How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell?

[Rivius]

Well, usually, it comes up that someone would say that, hypothetically, if God were to exist hell would be unjust. He would be punishing someone for eternity for a finite sin. Not even 100 years of murdering babies can justify an eternity of suffering. Heck if someone killed my family, I think I'd relent in punishing them after about a couple thousand years, or millions or whatever...But I'd relent EVENTUALLY.

A certain curve-ball Christians throw though is that God doesn't actually send people to hell. They say that your sins actually act as a veil against him. He hates sin, and as you sin and sin some more, you cause yourself to distance yourself from him. And then, when you die in sin, you go to hell, which is a state of mind where you're separated from God. Supposedly, you don't actually burn in a pit of fire, but your soul is crying out in anguish because you're separated from God (and for some reason this is inherently torturous to the soul).

How do you actually argue against that now? Because now they made it look like God was the father who tried so hard, but his son still went off to shoplift and join gangs and do drugs.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Well the simple answer to the "god didn't send you there personally" bit is that he's bloody omnipotent. He knows you're going there and won't lift a finger to stop it. Doesn't sound like such a good guy to me. If your friend fell into a self-destructive drug habit wouldn't you care enough to actually show up personally to slap some sense into him?

However I think an even bigger issue than the "why is god so mean?" issue of sending people to hell is the "why is hell so ethnocentric?" issue.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Christian_distribution.png

> 90% of Asia is going to hell according to Christian doctrine. How did an omnipotent being do such a shitty job of spreading his message there? Does he just hate Chinese people?

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Well there is a good answer in this article
(Objection 6 which is written far better then I could do)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html#obj6

 

[Baranduin]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Well, usually, it comes up that someone would say that, hypothetically, if God were to exist hell would be unjust. He would be punishing someone for eternity for a finite sin. Not even 100 years of murdering babies can justify an eternity of suffering. Heck if someone killed my family, I think I'd relent in punishing them after about a couple thousand years, or millions or whatever...But I'd relent EVENTUALLY.

A certain curve-ball Christians throw though is that God doesn't actually send people to hell. They say that your sins actually act as a veil against him. He hates sin, and as you sin and sin some more, you cause yourself to distance yourself from him. And then, when you die in sin, you go to hell, which is a state of mind where you're separated from God. Supposedly, you don't actually burn in a pit of fire, but your soul is crying out in anguish because you're separated from God (and for some reason this is inherently torturous to the soul).

How do you actually argue against that now?

I think you've given yourself the answer: "and for some reason this is inherently torturous to the soul". Why is that so?

Some will say that being separated from a father is always painful, but of course they are thinking in their concept of perfect, christian family, ignoring the sons of bitches that there are out there, and the relief some find when abandoning their families.

Most of them (at least, to my knowledge) base this vision on the Parable of the Prodigal Son: the emancipated son is the bad one, the lazy one who wants to waste the money his father gave him. So if you leave your father - God - it is to waste the gifts he has given to you. You can see the fallacy. Bad sons leave home, no doubt. But does remaining at home make you a good son? Aren't there good people who decides to try to get a life by themselves?

So a way to argue that is to show that there are good people who, still, want independence, administer their own money and goods, choose their own husbands or wifes and raise their own family. They will not ask their share of the inheritance, but just a small borrow to begin with - to buy a small shop, or perhaps their own field - that they'll return as soon as they can. If they agree with that such people exist - some will not -, you only have to ask what have those people done bad then? Why should they be punished? Isn't it unfair?

Note that some denominations accept Grace or similar concepts, so God could make an exception is those cases... If that's the case, how they know you're not one of them? Are they implying you're not worth of the Grace? Or if grace is so scarcely applied, aren't being lots of those good men and women being even more unfairly punished, since some of them are saved and some of them not, without any reasonable distinction?

Because now they made it look like God was the father who tried so hard, but his son still went off to shoplift and join gangs and do drugs.

Or you can try the common approach that the father is a heinous being that killed millions of humans in the past, imposed arbitrary rules like that raped women had to marry the rapist, and made abortion compulsory in some situations; that in at least one occasion tortured one of his sons - Job - just for the pleasure to see how much endurance he had, and on and on and on. And of course he set the rules of the universe so those good sons I wrote about before will go to Hell, regardless if they were good or bad. It's not a Good Father, it's a Son of a Bitch. The emancipated son shouldn't be punished: it's the father the one who should be put in prison.

