An Argument Against Eternal Damnation
There's one idea that I find extremely repulsive and that's the idea of sending a person to hell forever. For argument sake, let's assume that all bad deeds (in other words, "sin") require punishment. Let's also assume that pain is a good form of punishment.
God is supposed to be fair and merciful, which means all punishment from him must fit the crime.
All bad deeds (sin) cause a finite amount of harm.
Therefore, no bad deed (sin) should require eternal punishment (because no sin can cause eternal damage).
Therefore, the idea of eternal damnation as a punishment is unfair.
Conclusion: Either God is fair and merciful, or he sends people hell eternally.
God is supposed to be fair and merciful, which means all punishment from him must fit the crime.
All bad deeds (sin) cause a finite amount of harm.
Therefore, no bad deed (sin) should require eternal punishment (because no sin can cause eternal damage).
Therefore, the idea of eternal damnation as a punishment is unfair.
Conclusion: Either God is fair and merciful, or he sends people hell eternally.
Comments (33)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjSy9CWEeU
I asked a Catholic friend of mine why the church preaches one thing when the Bible says another. She referred to some theological jiggery pokery whilst maintaining that the truth is clear in the Bible, as shown by said small library of theological texts to prove that it's clear.
Before god revealed himself through his prophets, no one knew good from evil; In this innocence there's the seed of redemption - god might even excuse horrific crimes for the simple reason that you didn't know the ins and outs of morality.
However, the situation after revelation is different. You know good and evil and that immediately voids the innocence defense. Also, consider the legal principle Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is not an excuse). If humans feel that way - that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable defense against crime - then there's no reason why god should have a different opinion.
Hence, being immoral in spite of god's moral teachings is to completely disregard "lighter" forms of punishment that takes into account innocence. What else does a person who's immoral post-god deserve but the harshest of punishment? Eternal damnation?
I'm super evil and I'm even gonna disregard eternal damnation. Not even eternal damnation can stop my evil! :naughty:
You're much better than most people, people who are kept on the straight and narrow only because of fear.
That said, try not to be evil.
I'm also humble.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'll try, but evil feels so good! :death:
Doesn’t the idea of “original sin” contradict this? Eve’s sin eternally damaged the world.
Is the world eternal?
Eternal damnation might take the form of life sentence and torture until death (the end of eternity).
See South Korea.
This question is for Christians: Can you name a sin that would cause eternal damage warranting an eternity in hell?
From my memory of Genesis, it doesn’t mention Eve repenting, or not repenting, so no one could know her afterlife one way or the other. However, I would be more willing to agree that you can probably find a Christian that will agree with just about anything. :razz:
I think "pain = punishment" only applies temporarily and perhaps not at all. There are some people who have their minds wired or trained to perceive pain as enjoyable or pleasureful or desirable. Think masochism/ self- harm/ bdsm etc. Or those who have mastered meditation techniques who endure suffering neutrally, with indifference or just have strong resilience.
Secondly what is painful to one may not be painful to another both in terms of physical pain tolerance/threshold as well as the quality of psychological torture which would induce mental anguish/suffering or pain.
Pain tolerance can be achieved after a time by simply being overwhelmed by the stimulus to the point where you pass out or endorphins flood your nervous system and impede any further insult to the brains processing.
Plus, regarding documented physical tortures we have learned that people can reach a fugue state of vacancy whereby they have dis-accociated completely with their body, have no fear of death and simply become un-receptive to any degree of further torture up to and beyond the point of death of the body. At this stage the torturer can no longer increase the degree of suffering to the individual.
Based on these I think it's very hard to suffer an eternity of suffering. Especially if you have suffered so long that you have lost all experience, memory or recollection of what it feels like not to suffer. Without contrast to pain I would imagine the brain would find a way to adapt.
I believe what is meant by "sin" resulting in damnation or hellish conditions applies to life rather than death, sort of karmic sense. He who does bad unto others will likely have bad done onto him. In essence you can create your own hell through your behaviour. If allow myself to have a cynical, pessimistic, depressed or vindictive mental state - at war with the world, I will perceive only a world of mistrust, hate, fear and suffering through this shadowy veil I cast over my reality.
