(November 24, 2017 at 8:00 am)Brian37 Wrote:Hell? Hitchens was talking about heaven!(November 23, 2017 at 12:02 am)chimp3 Wrote: One of his greatest lines! "At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea!"
Yep, that is what really kills the bad logic of claiming hell exists. If one is going to call torture immoral, considering Un won't live forever, and can only torture you until you die, but God can torture you for eternity, that makes the God character a monster.
Now I really don't want our theist members crying foul or claiming bigotry in response to this. Yes, I know pointing this out is offensive to them sure. But that is not because I hate human rights, but merely bad logic. If it is not ok for humans to torture each other, then why would one desire a super natural being with such a power to do that for eternity?
The logic behind why the meme of afterlife punishment, was NOT an invention of the God/s of the three religions of Abraham. Punishment/reward motifs existed long before all three of them.
And life in antiquity worldwide was based upon loyalty to your local ruling families, and the rivalries between the ruling families were very brutal.
Even the play Antigone depicts her being punished for lending aid to her brother who fought for a rival, her crime? Helping bury him after he died.
The point is life was very tribal back then and very violently competitive, and the concepts of reward for protecting the ruler, and revenge to any threats, is where the memes of punishment reward come from.
My rational mind will not allow me to buy the logic of someone who'd torture me, not even let me die, but torture me forever. In the west or modern morality is that after we detain someone, WE DON'T torture them, and even with those on death row, we don't physically torture them, much less forever.
Nobody would find it moral, if they had a job they hated, and suddenly told the boss to fuck off, if that boss followed you out, dragged you back in, and beat the fuck out of you and wouldn't let you leave. Nobody finds it moral if a spouse threatens to beat or kill the other for wanting divorce. AND NO I am not singling out Jews/Christians/Muslims.
The Ancient Terracotta warriors of China were under the rule of a dictator king whom was obsessed with blind loyalty and immortality in the afterlife. The point is that WORLDWIDE, the idea of authoritarian rule, was not unique to the monotheism of Abraham, but the human mistake of success in rule being coming from divine right, be it by a god/gods/ or the spirit of one's ancestors.
There is no polite way to describe the Character of Abraham. It is a dictator with absolute final say, even if your only crime is not following. But again, that was written like that BACK THEN for the people who lived under LOCAL kings, BACK THEN, and a king is a DICTATOR. We call Kim Jong Un a dictator, but he is a king because he is the head of the ruling family, just like the ancient king of China was the head of the Terracotta Warriors. The absolute ruler of the state.
The desire to be protected is evolutionary, just like our parents protect us as we are raised. When our species is threatened we seek protection, and we react to threats to our families, communities, nations. And just like if you try to fuck with a lioness's cubs, or a gator's eggs, the concept of hell is a comic book version of that base instinct of protection, revenge.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!