Furthermore, the distinction between "sending people who behaves in a certain way to Hell" and "setting up the system so people who behaves in a certain way is filtered and ends in Hell" is purely semantical. It's like saying that Hitler didn't actually killed any jew, he only set the things up so jews were killed in mass - and trying to justify both Hitler and the Holocaust with it. And no, Godwin's doesn't apply here.


And of course, they'll still have to prove that there's an all loving father and an all lovely afterlife, and that they are more likely to put you in that heaven than any other denomination.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Note that some denominations accept Grace or similar concepts, so God could make an exception is those cases... If that's the case, how they know you're not one of them? Are they implying you're not worth of the Grace? Or if grace is so scarcely applied, aren't being lots of those good men and women being even more unfairly punished, since some of them are saved and some of them not, without any reasonable distinction?

Every time I see "grace" mentioned it's only in contrast to "works." That is being a good person can't get you into heaven, only god's grace can, which you receive by accepting Jesus. Assuming that is, you aren't a Australian Aborigine from 200 AD or anyone else who has never heard of Jesus, because then fuck you to hell.

 

[Unwardil]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

I think the best way to argue against this particular curve ball is actually to wave the bible in their face, ya know, the fire and brimstone bits as if to say 'Don't tell me hell isn't literally being burned for ever, as long as you're making shit up then I can to'. I don't know the actual passages but a good google search will likely turn up some juicy tidbits. Search 'fire and brimstone' and see what comes up.

 

[brettpalmer]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

I think the best way to argue against this particular curve ball is actually to wave the bible in their face, ya know, the fire and brimstone bits as if to say 'Don't tell me hell isn't literally being burned for ever, as long as you're making shit up then I can to'. I don't know the actual passages but a good google search will likely turn up some juicy tidbits. Search 'fire and brimstone' and see what comes up.

Ya'see, that's where I'd come from, too. Before I accept this version of hell being a mere "state of mind," I'd need some backup for that assertion. And, while the Bible certainly can't be thought of as reliable (!), it'd be a good place to start. After all, it's not like they'd be trying to back up some sort of historical or scientific assertion with their book of fairy tales; they'd merely be backing up some detail of their fairy tale with the fairy tale's own book!

 

[Andiferous]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

(I don't believe in hell, but... ) I look at it this way:

It's 1950, and little johnny is running through the house (even though his mother told him not to) and happens to knock over and smash an expensive lamp in the living room. Mommy comes in, exasperated, red in the face, and yells:

"Bad boy, little Johnny! Just wait until your father comes home!!"

So, when daddy comes home and she tells him what little Johnny has done, knowing full well that little Johnny is going to get a big bad spanking, is she also culpable for the punishment, or is she absolved of all responsibility?

Another curious question, i suppose, is "Is the devil omniscient, or does god give him the naughty Christmas list?"

Even though god hasn't raised a hand in the punishment, he's threatened it, handed people over to his own naughty arch angel, and turned a blind eye to their suffering when the punishment happens.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

(I don't believe in hell, but... ) I look at it this way:

It's 1950, and little johnny is running through the house (even though his mother told him not to) and happens to knock over and smash an expensive lamp in the living room. Mommy comes in, exasperated, red in the face, and yells:

"Bad boy, little Johnny! Just wait until your father comes home!!"

So, when daddy comes home and she tells him what little Johnny has done, knowing full well that little Johnny is going to get a big bad spanking, is she also culpable for the punishment, or is she absolved of all responsibility?

Another curious question, i suppose, is "Is the devil omniscient, or does god give him the naughty Christmas list?"

Even though god hasn't raised a hand in the punishment, he's threatened it, handed people over to his own naughty arch angel, and turned a blind eye to their suffering when the punishment happens.

