Should God Punish Evil People?

I heard Denis Prager, radio talk show host/political and socila commentator, say today that God should punish evil people. In fact, he said, he would not be religious if he felt God didn't punish evil people.


From time immemorial, God has been punishing evil people, who are defined as people who don't believe in the correct God. Ben Laden refers to us as "infidels." We are therefore evil and must be punished. All of the European countries who invaded the "New World" justified their policies as being willed by God. From Columbus on, they believed that the enslavement, exploitation, and extirpation of the naked infidels gave them strength and new vitality and was desired by God. John Underhill, addressing criticism of the burning of Pequot men, women and children in 1637 (well before Foxwoods) said that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents. We had sufficient light from teh Word of God for our proceedings."


Shouldn't we be beyond this by now?

Andy,


You wrote: "From time immemorial, God has been punishing evil people, who are defined as people who don't believe in the correct God."


As a long time listener I know Dennis Prager would not define evil people in this way. To him the God or religion you believe in (or chose not to believe in) is a matter of faith. He admits he can't prove the existence of God but he would assert that the existence of God cannot be disproved either. He would assert the world is made a better place when most people believe in a monotheistic God and try to live by the similar moral code that the major religions share. He would acknowledge that much evil has been done in the name of God, but even more good has been done due to faith in God and by practicing religion.


I'm not sure about what Dennis said today about evil people but my guess is that he believes they will be punished in the afterlife. However, I've heard Dennis talk a lot about the more common "bad people" (a.k.a., assholes). It is a matter of faith that bad and to a greater degree evil people are punished in the afterlife in some way. But I don't want to get into discussions of faith.


I strongly agree with Dennis that whether you are good or bad has little bearing on how likely you are to have good health, good fortune, or make your flush draws (in other words, the fact that bad things happen to good people and visa versa does not prove or disprove the existence of God). However, "bad people" suffer on earth in that they rarely have meaningful and deep friendships.*


Regards,


Rick


* Obviously some good people may lack friends due to shyness. The world isn’t supposed to be perfectly fair.

I think the whole idea of God meting out punishment is not something that would befit God (if God exists). This is one reason I have trouble seeing on the same level as those who speak of a vengeful God.


If I had a wish for what God would do about evil people, it would be to help them change internally so that they would no longer be motivated to do such evil things.


Some people speak of a just God, but the very concept of justice is itself a human creation.


In answer to your question, yes, we should be beyond such things by now; but we aren't. As a species our psychological and spritual development has lagged far behind our intellectual development and our achievement of technical expertise.


It is sad and ironic that those like the misguided Osama bin-Laden are the true "infidels", in that they act in a manner contrary to the true spirit of their own and other religions, and contrary to the true spirit of God (if God exists). Yet by following their specific dogmas and constructed thought-chains, they believe they are doing the right thing in a spiritual sense.


Delusion: it is in part an integral element of the human condition, since we have imperfect knowledge. It is also one of the greatest causes of suffering in the world.

Mark,


You wrote: "If I had a wish for what God would do about evil people, it would be to help them change internally so that they would no longer be motivated to do such evil things."


If God helped people change internally then it seems to me people wouldn't have free will. Isn't free will one of the keys that makes us human?


Regards,


Rick

What makes you think that dolphins and ferrets do not have free will? ...or that humans do?

"they act in a manner contrary to the true spirit of their own and other religions, and contrary to the true spirit of God (if God exists)."


How are we to know the true nature of God (if He exists)? It seems we cannot observe Him directly. We can only draw inferences from the evidence that is available to us. One source of evidence is religious texts, which indicate that God has vengeful and judgmental aspects of his nature. Among those who discount the validity of religious texts and instead look to the evidence of their own existence in His world, many may come to similar conclusions.

I didn't say that I hoped that God would change them internally; rather, that God would HELP them change internally. There is a big difference there--perhaps I should have made it more clear in my post.


When a person visits a psychologist to discuss problems and seek an answer or change, the psychologist, through offering insight, may be helping the person to effect internal changes. Similarly, a caring teacher counseling a troubled child may be helping the child gain insight, which can have a profound effect. Sometimes merely listening to someone can help that person clarify what is troubling him and thus make it easier for the person to reach an understanding and resolve.


So while I am unsure if God exists, I would see God more in this sort of role than in the role of a judge and punishment-giver.

