An ethical question about religion

[xzc]

Doesn't a belief system that implies someone who believes otherwise will experience eternal and extreme suffering morally obligate a serious attempt to assimilate the other to one's way of seeing things? If eternal hellfire is at stake, then is anything one could do in their short period of time on earth, short of compromising one's own chances at eternal bliss, out of the question for the purpose of assimilation?

[Flannel Jesus]

From what I understand, Crusaders back in the day used to force Muslims to recant Islam and convert to Christianity at the point of the sword, and immediately after they converted, they were killed. The Crusaders thought they were doing them a favor, sending them to heaven.

[James S Saint]

From what I understand, Crusaders back in the day used to force Muslims to recant Islam and convert to Christianity at the point of the sword, and immediately after they converted, they were killed. The Crusaders thought they were doing them a favor, sending them to heaven.

Yes accepting Judaism or Judeo-humanism is accepting absolute hopelessness for anyone who isn't a Jew.

Was that your point?

[Flannel Jesus]

Doesn't a belief system that implies someone who believes otherwise will experience eternal and extreme suffering morally obligate a serious attempt to assimilate the other to one's way of seeing things?

I think my post was pretty clearly a direct response to the OP. If you really need me to explain the connection, I suppose I could, but I think you can figure it out.

[xzc]

From what I understand, Crusaders back in the day used to force Muslims to recant Islam and convert to Christianity at the point of the sword, and immediately after they converted, they were killed. The Crusaders thought they were doing them a favor, sending them to heaven.

At the risk of getting distracted with this train of thought I'll ask whether there's anything flawed with this logic. If your system of beliefs implies that people who hold other systems of beliefs will go to hell, then I should think you have a moral obligation to try to convert the other.


The point of this thread is to put forth these two points:
1. There is a moral obligation that comes with any such aformentioned system of beliefs.
2. No means are out of bounds when what is at stake is an eternity of pleasure or suffering.

What follows from this is that anyone who holds these beliefs is immoral insofar as they're not doing what they can to save their fellow men.


Thought experiment:
You sincerely believe that if your brother continues on with his plans to vacation in Mexico, he will be kidnapped and tortured for many years. You tell your brother your concern, but he doesn't believe you. You know if you stall him even for a day he will avoid the kidnapping and torture, so you lock him up in your room for a day. Is what you did morally permissible? Is it obligatory? In other words, is failure to have done it morally impermissible?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't understand what problem you're seeing with what I said. It fits very well into both of your points. They coerce them to convert, and then they kill them, thereby sending them to heaven.

Fits well with the moral obligation to convert so as to get as many people into heaven as possible.
Obviously fits well with the "any means necessary" part.

So what's the problem?

[felix dakat]

What follows from this is that anyone who holds these beliefs is immoral insofar as they're not doing what they can to save their fellow men.

It doesn't necessarily follow. There may be people doing everything they reasonably can. How do you know?

[xzc]

I don't understand what problem you're seeing with what I said. It fits very well into both of your points. They coerce them to convert, and then they kill them, thereby sending them to heaven.

I want a general argument, and you brought up a historical specific example. It's easy to focus on that and lose track of the argument.

It doesn't necessarily follow. There may be people doing everything they reasonably can. How do you know?

I'm not making an empirical point.

[Flannel Jesus]

I want a general argument, and you brought up a historical specific example. It's easy to focus on that and lose track of the argument.

Oh I see, couldn't gather that from what you said before.

[felix dakat]

I'm not making an empirical point.

You're not making an analytic point either. It doesn't follow from your premises that people who believe there is a hell are not doing their utmost to save people from it.

[xzc]

I'm not making an empirical point.

You're not making an analytic point either. It doesn't follow from your premises that people who believe there is a hell are not doing their utmost to save people from it.

...what part of what I've said makes you think I'm saying people who believe there is a hell are as a matter of fact not doing their utmost to save people from it?

[felix dakat]

I'm not making an empirical point.

You're not making an analytic point either. It doesn't follow from your premises that people who believe there is a hell are not doing their utmost to save people from it.

...what part of what I've said makes you think I'm saying people who believe there is a hell are as a matter of fact not doing their utmost to save people from it?

OK so you are simply saying that it is immoral for them not to do everything reasonably within their power to save. I agree with that point.

[xzc]

What's unreasonable when eternal hellfire is at stake?

[phyllo]

What's unreasonable when eternal hellfire is at stake?

That depends on the probability of hellfire. If hell was 100% certain then extreme action would be justified. However, it is far from certain.
This ties in with your thought experiment:

You sincerely believe that if your brother continues on with his plans to vacation in Mexico, he will be kidnapped and tortured for many years. You tell your brother your concern, but he doesn't believe you. You know if you stall him even for a day he will avoid the kidnapping and torture, so you lock him up in your room for a day. Is what you did morally permissible? Is it obligatory? In other words, is failure to have done it morally impermissible?

If it was very likely that your brother would be kidnapped, then restraining him would be justified. In reality it is not at all likely, so locking him up will get you charged by the police and examined by a psychiatrist.

[felix dakat]

What's unreasonable when eternal hellfire is at stake?

Methods that didn't work like coercion were typically recognized as unreasonable by evangelicals who believed in eternal damnation when I attended their churches.

