NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the fact that many of the planet's religions say that some people will be punished for eternity in Hell, I'm interested to see what NSGers think of the ethics of any such punishment.

In my opinion, there may be some justification for demonstrating to them the wrongness of their actions through some kind of punishment, but no action is so wrong as to mandate infinite punishment.

I really have trouble seeing how any such thing could ever be reasonably justified.

Edit: People who vote "Yes," please explain.

Edit No. 2: I'm not counting death as "eternal torment." Not because I don't think the argument could be made, but because it wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted the poll.

Vanilla Ice might.

no

The guy who invented waterless urinals does. The janitors only clean the ones in our dormitory once a week. It's disgusting.

I agree with your sentiment in a lot of ways.

Of those religions that do have an "eternal hell", I've noticed a lot of them have interpreted it by saying "well, its just separation from God which is necessary if you aren't forgiven/pure/saved/etc".

Others have said that because of God's (or whichever name) nature, He can't be in the presence of "Bad" people that haven't been saved or washed in sacrificial blood, so He/She is just doing what they have to do, not really "punishing" for its own sake.

I've noticed a lot of folks reason that eternal punishment for the unforgiven is some kind of law that even God can't ignore, but it seems to me that if you've go the big office, you can decide to give a lesser (less than infinite hell, anyway) punishment, or at least forgive without bloodshed. I would think God(s), if there are such (and there could be, I suppose), make the rules and can amend them at will.

I really have trouble seeing how any such thing could ever be reasonably justified.

i'm not sure that it could even be made conceptually plausible. it seems to run up against the very nature of what it is to deserve something.

In light of the fact that many of the planet's religions say that some people will be punished for eternity in Hell, I'm interested to see what NSGers think of the ethics of any such punishment.

In my opinion, there may be some justification for demonstrating to them the wrongness of their actions through some kind of punishment, but no action is so wrong as to mandate infinite punishment.

I really have trouble seeing how any such thing could ever be reasonably justified.Want eternal torment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Barneythedino.jpg

In light of the fact that many of the planet's religions say that some people will be punished for eternity in Hell, I'm interested to see what NSGers think of the ethics of any such punishment.

In my opinion, there may be some justification for demonstrating to them the wrongness of their actions through some kind of punishment, but no action is so wrong as to mandate infinite punishment.

I really have trouble seeing how any such thing could ever be reasonably justified.
Genuinely, no.

On the other hand, given that our deepest fears are also our greatest desires, I think Freud might actually enjoy it.

one of the great mystic nuns of the middle ages (i always think its st claire but im probably wrong) asked god for 3 boons. one of them was to suffer as those in hell suffer. she received the 2 unmentioned boons but when it came to this 3rd one, she was given a vision that showed that there ARE no suffering people in hell. it was empty.

nothing is impossible for god, not even letting bad people off the hook.

Others have said that because of God's (or whichever name) nature, He can't be in the presence of "Bad" people that haven't been saved or washed in sacrificial blood, so He/She is just doing what they have to do, not really "punishing" for its own sake.

If God's so queasy that He can't stand to see anyone who isn't perfectly morally pure, what the fuck is He doing running Paradise? Get somebody else... like somebody actually loving and merciful.

The guy who invented waterless urinals does. The janitors only clean the ones in our dormitory once a week. It's disgusting.

Waterless urinals? I thought those were just for space stations and Arrakis.

Once a week? I know wizz is fairly clean when fresh, but it serves as a pretty apt breeding ground for various microbial pathogens, doesn't it?

Isn't there some kind of health issue there?

one of the great mystic nuns of the middle ages (i always think its st claire but im probably wrong) asked god for 3 boons. one of them was to suffer as those in hell suffer. she received the 2 unmentioned boons but when it came to this 3rd one, she was given a vision that showed that there ARE no suffering people in hell. it was empty.

nothing is impossible for god, not even letting bad people off the hook.Then prepare to say hello to Stalin, Hitler, Amin, and Mao.

Yes; anyone who unreasonably wakes me up.

