Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Analogy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Cadet" data-source="post: 68514335" data-attributes="member: 261708"><p>...But hell is a complete perversion of justice. It takes the necessarily <em>finite</em> sin that a human commits in their lifetime, and transforms it into an <em>infinite</em> punishment. Not only that, but sacrificing someone else for one's own sin is <em>also</em> a complete perversion of justice. If I did something wrong, then someone taking the fall for me does not make me "absolved", either of my own conscience nor the guilt for my crime. We understand these things in human morality; to claim that as a matter of divine morality it is somehow "beyond" us is nonsense. You want justice? A <em>temporary</em> hell, delivered to those who have sinned in proportion to their sin, and having merely to do with <em>works</em>, not faith. That would be just. Any being with powers akin to God's should be able to change it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You two should debate about this point. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> </p><p></p><p>But okay, so God <em>wants</em> infinite punishment for finite crime. He <em>wants</em> it not to matter if you were a good person or not. He <em>wants</em> Ted Bundy to get to heaven, and Norman Borlaug to burn in hell. </p><p></p><p>Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think very highly of that god. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well... not quite. See, the thing missing in this comparison is that we don't typically consider the laws of nature "mutable". But we're talking about something someone actually <em>could</em> change! Your God <em>could</em> in theory change this situation. We can't change it, but we're talking about something or someone who <em>can</em>. It's more like citizens complaining to their government about the fact that there's not enough food - <em>they</em> can't fix it, but their government probably could. Now how would you refer to such a government, which quickly, easily, and with no consequence could fix a famine, but instead chooses not to, for no good reason? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This position is far more morally sensible. It solves the problem of "an infinitely just, benevolent being would sentence me to hell for the sin of not believing in him" by removing the "hell" part.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Cadet, post: 68514335, member: 261708"] ...But hell is a complete perversion of justice. It takes the necessarily [I]finite[/I] sin that a human commits in their lifetime, and transforms it into an [I]infinite[/I] punishment. Not only that, but sacrificing someone else for one's own sin is [I]also[/I] a complete perversion of justice. If I did something wrong, then someone taking the fall for me does not make me "absolved", either of my own conscience nor the guilt for my crime. We understand these things in human morality; to claim that as a matter of divine morality it is somehow "beyond" us is nonsense. You want justice? A [I]temporary[/I] hell, delivered to those who have sinned in proportion to their sin, and having merely to do with [I]works[/I], not faith. That would be just. Any being with powers akin to God's should be able to change it. You two should debate about this point. :D But okay, so God [I]wants[/I] infinite punishment for finite crime. He [I]wants[/I] it not to matter if you were a good person or not. He [I]wants[/I] Ted Bundy to get to heaven, and Norman Borlaug to burn in hell. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think very highly of that god. Well... not quite. See, the thing missing in this comparison is that we don't typically consider the laws of nature "mutable". But we're talking about something someone actually [I]could[/I] change! Your God [I]could[/I] in theory change this situation. We can't change it, but we're talking about something or someone who [I]can[/I]. It's more like citizens complaining to their government about the fact that there's not enough food - [I]they[/I] can't fix it, but their government probably could. Now how would you refer to such a government, which quickly, easily, and with no consequence could fix a famine, but instead chooses not to, for no good reason? This position is far more morally sensible. It solves the problem of "an infinitely just, benevolent being would sentence me to hell for the sin of not believing in him" by removing the "hell" part. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Analogy
Top
Bottom