OP, seeing as how religion is so complex and each individual’s religious experiences and belief system is so varied and we can’t fully understand them, wouldn’t it just make more sense to judge people by their actions?

I don't think it would normally be held to be unreasonable for someone to argue that "the Jews should be exterminated" is an awful thing to say and so worshipping Hitler is an awful thing to do. — Isaac

This is without argument and a case envisioned by Lewis. The trickier part is that when someone says to you "I worship Hitler" and you do not know the context in which they came to worship Hitler. What do you make of their statement? In an obvious effort to be charitable to people he otherwise admires, Lewis says that you should tell the person the bad stuff about the person(god) that they admire and see how they react. If they still admire the person, you know that something is wrong. If they stop, you can get on with admiring them.

What I think the confusion is here is that the typical Christian knows about and agrees with the objectionable stuff in advance. Putting aside whether the objectionable thing is necessary for Christianity, do all Christians know it and agree? At least as to eternal damnation, Lewis thinks not and calls the conversation around it the "neglected argument."

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636471

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636480

To my mind, the above makes religious faith something like a symptom of trauma?
— fdrake

Spicy take indeed! That's both a horrifying and plausible thought. — Srap Tasmaner

I already explained that hell as a vehicle for divine justice emerged among Jews who were traumatized by defeat at the hands of Gentiles when their faith told them God should be protecting them. They didn't see the Gentiles punished in this world, so they arranged their punishment in the Hereafter.

The story of the Rich man and Lazarus shows that Christians adapted the idea for punishment of the wealthy.

Christianity was originally all about dealing with oppression.

OP, seeing as how religion is so complex and each individual’s religious experiences and belief system is so varied and we can’t fully understand them, wouldn’t it just make more sense to judge people by their actions? — laura ann

Well yes, but there's also a bigger picture - we could also take the view that religions unexamined and not held to account may readily lead to bad decision making and primitive reactionary social policy - look at countries where religions officially persecute minorities for god. A constant vigilance is necessary because barbarism lies just below the surface of us all, with religious ideas regularly acting like an aphrodisiac for deficient actions.

I don't see that there is much difference between this and theists disparaging Daniel Dennett, say, for his eliminativism, and making a range of pejorative observations about his idiocy and the negative impact of those and other physicalist beliefs on truth, human flourishing and spirituality.

it looks like Banno wants to treat ‘Christian’ as the moral equivalent of ‘racist’ or ‘Nazi’, something we don’t have to put up with, something we might, for instance, add to the Site Guidelines as grounds for summary banishment. — Srap Tasmaner

The last part of this was a rhetorical flourish I probably shouldn't have indulged. Sorry, gang.

I was thinking of this sort of thing from early in the thread:

My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. Given their avowed admiration for evil, ought we trust their ethical judgement? — Banno

We discuss ethical issues here. Is there any question about whether Christians and Muslims should be allowed to participate? It's hard to imagine, so I'm not sure what you meant there, @Banno. Can you clarify?

We've repeatedly discussed analogies between Christians and admirers of Hitler (starting with Fritz in Lewis's paper). I've promised @fdrake that I will get back to his analogy of admiring Mengele. Have I misunderstood the point being made here, or in calling Christians "advocates of evil"?

Presumably no one is calling for institutional sanctions against Christians, although the examples you gave recently were about job candidates. Can you clarify, @Banno, how you see someone who takes Lewis's argument to heart would put it into practice?

It's clear that there is a need for me to set out my view, which has been variously misrepresented.

The topic was raised in a podcast I listen to regularly. There was no ulterior motive involved. The topic crosses my obvious interest in ethics and natural theology.

As I said in the OP:

The interesting variation here is that the argument asks us not to consider the morality of such an evil god, but of those who consider him worthy of praise or worship. — Banno

Hence the title, which apparently a number of non-christians found offensive.

I reiterated this question in my next post:

...what attitude ought we rightly adopt to those who think an evil god admirable? — Banno

My contention is that someone who believes in never ending punishment for limited offences has demonstrated a lack of ethical judgement, and hence one might treat their other moral views with some caution.

