The factor of fear

[elliotfc]

Let me set this up first...

Let's say I'm following one of you persons around for the day. I see you in the kitchen, near the oven, and you reach for an oven mitten before you pull the biscuits. I say you are motivated by fear, the fear of getting a hand burn.

You are late to work, I'm in the back seat, you refuse to drive 20 mph over the limit, and I say you are motivated by fear, the fear of being pulled over.

You get to work, your boss yells at you for being late, you want to say something back regarding her physical appearance but abstain. I say you are motivated by fear in your reticence, the fear of being fired.

You go to lunch and drop off some payments into the mailbox, I say you are motivated by fear, the fear of having your water and heat turned off.

That's the set up.

Now, following this train of thought, I think it quite reasonable to say that people are religious or Christian because of the fear of eternal damnation. Because fear motivates *everything* we do. Why, when we took exams in high school, did we strive to get the answers right? Because we were afraid of getting them wrong. Why the condom? Fear of pregnancy and disease. Why do we see the doctor for annual visits? Fear of disease. Why do we provide proof to back up assertions in daily commonplace? Fear of being regarded by others as being foolish.

So, the fact that Christians are motivated by fear is necessary, because everyone is motivated by fear. The statement that Christians are motivated by fear is thus unremarkable.



Here's the question then. Is it helpful to classify human behavior and belief on the fear factor, or, is it simply reasonable to consider the consequences of choices and behaviors?

Another question. Is Christianity somehow different from all other choices and beliefs and modes of thought...other choices and beliefs and modes of thought being immune to fear, even if analogies and connections were to be made suggesting that the imprimatur of fear could be universal?

Another. How important is it to you all to declare, dogmatically, that Christians are motivated by fear?

Final question. How does this fear factor handle the first command of the resurrected Christ, "be not afraid"? Should the Christian follow that command, the command of their triumphant Lord for whom their religion is named, or, should they acquiesce and accept the fear label as bestowed on them by non-Christians?

-Elliot

[clarsct]

Let me set this up first...

Let's say I'm following one of you persons around for the day. I see you in the kitchen, near the oven, and you reach for an oven mitten before you pull the biscuits. I say you are motivated by fear, the fear of getting a hand burn.

You are late to work, I'm in the back seat, you refuse to drive 20 mph over the limit, and I say you are motivated by fear, the fear of being pulled over.

You get to work, your boss yells at you for being late, you want to say something back regarding her physical appearance but abstain. I say you are motivated by fear in your reticence, the fear of being fired.

You go to lunch and drop off some payments into the mailbox, I say you are motivated by fear, the fear of having your water and heat turned off.

That's the set up.

Now, following this train of thought, I think it quite reasonable to say that people are religious or Christian because of the fear of eternal damnation. Because fear motivates *everything* we do. Why, when we took exams in high school, did we strive to get the answers right? Because we were afraid of getting them wrong. Why the condom? Fear of pregnancy and disease. Why do we see the doctor for annual visits? Fear of disease. Why do we provide proof to back up assertions in daily commonplace? Fear of being regarded by others as being foolish.

So, the fact that Christians are motivated by fear is necessary, because everyone is motivated by fear. The statement that Christians are motivated by fear is thus unremarkable.



Here's the question then. Is it helpful to classify human behavior and belief on the fear factor, or, is it simply reasonable to consider the consequences of choices and behaviors?

Another question. Is Christianity somehow different from all other choices and beliefs and modes of thought...other choices and beliefs and modes of thought being immune to fear, even if analogies and connections were to be made suggesting that the imprimatur of fear could be universal?

Another. How important is it to you all to declare, dogmatically, that Christians are motivated by fear?

Final question. How does this fear factor handle the first command of the resurrected Christ, "be not afraid"? Should the Christian follow that command, the command of their triumphant Lord for whom their religion is named, or, should they acquiesce and accept the fear label as bestowed on them by non-Christians?

-Elliot

Then I feel sorry for you.