I'm not really christian but perhaps in a metaphorical sense the sin that would cause eternal damage is creation itself. Creation in the sense that with construction/ordering/building of systems of negative entropy such as life comes the antagonist - destruction/chaos/disordering of said system. With the ability to generate an awareness that can perceive existence as good there must also be the opposite. Otherwise existence is always neutral.
If you cannot suffer when you dont exist in an state of awareness then to live is risky business. You could be instead in a state of total neutrality where there would be no virtue or sin, no pleasure nor displeasure
That depends of perspective. A failure is still valuable information for learning or approaching a state of control where luck or probability has less impact and is more directed. You could not identify that specific thing which is right if you did not have a knowledge of that which is not right.
In the statement there are more things that "arent" than things that "are" for any state, definition or any quality... it really depends on perspective. .
For example if I hold the concept "dog" in mind then yes there are certainly more things that "arent" this then those that "are" but perhaps if I consider "universe" instead then the opposite is true. Just as with "wrong" and "right"... according to whom? Or what goal? Or what state?
The Scheme:
1. Tell people there is an unseen, loving, benevolent, all powerful being (god) who will look after them, help them when asked to, and even protect them when such protection goes unrecognized.
2. Tell them this can all be achieved in part by praising him, promising your fidelity to him, and loving him.
3. Tell them that if they have lived led a life that pleases this god, and meets one additional requirement, he will see to it that after they die they will spend the rest of their "life" in a paradise (heaven).
4. Tell them that to accomplish this they will have to become members of your organization, support it with time and money, and adhere to all its beliefs and requirements.
5. Make sure they understand that your organization, and no other, possesses the true means of accomplishing all of the above.
6. Then tell them about the additional requirement. Tell them they must accept god's only son, Jesus, as their savior from what god will do to them if they don't meet the requirements as laid out by your organization.
7. Tell them that if they don't meet these requirements god will not send them to heaven after they die, but instead send them to hell, a place of fire and brimstone where they will suffer in anguish for all ETERNITY. A payback sometimes called Eternal Damnation.
8. Tell them that when they come meetings to hear more about the goodness of their new found god and his threat of eternal damnation they may leave their offerings to their adopted religious organization in the form of cash, check, or credit/debit card.
Quoting Wheatley
Only to a fair god and morally-minded people.
Quoting Wheatley
Why can't god be an immoral slave owner (the god of Abraham does condone slavery) who delights in infecting children with bone cancer? After all, as an omniscient and omnipotent being the god of Abraham certainly has the power to foresee such an affliction and prevent it.
God is not fair get used to it!
Quoting Lida Rose
Clearly God believes pain and misery is extremely beneficial to mankind.
I'd actually be fine with that. What horrifies me is that it's much worse: it's designed to teach impressionable children and the adults they grow into to never, ever question the beliefs of their parents or their church; to accept any sanctioned dubious idea no matter how impossible to absorb; to reject any contrary idea no matter how compelling or self-evident or beneficial or interesting.
No doubt not even close to Hell, but okay.
Quoting Wheatley
As long as you've asked, considering that he inflicts pain and misery to some degree or another on everyone, including those who have no idea there's a Get-Out-Of-Hell card that can be played, No, he isn't merciful at all, but rather comes across as a divine masochist who doesn't give a **** about anyone other than those fortunate to be let into his game. Everyone else be damned, as it were.
Quoting Wheatley
And ain't that nice. All those who, through no choice of their own, happened to have been created dumb or unable to make rational decisions please line up at gates 6 through 666 for the next train to Hell. The ignorant may board at gates 667 through 6,666.
An accurate and succinct depiction of religion.
In another defense of God, who is to say that sinning causes Him finite harm? Perhaps every flirtation with rival gods causes him eternal agony? Would a punishment for that sin of eternal agony then be justified?