Of course. Have you ever been in a queue in Sainsbury's close to Christmas, having spent an excruciating few hours elbowing your way around the shop, only to have a child cry incessantly in the queue for an hour?

If so, I would hope you can empathise with me. Frankly, it would serve the asteroid faced trogladyte right.

one of the great mystic nuns of the middle ages (i always think its st claire but im probably wrong) asked god for 3 boons. one of them was to suffer as those in hell suffer. she received the 2 unmentioned boons but when it came to this 3rd one, she was given a vision that showed that there ARE no suffering people in hell. it was empty.

nothing is impossible for god, not even letting bad people off the hook.

I like the idea there.

Some religions might say "Oh, well, hell won't get staffed until after the final days and we all go before God to see if we're in the book of life", but I have no idea what the actual rules would be in this scenario.

I've seen some religions where "God's house has many rooms" or something, and being a baddy just puts you in the crappy section where you have to have chores or something, but not really hell per se.

Waterless urinals? I thought those were just for space stations and Arrakis.

Once a week? I know wizz is fairly clean when fresh, but it serves as a pretty apt breeding ground for various microbial pathogens, doesn't it?

Isn't there some kind of health issue there?

You're telling me ... they really start to smell after the fourth or fifth day ...

Then prepare to say hello to Stalin, Hitler, Amin, and Mao.

welll now, considering that she was a catholic nun, we can suppose that those guys are in purgatory until such time as they pay for their transgressions and are made fit to enter heaven.

or maybe the wages of sin are death and they simply do not get any sort of eternal life, not even one of torment.

i'm not sure that it could even be made conceptually plausible. it seems to run up against the very nature of what it is to deserve something.

I'm not sure I would go that far... why?

It's hard for me to say. Do people like Hitler and Stalin deserve to suffer? Yes. Can I say how long? No.

If God's so queasy that He can't stand to see anyone who isn't perfectly morally pure, what the fuck is He doing running Paradise? Get somebody else... like somebody actually loving and merciful.

Well, maybe the people who put this stuff together figured that, to get people on board, they needed both the carrot and the stick.

If "eternal bliss in heaven" is the big carrot, they were attracted to the symmetry of a big stick.

Then prepare to say hello to Stalin, Hitler, Amin, and Mao.

I don't begrudge any of those people full enjoyment of complete supernatural happiness.

They committed their crimes. If you must, punish them for it. But not with eternal torment.

Edit: Even if we subscribe by "eye for an eye"... kill them millions of times. Make them feel all the pain, the suffering, the grief they caused - and more importantly, feel the wrongness of it all, the injustice of it.

I question the justice of that, too... but to me it seems the maximum that has any kind of reasonable justification behind it. Not eternal torment, definitionally infinite.

Well, maybe the people who put this stuff together figured that, to get people on board, they needed both the carrot and the stick.

If "eternal bliss in heaven" is the big carrot, they were attracted to the symmetry of a big stick.

Even with Hell as a deterrent, one would suppose that at some point the bonus from the deterrent effect is exceeded by the suffering of the victims.

But, no. It continues on for eternity.

I don't begrudge any of those people full enjoyment of complete supernatural happiness.

They committed their crimes. If you must, punish them for it. But not with eternal torment.Indeed. I'd just let them die with no afterlife at all.

Even with Hell as a deterrent, one would suppose that at some point the bonus from the deterrent effect is exceeded by the suffering of the victims.

But, no. It continues on for eternity.

Yeah, its ugly.

Maybe the guys/gals putting it together didn't think it was real, just something to get people in with them, so the deterrent would be there if people believed it, but the actual suffering was just a scarecrow. I dunno.

Yeah, its ugly.

Maybe the guys/gals putting it together didn't think it was real, just something to get people in with them, so the deterrent would be there if people believed it, but the actual suffering was just a scarecrow. I dunno.

But why do so many people believe in it, and accept its justness?