If a man goes to a whore does he have the fear of a hard on? Nyah.

You put on an oven mitt because you don't want to get burned. This isn't fear, but simple cause and effect. You do not have to fear a deadly snake to respect it.

I usually drive 20MPH over on the way to work. I guess I'm not scared...

My boss? Well, he may write me up, but he usually doesn't yell. I'm not scared of a write up, I've had em before.

Other things motivate people. I take pleasure in doing well and pride in myself and my work. Heat, running water, electricity? We could make do without them, but I >LIKE< them. There's no fear involved. I am paying for a service.

You're neglecting a plethora of human motivations. Love, lust, hate, envy, anger, joy....

You center on fear, my good Christian. It seems in exculsion to all others.

THIS I find remarkable. THIS I comment on, because it seems so ...prevalent....


I love my wife. I try to do right by her. Not because I fear her leaving me or any such nonsense, but because my life is enhanced by her presence.

I hate people who scam others with supernatural claims. I am not here because I fear that woo-dom will overtake the Earth. I am here because I HATE!

I take joy in doing things well, like destroying this argument. I do so not because I fear ...well...I'm not really sure what would be feared here...but there is no fear involved. Just the simple joy of discourse.

You can twist everything into fear if you wish, but you're putting on blinders intentionally if you do, and not arguing in an honest fashion. I will not be a party to such a thing, if that is your intent. I do not fear that such a thing will occur, but neither will I condone it.


IF fear is all you feel, then I pity you.

[Dogdoctor]

I am not afraid of putting my hand in the oven. I have the knowledge that my hand may be burnt if I do and so I avoid it. Making a choice based on knowledge is not the same as fear. Given a reason to risk my hand being burnt I might stick it in the oven and grab the muffins or whatever without a mitten and knowingly receive a burn. Lacking a reason I don't. I am late to work but have little fear of getting a ticket, however I am concerned for the safety of others and so I don't drive 20 mph over the speed limit (speed kills). I get to work and I don't call the boss names because I realize that it is illogical and pointless to do so. However I agree that fear as a motivator is big for many people.

[Humphreys]

Elliot, apart from the fact none of your examples are examples of fear at all, fear should be rationally justified.

If you stop leaving your house for fear of getting eaten by your next door neighbour's budgie, you're a bit of a plonker, aren't you?

[aargh57]

If you stop leaving your house for fear of getting eaten by your next door neighbour's budgie, you're a bit of a plonker, aren't you?


budgie?

plonker?

If I knew how to post a puzzled icon I'd have put that in here too.

[Humphreys]

budgie?

plonker?

If I knew how to post a puzzled icon I'd have put that in here too.

These are budgies: http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=budgie&hl=en

This is a plonker: http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=uri+geller&hl=en

[roger]

IF fear is all you feel, then I pity you.That's the point of his post. That we recognize that since we aren't motivated solely by fear in all these examples, and thus, perhaps we should also recognize that Christians aren't motivated by fear in everything they do. I.e. he's employing a rhetorical device.

I think it's a bit of a strawman, as I'm not aware of non-religious characterizing religious people in such a simplistic way.

Eliot, for what it's worth, I was Christian when I was young. And yes, fear did play a big factor. No, it was hadly my own motivation, I also drew a lot of inspiration from Jesus, for example. But there was a very large element of fear - fear of eternal damnation, fear of being watched and judged, fear of sinning against very vague and contradictory rules, etc. Heck, I was just chatting with a Christian the other day who said she entered into 18 months of celibacy because of guilt and fear of sinning. It is not, to my mind, a healthy mindset or approach to life.

Also, I have known Christians where I have not perceived those feelings of fear. Certainly one can embrace Christianity in a largely positive way.

