General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 11421 times
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2011, 04:23:04 pm »
jbiemans wrote:
So you mean that God should not care about the things taking place on this earth, mass murder, torture all the way down to say lying? He should on your view just decide to not care about it all on the basis that he is so extremly great. Is that correct or have I read things into what you are saying that you are not saying?

Yes, you read too much into it.  I was not trying to say that God shouldn't care, but rather that it should not be offensive to him, no matter what happens on earth, it is insignificant in comparison to God, right ?

The common argument against the problem of evil is that heaven is so great it will eclipse all the suffering here and now (not that I accept that).  In this way, God is so great, he should be able to excuse and correct all wrong doings against him without flinching.

But in correcting the errors it seem to me that God indeed needs to punish the wrongdoer, and hence you so to say end up in hell even on your view. May I ask, is it the infinity of hell that is your problem or is it that God is punishing at all? Or perhaps both.

1

Dan Stewart

  • ***
  • 2068 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2011, 04:25:08 pm »
Suppose one of you clowns succeeds. What do you deserve?

Supposing you should actually succeed in misleading an individual, so they reject truth and land in the bad place. What do you deserve?

People just don't think

"P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow f

2

Paul Kelly

  • **
  • 240 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2011, 04:54:37 pm »
jbiemans wrote:
If you are talking to me, then yes, I don't think finite sins require infinine punishment.  However, a potentially infinite number of sins requires a potentially infinite number of punishments.  


I actually agree with you.  My problem is that no human is capable of a potentially infinite number of sins.  Maybe humanity as a whole, but not individually.


The scenerio would be that as God punishes people for the sins of this life, this only increases their hatred for God (perhaps how a punishment given to a disobedient child only makes them angrier).  Hating God is a sin, and so they must be punished further.  Which means that they grow even more in their hatred towards God. This process continues ad infinitum and is therefore a potentially infinite number of sins.  On this view, hell is locked from the inside.  

In any case, this is only a theoretical problem for us with annihilationist inclinations.

3

lancia

  • ****
  • 6245 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2011, 05:38:10 pm »
forthelord wrote:
The scenerio would be that as God punishes people for the sins of this life, this only increases their hatred for God (perhaps how a punishment given to a disobedient child only makes them angrier).  Hating God is a sin, and so they must be punished further.  Which means that they grow even more in their hatred towards God. This process continues ad infinitum and is therefore a potentially infinite number of sins.  On this view, hell is locked from the inside.

But, all it takes is one person in hell who does not continue to hate God to undermine this “solution.” Don’t you think that it is possible that at least one person in hell doesn’t continue to hate God indefinitely and so would not deserve eternal punishment under this scenario?


4

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2011, 06:44:09 pm »
But in correcting the errors it seem to me that God indeed needs to punish the wrongdoer, and hence you so to say end up in hell even on your view. May I ask, is it the infinity of hell that is your problem or is it that God is punishing at all? Or perhaps both.
I have a problem with a few things

1) "The wrongdoer" as you put it can be anything from telling a little white lie, to stealing a penny candy, to being gay, to being born into another religion, being a murder, etc, and simply not believing that God exists because you don't find the evidence compelling.  I cannot accept that any crime is worth torture, even murder.

2) The idea of an infinite torture, or even infinite punishment is excessive in any scenario.

*Edit:  I also object to the idea that a just punishment is based the character of the victim, rather then the severity of the crime. (and I imagine that you would agree in a regular court of law)

5

Paul Kelly

  • **
  • 240 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2011, 09:37:08 pm »
lancia wrote:
Quote from: forthelord

The scenerio would be that as God punishes people for the sins of this life, this only increases their hatred for God (perhaps how a punishment given to a disobedient child only makes them angrier).  Hating God is a sin, and so they must be punished further.  Which means that they grow even more in their hatred towards God. This process continues ad infinitum and is therefore a potentially infinite number of sins.  On this view, hell is locked from the inside.

But, all it takes is one person in hell who does not continue to hate God to undermine this “solution.” Don’t you think that it is possible that at least one person in hell doesn’t continue to hate God indefinitely and so would not deserve eternal punishment under this scenario?


Well, that's possible but won't happen in the actual world.  The anger the reprobate feel against God only naturally increases as punishment goes on.  That one person that wouldn't increase in anger (which I find implausible given human nature) isn't the type of person who goes to hell.

In any case, this is all academic for both of us because I have annihilationist inclinations and you are a universalist if I'm not mistaken.  

6

Justin Green

  • **
  • 889 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2011, 10:01:25 pm »
Has anyone listened to NT Wright's views on hell and what happens to people who reject God?  Instead of burning forever and punishing, it's more like a cessation of being human.  Seeking other things in life - material things, sex, power, more than one seeks God, lessens our humanity.  As people are more and more consumed by these things, the less they seem to be human, and these pursuits simply continue to eat away at one as they enter eternity.

I may not be getting Wright's views exactly right, but it's not an annihilationist view, and it's not a literal burning fire view, either.

7

lancia

  • ****
  • 6245 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2011, 10:20:01 pm »
forthelord wrote:
That one person that wouldn't increase in anger (which I find implausible given human nature) isn't the type of person who goes to hell.

I don’t see how one can say that with any confidence. A non-believer who dies in that state because of a perceived lack of evidence, not because he hates God, will go to hell, according to current dogma. Why would such a person in hell necessarily sin against God repeatedly?


