Can a religion that includes the threat of "Hell" be moral ?

Question

Is there any morality or ethics in a ruler who sends people to Hell for anything but the most horrific crimes?

Isn't that like holding a gun to a person's head and saying, "Do what I command and I'll let you live, don't do it and I will blow your brains out - but you have freewill and you can do whatever you want and I'll feel really bad about having to shot you."

What do you think?

Answer 1

No, I don't think this is moral, for a couple of reasons.

1. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
2. The responsibility is placed on the weakest player with the least power and knowledge, not the one with most.
3. Fear does not heal the pain and problems that cause most misbehavior.

We must remember that what applies to one must apply to all. Therefore anyone who expects to be accepted and loved in the afterlife has to concede that others who they disagree with on particulars of the Great Unknown can have it too. I think this is what is really meant by 'Judge not, lest ye be judged".

Answer 2

I am Christian and I do not believe in the judgment, Heaven, and Hell as conceived in much of Christian scripture and theology. However, I will say that traditional Christian theology deals with this effectively.

First, by saynig that God is above human morality and not subject to it. Don't question why or God might zap you - see his ranting in Job. But notice that people who claim God is love don't seem to think many people are going to Hell after all - coincidence? If he is love then he at least contains morality, in which case he can't smiteth at will.

Second, Hell exists not because of God but because of Satan, therefore he didn't invent the possibility of going to Hell. Hell is now a fact of the universe and what we think and do determines our destination. (Of course, an omniscient God would have known this and therefore his choice to create it all anyway effectively makes him responsible, but talking like that could get you zapped again....)

Answer 3

You make it sound as though some form of morality without any consequences attached to it is possible.
There is another side to the weighted coin you just flipped. Remove the weight and try again. When you see the other side of the coin I guarantee you will put the weight back on the coin in a different location.

Answer 4

I'm Muslim.Disobeying Muslims will go hell for crimes(sins)they didn't repent for.The punishment must be proportional to the crime or sin.What punishment you wait if you killed a human or rapped someone?or didn't pray to God who made you from nothing?

Answer 5

It totaly destroys the myth that Christianity is all about "free will". I don't want someone telling me I'm going to roast on Satan's BBQ forever unless I submit. That's a threat.

Answer 6

Given that western morals and ethics are based on christianity and christianity includes the threat of hell, I would say "yes".

Answer 7

The natural, logical consequence of rejecting God is to be separated from God. That place of separation is hell. Heaven is a place for people who desire to be with God.

It is not like holding a gun to a person's head..., it is like saying, "if you leave me, you will be without me".

Gates are controlled by those inside the gates. The gates of hell are barred from the inside.

Answer 8

Fortunately people within the religion can be moral.

(And technically, no "group" can be moral or immoral. Only the people in it. This is like asking if football team can be moral...)

Answer 9

I never thought the threat of punishment could inspire true morality.

Answer 10

by the way, we cannot do what God wants on our own- the choice we have to accept Christ for the payment of sins- that is what keeps us out of hell, where we all deserve to be. God gave His Son to pay the price that we could never pay- if he was as horrible as you say, we would have no choice- What do I think? I praise God for the sacrifice Jesus paid- I made that choice-