So, your argument is a strawman. One can be fearful, yet not dominated by fear. And one can draw comparisons. More fear in situation A compared to situation B. And in general, I've seen a lot of fear motivation in Christianity and other religions. Fear, as in genuine angst about one's past and current decisions and behaviors. I put an oven mitt on to protect my hand. I don't lie awake at night tossing and turning, worried about making dinner tomorrow night because the mitt might not be thick enough and I'll burn my hand. But I have seen Christians do that (and I've done it myself) with respect to their religion and life choices. And I've seen them not do it, too.

[aargh57]

Thanks for the definitions, Humphreys. Now I can add plonker to my arsenal.

[Tricky]

I think people are being a bit hard on Elliot. Sure the things he describes are not fear in the sense of terror, but a simple kind of fear meaning "not wishing to face the potential negative outcome of the action," which can even include "hoping for the potential positive outcome of the action". Lumping all these varied responses into the category of "fear" is a bit of oversimplification, but I can understand what he means, and I think most of you can too.

The whole point of the post was to point out that when non-Christians say that Christians are "motivated by fear", then they are, in the same way, lumping all kinds of responses into a single category, and in that, he has a point. Many Christians don't really focus on the fire-and-brimstone versions of the outcome of non-Christianity, so to call those Christians "motivated by fear" is a gross oversimplification.

There is no doubt though that some Christians try to use fear as a tool for trying to sway the unconverted, even if they themselves don't use it as a personal motivation. The quickest way to defuse the argument of one of these proselytizers is to turn the question around and say, "Is it fear of eternal punishment that motivates you?" Almost without exception, they will say "no" that it is "love". "A loving god would never send anyone to hell", you may reply at that point, and the would-be-converter is either caught in the difficult concept of a "tough love" God whose punishments are eternal, or in the contradiction of why he isn't motivated by fear but you should be.

For the record, though, I have never seen Elliot use this type of argument, so the above scenario does not apply to him. Let us not paint all Christians with one broad brush.

[elliotfc]

You put on an oven mitt because you don't want to get burned. This isn't fear, but simple cause and effect. You do not have to fear a deadly snake to respect it.

Agreed. I personally don't believe that fear is the motivation either.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I am not afraid of putting my hand in the oven. I have the knowledge that my hand may be burnt if I do and so I avoid it. Making a choice based on knowledge is not the same as fear. Given a reason to risk my hand being burnt I might stick it in the oven and grab the muffins or whatever without a mitten and knowingly receive a burn. Lacking a reason I don't. I am late to work but have little fear of getting a ticket, however I am concerned for the safety of others and so I don't drive 20 mph over the speed limit (speed kills). I get to work and I don't call the boss names because I realize that it is illogical and pointless to do so. However I agree that fear as a motivator is big for many people.

Agreed.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Elliot, apart from the fact none of your examples are examples of fear at all, fear should be rationally justified.

Agreed.

-Elliot

[Humphreys]

Elliot, I somewhat agree with the point you're trying to get across. If you're told by an atheist that your belief is motivated by fear, you should respond with a shrug of the shoulders.

So what, right?

The real argument is whether that fear is justified, and that's a completely separate discussion.

I say no. I'd be far more afraid of throwing my one and only life away following nonsense.

[elliotfc]

That's the point of his post. That we recognize that since we aren't motivated solely by fear in all these examples, and thus, perhaps we should also recognize that Christians aren't motivated by fear in everything they do. I.e. he's employing a rhetorical device.

I think it's a bit of a strawman, as I'm not aware of non-religious characterizing religious people in such a simplistic way.

I'd guess I've seen hundreds of references to religious people being motivated by fear on this forum, maybe around 500?

Eliot, for what it's worth, I was Christian when I was young. And yes, fear did play a big factor. No, it was hadly my own motivation, I also drew a lot of inspiration from Jesus, for example. But there was a very large element of fear - fear of eternal damnation, fear of being watched and judged, fear of sinning against very vague and contradictory rules, etc.

This explains why many non-believers would nominate fear as the motive force behind religious belief.

Heck, I was just chatting with a Christian the other day who said she entered into 18 months of celibacy because of guilt and fear of sinning. It is not, to my mind, a healthy mindset or approach to life.

