From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:07 AM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Best argument for justness of hell?

"India" <india@foospam.rationalchristianity.net> wrote:

> 1) They knew the action was wrong, but refuse to repent of it (i.e. they
> deliberately choose evil over good)
> 2) They knew the action was wrong, and later repent of it
> 3) They didn't know the action was wrong, but when they discover that it
> was, they repent of it
> 4) They didn't know the action was wrong, but when told it's wrong, they
> refuse to believe that it is
> 5) They didn't know the action was wrong and later learn that it is wrong,
> yet they still refuse to repent of it
> 
> those who will end up in hell will have committed some wrongs
> that fall into 1), 4) and/or 5)
> It seems to me that Brian is saying that hell will contain people whose
> wrongs fall exclusively into 2) and 3),

No, I'm saying that the traditional notion of Hell includes people
of types 2 and 3, and that eternal net suffering for them is unjust.
The argument I've been making does not apply to types 1, 4, and 5,
though other arguments might apply to them (especially 4). 

> one would also expect that God would prompt them to whatever 
> repentance was necessary for their salvation while they were 
> on Earth.

So?  It's nevertheless unjust to make repentance be a limited-time
offer, followed by eternal torment even in the face of belated
repentance. 

> standard theology doesn't teach that anyone is let out of hell, 
> but this could be because no one in hell repents

It's simply laughable to claim that nobody in Hell ever does
or would repent.

> > You can't prove Hell is just by assuming Yahweh is just.
> 
> Are you assuming there is no possible way Yahweh could be just?

If the Torah is accurate about Yahweh, then there is indeed
no possible way that Yahweh could be just.  Now, is this
supposed to show that you are somehow not begging the question
when you assume that there is some "teaching" God could
possibly do to make me believe that e.g. God killing Egypt's 
firstborn sons was not wrong?

> > This analogy fails, because Hell is eternal punishment for
> > past sins, and is explicitly not an attempt to reform the sinner.
> 
> I wasn't using it as a general analogy!

Does "general" here mean anything other than "valid" or "applicable"?

> My only purpose was to illustrate
> why Christians have seemingly ambivalent reactions to hell.

Are you saying that such Christians are just confused about
or ignorant of the distinction between eternal punishment
and reformative punishment?

> I don't have a big problem with saying for the sake of 
> argument that those who repented in hell would be let out

In other words, you do not defend the justness of the traditional
notion of Hell as an irrevocable unending period of net punishment
or inflicted suffering for even repentant persons. Thus you
you consider indefensible one of the central ethical doctrines 
of traditional Christianity.  Welcome to the club!

> It appears to me that Brian and I hold two conflicting views 
> of human nature/sin/repentance, which prevent us from making 
> any real progress in this discussion.

On the contrary, you've just agreed with my central thesis.
My only remaining question is: will you note on your website's
article on Hell that you do not defend the justness of the traditional
notion of Hell as an irrevocable unending period of net punishment
or inflicted suffering for even repentant persons?
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net