Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Omniverse]

A punishment can be loving or unloving. An example of a loving punishment would be a loving parent punishing his/her child until that child learns his/her lesson and changes. Now, if god condemns unsaved people to eternal torment in hell, then that's an unloving punishment. In order for torment in hell to be a loving punishment, it must be temporary (that is, it must last until those people in hell finally change). Once they repent and accept Jesus as their savior, their hellish torment should end and they should be welcomed into god's heavenly kingdom.

This temporary torment would make god like a loving parent who punishes his children until they change. No loving parent would have his/her child tormented forever or annihilated (killed). We are like god's children, and in order for god to be like a loving parent, he can't condemn anyone to eternal torment or annihilate anyone. It says in the bible that god is love, which means his actions are loving. His punishment of unsaved sinners on Judgement Day should, therefore, also be loving.

[Lagayascienza]

Sounds reasonable to me. Eternal damnation for a finite sin sounds a bit heavy-handed to say the least. Sure, do the crime, do the time, but the time should be commensurable with the crime. A god who is into eternal damnation would not be one I'd be interested in. If I were into gods I'd want a fair, just and reasonable one.

[LuckyR]

Back when the concept of eternal damnation was invented, it's Iron age audience likely expected regressive tactics as they lived in a regressive society.

Though the OP is correct that this antiquated tactic is out of step with modern thought processes (as many Iron age cultural touchstone are).

[Sea Turtle]

A punishment can be loving or unloving. An example of a loving punishment would be a loving parent punishing his/her child until that child learns his/her lesson and changes. Now, if god condemns unsaved people to eternal torment in hell, then that's an unloving punishment. In order for torment in hell to be a loving punishment, it must be temporary (that is, it must last until those people in hell finally change). Once they repent and accept Jesus as their savior, their hellish torment should end and they should be welcomed into god's heavenly kingdom.

This temporary torment would make god like a loving parent who punishes his children until they change. No loving parent would have his/her child tormented forever or annihilated (killed). We are like god's children, and in order for god to be like a loving parent, he can't condemn anyone to eternal torment or annihilate anyone. It says in the bible that god is love, which means his actions are loving. His punishment of unsaved sinners on Judgement Day should, therefore, also be loving.

Agree with you.

But that is not how it is written.

I am aware that some parents annihilate children who break rules.

[Sy Borg]

Back when the concept of eternal damnation was invented, it's Iron age audience likely expected regressive tactics as they lived in a regressive society.

Though the OP is correct that this antiquated tactic is out of step with modern thought processes (as many Iron age cultural touchstone are).

Yes, people were wild back then. It took quite a bit of dissuasion to settle everyone down. Vlad the Impaler ruled a small and vulnerable region, so he used impalement to scare off potential attackers. It was highly effective.

So Christians after the fifth century found that the fear of eternal suffering was a similarly effective deterrent. It darkly amuses me to think of how hardcore people must have been back then to necessitate such extreme threats.

... many Christians insist that if you question hell, you are rejecting what has always been agreed upon by the Church, yet the doctrine of eternal torment was not a widely held view for the first five centuries after Christ, particularly in the early Eastern Church, the Church of the early apostles and Church fathers such as Paul, Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, and others.

What we do see during this time is the expansion and proliferation of pagan myths about the afterlife, which were then repackaged as eternal, fiery torment in the Western (Catholic) Church, primarily by Latin theologians and Church leaders from Rome. It seems this was most likely motivated by political expediency. The idea of eternal torment was a prime tool for controlling the average churchgoer with fear and was congruent with secular mythologies of the time. Later, pop culture added fuel to the fire (pun intended) through imaginative works like Dante’s Inferno.

https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-wh ... 10e6b70815

[ablity0124]

The only reason I'll disagree, although I am a Christian universalist, is that you ignore the internal conquences of sin. We see sin in a temporary manner but in the eyes of God, it reaches through eternity. Logically it make sense that it does also. That why he promises in the bible to punish entire generations upon generations.

As a universalist though. I believe that all people will be reconcile to God but in a non linear matter, that is to say, just like a relationship have ups and downs so does our relationship with God. The terrible times are considered hell and the great times are considered heaven or grace and peace. An endless circle.

[Sy Borg]

ability0124, the internal consequences of sin last no longer than the consequences of taking life threatening risks. It's not eternal.

Once you are dead, the adventure is over and the slate is clean, with the results of your acts absorbed into the whole just as asteroids are absorbed by stars and planets.

[rainchild]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not religious, but have always been interested in religion.

One of the rationales for eternal damnation that I've heard is that the severity of the punishment should be in proportion to the place of the one offended in a hierarchy. So, for example, if a peasant commits an offense against another peasant, the punishment is less severe than it would be if the peasant committed an offense against a nobleman.

Although God is not part of a feudal hierarchy, he does have a place in the hierarchy of all things, i.e., the Great Chain of Being--the ranking of all things. Inanimate things such as stones are lowest in the Great Chain of Being, whereas people are third highest, angels second highest, and God the Most High in this great chain.

Since God's majesty is infinite, it follows that any punishment for offending him should also be infinite.

Comments?

[Sy Borg]

Any deities who are offended by tiny simians giving them cheek are clearly lacking in "infinite majesty".