I do not advocate the persecution of christians and their families unto the sixth generation.

That's the sort of thing I will leave to god.

Isn't the main topic (assent to) neverending damnation?
It has been, and is, upheld by some.
And the topic has moral implications (whether upheld by one or billions). — jorndoe

As I see it there are two distinctions to be made. First there are undoubtedly a certain number of people who believe that God will torture sinners for all eternity, who don't approve of that or take any pleasure in the thought of it, but are no doubt afraid, very afraid, of the Lord.

Then there are undoubtedly some others who both believe that God will torture sinners for all eternity, and who approve of that, even glory in it.

I think the first group warrant our pity, not our reprehension or scorn. The second group would seem to have lost something of the normal human moral compass. Should they be morally judged , though, if they are kind to others in this life? I would think not.

You say there are moral implications, but "implications" are only of import if they lead to actions, and only warrant reprehension if they lead to reprehensible actions.

That's helpful. Thanks.

Hence the title, which apparently a number of non-christians found offensive. — Banno

Speaking for myself, as a non-Christian participant in the discussion, I was not offended by the title.

That's helpful. Thanks. — Srap Tasmaner

:roll:

Allah the merciful
— Agent Smith

There is some ambiguity, though it seems eternal torment is the most common belief among Muslims. The Quran displays the usual contrast between (their versions of) heaven and hell.

Quran 4:13-14, 4:56-57 :fire: (graphic violence), 4:93, 4:122, 4:137, 4:168-169, 5:37, 5:72-73, 7:179, 18:105-106, 67:7 :fire:, ... — jorndoe

Eternal torment:

There's another thread in the forum on nonmathematical infinity.

I was only there for seconds. It felt like an eternity. — Brazil nightclub fire survivor (2013)

This fire survivor, let's call him X, experienced eternity but knew the time elapsed was only (a few) seconds.

Mirable dictu, hell is a place of fire which I suppose causes maximum pain. My belief is that when in (hell)fire, one experiences each insant/moment (infinity) rather than the length of time (seconds for X). Intense feelings (pain/pleasure) seem to have the power to reorient experience from lengths (finite time) to points (instants/moments of which there are an infinity).

If so, our (atheist friends) sojourn in hell is eternal only from a points perspective but finite in terms of actual timespan.

One thing which makes me believe that religious people ought not to be judged so harshly, or given some leeway, for what they believe (especially if it doesn't translate much into practice)... — fdrake

I think something important to distinguish here is 'judging' as in being judgemental (acting harshly, ostracism...), and being free to interrogate a belief (including even the morality of it). I realise it might sound like the cliché of an self-distancing academic, but I think there's a difference.

Perhaps it does not reduce culpability for acting on horrible beliefs, or even for believing in them, but pragmatically it makes it somewhat understandable. Ergo, forms less of a mark on their character because they have a good excuse. — fdrake

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but the danger is the unfair treatment of those no less traumatised, but whose trauma lead them to a different, less well-labelled moral failing. I don't think 'Christian' is a very useful label for this, we should be aware all the time that people which are unduly touchy about having their beliefs interrogated may well be using them as crutches for surviving trauma. This is, in the main, my reason for the distinction above.

I think when you hear the voice of God, or are guided somehow by the Holy Spirit, that you need not model this 'input' at all. It's God and you know it is. Anyhow, I want to say that, but the Deceiver is also known to whisper in people's ears... — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. Thus modelling is required. I've come across the odd 'God told me...' in my line of work (well, my daughter's in this case actually) very few, if any, show the level of certainty about the origin of the message you'd like to claim here. At the time there's enough conviction to act (we're talking about murder and attempted murder here - criminal insanity pleas), but on interview and occasionally in pre-act interactions, the doubt is written all over their face, their body language... Being spoken to directly by God is not nice. Maybe the occasional Guru, by the overwhelming majority are just tormented by the voice, by the doubt about it, as it clashes with what remains of their grasp of reality.

I just want a more neutral framework for having this discussion. I'm not comfortable beginning from a commitment to religion being bullshit. That's what I personally think, but I don't go around, ahem, pontificating about how believers ought to modify their bullshit religions. — Srap Tasmaner

I think that's fair, but to achieve it we need an historical understanding of religion, not a metaphysical one.