I mean, I know decent people with whom I can hold a pleasant conversation who think that unless I convert to Christianity and abandon my "sinful" lifestyle, I will endure eternal torment in Hell... and it will be a good thing, perhaps even morally obligatory, something ordained by the completely just and all-loving deity.

In all honestly, I find it disturbing. I just can't grasp how they can possibly believe that... and once they do, how they can continue to tolerate me, to even treat me as a friend.

Do they just not take their own religious doctrines seriously? I hope so.

as i have said in many other posts, i am a nihilist. therefor my personal opinion matters not. BUT (and this is a large but)(feel free to annoy me about the pun), if there was an after life or there where souls or what ever, the answer would be kinda.
what i am saying is that people should be separated into different '''' dimensions/planes/etc '''' when they die. now, this would be ideal for me (other then the fact that i am still existing....), or anyone else for that matter (for the most part). now this ties into the eternal torment because all the stupid people/evil people would be grouped together. if (this is just my idea) all these people had to be together, I'm guessing that they would be greatly spiteful of each other and therefor it would be a form of torment in its self (especially when you take into account some of these peoples egos).

I'm not sure I would go that far... why?

because deserving must entail proportionality. and there is no possible way that infinite punishment can ever be anything other than insanely disproportionate to what is deserved by anything that can ever be achieved in a finite amount of time, just by the nature of the terms 'finite' and 'infinite'.

so to save the desert here, we'd have to drop proportionality in at least this one case, and the only principled argument i can see for that is to adopt a divine command theory of deserts. but we just don't hold such a theory, and, in fact, have explicitly rejected it - at least in 'the west'/'global north'/whatever.

because deserving must entail proportionality. and there is no possible way that infinite punishment can ever be anything other than insanely disproportionate to what is deserved by anything that can ever be achieved in a finite amount of time, just by the nature of the terms 'finite' and 'infinite'.

They have found a way around that one.

All sin is a crime against God, and since God is infinitely good, all sin is infinitely bad, and must be punished by infinite punishment.

I'm not sure how they move from "God is infinitely good" to "all crimes against God are infinitely bad", though....

I don't know... God... quit making me the judge of such things...

The only one I can think of that deserves such punishment is murder, since it is really the only crime that is eternal (barring somehow resurrecting the killed person, but that's besides the point). All of the others are really temporal, so to punish someone eternally for a temporal crime makes no sense.

The only one I can think of that deserves such punishment is murder, since it is really the only crime that is eternal (barring somehow resurrecting the killed person, but that's besides the point).

The just punishment for murder, even if we accepted "eye for an eye", would be killing the person. Not torturing them for eternity.

The just punishment for murder, even if we accepted "eye for an eye", would be killing the person. Not torturing them for eternity.

But by killing them, you condemn them to an eternal fate. Being dead is most likely going to be a permanent state; there's no coming back from it.

But by killing them, you condemn them to an eternal fate.

Death doesn't really strike me as an "eternal punishment."

It does last forever, but the "punishment" aspect is more immediate, in the dying rather than in the state of death.

You take away their future... that's a finite value. The fact that nothing happens afterward is superfluous.

The only person I can think of is Hitler, and likely some of the kings and barons of the middle ages. Really, almost no one deserves eternal tourture
Oh, no wait, I've got another one; whoever created Poke'mon

The only one I can think of that deserves such punishment is murder, since it is really the only crime that is eternal (barring somehow resurrecting the killed person, but that's besides the point). All of the others are really temporal, so to punish someone eternally for a temporal crime makes no sense.

Even for murder, the victim isn't suffering for eternity (unless he's evil & goes to Hell).

Sometimes, I think that Hell isn't brimstone & fire. Hell is THIS *points at the whole Earth* It's got seperation from God, it's got suffering, and sometimes it SEEMS eternal. That makes more sense to me than the fire & brimstone stuff.

The only person I can think of is Hitler, and likely some of the kings and barons of the middle ages.

But how is that proportionate?

They committed despicable crimes, but not infinite ones.

No, no one deserves to suffer for eternity.