[Moreno]

Doesn't a belief system that implies someone who believes otherwise will experience eternal and extreme suffering morally obligate a serious attempt to assimilate the other to one's way of seeing things? If eternal hellfire is at stake, then is anything one could do in their short period of time on earth, short of compromising one's own chances at eternal bliss, out of the question for the purpose of assimilation?

Put in those terms, sure. It would be similar to seeing someone in a burning house who does not acknowledge they are in a burning house. or walking towards an open manhole while reading the newspaper. I am pretty sure many Christians do see the situation like this and this justifies what others often find to be intrusive, dominance type behavior. I suppose if I believed that this was the case, certainly anyone I even slightly cared about would end up barraged by, well, unpleasant conversation gambits on my part. I don't think, however, even if I believed this was the situation, I could at the same time love and honor such a God. I would be very confused by much of the rest of the religion. And terrified, probably all the time.

[xzc]

That depends on the probability of hellfire. If hell was 100% certain then extreme action would be justified. However, it is far from certain.

Probability has nothing to do with it. I'm asking what a set of beliefs in which the belief that someone who does not hold this set of beliefs will go to hell is therein contained, regardless of the justification, implies. I don't care about whether the beliefs are true, just what moral weight they carry.

[xzc]

What's unreasonable when eternal hellfire is at stake?

Methods that didn't work like coercion were typically recognized as unreasonable by evangelicals who believed in eternal damnation when I attended their churches.

So the criterion that determines rationality is pragmatic. If a tactic works, i.e., if it gets people to start believing, then it's fine.

[felix dakat]

What's unreasonable when eternal hellfire is at stake?

Methods that didn't work like coercion were typically recognized as unreasonable by evangelicals who believed in eternal damnation when I attended their churches.

So the criterion that determines rationality is pragmatic. If a tactic works, i.e., if it gets people to start believing, then it's fine.

Well coercion was also considered wrong as well. In many ways, conversion was viewed in terms of conventional ethical standards. But, that you couldn't bully or torture or trick someone into authentic belief seemed to be generally understood. On the other hand, I witnessed a few instances of preachers using trickery. I kind of assumed that they did it for show i.e. to impress the audience, not because they believed it really converted a person. I considered such tactics both unethical and ineffective.

[felix dakat]

Occasionally preachers would use fear tactics in their preaching --you know-- so called fire and brimstone preaching. I didn't like that. But, it seems that if that is what one earnestly believes then it is an ethical thing to do. One variation on the theme was "if you died tonight, where would you go?" Those sermons could produce tearful confessions of faith even in Baptist congregations where presumably everyone had already been saved before at least once.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Occasionally preachers would use fear tactics in their preaching --you know-- so called fire and brimstone preaching. I didn't like that. But, it seems that if that is what one earnestly believes then it is an ethical thing to do. One variation on the theme was "if you died tonight, where would you go?" Those sermons could produce tearful confessions of faith even in Baptist congregations where presumably everyone had already been saved before at least once.

"The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."
~ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards

[Moreno]

What's unreasonable when eternal hellfire is at stake?

Methods that didn't work like coercion were typically recognized as unreasonable by evangelicals who believed in eternal damnation when I attended their churches.

So the criterion that determines rationality is pragmatic. If a tactic works, i.e., if it gets people to start believing, then it's fine.

It would be hard not to take a pragmatic view, if those are the stakes. We handle things like that in society. Guy on a ledge. Police come, will say anything to get him off the ledge, prevent his choice with some kind of net on the ground, will even assault him to get him off the ledge if this can be done with some minimum of safety for the rescuers and him.

I mean, I dislike proselytizing and the beliefs fundamentalists have around hell. But once you accept Hell, I can see where it leads to justifying all sorts of interpersonal rudeness.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

I mean, I dislike proselytizing and the beliefs fundamentalists have around hell. But once you accept Hell, I can see where it leads to justifying all sorts of interpersonal rudeness.

My complaint about proselytizing is the missionaries.

Why? Because what they actually do, and are doing, is, exporting western culture. Apparently Jesus is a supporter of western culture. He's a western dude now. Just like Satan left Rock and Roll for Rap, Jesus left mid-eastern culture for modern day western culture.

To the missionaries salvation is Jesus AND western culture.

It's the *Takers* in Daniel Quinn's "The Story of B," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B

And a prime example of these kinds of missionaries can be found in this incredible book : "Savages" by Joe Kane http://www.amazon.com/Savages-Joe-Kane/dp/0679740198

[phyllo]

Probability has nothing to do with it. I'm asking what a set of beliefs in which the belief that someone who does not hold this set of beliefs will go to hell is therein contained, regardless of the justification, implies. I don't care about whether the beliefs are true, just what moral weight they carry.

They only carry moral weight if a lot of people can be convinced that the beliefs are true - the perceived probability of truthfulness. If everyone in the world is 100% convinced that wiping your butt with your right hand sends you to hell then there will be special features to prevent that in toilets. Right arm amputation will be a religious ritual.
If a small group of people believes it, then they will be discouraged from acting on these beliefs by the majority. There will be laws against making certain statements and acts.
If one person believes it, then he is classified as mentally ill. And possibly restrained to prevent him from hurting himself and others.

The truth of the belief has nothing to do with it - only how many people believe and the certainty of the belief.

The fact is that no believer is certain that any unbeliever is going to hell. He is also not certain that any specific action by an unbeliever leads to hell. And he is not certain that any action used to save the unbeliever will not backfire and cause his own damnation. The contradictory Biblical messages of God's wrath and God's mercy create a balanced doubt.