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the Lewis article is not the argument itself, but the reminder of how 'hidden' it is. Arguments about whether God exists are two a penny, the misdoings of the Christian Church are well known, but what's less often accepted is the simple fact that we accept (even venerate in our political leaders), adherence to a religion which is fundamentally flawed. God does some abominable things in the bible - no doubt about that.

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.” (Leviticus 21:9).

“But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)

“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die.” (Deuteronomy 22:25)

Yes they can be interpreted in some way as to make them less abominable, but that's not the point. The point is that in any other circumstance can you imagine uncovering this kind of writing in a book one of our political leaders had in their briefcase - there'd be outcry, scandal, the politician concerned would be sacked and disgraced, interpretation go hang. It simply would not be tolerated in any other guise than religion, but religion is actually admired as a characteristic in our leaders. Why? History. Christianity has been with us for decades, so we've learned to live with it, learned to wear it as a badge on our sleeve, not to actually follow its edicts, but just as a token that we're the morally serious.

But it's a dangerous thing to use as such a token, for that very reason. It makes it difficult to dismiss homophobes, misogynists and child abusers - they use arguments from the same book we're using as a badge of moral authority.

What I think the confusion is here is that the typical Christian knows about and agrees with the objectionable stuff in advance. Putting aside whether the objectionable thing is necessary for Christianity, do all Christians know it and agree? At least as to eternal damnation, Lewis thinks not and calls the conversation around it the "neglected argument." — Ennui Elucidator

Not wanting to repeat myself, but coming to respond to you here I note it's the same problem as I've just written about above. I think what is 'neglected' is the stepping-back from our historical acceptance of Christianity simply by familiarity. I think what Lewis wants us to do is put aside the historical familiarity and look at it with some more objectivity. Would we want our leaders associated with such a book? Would we be comfortable with their reassurances that they'd interpreted, the torture, misogyny, homophobia and abuse in such a way as to make it all admirable?

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the Lewis article is not the argument itself, but the reminder of how 'hidden' it is. Arguments about whether God exists are two a penny, the misdoings of the Christian Church are well known, but what's less often accepted is the simple fact that we accept (even venerate in our political leaders), adherence to a religion which is fundamentally flawed. God does some abominable things in the bible - no doubt about that. — Isaac

Step by step, this sounds plausible, but I think that’s only because it’s so selective.

“Hidden” from whom? Christian theologians have been arguing about the nature of hell for quite a while now. (I only made it through the first part of “The River of Fire”, a lecture from 1980 @baker recommended, and it’s eye-opening. I also found an orthodox blog that branded it heretical, but the author is talking about exactly this stuff as where Roman Catholic theology went wrong.) If there’s any substance to the “hidden” claim it’s that not many philosophers, or not many lately, have addressed the issue.

I think the main weakness is the connection between your last two sentences: Christianity is fundamentally flawed because of some things that are in the Bible. That’s hardly a new approach either. I read “Why I Am Not A Christian” as a young apostate, too. I know it’s their Holy Book and all, but if you tried this approach on someone of the caliber of, I don’t know, Niebuhr or Tillich or even C. S. Lewis, to say nothing of Kierkegaard or Aquinas, do you really think this would carry the day so easily? It has the flavor of the outsider coming in, without any real understanding of the tradition they’re jumping into, and telling Christians, “Here’s what you actually believe.” After all, it’s in the Bible, and they have to believe it! It’s the sort of thing you see when a physicist deigns to consider philosophy and finds it all in a muddle, which he can readily straighten out. (“Is this what you guys have been on about for a thousand years? Let me explain it to you ...”)

we need an historical understanding of religion, not a metaphysical one. — Isaac

All of which might just be me saying that you can’t have the latter without bothering with the former. There is a long and rich tradition of Christian thought I have close to zero interest in, except for some of the bits that have been picked out for me and labeled ‘philosophy’.