The only reasoning that anyone would have for imagining that this takes place, is to force people to behave in the living world, for fear of suffering eternal consequences.

The BlackEyed Peas do, for their "My Humps" and "Pump It". :headbang:

On a more serious note, nobody truly deserves eternal torment.

But how is that proportionate?

They committed despicable crimes, but not infinite ones.That's the bad thing about Christianity: forgiveness...

Nobody thought I was being serious with "anyone who unreasonably wakes me up", did they?

I was. I am an angry and vengeful sod.

I'd say no. Because the existence of hell means that there is an afterlife, meaning that even when someone murders someone they haven't truly killed that person. Just merely moved them on to the next life. To my mind it just seems wrong to condemn someone to eternal damnation for such a trivial wrong.

Hmm, this is why I don't like the concept of an afterlife - it trivialises the life that we currently have.

In light of the fact that many of the planet's religions say that some people will be punished for eternity in Hell, I'm interested to see what NSGers think of the ethics of any such punishment.

In my opinion, there may be some justification for demonstrating to them the wrongness of their actions through some kind of punishment, but no action is so wrong as to mandate infinite punishment.

I really have trouble seeing how any such thing could ever be reasonably justified.

Edit: People who vote "Yes," please explain.

Edit No. 2: I'm not counting death as "eternal torment." Not because I don't think the argument could be made, but because it wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted the poll.

Rappers, emo-musicians, and pop-rockers. But nobody else.

Nobody thought I was being serious with "anyone who unreasonably wakes me up", did they?

I was. I am an angry and vengeful sod.Damn, I should have been organised and collected everyone's numbers 'just in case anyone got lost'. That way I could prank call you in the morning. :D

They have found a way around that one.

All sin is a crime against God, and since God is infinitely good, all sin is infinitely bad, and must be punished by infinite punishment.

I'm not sure how they move from "God is infinitely good" to "all crimes against God are infinitely bad", though....

i'd be interested to see someone try to explain it. especially if their conception of god also allows for total forgiveness of at least some of these infinitely bad crimes.

seems to me that it ultimately has to rest on a divine whim theory of deserts. and then it looks like we're faced with a variation on the old euthyphro dilemma. now maybe they can accept that had god's whim been otherwise, petting a kitty could 'deserve' eternal torture while genocide could 'deserve' nothing but praise and reward, but that just sounds silly to me.

Hitler.....need i say more? If he doesn't deserve to rot in hell forever nobody does.

They have found a way around that one.

All sin is a crime against God, and since God is infinitely good, all sin is infinitely bad, and must be punished by infinite punishment.

I'm not sure how they move from "God is infinitely good" to "all crimes against God are infinitely bad", though....

If that's true, then a white lie is the moral equivalent of mass murder.

This life is finite, so one can only committ a finite amount evil, and thus could only be justifiably punished by a finite amount of suffering.

That god cannot logically be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolant, and the creator ex nihilo.

Damn, I should have been organised and collected everyone's numbers 'just in case anyone got lost'. That way I could prank call you in the morning. :D

Pfft, it's your eternal torment, not mine... :p

If that's true, then a white lie is the moral equivalent of mass murder.

Yes, in that respect anyway.

If he doesn't deserve to rot in hell forever nobody does.

Indeed. Nobody does.

Eternal torment is infinite punishment - more suffering than Hitler managed. How can it be justified? It makes a mockery of proportionality.

Indeed. Nobody does.

Eternal torment is infinite punishment - more suffering than Hitler managed. How can it be justified? It makes a mockery of proportionality.What proportionality?

What proportionality?

Proportionality in punishment.

You don't kill someone for stealing a piece of candy, for instance.

Indeed. Nobody does.

Eternal torment is infinite punishment - more suffering than Hitler managed. How can it be justified? It makes a mockery of proportionality.



And how many people did he kill? 40 million....

And how many people did he kill? 40 million....

Then kill him forty million times. Or do the moral equivalent.

Again, the justice of such a punishment is questionable... but I can see an argument for it.

I can see no argument for punishing him infinitely.

Noel Edmonds

Proportionality in punishment.

You don't kill someone for stealing a piece of candy, for instance.Maybe 'god' does. After all, any sin is sin.

Maybe 'god' does. After all, any sin is sin.

Then God is an asshole.

I'll keep to self-worship, then. It's more gratifying on all kinds of levels.

Tarhalindur's Second Axiom: There is a Hell. We're living in it.

Have a nice day! :)

Maybe 'god' does. After all, any sin is sin.

but then either god doesn't give people what they deserve or our notions of desert are fundamentally wrong. because when we talk about someone deserving something, we necessarily apply some proportionality criteria - otherwise we have no grounds for saying they deserve more or less of it. if deserving is entirely at the whim of god, then it is not at all the same concept as our normal one. and, in fact, it trivializes the very idea itself down to meaninglessness.

Then kill him forty million times. Or do the moral equivalent.

Again, the justice of such a punishment is questionable... but I can see an argument for it.

I can see no argument for punishing him infinitely.

ok, again this is a highly cynical and nihilistic point of view but its at lest an argument. there is no such thing as justice. justice is just a word that is used to justify the fact that people do things that go against the morals of others. the justice system works for only two purposes;
to keep people who are harmful to an existing government/society away from a position where they can damage the government/society (by means of imprisonment, death, or banishment). therefor, people who believe that there is an after life think that these people should be kept from being able to harm them, this is where the original concept of hell came from (hell in the classical sense, before the catholic church created its own ideas that had nothing to do with the original cannon). now, after the catholic church came about, they changed a lot of things. one of these things was the way people thought about the after life and more importantly to the point they changed the "forgiveness" policy that Christianity had to a ""OMFGKILLEVERYTHINGTHATISNOTUSORDIEYOURSELF!!!!!11"" policy. that of coarse made people wish that instead of the original punishment meet the crime view to, all crime is against gods will and therefor you must suffer the worst thing that can possible to brought to bear on you. and thus, eternal suffering and the modern concept of hell.
the other reason would be the creation of a system that makes people fear being criminals and really, what is a greater deterrent then going to the modern hell for the rest of eternity?

justice is just a word that is used to justify the fact that people do things that go against the morals of others.

Isn't "justice" prior to "justification"?

Why would such a justification be meaningful to anyone, if justice was invented for convenience? Yet clearly we expect and understand justifications all the time.

"I killed her because she was trying to kill me." This justification might actually work, or it may not, but regardless it references a notion of justice within us that, it is hoped, acknowledges that killing in self-defense is a just action.

the justice system works for only two purposes;
to keep people who are harmful to an existing government/society away from a position where they can damage the government/society (by means of imprisonment, death, or banishment).

It seems to me that you're confusing "justice" and "justice system"... a theory of justice could conceivably claim that no punishment, even punishment for the purpose of deterring or restraining criminals, is ever justified.

therefor, people who believe that there is an after life think that these people should be kept from being able to harm them, this is where the original concept of hell came from

Such restraint does not require eternal torment. The person could be restrained in countless other ways... or even just killed.

the other reason would be the creation of a system that makes people fear being criminals and realy, what is a greater deturent then going to the modern hell for the rest of eternity?

But the benefits of such a deterrent are not proportionate to the punishment.

This is why I kind of feel bad for Tantalus.

if (this is just my idea) all these people had to be together, I'm guessing that they would be greatly spiteful of each other and therefor it would be a form of torment in its self (especially when you take into account some of these peoples egos).

Have you read Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit?

Have you read Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit?

no, is it any good?

no, is it any good?

It's a brilliant play, yes, but I mentioned it because his "hell" is in some ways like yours.

no, is it any good?

put it on your list. you need to be able to reference it in your nihilistic rants.

65 posts and no one has mentioned Fred Phelpsl? I believe in an ironic universe, where those who condemn others to eternal hell end up there instead :cool:

Isn't "justice" prior to "justification"?

