How does one properly argue against the fairness of hell?

[monitoradiation]

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

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.

Wait. Are you or are you not a denominational christian?

 

[Blackjoker]

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

Well, I would point to an entirely different issue. If God made everything then God also made Hell, more importantly, the omniscient being that God is would know that apparently most of the world would end up in it. Now, argue whatever you want about free will or the idea of a fallen world, if God is all knowing he has a playbook that tells him that huge chunks of people will be tormented for eternity due to the nature of his system. The other problem here I see is that apparently creation was perfect before the fall, now I'm not wholly sure but if that argument is used then apparently Lucifer, Satan, whatever was still 'perfect' unless 'creation' only accounts for the earth and/or the physical universe but that's a whole other area. If Hell was meant to be a prison for those who rebelled against him, fine, but then we have the lovely problem that unlike mortals the Angels KNEW the rules and understood, they were aware of God and his rules/regs in ways that humanity never could be.

Finally there are some comments by PZ Meyers that deal more with the inanity of the concept of hell and the issues with a heaven. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/sunday_sacrilege_imagine_no_he.php

 

[Thrasymachus]

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

1) Certain states of affairs (ie. those attendant to the holocaust, or decades of sexual abuse) are so bad that no person can ever deserve them.

2) Hell is worse than any earthly state of affairs (including the certain ones contained by [1])

3) If a state of affairs cannot be deserved by any person, then a worse state of affairs cannot be deserved by that person.

C) Hell is unjust.

 

[Rivius]

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

Some people seem to be on the same page as me, but just to clarify to the others:

Presently the Roman Catholic Church teaches that neither Heaven nor Hell is, in the proper sense, a place, created or uncreated, and that each is a question of one's personal relationship with the Trinity.[51]

Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments. (Question 1379) [49] The Catholic Encyclopedia also states: that "theologians generally accept the opinion that Hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on [the location]; hence we may say Hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know."[50]

 

[Anachronous Rex]

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

I have heard a theistic argument which went as follows (paraphrased):

No action is genuinely finite in consequences. Killing, for instance, does not simply rob an individual of years of their life, but deprives friends, acquaintances, and loved ones in an immeasurable way. Society is robed of any achievement, however small, that may have been accomplished by the individual, etc.

More generally, any action performed influences countless other events in a sort of butterfly effect.

I still don't find this argument particularly compelling, however. It seems to ignore the fact that a initially negative act might produce unintended positive ramifications, which you would think, by this logic, would make it a 'good' act.

 

[The_AC_Hedonist]

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

On the fairness of Hell, it cannot be argued at all - punishment and/or torment without hope of redemption is unimaginably cruel and evil, the kind of cruelty one would have to be omnipotent to achieve ( ; This suggests an evil, omnipotent God, which invokes the omnipotence paradox, which therefore disproves the existence of hell.... doesn't it? I dunno, I'm just sayin'.

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.

Just on the issue of the existence of the Biblical Jesus, I believe (sorry, I know) that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that there was a guy called Jesus, around about the same time the gospels place him, that did in fact start the monotheistic faith of Christianity. Whether or not he was in fact the son of god is a different issue - that's something that in my mind definitely did not happen, as a direct result of the Abrahamic God not actually existing, therefore anyone that believes they are his son is batshit insane, a character profile I believe is drawn of Jesus.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

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

Did anyone mention that in islam, they believe that hell is not a place to stay forever? The muslims actually put this forward as a "plus point" when trying to show how islam is "superior" to christianity. They believe that for most sins, a muslim pays only some time of his afterlife in hell as punishment, after which he goes to heaven for eternity. But of course, they also believe certain sins can be punished forever in hell, like being a non-muslim (basically if allah exists, we're all fucked for eternity, lol)

 

[monitoradiation]

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

I have heard a theistic argument which went as follows (paraphrased):

No action is genuinely finite in consequences. Killing, for instance, does not simply rob an individual of years of their life, but deprives friends, acquaintances, and loved ones in an immeasurable way. Society is robed of any achievement, however small, that may have been accomplished by the individual, etc.

More generally, any action performed influences countless other events in a sort of butterfly effect.

I still don't find this argument particularly compelling, however. It seems to ignore the fact that a initially negative act might produce unintended positive ramifications, which you would think, by this logic, would make it a 'good' act.

Really. So could I get out of going to jail for murdering someone whose great-great-great-great grandson might've been the next Hitler? In fact, could Hitler have been redeemed as a savior of mankind or at least neutral in his crimes because his actions have taught us NOT to commit mass genocide, or that the people he had instructed to kill might've survived and had children and their children might've done bad things?

What a bogus argument.