Back of my mind, this whole time, I’ve been thinking about Plato, because when I read Plato I feel completely alienated from the religious references — I don’t get it, I don’t get how it goes along with the nascent philosophy, I don’t know how to feel about it. We choose to just glide past them — some of us do, but some don’t and there’ve been some lengthy fights here lately about that gliding past — or treat them as picturesque or as an aspect of Plato’s historicity that’s not all that relevant, like what he usually ate for breakfast and that he lived in a world without bicycles.

But then we wander over to the church when we’re bored (or, lately, concerned about the politics that seems to be emanating thence) and point out all the weird shit in their holy book. And if the pastor says, we don’t spend a lot of time talking about hell here, we focus on helping our parishioners and our community, then we pronounce them not real Christians. It’s lazy (which is my complaint), but it’s probably some other unsavory things too.

I think something important to distinguish here is 'judging' as in being judgemental (acting harshly, ostracism...), and being free to interrogate a belief (including even the morality of it). I realise it might sound like the cliché of an self-distancing academic, but I think there's a difference. — Isaac

I agree with the distinction, I think the point made in the article in the OP (and argued by @Banno) is closer to judging Christians though. Namely because once their beliefs are interrogated, it is arguably a sensible decision to take their ethical intuitions and reasoning abilities with, at best, a large pinch of salt. Something is definitely found wanting in the believer due to their belief, here.

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but the danger is the unfair treatment of those no less traumatised, but whose trauma lead them to a different, less well-labelled moral failing. I don't think 'Christian' is a very useful label for this, we should be aware all the time that people which are unduly touchy about having their beliefs interrogated may well be using them as crutches for surviving trauma. This is, in the main, my reason for the distinction above. — Isaac

I don't understand this. What is the unfair treatment and the less well labelled moral failing?

Something is definitely found wanting in the believer due to their belief, here. — fdrake

this definiteness assumes that the believer can articulate the nuances of their own beliefs in a way that makes them coherent and understandable to the unbeliever. Even competent philosophers are incapable of articulating their beliefs so unambiguously.

Let me pronounce a thread heresy: everlasting =/= eternal.

If one supposes that the temporal world is created form 'outside', then one can reasonably imagine that it has a purpose. Humans are inclined to make themselves central to such a purpose, and being human myself, I don't have a major problem with that idea. So the Christian understanding is usually not one of reincarnation, but a one time chance to form a moral being through time. Death completes the process of moral formation, and the moral being is 'solidified' into a realm outside time and space, as an eternal being.

So if that is how things stand, it is necessarily the case without time, that whatever one has made of one's life for good or ill in this world is what one is stuck with - timelessly, eternally. Hell is being Hitler, or being unenlightened, with no more chance of reformation or redemption. It's not everlasting, because lasting is what time does, and there is no time. "It is what it is." "I am what I yam." "Before Abraham was, I Am."

this definiteness assumes that the believer can articulate the nuances of their own beliefs in a way that makes them coherent and understandable to the unbeliever. Even competent philosophers are incapable of articulating their beliefs so unambiguously. — unenlightened

I agree entirely here. It seems to me if you look at anyone's beliefs (closely enough), they're all smeared and ambiguous. Beliefs seem to me to be mostly conjured in their articulation, rather than an expression of a statement someone has held to be true for some time. Making the assumption that anyone can make anyone else understand something so personal might be implausible in itself.

I think this is especially true for those with faith - when someone says 'God is love', they've thereby rendered it very insensible to treat their beliefs like a system of statements with an underlying logic. Which isn't to say that their faith is incoherent or unintelligible, it's to say that it's more like a way of life than a logical structure.

Going down this avenue of thought, however, makes it difficult to distinguish the systems of belief of the believer and the non-believer, even though we have some (provisionally) fixed doctrines to pin to the former and the latter. In that regard, the doctrines which are commonly believed and which are criticised here perhaps don't fit into that deeply personal category above - some doctrines are mutually intelligible enough to be 'dogma' etc, and those are largely what's being considered.

I think it's true that the place that those items of dogma play in a believer's worldview can be incidental - and so stops the belief from being a mark on their character. But I don't think what would make them incidental is clear.

