From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:34 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Best argument for justness of hell? "India" wrote > If you want to argue against the notion that sinners deserve > an infinite amount of punishment because their sins are > infinitely wrong, you'll have to find another Christian to > argue with. I want to argue against the notion that any sinner deserves an unending period of suffering or torment. If you don't defend that notion, then we're done. > > > 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. > > True. What I meant was, people are given the opportunity to > repent on Earth. That's irrelevant. If I'm in Hell and I stop rejecting God, my sin has ended but my punishment never will. > That attitude is itself a sin, and as long as they have > that attitude they'll continue to merit punishment. But when the attitude ceases, the punishment doesn't (and never will). That's unjust and evil. > > If one can "repent" to get out of Hell, you can bet Hell is empty. > > one can't just "repent" to avoid punishment - > one has to truly repent You assume without argument that it's harder to "truly repent" in Hell than on Earth. Given Hell's much-discussed "separation from God", it seems obvious it would be easier to "truly repent" in Hell than on Earth. > There may be people willing to say anything to get out of hell, > but they won't be people who would mean what they say and truly > accept God. If there are people for whom it is not within the power of their free will to "truly accept God", then the free-will defense is gone and God was evil to create them knowing that they had no choice but to suffer eternal damnation. If on the other hand it *is* within their power to "truly accept God", you can again bet Hell is empty. > I take it your argument is essentially this: unending punishment > is unjust because it's infinite while a person's sins are finite. Modulo possible misinterpretation of infinite/finite, that's right. > Is sin finite in duration? Yes, except of course for ongoing sin. No act is impossible to repent for, and no ongoing choice is impossible to change (for someone with free will). > If people reject God during their lives on Earth, then continue > to have a conscious existence in the afterlife, it's a good bet > they will be continuing to reject God in the afterlife. It's a better bet that after their first 30 seconds in Hell, with its allegedly horrific "separation from God", they will cease rejecting God. However, the punishments of Hell are guaranteed never to end. That's unjust and evil. > experiencing a moderate amount of suffering in hell would > not ever be as bad as experiencing intense agony in hell. True, but no Earthly sin deserves an unending sentence that can be characterized as torment, torture, inflicted suffering, or net punishment. > The real question is, must punishment be of finite duration > in order to be just? Good question. I would say no, if for example my "punishment" were that I enjoy eternal paradise except that once a day I stub my toe. But an experience that on net constitutes punishment or inflicted suffering can never be just if it is irrevocably unending. > Since people in hell don't repent, but continue to reject > God, it makes sense that their punishment would continue > while their crime continued. You blatantly beg the question by assuming that people in Hell don't repent. It's becoming clear that you don't have the stomach to defend an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted suffering for a repentant person. That's not surprising; I've yet to interact with anyone who does. The most they defend is a Hell whose punishment consists of separation from their unjust deity and the company of other sinners and infidels. Unless the social dynamics are rigged to be much different from Earth, that's not a fate to be feared very much. What I would fear most of all would be eternal torment by an entity who were able to remove my awareness of my consequent moral superiority to him. Such an entity would be better described as a demon than a deity. Indeed, if Satan/Lucifer actually succeeded in vanquishing El/Yahweh, what course of action could be more nefarious than to pose as God? Would he not then demand exclusive worship and extravagant sacrifices (of animals or even one's son), as does El/Yahweh? Would he not promote or demand dietary taboos, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39], and mass murder? Would he not want to be the wolf in lamb's clothing, appearing as Jesus to affirm the Old Testament [Mt 5:18] and promise sinners not a thousand years' torture, nor a million or a billion, but an *eternity* of torture by fire [Mt 18:8]? Would he not want to trick people into thinking they deserve the unending torture he has prepared for them? What scheme of his could be more cruel? Tell me; I really want to know. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net