Because desire for vengeance, hatred and the like are all baser human emotions. A Supreme Being would be far more advanced than we are and thus would be above such things. A perfect being would have no use whatsoever for such useless and harmful emotions as anger.


Generally speaking, more spiritually advanced a person is, the more likely they are to extend forgiveness rather than take revenge (this being a different issue than the issue of self-defense).


The notion that a perfect being, a supreme being, could be subject to childish fits of rage strikes me as quite illogical. Ascribing such human weaknesses and foibles to God strikes me as just another form of projection of one's own qualities.

I also have no doubt Prager does not define bad people in this way. He seems very knowledgable about religions other than his own and very respectful.


But others who believe God should punish evil people do think this way. This is what I find dangerous about the idea that God should punish evil people.


I do not believe Prager was referring to the afterlife. Prager believes, for example, in the death penalty as a just punishment for evil. He believes evil people should be punished in this life.


Of course criminals should be punished. It's the idea of people deciding what God's intentions are that is frightening to me. This is, after all, Bin Laden's message.

Two things:


1. Osama Bin Laden went after the US because of the fact that they still hold bases in Saudi Arabia and exert considerable outside influence on the Middle East. If he just wanted to blow up some "infidels", he could take out some party islands like Ibiza or Mykonos. That the US is not Islamic is only part of the story, not the whole story, as some of the pundits you see on TV would have you believe.


2. I don't think it is fair to criticize religion, or spiritual beliefs because you have delusional fools like Bin Laden running around. Who gives anyone the right to do God's work of punishing those who are evil? I've never read any passage in the Bible that tells you to kill people in the name of God. Delusional fools rally around this because it's impossible to dispute it. If people claim they are doing "God's work", how is a mortal going to convince them not to do it? Most religions teach people to be humble. Where is the humility in killing innocents and destroying lives?

Many times the motives may be different (economic, political, power-hunger) but the justification is religious, or the religious factor is more than mere justification but is secondary. Many have claimed that Bible passages justify their behavior. The genocide of Native Americans was always justified by the Europeans' "God-given" right to the hemisphere.


Bin Laden may be a "delusional fool", but I am questioning whether or not Prager is as well. He is a very religious person, and does not believe in the concept of infidels, but said he would cease to be religious if God did not punish evil people. Things might not be so bad if Prager was deciding who is evil or not, but I don't think Bin Laden would be the person I would want deciding. And this is the point: a person claiming to be deciding such things by authority of God is a frightening thing to me.


"I've never read any passage in the bible that tells you to kill people in the name of God." I'm by no means a bible expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God kill all the first born of the Egyptian people in punishment for their treatment for the Jews? He passed over the Jews, which is why Passover is celebrated. Was Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt for the crime of looking back when God told her not to? Are there not plenty of examples in the bible of innocents being killed for disobeying God?

Andy,


I think Prager believes that we should punish evil but he hopes evil people will also be punished in the afterlife. Regarding the death penalty man is punishing man. Whether God approves or not is unclear to me; however, Prager would argue that the dealth penalty is approved in scripture.


Regards,


Rick

Michael,


That humans have free will is self-evident to me. Ferrets and dogs and animals primarily depend on instinct. Animals do not have the human qualities of conscience. For example, I'm sure Hitler's dog loved him (in the manner dogs are loyal in a loving way) and and any trained dog would have - but only Eva Braun and perhaps a few others chose to love Hitler in the human sense. And only humans are aware of their mortality.


Regards,


Rick

. . . is to worship like crazy. A simple assumptions/outcomes matrix will tell us that you can't lose!

In other words, I assume you're saying, if there is no God, or a God who doesn't care whether or not you worship him, you've lost nothing. But if there is a God judging us on whether or not you worship him, you've bought some insurance.


So far, so good. The problem comes in where people who worship him expect others to do the same. This has often been the case in history and led to many horrors. So since the cases of worshippers accompanying their worshipping with loathing for those who don't worship are numerous, perhaps the simple cost-benefit analysis in my first paragraph is not so simple.

But you could waste time, and God might judge you a fool.

It is the blind faith in scripture as being the literal word of God that I find quite disturbing. I don't know what Prager believes and I never heard of him until these posts. If he has blind faith in scripure as containing the literal word and intent of God, then I suggest he is probably way off base on some other things as well.