If sufficient ambiguity or consternation with a doctrine's proclamations is enough to make a faithful person's belief in those doctrines incidental in the above way, that makes a lot of sense, but it raises the issue of how you'd apply that selectively to the believer and not everyone.

That selective application is maybe what I was gesturing towards with the spicy 'faith is a marker of a transformed mind' take. Even then, though, that's talking about the presence of faith and not particular doctrinal commitments.

Let me pronounce a thread heresy: everlasting =/= eternal.

If one supposes that the temporal world is created form 'outside', then one can reasonably imagine that it has a purpose. Humans are inclined to make themselves central to such a purpose, and being human myself, I don't have a major problem with that idea. So the Christian understanding is usually not one of reincarnation, but a one time chance to form a moral being through time. Death completes the process of moral formation, and the moral being is 'solidified' into a realm outside time and space, as an eternal being.

So if that is how things stand, it is necessarily the case without time, that whatever one has made of one's life for good or ill in this world is what one is stuck with - timelessly, eternally. Hell is being Hitler, or being unenlightened, with no more chance of reformation or redemption. It's not everlasting, because lasting is what time does, and there is no time. "It is what it is." "I am what I yam." "Before Abraham was, I Am." — unenlightened

What relationship do you see this as having to the thread's argument that belief in Hell is a mark on their character or moral judgement? What application of a moral Black Spot does it block?

without time, that whatever one has made of one's life for good or ill in this world is what one is stuck with — unenlightened

And I'll put in another plug for my idea that you could think of each moment of your life as forever, since there's a sense in which it is. Since God is love, I can think of Christian faith this way: I am called, every moment of my life, to act with love.

Appreciate you chiming in.

when someone says 'God is love', they've thereby rendered it very insensible to treat their beliefs like a system of statements with an underlying logic. — fdrake

Which I thought was obvious but kept forgetting, and anyway it's hard to talk about anything without getting sucked into logical analysis. (No, it's not always the right thing to do.)

“Hidden” from whom? — Srap Tasmaner

Popular discourse. I mean, when our political leaders attend a mass, or the church presides over some national event, no-one mentions the issue. I don't doubt theologians discuss it, but that's kind of the point. There's an unresolved issue which could undermine the morality of the whole project (I assume it at least could otherwise the theologians wouldn't be tying themselves in knots over it). It just strikes me as odd that we treat, with such casual reverence, adherence to this religion which hasn't even quite sorted out yet how their main man isn't actually evil. As a mythology, it's very much 'come back when you've finished it'.

I know it’s their Holy Book and all, but if you tried this approach on someone of the caliber of, I don’t know, Niebuhr or Tillich or even C. S. Lewis, to say nothing of Kierkegaard or Aquinas, do you really think this would carry the day so easily? — Srap Tasmaner

Again, to be ultra clear, my argument is not that the words of the bible are damning and no counterargument could be constructed, it's that the words of the bible should not (given the esteem in which it's held) need to be carefully interpreted. You read the quotes right? It says that women who've had extra-marital sex should be stoned to death and children of non-believers put to the sword. I'm not interpreting it some convoluted way, that's quite literally what it says. Niebuhr, Tillich, C. S. Lewis, Kierkegaard and Aquinas can re-interpret post hoc all they like to justify their beliefs - and I'd be very supportive of that - at least it shows that they think there's something that needs re-interpreting when their book appears to say that girls should be stoned to death. But why the rest of us? Why the protected status, why the concern for Christians being morally judged? Their book's shit, I mean there can't really be any argument about that. It says that girls ought to be stoned to death for Christ's sake! That's a shit book.

In essence I'm not even judging Christians at this point, I'm judging us, as a secular society for holding such a religion in any esteem at all. If you're already steeped in it, then I can see you might prefer to , post hoc, re-interpret everything so that it's all fine. I don't have any problem with that. But the rest of us, with no good cause to undertake any of that 'interpretation'. A book which says girls ought to be stoned to death, and those for whom it's a moral guide, deserve little more than a disdainful harrumph. Surely you can see that - from a distance.

Religion aside, if I come to you with a book, say "hey Srap, this book's a great moral guide, the first instruction is to stone girls to death, but you have to 'interpret' that one, the rest is great..." I think you'd tell me where I could stick my book.

