From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 10:54 PM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Best argument for justness of hell? "India" wrote: > > it seems obvious it would be easier to "truly repent" > > in Hell than on Earth. > > It seems obvious to me that it's the reverse. Repenting involves > realizing that one has done wrong. Right, and the painful reality of separation from God would make one repent of any distance one has created between oneself and God. > Being distanced from God, who in Christianity is understood to > be a perfect moral teacher, would make that realization harder, > not easier. This argument is specious. One wouldn't need any "teaching" to realize what Hell is and whether one should repent of the things that sent one there. > > 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. > > Well, it is a hard thing to defend, because no normal person wants > people to go to hell. If the people who go to hell truly deserve to go to hell, then a "normal" -- i.e. justly righteous -- person should INDEED "want [them] to go to hell". Only if they DIDN'T actually deserve irrevocable unending suffering would a "normal" person not want them to go to hell. > But that doesn't necessarily mean it's unjust. If the justness of something is indefensible, then that indeed means it is unjust. > If you go to hell, you'll either be in isolation, or you'll be > spending eternity with your buddy Mr. Filseth. ;-P A society of people of Paul's calibre would be a wonderful place to spend eternity. > Is it not within the realm of possibility that your awareness of your > moral superiority [to a Hell-sentencing God] could be removed > by your realization that it's not true? Of course -- but only because of your stipulation! I suppose it is conceivable that I'm wrong, but given the absence of any remotely convincing argument to that effect, I have to conclude that I'm right. > > Indeed, if Satan/Lucifer actually succeeded in vanquishing > > El/Yahweh, what course of action could be more nefarious than > > to pose as God? ... > > He could tell people that their only hope of avoiding hell was to do > all sorts of awful, torturous things, and then throw everyone into > hell anyway. No, telling people that would only make it obvious that he is nefarious and not benevolent. > He certainly wouldn't suffer himself in order to save > people from deserved punishment He might consider this alleged "suffer[ing]" to be a trivial price to pay to enact his nefarious scheme. Even more so, he would likely have the power to only appear to have suffered, without ever having actually suffered. > Universalism teaches that everyone will eventually repent and > accept Christ. [But] if no humans would ever be sent to hell, > there would be no need for Christ and others to continually warn > people about it The idea that everyone will eventually repent is not the same thing as the idea that nobody will ever be sent to hell. People obviously could repent in hell. > a distinction between "eternal," or infinite time, and > "everlasting," or time without end Given the definition of "infinite" as "no end", there is obviously no such distinction. > at any given moment, they will have lived a finite amount. > Consequently, the amount of punishment or joy they experience > is not infinite either. Flatly false, by the definition of temporal infinity. Temporal infinity means never ending. > this assumes that time as we know it continues to pass after > the final judgment, which is not necessarily the case. There > may simply be an eternal moment, where time does not pass Having a final eternal moment is the same thing as annihilation. > or where we no longer experience it as we do now. This is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. > if we never repent and follow God, that negative effect > continues as long as both we and God exist You here merely assume that nobody in Hell would repent, instead of having the stomach to defend an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted suffering for a repentant person. > [sin] is rebellion against an infinitely righteous and deserving God. This is not an argument that such a rebellion is infinitely wrong. As I told you before (without any rebuttal), an equally invalid argument can be made the other way: Satan is perfectly evil. Even a single good act in a lifetime of evil makes one fall infinitely short of Satan's standard of perfect evil, and thus constitutes grounds for eternal reward. > God is perfectly good and loving and has provided us with all we need No, God has failed to competently provide us with convincing evidence of his existence and with convincing arguments for the justness of his alleged policies. > repentance is not simply a matter of one saying, "Okay, I'll > say whatever you want me to, just get me out of here!" Strawman. For whatever definition of sincere repentance you care to give, you cannot defend the proposition that such repentance would be impossible (or even less likely) to be offered in Hell than on Earth. > Repentance involves acknowledging one's guilt [..] This includes > by definition acceptance of eternal punishment in hell as just > punishment for one's sins This is blatantly circular reasoning. It's the same as saying "you deserve Hell because you do not acknowledge that you deserve Hell." > the repentant will respond that their continued punishment is > deserved and could only end through God's mercy. But that's what the repentant say on Earth, and it is unjust to treat the repentant in Hell so differently. At any rate, it's wrong to even say in the first place that eternal punishment is justified. > hell is comprised of those who would never repent As I told you before (without any attempted rebuttal by you): 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. > someone who would repent in hell would be given the opportunity > to repent on Earth and would presumably repent before they died, > not after. Your presumption here is obviously wrong, for the reason I stated above: the painful reality of separation from God would make one repent of any distance one has created between oneself and God. > it would be unfair for a cruel, evil person to be rewarded in > the afterlife. Blatant fallacy of the excluded middle. A "cruel evil person" should obviously be punished in proportion to her crimes, but no crime warrants eternal suffering. > If we refuse to do [accept God's grace], how can we be allowed > to live in the direct presence of God? You blatantly beg the question. We are debating whether the repentant deserve Hell, not the unrepentant. Again: you seem eager to defend anything other than Hell as an irrevocable unending period of net punishment or inflicted suffering for a repentant person. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net