Why would such a justification be meaningful to anyone, if justice was invented for convenience? Yet clearly we expect and understand justifications all the time.
"I killed her because she was trying to kill me." This justification might actually work, or it may not, but regardless it references a notion of justice within us that, it is hoped, acknowledges that killing in self-defense is a just action.

It seems to me that you're confusing "justice" and "justice system"... a theory of justice could conceivably claim that no punishment, even punishment for the purpose of deterring or restraining criminals, is ever justified.

Such restraint does not require eternal torment. The person could be restrained in countless other ways... or even just killed.

But the benefits of such a deterrent are not proportionate to the punishment.

who said people care about others justifications for actions they do not truly understand?

point taken. but, just as a question. if people who commit crimes where never detoured nor where they punished after the crime, would that not promote activities that damage everyone and if are relied on, could destroy the type of existence we are used to entirely?

let me clarify, they want them to be kept from them even in the after life. its the holyer then thou attitude that so many people have now a days and in the medieval period that justifies to them that if they are not with you they will suffer for ever.

if the point is to make people fear you, then why not go with over kill, even if it is never used (as there is no hell in the first place). also; benefit- you would assume that there would be less crime. punishment- people are fearful. from the view of a leader the benefit and the punishment seem to be benefiting you, so why would you not promote this system.

o and as for the assumed benefit of fear mongering about hell...
"
The study by Jensen[3] builds on and refines the study of Paul. His suggestion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a cause-relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualism in Christianity, that is to say a high proportion of the population believing the devil and hell exist. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it."
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Correlation_with_Dualist_Christianity_vs._Secularity

who said people care about others justifications for actions they do not truly understand?

We care about justification generally, for its own sake. Therefore, justice is not just a convenient tool of the powerful.

point taken. but, just as a question. if people who commit crimes where never detoured nor where they punished after the crime, would that not promote activities that damage everyone and if are relied on, could destroy the type of existence we are used to entirely?

Perhaps; I don't advocate such a theory of justice.

But it could be advocated - someone might say, for instance, that it is wrong to use people as means to the end of deterring others, or that the use of fear to control people is immoral.

let me clarify, they want them to be kept from them even in the after life.

Perhaps, but there is no justice in this attitude if it merely amounts to "keep the unwashed masses away from me."

if the point is to make people fear you,

No, the point is to act justly.

"He must have eaten alot of people"
"Not as many as you would expect, it was a pretty damn heavy feather"

That's from American Gods by Neil Gaiman, in reference to the egyptian belief that one's evil deeds were weighed against the feather of something. It's a conversation between an Egyptian god (I think it's Thoth) and the main character.

It just seems to fit the conversation. There's not many people who deserve eternal torment.

big fat NO.

No, I cannot conceive of any crime enormous enough to deserve an eternity of torment. Not even if it was possible to destroy the entire universe, I don't believe an eternity of suffering could be justified (because even the universe may not be eternal).

Furthermore, as humans, if it was possible to suffer an eternal punishment after death, I believe the only ethical course would be to prevent any more people being born, as the mere possibility would make the risk of living too great (with apologies to Pascal's Wager).

Not on any human's say-so. And it's humans who love to point fingers and predict that everyone NOT THEM are going to burn in Hell.

The only one I can think of that deserves such punishment is murder, since it is really the only crime that is eternal (barring somehow resurrecting the killed person, but that's besides the point). All of the others are really temporal, so to punish someone eternally for a temporal crime makes no sense.

While I think the essentially irreparable nature of mature ranks it up as a bad crime, I kind of agree with the people who say that when you murder, you're taking away whatever number of years they would've had left, but not really an infinite crime.

Everyone (at least at this point) will die at some point. Dying early then just takes away your future, as somebody put it. Nobody has (at least in this life) an infinite future.

So, I agree that murder is monstrous, but I think that even though death is a presumably permanent state, it is also inevitable, and hastening someone to that state is still finite (to the extent that a year of a person's life can be quantified; I'm not an actuary, heh).