8

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2011, 01:10:04 am »
Yeah, I think I agree with CTD.  There doesn't seem to be any equivocation going on here.

An infinite punishment in hell is NOT because God is an infinitely great being.  Rather, the act of denying God is an act that requires an infinite punishment.

If someone commits murder, they go to jail for life, or a really long time.  Now the duration of their punishment doesn't have anything to do with how great the person that they killed was.  It was that the act they did required a certain punishment.  I don't see how this has anything to do with how great God is.  Rather, if He is the one who determines the severity of an act, than the punishment is just.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

9

Paul Kelly

  • **
  • 240 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2011, 02:48:31 am »
lancia wrote:
Quote from: forthelord

That one person that wouldn't increase in anger (which I find implausible given human nature) isn't the type of person who goes to hell.

I don’t see how one can say that with any confidence. A non-believer who dies in that state because of a perceived lack of evidence, not because he hates God, will go to hell, according to current dogma. Why would such a person in hell necessarily sin against God repeatedly?


Well, not if you are a molinist and accept transworld depravity.    If evidence is all they needed to be saved, then they would get that evidence to satisfy them.  Intellectual honest nonbelievers who would pursue a relationship with God if they had enough evidence will be convinced before they die.  People who go to hell, on this view, would never have accepted Christ.  It seems perfectly plausible that these people would only grow in hatred the more they are punished.  

10

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2011, 04:13:49 am »
lancia wrote:

I don’t see how one can say that with any confidence. A non-believer who dies in that state because of a perceived lack of evidence, not because he hates God, will go to hell, according to current dogma. Why would such a person in hell necessarily sin against God repeatedly?



Haven't you heard the claim, "Well, I've lived a good life.  I've helped people.  I've been a good moral person, and I do a lot of great things! So if I got to Heaven and God still sent me to Hell, than I wouldn't want ANYTHING to do with THAT God!"
I think it's quite plausible.  

So though I think this is a pretty plausible argument, I think I'd prefer to hold to a view that says that it might be logically impossible for God to take someone out of Hell and bring them to Heaven.  So that there is no longer a problem with "How a loving God send someone to Hell for eternity."  But rather, "How can a loving God send someone to hell."  Of course this question is much easier to answer given that we send ourselves there on the basis of our own freewill.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

11

Paul Kelly

  • **
  • 240 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2011, 04:33:36 am »

Here is an interesting video where N.T. Wright shares his views on hell.  


12

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2011, 05:16:21 am »
Intellectual honest nonbelievers who would pursue a relationship with God if they had enough evidence will be convinced before they die.

There is a problem here though.  You assume that anyone who knows God exists would want a relationship with him. I know Angelina Jolee exists, yet I have no interest in having a relationship with her.  The same could be said about God;  Right now I do not have enough evidence, so I do not beleive he exists.  I would change that belief if given compelling evidence, but that still does not mean that I would want a relationship with him.  From the stuff the bible says about him, I find him to be a horrible character.

Of course this question is much easier to answer given that we send ourselves there on the basis of our own freewill.

The idea that everyone sends them selves to jail is backwards.  Imagine that I pointed a gun at you and said that if you do not give me your wallet I will shoot you.  You refuse to give me your wallet, and I shoot you.  Did you just choose to get shot?

13
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 05:20:35 am »
jbiemans wrote:
But in correcting the errors it seem to me that God indeed needs to punish the wrongdoer, and hence you so to say end up in hell even on your view. May I ask, is it the infinity of hell that is your problem or is it that God is punishing at all? Or perhaps both.
I have a problem with a few things

1) "The wrongdoer" as you put it can be anything from telling a little white lie, to stealing a penny candy, to being gay, to being born into another religion, being a murder, etc, and simply not believing that God exists because you don't find the evidence compelling.  I cannot accept that any crime is worth torture, even murder.

2) The idea of an infinite torture, or even infinite punishment is excessive in any scenario.

*Edit:  I also object to the idea that a just punishment is based the character of the victim, rather then the severity of the crime. (and I imagine that you would agree in a regular court of law)

OK, I see your points. I will try to address some of them. You cannot accept that any crime is worth torture. Well, I don't think that is what hell is about. And before you bring all those fiery images from the Bible I think others at this board have shown that the best way to understand them is in a figurative way. That is they are used to describe Hell as a really horrible place but are not meant to be understood as an literal description. Hell is not a place of torture even though it is a place of suffering. Put it this way Hell is a place where nothing of God's goodness is manifested. What makes Hell worse I would think is the realization that you have missed the point with your whole existence. You have seen God face to face but been shown away from him in line with your own will.

I had planned to say something about your second point as well but others have addressed it in this very thread and given some different ways of understanding how Hell could be eternal.



14

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15896 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2011, 05:47:55 am »
forthelord wrote: The anger the reprobate feel against God only naturally increases as punishment goes on.  That one person that wouldn't increase in anger (which I find implausible given human nature) isn't the type of person who goes to hell.

   

   Is there some reason that you believe yourself to be particularly knowledgeable about human nature?  (Before you answer, it might be a good idea to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.)

   

   I've gotten the impression that you are pretty young, and have grown up in a very Christian environment.  (Correct?)  It seems like your view of human nature is heavily influenced by biblical claims about human nature, moreso than an education in psychological science.  It so happens that psychologists and psychiatrists have a particularly low rate of belief in God compared to the general population.  Why not think that your view of human nature is biased towards fitting your biblically inspired worldview?
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger