Are All Warnings Threats?

Ie. In the subway station before one walks off the platform and walks along the tracks, like a worker -

A sign points to the third rail in bright red letters -

Warning - High Voltage

For the system necessarily only operates if high voltage electricity runs through the third rail. But it is enough to kill anyone who touches it without rubber boots or special rubber gloves. Maybe some other words in the warning indicate that to touch the rail likely will result in death.

Should someone complain to the civil engineers.

" I do not appreciate you putting up that sign to threaten me. It appears that your threat is designed to coerce me into behavior you unfairly want. I should have the freedom to do whatever I please. "

Are all warnings to be taken as threats?

@sonship saidAre all warnings to be taken as threats?

Nope.

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

@sonship said
Are all warnings to be taken as threats?

Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".

@bigdoggproblem said
Nope.

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

Like that dog face.

@fmf said
Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".

Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.

@secondson said
Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.

Only if one believes the threat is credible and real.

@fmf said
Only if one believes the threat is credible and real.

The one may not believe the threat is real, but if the threat is real that one would not be safe.

@secondson said
The one may not believe the threat is real, but if the threat is real that one would not be safe.

Sounds like the ridiculous basis for the torturer god ideology.

@fmf said
Sounds like the ridiculous basis for the torturer god ideology.

But God has warned, and it's not a threat.

@secondson said
But God has warned, and it's not a threat.

I said this: Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".

You said this: Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.

Make your mind up.

@secondson said
Like that dog face.

Sure. Along with a guttural growl or two, most everyone understands the threat without the need for words!

@fmf said
I said this: Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".

You said this: Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.

Make your mind up.

Secondjosephw seems incaple of deciding if Jesus burns non-Christians alive for eternity or not.

@sonship said
Are all warnings to be taken as threats?

Jesus will burn you alive for eternity if you don’t believe in him.... is a warning and a threat; it is not credible, it is not real, but it is nefarious nevertheless.

@BigDoggProblem

Nope.

I agree. All warnings of impending harm are not threats.

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

God's warning of eternal punishment seems to me not to be given early in the Bible. The early warning in Genesis 3 is that man would surely die if he partook of a forbidden fruit called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

There was warning that it was THERE.
There was warning that it should not be partaken of.
There was warning that the result of disobeying and eating would be harm - in the form of death.

For this early instance I doon' think this underlying warning was a threat. But surely we can see the whole matter of Adam dying was bad, even something of a torment in some ways. Everything negative, gone wrong, gone corrupt, become spoiled, and rotting set in gradually until Adam returned to dust.

Here is God giving indication of the harm's existence and His warning to avoid the harm.

1.) The Harm's Existence -

"And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food., as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:9)

2.) The Harm and Penalty of Disobedience

" And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17)

This is probably the first divine warning from God to man.
I don't think it constitutes an evil threat.

I will go on in another post about another kind of warning approaching God's eternally punishing.

@sonship said
God's warning of eternal punishment seems to me not to be given early in the Bible.

It's a threat of violent never-ending torture that you yourself have described as wrathful and vengeful.

If it fails to turn non-believers into believers, due to there being no proof that the threat actually exists, what is the moral purpose of it in the case of non-believers?

And if it failed to turn non-believers into believers before they die, what is the moral purpose of carrying out such perverse and violent never-ending torture in secret - in a way that means it has no deterrent or coercive effect?

You are propagating a logical and moral mess about a threat the existence of which you cannot establish because you have not one scintilla of actual evidence.