Just 18 months? Heh heh.

Regarding healthy, she doesn't have to worry about STDs or unwed pregnancy. I believe that IF you choose celibacy, it is psychologically healthier to embrace celibacy, temporary or permanent, as a liberating gift.

I agree that it is better to choose something for its benefits, as opposed to choosing something as a way of avoidance. As for guilt, I think it gets a bum rap. No, of course you ought not fixate on guilt, but it can be a useful tool in making a person better. It's healthy to be aware that our actions can hurt other people, and that our sin offends God.

Also, I have known Christians where I have not perceived those feelings of fear. Certainly one can embrace Christianity in a largely positive way.

I think that, by and large, this has to be true. Religions that, in my opinion, are entirely fixated by fear, do not take hold, or, must adapt. Jonathan Edwards was voted out of his position of pastor by a 20-2 margin. There can be phases, whether in the indidual's life, or, chronological phases, where a motivation of fear takes hold with religion, but it is temporary in its intensity. If it's always in the background, I maintain that is hardly surprising. We all feel fear, we all have momentary flashes or "irrational" fear, we all measure and reflect on the consequences of activities.

So, your argument is a strawman. One can be fearful, yet not dominated by fear.

Agreed. I did make a strawman argument.

And one can draw comparisons. More fear in situation A compared to situation B. And in general, I've seen a lot of fear motivation in Christianity and other religions.

So have I.

Fear, as in genuine angst about one's past and current decisions and behaviors. I put an oven mitt on to protect my hand. I don't lie awake at night tossing and turning, worried about making dinner tomorrow night because the mitt might not be thick enough and I'll burn my hand. But I have seen Christians do that (and I've done it myself) with respect to their religion and life choices. And I've seen them not do it, too.

Well, there really are things in life that are so significant that you will lie awake at night. They could be family matters, job concerns, relationship issues, guilt about personal behavior.

-Elliot

[roger]

Regarding healthy, she doesn't have to worry about STDs or unwed pregnancyI see my point in that matter was not clear. I meant the fear was not a healthy mind set. Certainly celibacy can be a physically healthy choice compared to unprotected sex. Celibacy is not the issue - living in fear was the issue, and celibacy just happened to be the vehicle. In any case, this particular person seemed torn by guilt, etc. She didn't seem liberated.

[elliotfc]

Elliot, I somewhat agree with the point you're trying to get across. If you're told by an atheist that your belief is motivated by fear, you should respond with a shrug of the shoulders.

So what, right?

Sort of. At some level.

I think once you've got something decided, and place a motivator on it, it is extremely hard to see it any other way. Meaning, I don't think it's *healthy* for someone to declare what is the prime motivation behind a belief system. I think it says more about the person doing the judging, or, how such a person would operate under the belief system. When someone declares that Christianity is essentially about fear, I've learned something about the person who says that, and nothing about Christianity. I feel at times that's worth pursuing. Can't hurt to try to get someone to be more charitable in their estimations.

Do I take it personally? Not really.

The real argument is whether that fear is justified, and that's a completely separate discussion.

I say no. I'd be far more afraid of throwing my one and only life away following nonsense.

I agree that if something doesn't make *some level* of sense to you, you shouldn't follow it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I see my point in that matter was not clear. I meant the fear was not a healthy mind set. Certainly celibacy can be a physically healthy choice compared to unprotected sex. Celibacy is not the issue - living in fear was the issue, and celibacy just happened to be the vehicle. In any case, this particular person seemed torn by guilt, etc. She didn't seem liberated.
I see my point in that matter was not clear. I meant the fear was not a healthy mind set. Certainly celibacy can be a physically healthy choice compared to unprotected sex. Celibacy is not the issue - living in fear was the issue, and celibacy just happened to be the vehicle. In any case, this particular person seemed torn by guilt, etc. She didn't seem liberated.

Right, but you could see her as liberated if you look at her at a different angle. She is liberated from your way of thinking, right?