All of which might just be me saying that you can’t have the latter without bothering with the former. — Srap Tasmaner

You might well be right there, yes. I suppose a purely historical approach would leave some questions unanswered, but I think I'm trying to get at the fact that Christianity is where it is in our culture for historical reasons. People believe it's edicts for cultural reasons, it's not metaphysically compelling.

if the pastor says, we don’t spend a lot of time talking about hell here, we focus on helping our parishioners and our community, then we pronounce them not real Christians. It’s lazy (which is my complaint), but it’s probably some other unsavory things too. — Srap Tasmaner

Could be, but you'll have to join the dots a bit more for me. Why am I not allowed an opinion on whether they're Christian? I'm allowed an opinion on whether they're poor, or West Ham fans, or Journalists... If they say "we're all journalists, we write about the news quite a bit", and I say "I don't think you;re a proper journalist unless you're actually employed by a paper", that seems like a perfectly normal conversation. what are you seeing that's different with 'Christian'?

I think the point made in the article in the OP (and argued by Banno) is closer to judging Christians though. Namely because once their beliefs are interrogated, it is arguably a sensible decision to take their ethical intuitions and reasoning abilities with, at best, a large pinch of salt. Something is definitely found wanting in the believer due to their belief, here. — fdrake

It's tricky because the matter of what's moral is something we all have a legitimate stake in - and so becomes something I think it's fair to interrogate. But the consequence of concluding 'no it isn't' is judgemental in that first sense. I honestly don't see an easy way out, but if something seems immoral, my gut feeling is that our legitimate interest in that question, as a community, trumps any concerns about the consequences of the discussion. We have to have some way of being part of that discussion.

I don't understand this. What is the unfair treatment and the less well labelled moral failing? — fdrake

I'm only saying that trauma has myriad consequences, not all of which are so easily labelled as Christianity. If we say of Christians "we ought tread carefully, their belief may be something of a crutch" then we're treating them a care we're not extending to say, UFO enthusiasts, or Qanon cultists whose beliefs may also be crutches to cope with some past trauma.

Just idly reading through some threads I notice our own version of God has already ruled on this matter.

You need to learn to think for yourself and not outsource your moral choices to people you think are "great". — Baden

our own version of God — Isaac

Um, yeah, if you worship chocolate, I guess.

If we say of Christians "we ought tread carefully, their belief may be something of a crutch" then we're treating them a care we're not extending to say, UFO enthusiasts, or Qanon cultists whose beliefs may also be crutches to cope with some past trauma. — Isaac

Well, yeah -- but maybe we should. How much more obvious can you make it that you need help?

My favorite bit of wisdom about parenting:

Kids need your love most when they deserve it least. — Erma Bombeck

For what it's worth.

it's more like a way of life than a logical structure. — fdrake

Yes. The mentalist approach is upside-down. Banno's belief analysis is incomplete; "I believe in justice." does not mean that I believe justice is real, or prevails, or is even possible. It is a commitment. Action flows from the commitment, and belief summarises action rather than guides it.

What relationship do you see this as having to the thread's argument that belief in Hell is a mark on their character or moral judgement? What application of a moral Black Spot does it carry? — fdrake

Rather as one does not think of permanent tooth loss as a cruel and disproportionate divine punishment for not brushing one's teeth.

this religion which hasn't even quite sorted out yet how their main man isn't actually evil — Isaac

I mean, that's obviously not even close. The problem of hell is how to reconcile our ideas of it with the perfect goodness of God. Way out of my league here, but maybe one could imagine the jealous God of the Old Testament as a different sort of thing altogether, a god that can kick the ass of every other god, our guy, not necessarily the principle of goodness. (That local badass-god was long gone by the time the book was written, transmuted into something universal.)

Why the protected status, why the concern for Christians being morally judged? — Isaac

(( Sorry for the little replies. Writing as I can squeeze it in. ))

I haven't been trying to give Christians any more deference than I would anyone else whose beliefs are quite foreign to me: I ought to put some work in before shooting my mouth off. Thoreau tells us that anyone who has lived truly is from another country -- so maybe there's no harm in generalizing the attitude.