As such, I wouldn't punish murder with anything eternal, at least not eternal torture.

Bear in mind, though, I admit that whatever unimaginable supernatural being might be at play on this kind of thing might have another view.

one of the great mystic nuns of the middle ages (i always think its st claire but im probably wrong) asked god for 3 boons. one of them was to suffer as those in hell suffer. she received the 2 unmentioned boons but when it came to this 3rd one, she was given a vision that showed that there ARE no suffering people in hell. it was empty.

nothing is impossible for god, not even letting bad people off the hook.

He only "lets bad people off the hook" at Calvary, where He died in their place, so they wouldn't have to go to hell if they would just trust Him (and Him ALONE).

If God's so queasy that He can't stand to see anyone who isn't perfectly morally pure, what the fuck is He doing running Paradise? Get somebody else... like somebody actually loving and merciful.

The God of the Bible IS loving and merciful; He became a human being (something He was NOT obligated to do) and took the punishment for your sins and my sins on Himself, so we wouldn't have to go to hell if we would just accept His payment on Calvary and ask Him to save us.

What YOU want is a god who loves/puts up with/condones/tolerates/approves of anything and EVERYTHING, and has NO standards of right and wrong. You want to "make" God in YOUR image, after YOUR likeness, but the "terrible" truth is that He (and I don't mean she, it, or s/he) is NOT like you (or me, or anyone else either of us know), and He DOESN'T tolerate sin.

If God let EVERYBODY into heaven arbitrarily, it would not be heaven; it would become the same kind of hell that this earth is.

The God of the Bible IS loving and merciful; He became a human being (something He was NOT obligated to do) and took the punishment for your sins and my sins on Himself, so we wouldn't have to go to hell if we would just accept His payment on Calvary and ask Him to save us.

And He/She/It also made up the original "Sin" rules in the first place. Gotta get nailed to a tree to change the rules? :rolleyes:

The God of the Bible IS loving and merciful;

Except to Amalekites, gays, women, the inhabitants of Jericho, the Egyptian first-born, the seven nations of Canaan, etc.

He became a human being (something He was NOT obligated to do) and took the punishment for your sins and my sins on Himself, so we wouldn't have to go to hell if we would just accept His payment on Calvary and ask Him to save us.

Several problems with that.

1. I don't believe He exists.
2. I don't believe in Hell.
3. I have done nothing to deserve eternal torment even without His taking of sins upon Himself.
4. I am not ashamed and will not asked to be cleansed of many of my so-called "sins", because they are not immoral at all.
5. He has no right to forgive me for wrongs that were not committed against Him - as none of them have been.
6. Any being evil enough to sentence non-believers to eternal torment is completely unworthy of the slightest worship or service from any decent person, and is instead deserving of the harshest condemnation and defiance.

The God of the Bible IS loving and merciful; He became a human being (something He was NOT obligated to do) and took the punishment for your sins and my sins on Himself, so we wouldn't have to go to hell if we would just accept His payment on Calvary and ask Him to save us.

I think the idea is that mercy in the genuine sense allows for forgiveness without anybody having to be killed and tortured.

Also, unless God goes to hell for eternity, he isn't bearing the same punishment everybody else would've gotten, so its kind of a partial payment.

I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, just try to understand that some people think forgiveness in its highest form can be unconditional and without torture, on a cross or anywhere else.

The fact is, nobody "has" to go to hell; if there is such a place, it was made by somebody and people are sent there by somebody. Its just a suggestion that somebody perfect could come up with something more useful for his imperfect creations, even the ones that dare to believe in something other than human blood sacrifice.

What YOU want is a god who loves/puts up with/condones/tolerates/approves of anything and EVERYTHING, and has NO standards of right and wrong.

Wrong. I want a god who behaves justly.

Not a god who sentences people to unjust, disproportionate torment for supposed "wrongs."

You want to "make" God in YOUR image, after YOUR likeness,

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not a good person.

but the "terrible" truth is that He (and I don't mean she, it, or s/he) is NOT like you (or me, or anyone else either of us know), and He DOESN'T tolerate sin.