This is an important semantic point. Anyone can be declared to be trapped by a way of thinking. That goes for me, or for you. What does she WANT to be liberated from? Guilt? Fear? A relationship? Ask her if she wants to be free from guilt. If she says yes, I'm sure you can give her some great advice on that. If she is most concerned with being free from sex, she is doing quite well in that department apparently.

Is your way of thinking generally healthier for an individual? Maybe, and maybe not. I've known people who can get in and out of relationships and not feel anything about that, including how that affected the people with whom they were entangled with.

-Elliot

[Freethinker]

Elliot, the whole heaven and hell concept is based on fear. Fear of going to hell. If you tell kids "If you behave all week, you can stay up late on Friday night and we'll have ice cream.", there's no fear involved. But if you tell them "If you don't behave this week, I'm going to whip your butt Friday night and send you to bed early." then you've incorporated fear into the picture. It's still there if you say "If you behave all week, you can stay up late on Friday night and eat ice cream, but if you don't, I'm going to whip your butt and send you to bed early.".

Why have hell at all? If the good Christians would follow the rules for a reward, there would be no problem. God puts the fear into it by saying "If you follow my rules and do what I say, you can live forever with me in a great place, but if you don't, you are going to burn in hell forever.".

[roger]

Right, but you could see her as liberated if you look at her at a different angle. She is liberated from your way of thinking, right?No, she was unhappy and torn about it. Playing word games with 'liberated' doesn't change that.


I have a feeling you'll spin this no matter what, and I don't feel comfortable speaking for the mindset of somebody I don't know well anyway. So why not focus on something I said about myself? I stated I felt significant fear while I believed. This was not a positive thing for me. I'm so glad that is behind me, and I wish I hadn't suffered through it. It's sick, the images those radio and tv preachers implanted into my brain.

[elliotfc]

Lumping all these varied responses into the category of "fear" is a bit of oversimplification, but I can understand what he means, and I think most of you can too.

I think that anyone can wave the fear stick. Someone can beg to differ, and the person waving the stick can be obstinate. In this way:


"You're afraid of getting your hand burned you coward!"

"No, I'm not. I just don't want to have my hand burned."

"Why not? What's so bad about having your hand burned?"

"Well I'd rather not deal with the pain, or the inconvenience, plus I can't afford to be without the use of my hand for any great amount of time."

"Rather not deal with the pain? Exactly, you're just afraid. Suck it up and deal with the pain."

"Listen, I've burned myself before. I'm not afraid of it, I just know how my body reacts to some stimuli, and I'd rather avoid that stimuli."

"So you ADMIT that you're motivated by internal reasons. Now grow up and call that FEAR!"

"But it's not fear. It's rational."

"Who says fear is irrational?"

"Well...it is, by definition. Fear doesn't make sense."

"Bah! It makes perfect sense to me! It's right in front of my eyes!"

"No, it isn't. Let's say I thought that a piece of paper was covered with poison, even though it isn't. Now that's fear."

"Damn straight!"

"But don't you see the difference?"

"Yeah, in both cases you don't want to do something."

"No, they are essentially different. In one case, the outcome is factually correct, and in the second case, the outcome is factually incorrect."

"This isn't about outcomes! Fear is not an outcome! Fear is a feeling!"

"No it isn't. I've touched hot things before and gotten burned. That's a known quantity."

"Who's saying it isn't? I'm not talking about the result! I'm talking about the internal feeling which decides your actions!"

"Right. If the internal feeling is based on reality, then it's not fear."

"Says who? Not this DICTIONARY reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fear"

"Fine. It doesn't say irrational. It does say agitation and anxiety and apprehension. I feel none of those things."

"Then why don't you grab the tray out of the oven?"

"Because I don't want to get burned."

"Why? Does the thought of being burned give you anxiety?"


Wow that was fun! If any of you disagree, then you're just afraid of admitting that it was fun.

There is no doubt though that some Christians try to use fear as a tool for trying to sway the unconverted, even if they themselves don't use it as a personal motivation.