Thus, eternal punishment is inappropriate. Should a toddler be thrown into eternal damnation for being disobedient? Might that massively disproportionate punishment make clear that the deity and/or its followers are kidding themselves?

A deity with infinite majesty would be big enough not to worry about minutiae. Does a youngster with an ant farm look for bad ants to punish for their sins?

[Count Lucanor]

A punishment can be loving or unloving. An example of a loving punishment would be a loving parent punishing his/her child until that child learns his/her lesson and changes. Now, if god condemns unsaved people to eternal torment in hell, then that's an unloving punishment. In order for torment in hell to be a loving punishment, it must be temporary (that is, it must last until those people in hell finally change). Once they repent and accept Jesus as their savior, their hellish torment should end and they should be welcomed into god's heavenly kingdom.

This temporary torment would make god like a loving parent who punishes his children until they change. No loving parent would have his/her child tormented forever or annihilated (killed). We are like god's children, and in order for god to be like a loving parent, he can't condemn anyone to eternal torment or annihilate anyone. It says in the bible that god is love, which means his actions are loving. His punishment of unsaved sinners on Judgement Day should, therefore, also be loving.

Bear in mind that there is no consensus in Christianity about the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. It’s the orthodox teaching in Catholicism since the Council of Trent and later in the Protestant church, based on disputable interpretations of some vague and scarce passages in the Bible, even some that actually refer to other concepts in Judaism about the afterlife.

[LuckyR]

Any deities who are offended by tiny simians giving them cheek are clearly lacking in "infinite majesty".

Thus, eternal punishment is inappropriate. Should a toddler be thrown into eternal damnation for being disobedient? Might that massively disproportionate punishment make clear that the deity and/or its followers are kidding themselves?

A deity with infinite majesty would be big enough not to worry about minutiae. Does a youngster with an ant farm look for bad ants to punish for their sins?

Exactly. Eternal damnation is illogical from a god's perspective. Yet it is entirely logical, even predictable when viewed from the human inventor of gods perspective.

[Gee]

The only reason I'll disagree, although I am a Christian universalist, is that you ignore the internal conquences of sin. We see sin in a temporary manner but in the eyes of God, it reaches through eternity. Logically it make sense that it does also. That why he promises in the bible to punish entire generations upon generations.

When I was about 15 years old, I also read the passage where "God" promised punishment to generation upon generation for the sin of one. I was furious that a "God" could be so cruel and stopped reading the Bible. It was many years later when I was in my thirties that I read that passage again. But this time I was older and wiser, so my interpretation of that passage was quite a bit different.

What if I lived in that time and I murdered someone, then I was caught and killed for my crime, what would happen to my family? What would happen to my spouse, my children, and my property? Would my property be taken for restitution? Would my spouse be run out of town? Would my children lose status? Who would want to marry the child of a murderer? Or the grandchild? How many generations would it take before the slate was clean again? Seven? Psychology might find seven an equitable number, and "God" states that for those who love me and follow my laws, the punishment would last seven generations. For those who don't follow my laws, the punishment would last forever, so for people who try, the punishment would be limited, but for those who do not try it would last forever.

The people living in that time saw "God" as all powerful, so it would be reasonable to assume that all the bad things that followed a crime were a punishment from "God", but I would not interpret it that way. To my mind, that passage is about a wise and loving "God", who is warning us to remember that the crimes/sins we commit affect more than just ourselves, and to be careful.

As a universalist though. I believe that all people will be reconcile to God but in a non linear matter, that is to say, just like a relationship have ups and downs so does our relationship with God. The terrible times are considered hell and the great times are considered heaven or grace and peace. An endless circle.

You are right that it is "an endless circle".

Gee

[Sculptor1]

As a universalist though. I believe that all people will be reconcile to God but in a non linear matter, that is to say, just like a relationship have ups and downs so does our relationship with God. The terrible times are considered hell and the great times are considered heaven or grace and peace. An endless circle.

And yet nothing of the kind is even hinted at in the Bible.
Are we to take your word for it??
Or are we more likely to judge the matter of retrbution, salvation and redeption by what 2000 years of history has suggested?

[rainchild]

In connection with whether eternal damnation is a loving punishment, where in the Bible does it say that God loves everyone? Some biblical passages support the notion that God hates wicked people. God's hatred of the wicked is stated in Psalm 11:5

In Romans 1, we read about God's wrath against the wicked, starting with verse 18.

So, perhaps Christians should affirm not only that eternal damnation is not a loving punishment, but also that God doesn't want loving punishment for those who reject him and his ways.

I suspect that ancient moral thought was rife with essentialism. People do good things because they ARE good. People do wicked things because they ARE wicked. Inasmuch as everyone commits sinful acts at times, it's because everyone IS sinful. Perhaps the eternal span of God's punishment simply reflects the notion that people can't change their essential nature.

[Lagayascienza]

If some people just ARE wicked, and if, as you say, people cannot change their essential nature, then why did God create them with that essential nature? Why didn't God create everyone GOOD? Then there would be no evil and no need for punishment and the suffering punishment entails. It doesn't seem like a fair or just way to set things up. Or is God allowed to like injustice and unfairness and we just have to suck it up because that's what the boss wants? I'm not sure like the sound of such a doctrine.