Re: Hell and a Just God are incompatible concepts

rtdavide@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> To illustrate a point, I thought I would approach this question taking
> away God altogether.

Not easy, considering that intrinsic to Hell is 'being sent there by
someone or something'. I suppose there could be a hierarchy of spirits
in the spirit world that could do that, but it still throws the
question of justice up

> Are Justice and Hell compatible concepts?
> Under this paradigm, we obviously have a dichotomized afterlife, with
> some sort of eternal reward state, and another eternal punishment
> state.
> Now we ask if there is any wrong we could have committed in order to
> have merited eternal punishment, and the answer would I suppose be no.
> But likewise, there is no good that we could have done that would merit
> an eternal reward either.
> We might simply ditch the dichotomized afterlife and stick with a
> generic afterlife, with neither eternal reward nor eternal punishment,
> since neither of those concepts holds are sound.

Interestingly, this is what is postulated by alleged communicating
spirits - that everyone who dies passes into the etheric world, albeit
at varying 'wavelengths' which translate to different 'places', but
nonetheless without 'punishment' or indeed particular 'reward'
(although the life is said to be more pleasurable there than here and
that I suppose would be reward in itself)

> What we now have is an afterlife which is pretty much the same as this
> life. Making me wonder why we have a distinction in the first place. I
> suppose in the afterlife we could eliminate the natural evil in the
> world, and mortality as well, so there won't be any natural disasters
> or death, but there would still be other humans to deal with, and we
> have proven ourselves particularly nasty at times.
> Or maybe our souls will simply continue on in solitude.........

Having questioned the distinction, I think you went on to answer it!

> Actually, most of these scenarios play out as something of a hell all
> their own. We will simply continue on forever as we are, stuck with
> ourselves or else,,, in solitude.

Still very different from the Hell we are talking about. Anyway, if
communicating spirits are to be believed, life hereafter is about
development and progression, just as life here on Earth should
preferably be

> And in fact the whole afterlife thing is kind of senseless when I think
> about it.

So is reality TV but it exists all the same!

> So justice and hell do seem incompatible as do justice and heaven. Life
> and afterlife is pointless, but not necessarily incompatible. And it
> seems like a version of eternal punishment anyways.

No, again I would have to cite the communications of the spirit world,
if it is to be accepted as existing, and these state that life is very
good, pain-free and stimulating. Of course, if we don't accept the
spirit world then an afterlife most probably doesn't exist anyway

> My only real quibble here [and it isn't really of importance to the
> argument] is that Satan doesn't preside over Hell. He will be cast into
> it not as its ruler, but as a fellow inhabitant with all the rest.
> The second consideration is how you consider the distinction between
> your two definitions. For example you seem to be saying that eternal
> punishment is different than mere separation from God. But could it be
> that in biblical thought separation from God is considered eternal
> punishment?

I thought that biblical thought put Hell squarely in the 'lake of fire'
and 'gnashing of teeth' category? If not, they are pretty bad analogies
for 'separation from God'

> > a) There is no crime or sin imaginable that can be balanced equitably
> > by an eternal punishment.
>
> I think this is wrong in light of the situation presented in the bible.
> God created the world with the intent of making a perfect society.
> The perfect society must be sin free and it must be based on truth.

But how does this oppose my proposition?

> Any sin or un-truth in the society will therefore have to be eliminated
> from it.
> Now given that God is sovereign over this society, any one that refuses
> to recognize that is acting against truth and will continue to sin, and
> therefore must be removed from the society.
>
> Hell is the place where such people will be placed.

God has it in his power to come up with a better system than Hell. And
in any case, since we are all sinners, yet a believer in Christ can be
redeemed, why doesn't God redeem everyone? A believer in Christ sins as
much as the next man (alright, perhaps nominally less!) but this
doesn't prevent redemption. What's so good about believing in Christ?
It's not a good or fair system.

> Granted that under an atheist paradigm, a dichotomized afterlife is
> unsound. However granting a God that is intent on making a perfect
> society, he must do what is necessary to ensure the society will be
> perfect.
>
> It is not a matter of X amount of time doing wrong meriting X amount of
> time of punishment.

No indeed it's not; it's about X amount of wrong meriting an eternity
of punishment

> This is where I believe that the argument has failed. But the reason
> why it fails is what I was trying to illustrate earlier. The issue was
> approached supposedly considering the bible, but in actual fact it was
> subjecting the bible to assumptions that were not non-biblical at all.
>
> If we start with non-biblical assumptions and then test the bible
> according to those, then it will make little sense. However, the bible
> isn't founded on non-biblical assumptions; it is founded on its own
> assumptions. Therefore one would need to start with those in order to
> show an internal contradiction.

I am not interested in whether the contradiction is internal or
external; I am interested in whether it is a contradiction, period. I
don't know about biblical or non-biblical assumptions either. I am
coming at this with human reason, the only way I know how. And if human
reason can't figure it, it is not a good (and certainly not perfect)
system. Those, incidentally, who think human reason can in fact figure
it, must be wrong since reason cannot rationalise paradox.

Interesting comments nonetheless


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hell and a Just God are incompatible concepts
    ... Are Justice and Hell compatible concepts? ... Under this paradigm, we obviously have a dichotomized afterlife, with ... have merited eternal punishment, and the answer would I suppose be no. ... > Hell and a Just God are incompatible concepts. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: I, for one, aint leaving!
    ... Hell, no! ... afterlife, ... >> God, no afterlife. ... A sick thing to say to a person who had just lost one ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: He is risen
    ... they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. ... I don't believe in an afterlife for a start, ... Probably because I've always just figured I was going to hell. ... God, Queen and country! ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: He is risen
    ... That's what'd make it "heaven" right; spending eternity with your ... I don't believe in an afterlife for a start, ... Probably because I've always just figured I was going to hell. ... God, Queen and country! ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Universalism
    ... "I inflict My punishment on whom I so determine; but My mercy encompasses ... is unjust and unreasonable and is contrary to the perfect attributes of God, ... that once a person has been condemned to hell, ... eternal punishment. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
Loading