Agreed.

The quickest way to defuse the argument of one of these proselytizers is to turn the question around and say, "Is it fear of eternal punishment that motivates you?" Almost without exception, they will say "no" that it is "love".

Maybe. He'd probably differentiate between kinds of fears in this way:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/fear.html

In short, the fear the believer will admit to has nothing to do with the fear of being subject to eternal punishment. That theologians have already considered different kinds of fear proves that even Christians find such a motivation to be unworthy.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No, she was unhappy and torn about it. Playing word games with 'liberated' doesn't change that.

About being celibate? Or, the reasons behind being celibate. This isn't word games. There's nothing inherently wrong with celibacy.

So why not focus on something I said about myself? I stated I felt significant fear while I believed. This was not a positive thing for me. I'm so glad that is behind me, and I wish I hadn't suffered through it. It's sick, the images those radio and tv preachers implanted into my brain.

Right, and one result of this is that you are no longer a believer. If you were a believer who didn't feel significant fear, you may very well still be a believer.

-Elliot

[roger]

About being celibate? Or, the reasons behind being celibate. This isn't word games. There's nothing inherently wrong with celibacy.



Right, and one result of this is that you are no longer a believer. If you were a believer who didn't feel significant fear, you may very well still be a believer.

-Elliot

False. This is pointless. You are just making things up, first about her, than me. If you speculate baselessly, you can "prove" anything.

Here's an idea on how to find out the truth in a situation. Instead of asserting something about somebody, ask. For example, you might have written "Roger, why are you no longer a believer? Was it because of the fear?"

[elliotfc]

Elliot, the whole heaven and hell concept is based on fear. Fear of going to hell.

I disagree. Lucifer wasn't afraid of hell, nor was he afraid of God.

Separation from God is something real. Should we fear that? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Does everyone fear that? No. Do some people fear it? Yes. If it exists, it is independent of fear.

If you are implying that it does not exist, and the reason it exists is that people needed to construct something to satisfy their fear, I would suggest that the angels who actually knew God would not have rebelled. They did. That had nothing to do with fear.

If you tell kids "If you behave all week, you can stay up late on Friday night and we'll have ice cream.", there's no fear involved. But if you tell them "If you don't behave this week, I'm going to whip your butt Friday night and send you to bed early." then you've incorporated fear into the picture.

No, not necessarily. The kids don't HAVE to be afraid of that. Will 99% of kids be afraid of that? Sure. The older the kids get, that percentage will decrease. What you've incorporated into the picture is a statement of consequence. You can't force a person to have a particular feeling about that. You can hope that they feel fear. The younger a person is, the more likely it is that they will. If an 8 year old gives you a blank stare when you say that, fear has *not* been incorporated into the picture.

On a personal level, I can't say I enjoyed corporal punishment. Did the threat (and proven result of receiving it) make me afraid? I don't know, I really can't remember. Certainly I did get spankings though, so obviously I couldn't have been that afraid, or, my fear was just a passing fancy.

It's still there if you say "If you behave all week, you can stay up late on Friday night and eat ice cream, but if you don't, I'm going to whip your butt and send you to bed early.".

Two consequences are there. A human reaction/response to the reality of two consequences are NOT there. If the human is a child, it is fairly certain that they will feel something, like the fear of whipping. How strong is that fear? I don't know, how many kids get whipped every day for not following orders?

Why have hell at all?

We're arguing from two different locations. You say that hell exists to fulfill a human need. I say it exists because it exists. If it exists because God allows his created to reject him, then it appears that God respects free will. So that's my answer. Hell exists because God respects free will. If you want me to answer it from the point of view of it not existing, I say it exists because in our human reality, there are "good" and "bad" consequences all around us. Why not for the afterlife? It doesn't necessarily have to do with fear. In fact, I don't think it does have to do with fear. You get sick. You get better, or you don't and die. Two different outcomes. Your son goes to war. He comes back alive, or he comes back dead. Lots of bipolarity, moreso in earlier times.