Well then the finiteness comes into play. Johnny gets a spanking and in the future doesn't break things in the house. The parents are teaching him what is and isn't acceptable behavior, but its entirely conceivable that it's because they love him and want him to mature into a responsible adult. It's possible to see some benefit of the punishment taking place. If god gave me nightmares or a cold to change my evil ways, it would be understandable (though if he's omnipotent he could just magically change my ways). However if Johnny was spanked for eternity and never again had to make the choice to run in the house or not to, why is he still being spanked? What purpose does that serve?

 

[Andiferous]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Exactly, what god did by sending people to the devil is much worse than what mommy did. Although...

Mommy could have sent Jonny to the corner, or had a talk with Johhny, or used some other sort of discipline to teach Johnny a lesson (since she didn't want to spank Johnny herself). instead, she took the lazy route and said." Just wait until your daddy comes home" and waited for daddy to deal out the dreaded spanking while not actually doing anything about the situation herself.

 

[Baranduin]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Exactly, what god did by sending people to the devil is much worse than what mommy did. Although...

Mommy could have sent Jonny to the corner, or had a talk with Johhny, or used some other sort of discipline to teach Johnny a lesson (since she didn't want to spank Johnny herself). instead, she took the lazy route and said." Just wait until your daddy comes home" and waited for daddy to deal out the dreaded spanking while not actually doing anything about the situation herself.

Or she wanted to wait to discuss which would be the more adequated punishment, and make the decision to come from BOTH parents; this way the punishing parent is not always one (and the same) of them - both parents show that that shouldn't be done.

Well then the finiteness comes into play. Johnny gets a spanking and in the future doesn't break things in the house. The parents are teaching him what is and isn't acceptable behavior, but its entirely conceivable that it's because they love him and want him to mature into a responsible adult. It's possible to see some benefit of the punishment taking place. If god gave me nightmares or a cold to change my evil ways, it would be understandable (though if he's omnipotent he could just magically change my ways). However if Johnny was spanked for eternity and never again had to make the choice to run in the house or not to, why is he still being spanked? What purpose does that serve?

To make you fear him over all the things, to show you how jealous and terrible he is, and to compensate whatever psychological complex or trauma. Who knows? God works in inscrutable ways...

I think the best way to argue against this particular curve ball is actually to wave the bible in their face, ya know, the fire and brimstone bits as if to say 'Don't tell me hell isn't literally being burned for ever, as long as you're making shit up then I can to'. I don't know the actual passages but a good google search will likely turn up some juicy tidbits. Search 'fire and brimstone' and see what comes up.

And they'll agree that "hell is literally being burned forever". Or they'll reply that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and that Hell is a specially painful state of mind due to the separation from God, or some equivalent to darkness - being God the light, of course.

The curve ball is about the role God plays when you go to hell, not the existence nor the nature of Hell.

 

[Schwobar]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

The distinction between an eternity in heaven and an eternity in hell is an arbitrary one. Eternity is the very definition of hell.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

The concept of a eternal hell is a ridiculous one to begin with.

You have a finite amount of time to decide on something, and yet, AFTER it happens, you cannot change your mind? For all his omnipotence god cannot let someone who is in hell OUT of hell once he believes that god exists and jesus is his savior? Are you kidding me? Is it THAT important that we believe in THIS life?

 

[Worldquest]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Get ready for this...

I agree with monitoradiation. Heaven and hell are concepts invented to control people, just like organised religion as a whole.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

I agree with monitoradiation. Heaven and hell are concepts invented to control people, just like organised religion as a whole.

And you should agree with me on that point, considering that judaism did not have a concrete definition of hell, per se. Therefore, for christianity to contain the concept of hell, it would have to have been made up.

Which other parts of the currently-popular christian doctrines are you not on board with?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

To make you fear him over all the things, to show you how jealous and terrible he is, and to compensate whatever psychological complex or trauma. Who knows? God works in inscrutable ways...

So god is Pharaoh Stalin? Not sure how that would help their case.

 

[Mapp]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Well, usually, it comes up that someone would say that, hypothetically, if God were to exist hell would be unjust. He would be punishing someone for eternity for a finite sin. Not even 100 years of murdering babies can justify an eternity of suffering. Heck if someone killed my family, I think I'd relent in punishing them after about a couple thousand years, or millions or whatever...But I'd relent EVENTUALLY.