If he is arguing about scripture for the sake of debate or discussion, that is one thing. If on the other hand he believes that scripture taken literally is completely correct, then we have a serious problem with regards to the critical thinking skills of this person, or at the very least his religious inclination is overwhelming his rational analysis. Not even to mention that even if one believed that the scriptures were originally completely correct and conveyed the exact intent of God, that one would also have to be convinced that they were not at all altered through the ages or through translations. It is very easy for translations into other languages to subtly shift meaning, and slight changes in nuance or interpretation can have profound effects when discussing major ideas.


Those who decline to think for themselves look for answers to be given to them. Blind faith in scriptures is precisely this.

M,


I'd rather not try to speak for Prager after this post since what you wrote above is not representative of Prager's thinking. My brief reference to scripture in the post above yours I perhaps used the wrong term. Prager would argue that there is no commandment saying that "thou shall not kill"; rather it is "thou shall not murder".


For more on Prager you can find his site on google and reviews of his books on amazon).


Regards,


Rick

Pascal's Wager.

Paraphrased as, "I will bet away part of my life in devout prayer even though I'm an atheist. If my atheism is the universal truth, then I'll have lost nothing save the time given to prayer. If my atheism is incorrect, then perhaps those prayers will benefit me afterall."

Thanks Rick,


I knew it might not be representative of Prager's thinking and therefore attempted to qualify my remarks with this in mind.


The point of my post was not Prager's thinking; rather it was the thinking of anyone who has blind faith in the veracity of scripture taken literally.

Andy


I see the point you are trying to make. However, it stands to reason that the justification is immaterial. Bin Laden wants the US to pack up its bases in Saudi Arabia and quit meddling in Middle East affairs. Whether he thinks this is justifiable because we are heathens and infidels is NOT the main point of his beef with the US. He has NOT issued a fatwah against all non Muslims. He has been very specific in denouncing the United States. Bin Laden doesn't waste resources attacking Sweden. He wants the US OUT of the Middle East. It just happens to be all-too-convenient that the US is a non-Muslim dominated country.


As for your point on the Bible, I don't proclaim to be a Bible expert either. My knowledge of the Old Testament is especially lacking. However, even in the instances you bring up God to vengeance on HIS own. What I am saying is that (at least in the New Testament) there are no instructions to go out and KILL those who don't believe what you believe. In fact, Christianity is supposed to be based on the life and words of Jesus Christ. I can't think of anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus said to go blow away another tribe just because they weren't Israelites. In fact, there are quite a few cases in which Jesus would offer comfort and assistance to non-Israelites (I don't have the exact passages in front of me, but I can look them up if necessary.) If "Christians" are supposed to live their life according to the life and word of Jesus Christ, I don't think they can truly find any justifications for their slaughter of the Native Americans or any other atrocities committed in the name of God.

You make an appealing argument based on value judgments which I share. OTOH, vengeful feelings may be more justifiable in an omniscient being whose perceptions of good and evil are infallible (unlike us). It is also possible that God takes actions which seem vengeful from our perspective, but are not motivated by anger.


Mike

Rick,


Your generalizations about our animal friends are highly suspect.


"animals primarily depend on instinct. "


A wide variety of animals have been shown to rely heavily on experiential learning for survival.


"Animals do not have the human qualities of conscience."


How do you know? Many careful observers of higher mammals would disagree.


"only humans are aware of their mortality."


This assertion seems more likely, but can we be sure? Elephants, primates, and other animals exhibit behaviors suggestive of grieving upon the loss of a group/family member. In any event, I do not think such knowledge is required for free will to exist.


"That humans have free will is self-evident to me."


Like most other animals in natural settings, humans interact with their environment in a manner which appears like they are exercising free will and self-determination. However, research has demonstrated that situational factors are far more predictive of human behavior than individual factors/characteristics. Nevertheless, internal individual characteristics do matter; we are more than simple stimulus-response machines. This allows for the possibility of free will. OTOH, those individual characteristics may only be the deterministic outcome of biochemical and electrical processes occuring in our bodies (and their interaction with the physical environment).


DV,


Mike

A lot of people seem to forget that if this world were perfect, then there would be no incentive to do good. . . there are "Flaws" in this world for a reason. A random thought, brought to you by


Worm