If the good Christians would follow the rules for a reward, there would be no problem. God puts the fear into it by saying "If you follow my rules and do what I say, you can live forever with me in a great place, but if you don't, you are going to burn in hell forever.".

The resurrected Christ, the triumph of the Christian religion, said no such thing. As parents give "threats" to their children, did God give threats to the infant Jewish people? Sure, why not? Do you still work within the threats of your parents? A Christian thinks likewise (or ought to). We recognize the word of God in the centuries before God, or, we recognize how the Hebrews articulared it. What does that have to do with the triumph of the Cross?




Freethinker, if you think this is based on fear, I think that means that you have more of an issue regarding fear than I do. Or, it tells how you would react to all of this.




-Elliot

[elliotfc]

False. This is pointless. You are just making things up, first about her, than me. If you speculate baselessly, you can "prove" anything.

Here's an idea on how to find out the truth in a situation. Instead of asserting something about somebody, ask. For example, you might have written "Roger, why are you no longer a believer? Was it because of the fear?"

So then the fear wasn't relevant to why you are no longer a Christian? You tell me. If not, I think that supports the inverse notion, fear isn't relevant to why people are Christian, even if it's there.

-Elliot

[Trantor]

ellietfc, I've found many of your post threads interesting. But I'm wondering if you use this site to sharpen your debating skills against the non-believers?

Since all of your beliefs start with the Bible as God's word, can you prove that it is God's word and not an instrument of Man?

The Muslims believe that their book is also the word of God. So many choices, it's tough knowing who has the true word of God.

I'll just stick to science.

[BlackCat]

Since all of your beliefs start with the Bible as God's word, can you prove that it is God's word and not an instrument of Man?
Yes, I too, would like an answer to this question. (Since it was ignored when I asked.) Please don't use circular reasoning, i.e.: The Bible has numerous passages that say it is the Word of God, therefore, it is the Word of God.

BlackCat

[roger]

So then the fear wasn't relevant to why you are no longer a Christian? You tell me. If not, I think that supports the inverse notion, fear isn't relevant to why people are Christian, even if it's there.

-ElliotNo, it was not relevant, thank you for asking. :D Synopsis, I am part Native American, I started researching NA religions, asked myself "which should I believe", several years later and a lot of thought and pointed reading, I was atheist. Fear definitely impeded that process, however. I pretty much decided that I didn't believe it, but then was extremely fearful about being wrong, and that I would go to hell for denying God, etc. So I ended up staying somewhat religious due to that fear, which contradicts your last sentence in that paragraph.

There's a lot of fear engendered in certain sects of Christianity. You can't argue that away.

[drkitten]

I disagree. Lucifer wasn't afraid of hell, nor was he afraid of God.

Yeah, there are also a lot of things he wasn't -- possibly including real.


Separation from God is something real. Should we fear that? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Does everyone fear that? No. Do some people fear it? Yes. If it exists, it is independent of fear.

If you are implying that it does not exist, and the reason it exists is that people needed to construct something to satisfy their fear, I would suggest that the angels who actually knew God would not have rebelled. They did.

I'm afraid I don't find this argument at all convincing, primarily because it presumes too much about the accuracy of Christian doctrine (not even of the Bible, but of extra-biblical tradition).

I mean, if I pointed out that the corrupting effects of the One Ring can be proven by Boromir and his father Denethor's behavior.... you would respond with the fact that The Lord of the Rings is fiction and that none of those people really existed.

Or, to parody your line of reasoning even further:


Being kidnapped by aliens is something real. Should we fear that? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Does everyone fear that? No. Do some people fear it? Yes. If it exists, it is independent of fear.

If you are implying that it does not exist, and the reason it exists is that people needed to construct something to satisfy their fear, I would suggest that the crew of the Enterprise who actually have been kidnapped by aliens would not have let that happen. They did.