The mentalist approach is upside-down. — unenlightened

Yes yes yes yes yes.

People believe it's edicts for cultural reasons, it's not metaphysically compelling. — Isaac

I don't know. First part is incontestably true, but the incarnation is pretty interesting, a god emptying himself of his divinity that he might be sacrificed (to himself). Big deal for the Greeks too with Dionysus.

Way out of my league here, but maybe one could imagine the jealous God of the Old Testament as a different sort of thing altogether, a god that can kick the ass of every other god, our guy, not necessarily the principle of goodness — Srap Tasmaner

Jumping in midstream here, so if what I say misses the point, ignore me.

The OT God is considered by all contemporary traditions as monotheistic, so he can't be posited as just the strongest god, but must be accepted as the only god (this is the monolotry versus monotheism distinction). The consequences of this distinction are significant. Yahweh is a significant departure from Zeus and the many other gods within that tradition.

If you begin with the notion that the text of the OT isn't meant literally and that it is meant as a guide to ethical behavior and a meaningful life, I don't think you'll be burdened by any particular passage. That is, read it with a positive bias and metaphorically, and you won't run into the problem of a horrible god unjustly punishing the weak.

Jumping in midstream here, so if what I say misses the point, ignore me. — Hanover

No, no. That's good. I was practically begging for someone to correct me there. But I've sometimes wondered how to read the first commandment if not as a holdover from an older tradition.

If you begin with the notion that the text of the OT isn't meant literally and that it is meant as a guide to ethical behavior and a meaningful life, I don't think you'll be burdened by any particular passage. — Hanover

Sound. And is this the way it's commonly read and thought about, in your experience?

It's tricky because the matter of what's moral is something we all have a legitimate stake in - and so becomes something I think it's fair to interrogate. But the consequence of concluding 'no it isn't' is judgemental in that first sense. I honestly don't see an easy way out, but if something seems immoral, my gut feeling is that our legitimate interest in that question, as a community, trumps any concerns about the consequences of the discussion. We have to have some way of being part of that discussion. — Isaac

Yes. The mentalist approach is upside-down. Banno's belief analysis is incomplete; "I believe in justice." does not mean that I believe justice is real, or prevails, or is even possible. It is a commitment. Action flows from the commitment, and belief summarises action rather than guides it. — unenlightened

Also at @Srap Tasmaner - it seems there's some broad agreement regarding a Christian's faith, even when it doesn't behave like a system of statements linked by logic, can be summarised by beliefs. If we imagine that ascribing a belief to someone, including yourself, is ascribing a summary of that person's actions and commitments, what actions and commitments would be ascribed to a Christian by them:
( 1 ) agreeing with the statement "Sinners ought to burn in Hell forever"
( 2 ) worshipping a God under the aspect of a doctrine committed to ( 1 )
?

It seems, further, that such an ascription can misfire. If a person's commitments and actions are not summarised by the belief, then perhaps the ascription can be inaccurate. IE, someone can claim to believe whatever they like, but that claim is only accurate when it summarises their actions.

That seems to present similar issues to before; if someone who claims to believe in a God under the aspect of a doctrine, but doesn't share in its commitments. By that metric, they wouldn't believe in the doctrine, they would only claim to.

However, if the analysis was reframed to someone who really did believe that sinners ought to burn in hell forever, what would their conduct look like for that belief? Does it need to look like anything more than repeating the doctrines?

The OT God is considered by all contemporary traditions as monotheistic... — Hanover

There's a prominent line of scholarship that differentiates between Yahweh and Elohim (El), making sense of the inconsistencies in the OT by describing it as the combining of books about two different gods. El was the nice guy, Yahweh was a bit of a Bastard. El presided over a council of gods, so monotheism was out. The books were later edited to make it appear monotheistic, post hoc.

Here's where Yahweh explains his name-change...

And God said to Moses, “I am Yahweh—‘the LORD.’ I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai—‘God Almighty’—but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them.

Exodus 6:2-3

I'm told El was a Canaanite god, Yahweh was Midianite.