The important thing to point out is that hell covers a lot more than murder. I point out that no just society thinks that theft and murder deserve the same punishment, let alone eternal punishment. However, theft isn't even the half of it. God sends people to hell for thought crime, for thinking bad thoughts, committing murder and adultery in one's heart as the theists say. So ask someone if they believe that killing someone and wishing someone dead are both deserving of life imprisonment in a triple-max prison. They usually then revert to this nonsense about God's standard being above our standard, and that we have no right to judge it, which essentially means, I know this system is unjust but I'm not allowed to comment on it.

A certain curve-ball Christians throw though is that God doesn't actually send people to hell. They say that your sins actually act as a veil against him. He hates sin, and as you sin and sin some more, you cause yourself to distance yourself from him. And then, when you die in sin, you go to hell, which is a state of mind where you're separated from God. Supposedly, you don't actually burn in a pit of fire, but your soul is crying out in anguish because you're separated from God (and for some reason this is inherently torturous to the soul).

If they're claiming God doesn't send people to hell then they aren't reading their damn Bible. Revelation 20:11-15:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The Bible is absolutely unequivocal about who does the judging and who does the sentencing, and what that sentence is. One thing the fundies have over the wishy-washy moderate Christians, is they've generally actually read the book. If they want to create some kind of tortured metaphor out of that and say hell is eternal separation, that's fine, but that does not in any way reduce the injustice of rewarding credulity over skepticism with eternal reward vs. eternal punishment. No father would ever propose such an injust punishment for their children. No father, who was sane and loving would ever tell his children, "if you don't love me unconditionally and praise me I'm going to send you away from me forever." This God, no matter how you slice it is venal, wicked and nasty.

 

[UrbanMasque]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

The concept of a eternal hell is a ridiculous one to begin with.

You have a finite amount of time to decide on something, and yet, AFTER it happens, you cannot change your mind? For all his omnipotence god cannot let someone who is in hell OUT of hell once he believes that god exists and Jesus is his savior? Are you kidding me? Is it THAT important that we believe in THIS life?

Not only does the punishment not fit the crime, (if you murdered someone) you can probably make the argument against Mr. Omnipresent that you were created with the intention of killing [ I guess that's more of a freewill debate), but I think it can still be asked why he would punish someone for carrying out their mission/purpose. (Am I off topic?)

I've always had a problem with the concept of hell too, but for different reasons. Lucifer was cast out of heaven into hell with all his followers for trying to challenge God. Basically, he wanted to rule and thought he could do a better job than the current administration - So why would he make hell a place of suffering and torment? Wouldn't he want to rival god's paradise? Maybe steal some followers? "Oh God cast you out did he? Well then, your than welcomed into my humble abode. Please.. make yourself comfy."


What Schwobar said is soo true - an eternity of anything is hell.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

Not only does the punishment not fit the crime, (if you murdered someone) you can probably make the argument against Mr. Omnipresent that you were created with the intention of killing [ I guess that's more of a freewill debate), but I think it can still be asked why he would punish someone for carrying out their mission/purpose. (Am I off topic?)

Well I suppose even if it's a tad off topic that's still okay.

Free will is a funny thing; supposedly because we're sinful by nature, given free will, we will always sin. Which is another ironic thing - if you asked a christian whether or not there's free will in heaven, they're in a bind:

If free will exists in heaven, then that demonstrates that sinlessness and free will can coexist, destroying their original assumption that free will leads to sin.

If free will does not exist in heaven, then how am I different than a robot that just happens to look a lot like me?

The only way they get out of this dilemma is to say that I will love god so much that I won't care whether or not I have free will - to which I call BS.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell

I agree with monitoradiation. Heaven and hell are concepts invented to control people, just like organised religion as a whole.

And you should agree with me on that point, considering that judaism did not have a concrete definition of hell, per se. Therefore, for christianity to contain the concept of hell, it would have to have been made up.

Which other parts of the currently-popular christian doctrines are you not on board with?

Heaven / hell
The existence of the biblical Jesus
The nature of the biblical god (he seems like an asshole to me...not like God (ie you and me and all of existence))

I can't think of anything else. Can you think of anything, and I'll let you know.