The problem is that the fear of God -- or for that matter, the fear of separation from God -- cannot be proven to have a basis in reality, any more than someone's fear that space aliens will kidnap them or that elves are actually watching them through their television set.

And the problem is that hell -- specifically the fear of HELLFIRE in all its many colors and fonts -- is often used as an argumentum ad baculum to scare people into belief. Aside from this, there is no actual evidence presented that it exists at all -- and ample evidence that it does not. Just as an example, where is it, again? Dante believed, with the full backing of the Catholic Church, that it was at the center of the earth. You still see some of the nutcase fundamentalists trying to tell stories about how miners deep underground all hear the wailings of the damned and suddenly repent-and-believe. But we've got a pretty good idea of what's underground, and it simply ain't there.

[Freethinker]

What the heck does Lucifer or angels or the Tooth Fairy have to do with what I posted. If you hadn't had the quotes, I wouldn't have been sure you were replying to me. You diverge so far from what I posted that it doesn't appear to be a response. You apparently are trying to redefine fear so it fits your assumptions. You can't argue about what angels or Lucifer feared or didn't fear until you offer some shred of evidence that they exist(ed).

If something is true 99% of the time, then you can just assume it is true. You basically "Yeah that's true, but only 99% of the time.".

I also never said hell exists. Hell is just as imaginary as heaven. The shysters who created religions invented the concept of hell because the promised rewards weren't delivering enough suckers to follow them.

Whatever your imaginary friend said is irrelevant. As Christianity is practiced today, you are given two choices: Follow the rules and live forever in heaven, or burn in agony forever. It's not heaven forever or you are worm food.


I disagree. Lucifer wasn't afraid of hell, nor was he afraid of God.

Separation from God is something real. Should we fear that? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Does everyone fear that? No. Do some people fear it? Yes. If it exists, it is independent of fear.

If you are implying that it does not exist, and the reason it exists is that people needed to construct something to satisfy their fear, I would suggest that the angels who actually knew God would not have rebelled. They did. That had nothing to do with fear.



No, not necessarily. The kids don't HAVE to be afraid of that. Will 99% of kids be afraid of that? Sure. The older the kids get, that percentage will decrease. What you've incorporated into the picture is a statement of consequence. You can't force a person to have a particular feeling about that. You can hope that they feel fear. The younger a person is, the more likely it is that they will. If an 8 year old gives you a blank stare when you say that, fear has *not* been incorporated into the picture.

On a personal level, I can't say I enjoyed corporal punishment. Did the threat (and proven result of receiving it) make me afraid? I don't know, I really can't remember. Certainly I did get spankings though, so obviously I couldn't have been that afraid, or, my fear was just a passing fancy.



Two consequences are there. A human reaction/response to the reality of two consequences are NOT there. If the human is a child, it is fairly certain that they will feel something, like the fear of whipping. How strong is that fear? I don't know, how many kids get whipped every day for not following orders?



We're arguing from two different locations. You say that hell exists to fulfill a human need. I say it exists because it exists. If it exists because God allows his created to reject him, then it appears that God respects free will. So that's my answer. Hell exists because God respects free will. If you want me to answer it from the point of view of it not existing, I say it exists because in our human reality, there are "good" and "bad" consequences all around us. Why not for the afterlife? It doesn't necessarily have to do with fear. In fact, I don't think it does have to do with fear. You get sick. You get better, or you don't and die. Two different outcomes. Your son goes to war. He comes back alive, or he comes back dead. Lots of bipolarity, moreso in earlier times.



The resurrected Christ, the triumph of the Christian religion, said no such thing. As parents give "threats" to their children, did God give threats to the infant Jewish people? Sure, why not? Do you still work within the threats of your parents? A Christian thinks likewise (or ought to). We recognize the word of God in the centuries before God, or, we recognize how the Hebrews articulared it. What does that have to do with the triumph of the Cross?


Freethinker, if you think this is based on fear, I think that means that you have more of an issue regarding fear than I do. Or, it tells how you would react to all of this.




-Elliot