment?

To me, justice is about balance. There is no balance when the punishment is that excessive.

 

You did.

Yes.

Yes

If you don't believe in it what difference does it make?

 

Unfortunately the Bible is one of the most cherry-picked and interpreted books ever written. Through it any act of good or evil can be justified. Your interpretation is one of billions and and I know self proclaimed Christians that would disagree with your conclusion, thus an object demonstration of the subjectivity of theism. Seems to me we all interpret the Bible in convenient ways.

 

I don't understand the point of this post. Are you making a point are you arguing against a point I made?

 

I see it as a warning rather than a threat. Sort of like a "Bridge Out" or "Sharp Curve Ahead" sign. It is something to be heeded for our own good.

 

While I agree with most of what you say, your post doesn't explain why the propositional attitude "I'm afraid I'll spend an eternity in Hell" is less motivating than other propositional attitudes. I think the answer can be found by looking at the learning process.

Children are told about Hell, but children learn through observation and imitation (they don't do what they're told, they do what other people do). Children then modify their behavior accordingly and apply what they learned through observation and imitation to their social interactions. Hell can neither be observed, nor imitated in real life. All other propositional attitudes described in your post - beliefs, fears, hopes, and so on - can be observed and imitated, becoming thus the building blocks of behavior.

 

Yes, that being yours is one of a a few billion interpretations and that they can’t all be correct. Being convinced any one interpretation is the correct interpretation is not evidence that it is. All claims of god are subjective. We all interpret biblical texts in subjective ways that make sense to us.

 

lol, so Jesus did not die for all our sins

 

What am I interpreting? I'm going by what is said in not looking for subtext.

I think for the parts that aren't ambiguous people interpret what they want it to say and make no regard for the meaning.

 

the bible is like a magic eight-ball, religious leaders like it that way

 

Am I not making myself clear?

I never said they practice sacrifice today. The point I've been making is that the core of the Christian doctrine is the belief that Jesus died for man's sins. This is the 'sacrifice' I was referring to, and which is connected to ancient pagan beliefs & rituals of blood sacrifices. That's why Christians still practice the ritualized drinking of the 'blood of Jesus' & the 'eating of his flesh'.

Thus the reason Christianity is no different than any other religion that believes in a god who can only be appeased by sacrificing a person/animal.

The Crusades were really about conquering territory for wealth & converts for the purpose of expanding power/control (ie, empire-building). Those who gave the top-down orders you can be sure had not a single religious bone in their body. The soldiers (pawns) of the Crusades & 'holy wars' for Christ were completely programmed by the propaganda of their leadership and had no idea who or what they were actually fighting & dying for.

It is no different than the American/Western empire we have today----only that, rather than fighting for 'Christ', soldiers today are led to believe they're fighting for 'democracy' & 'freedom'. But they're still fighting for the very same thing ----> wealthy elites.

 

Oh I know a good reason the threat of hell does not motivate.


It’s a stupid concept!

 

"And they say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better, but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun
You know that only the good die young, oh, baby
I tell ya only the good die young
Only the good die young"
Billy Joel

 

No you aren't. In one instance you claim Christians practice sacrifice and in another you admit the practice ended with Christ before Christianity.

Make up your mind.

That's Catholics they have some odd ideas.

Christianity worships Jesus Christ who doesn't ask for blood sacrifice.

no. Some of the crusades were about creating spice trade with the east others were about stopping the Islamic empire from conquering all of Europe.

Some wars are definitely for that and a competent of all war is definitely that. But no it doesn't compare with the crusades. The 14 wars that could be called the crusades are nothing compared to the 590 fought by the Islamic empire. They conquered more of the world then all of Christianity combined.

I don't blame you for not knowing that I didn't learn about it until a couple years ago

 

Show me where I said any of that.

So you're telling me that regular Christians don't believe Jesus died for their sins?

Where did I ever say Jesus said that??? JESUS IS THE SACRIFICE. According to Christian doctrine, the death of Jesus is the sacrifice that was needed to appease their God as a means of 'purifying' the 'sins' of man, and thereby giving man a ticket to heaven/everlasting life. The execution of Jesus represents the pagan notion of a blood sacrifice (even if it was carried out by Romans), so Christianity is totally pagan.

The East-West trade was expanded, but this happened later. This is a natural outcome following wars/encounters between disparate groups.

** The Crusaders brought back to Europe many new goods, including oil, spices, and new varieties of fruit from the Muslim world. Europeans wanted more of these goods. This led to increased trade between Europe and the East.

** Trade increase, whilst Europeans also brought back knowledge about plants, irrigation and the breeding of animals. Western Europeans brought back many goods, such as lemons, apricots, sugar, silk and cotton and spices used in cooking. Not all the Crusaders went home after fighting the Muslims.

** The Crusaders brought back to Europe many new goods, including oil, spices, and new varieties of fruit from the Muslim world. Europeans wanted more of these goods. This led to increased trade between Europe and the East.

The Crusades began when Pope Urban II gave the order to push Muslims out of the holy land/Palestine, which led to many Europeans migrating to that region. The two major outcomes at the completion of the Crusades were European contact with Muslim civilization and trade.

It doesn't matter how many wars were fought by Christians vs that of Muslims/Ottomans/Turks. Both parties were attempting to impose their will and spread & protect their religion far & wide for the purpose of wealth, territory and conversions (ie, for power & control) on behalf of the orders of the wealthy priesthood. The result was the death of millions (an estimated 1 million in the Crusades). From the top-down perspective, it's all about the 3 G's----God, Gold, and Glory. And according to history.com, The Roman Catholic Church experienced an increase in wealth, and the power of the Pope was elevated during the Crusades.

 

so then you agree with me Christians don't practice blood sacrifice.

before Christianity. You keep wanting to associate that with Christianity and it's an event that occurred before Christianity.

again that was before Christianity. Christianity was named after Christ do you see the similarities it only was created after he died.

I'm no longer interested in talking to you about the crusades you tried to pretend that was some sort of blood sacrifice, that failed and this little temper fit with the special fonts and colors is just an indication you are not the person to talk about that with.

This is the last time an address it if you wish to continue and I wish to respond to your post I will just delete anything you say about the crusades in any response moving forward this is to let you know I am done talking about it with you.

 

Why do you even ask this question when I never even made reference to this??? Of course Christians don't practice blood sacrifice. Are you even grasping what I've been saying all this time?

Well of course Jesus died before Christianity was formed! LOL (Are you pulling my leg or what?)

It's believed Christianity was formed some time during the 1st Century but the religion didn't become well organized until the 4th Century.

Christianity was formed by exploiting the death of Jesus as a martyr. If Jesus (assuming he existed) did not die the way he did (eg, if he died of old age), the very basis of Christianity would not exist. Ie, Jesus had to 'die for man's sins'.

Yeah, you're right. This discussion is over.