From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 8:29 AM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Best argument for justness of hell?

"India" <spamtrap@rationalchristianity.net> wrote on her web site:

> > What people care about is not the total amount of suffering 
> > experienced in the past, which of course will sum toward 
> > infinity for any immortal being that can ever experience 
> > the slightest and most infrequent suffering. 
> > What people care about is a) the amount of new suffering 
> > per marginal period of time, and b) how many of those 
> > periods they are sentenced to endure. 
> 
> What we're concerned with is the amount of suffering 
> someone experiences in hell

That's true but vague, and doesn't contradict my point.

> on day N in hell, a person is not still experiencing the 
> suffering from days 1 to N-1, only the suffering of the 
> present day. True, they have nothing to look forward to 
> except more suffering, which itself adds some finite 
> amount to their current suffering

This argument is even weaker than the argument that the total
suffering of even happy immortals is infinite.  It doesn't
matter that the amount of new suffering per marginal period
of time is finite. As I said, what matters is that there is
no end to these periods that can be characterized as
suffering.

> > A basic principle of justice is that where there is no 
> > injury or risk of injury, there are no grounds for 
> > punishment. Humans can only suffer finite injury. 
> > If God cannot suffer any injury whatsoever, then there 
> > are no grounds for infinite punishment
>
> [..] it's not necessary that a sin directly injure God for it 
> to be wrong. [..]

I didn't say it was necessary.

> may not be able to say we're injuring God, but we're injuring 
> ourselves with any sin

And we can only suffer finite injury.

> Any sin boils down to an act of rebellion against God. [..]
> they're less likely to follow God's standard in future and 
> therefore more likely to do wrong

This is not an argument that such a rebellion is infinitely wrong.

> Even a single evil act in an otherwise virtuous life is a 
> rebellion against God, and is therefore deserving of punishment

But not *infinite* punishment -- which is what we're debating.

> I should attempt to answer why it is that people are punished 
> eternally, albeit not infinitely.

Yes you should. :-)  And note: eternal punishment is indeed
infinite punishment, even by your own argument that it sums
toward an infinite amount. More importantly, eternal punishment
is unending, i.e. not finite, i.e. in-finite, i.e. infinite.

> People are given the opportunity to repent and receive 
> forgiveness. If they don't, that indicates they still aren't 
> willing to follow God - in effect, they're still sinning, 
> still rejecting God. In a way, the sin doesn't end, so 
> neither can the punishment.

Traditional Christianity does *not* believe people are 
"given the opportunity to repent" in Hell. If one can
"repent" to get out of Hell, you can bet Hell is empty.

-- 
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net