Fine. No one should tolerate wrongdoing.

But no one should be tortured for eternity for it, either.

He only "lets bad people off the hook" at Calvary, where He died in their place, so they wouldn't have to go to hell if they would just trust Him (and Him ALONE).



The God of the Bible IS loving and merciful; He became a human being (something He was NOT obligated to do) and took the punishment for your sins and my sins on Himself, so we wouldn't have to go to hell if we would just accept His payment on Calvary and ask Him to save us.

What YOU want is a god who loves/puts up with/condones/tolerates/approves of anything and EVERYTHING, and has NO standards of right and wrong. You want to "make" God in YOUR image, after YOUR likeness, but the "terrible" truth is that He (and I don't mean she, it, or s/he) is NOT like you (or me, or anyone else either of us know), and He DOESN'T tolerate sin.

If God let EVERYBODY into heaven arbitrarily, it would not be heaven; it would become the same kind of hell that this earth is.

If you had read what people wrote, you'd see that nobody said that "EVERYTHING" should be approved of or that there should be no standards of right or wrong.

And an infinite being (or even a finite one) should be able to some up with a range of responses that includes more than just "super paradise for anybody who will accept blood sacrifice" and "eternal torture for everybody who doesn't believe what I want them to believe".

There's a middle ground. If the sinful can't be "tolerated", they can presumably be unmade, or isolated, or (Heaven forbid) they can be taught to be better, even if it takes forever.

But then, that would be merciful...

Furthermore, as humans, if it was possible to suffer an eternal punishment after death, I believe the only ethical course would be to prevent any more people being born, as the mere possibility would make the risk of living too great (with apologies to Pascal's Wager).

damn, nicely played. you come up with that, or have i just missed it from elsewhere?

I guess I just fail to see why?

Why would God create an intricate universe over millions of years simply to create humans and then submit them to a test for which the rules are unknowable?

...and then punish them for failing?

If the only rule is 'believe in me', well it seems a rather childish God to me.

Why bother?

Eternal punishment defeats the purpose of punishment.

The purpose of punishment is to diminish the likelihood of future behaviour similar to that which incurred the punishment.

Punishment, in short, is part of learning, and that is its one and only purpose.

If you're being punished eternally, you'll never again have a chance to do good and be rewarded, i.e. you'll never have a chance to learn from your mistakes, so eternal punishment is pointless.

I one read a story about a trip through hell... at the lowest, deepest, circle of hell there's a way out, a way to escape, which would make sense if God is remotely kind, or logical even.

Of course, God doesn't make sense to me anyway. If he's omnipotent and benevolent, why is there evil? If he's omnipotent, can he make a boulder to heavy for him to lift? etc. etc. I've never figured the guy out. Hence atheism.

The guy who invented waterless urinals does. The janitors only clean the ones in our dormitory once a week. It's disgusting.lol. you can make gun powder the good old fashioned way if you get a couple more indgridents.;)

I heard a rather good quote, many years ago, on this very subject. I can no longer remember who said it, but the quotation was something like this:

"I believe in the Bible, so I am sure Hell exists. I believe in God's mercy, so I am sure that it is empty."

I heard a rather good quote, many years ago, on this very subject. I can no longer remember who said it, but the quotation was something like this:

"I believe in the Bible, so I am sure Hell exists. I believe in God's mercy, so I am sure that it is empty."

I imagine the conversation goes something like this:

God: Ahh, Adolf, I've been expecting you (strokes cat). Now, you didn't do too well down there did you?
Adolf: Yeah, amm, well given the circumstances, abusive father, my height, shamed nation, economic depression, my mustache, wasn't it inevitable?
God: I need more than that. What's the magic phrase?
Adolf: I'm sorry
God: Ahhh, go on then, in you go,
Adolf: W00T!

damn, nicely played. you come up with that, or have i just missed it from elsewhere?

I thought of it independently (the possibility of Hell really bothered me once), but I'm sure I'm not the only one.