Hell

[Jane_the_Bane]

Silmarien, let's not derail the thread. A focus on the "justice" of hell necessitates a focus on the factor of punishment, not how we seek to help victims. (Otherwise, we could shift to discussing how Christianity expects people to not only accept that all of their non-Christian loved ones will suffer in a cosmic gulag (regardless of kindness or conduct), but also to potentially face those who've harmed, raped or killed them in heaven if the perps "found Jesus" at some point in their lives.

Yes, helping victims is important. Satisfying their (understandable, but unacceptable) desire to harm those who've harmed them and see them suffer, however, should not be part of those efforts.

Combating the kind of cultural dynamic that encourages men to sexually assault women does more to break the vicious chain than any punishment visited upon the convicted rapists.

As for white collar crime: it causes more death and harm than any robbery.

 

[createdtoworship]

How could the cosmic equivalent of a gulag or concentration camp, a place of utter hopelessness and perpetual torment, ever be anything else?

I feel that conscious eternal damnation in Hell is justified myself.

see if you had the ability to read every thought of every human, every lie, every deception, every angry word, every hate filled word, and the sheer number of them you would think twice about calling God unjust for eternal hell.

See if we sinned just once a day. And we know we sin probably hundreds. But lets do the math on one sin alone. That is 365 sins a year. Before your are even a teenager you have committed 3,650 sins. In an average 80 year life span you have committed nearly 30,000 sins. Now that's all fine and dandy because we forget about what we had for lunch yesterday. But imagine being a superiour being, and being constantly reminded not just of yesterdays sins, but of sins you did when you were a baby. (because God is omniscient, and knows everything). That is being constantly reminded of 30,000 sins all at once. Just for one person, for 1 sin a day. I committed a habitual sin the other week. I had been real good for months, then I just messed up. And you know what? God was merciful. But I noticed one thing, I was angry at God the next day. My heart was hard like a rock! I realized this because just a day earlier, my heart was pliable and soft the day before (compassionate). At least for me it was. I can always do better though. But I noticed one sin, made my heart angry at God. Imagine never having forgiveness for your sins, and bearing the guilt of 30,000 sins. How angry would you be at God? Yes, when we see the whole picture, we realize that man hates the idea of God, and he loathes God in his normal condition. Man would rather be in hell than be in heaven with God, he hates God so much. So God gives them what they want. But it is when they actually feel the heat, like lazerus... that they start being sorry. But then it's too late.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I feel that conscious eternal damnation in Hell is justified myself.

I can see that. But it does not make that belief/feeling more justifiable.
Let's ignore the bizarre notion that parking infractions, insincere compliments and lustful thoughts somehow deserve a sentence that is a bazillion times worse than capital punishment just by adding them up.
Let's focus instead on the blame-shifting of suggesting that people "choose hell": as a Christian, you believe that God can change this. Depending on your predestination-mileage, this can go from God specifically creating people to be saved, over unconditional grace redeeming those whom God chooses, to people "choosing God" and thereby earning their Get-out-of-hell-ticket by no merit of their own.
What ALL of these have in common, however, is that the power to save lies with God, not us.
You don't need to study theology (professionally or, like me, as an interested layperson) to understand why:
There are Christians who believe that God helps them even in minor matters. (Can't find that lost contact lens? Your prayer has prompted the LORD to help you find it!) Now, as a human being, I am capable of helping others see where their thoughts veer off in an erroneous direction. I'm not always successful in convincing them, but that's only because I do not have the expert knowledge of how they "tick", don't know for sure what information they need in order to snap out of their mental dead end. An omniscient god, however, would possess that information. There could never be a "hardened heart" that God couldn't "soften" - or that's not gotten hard just because God allowed it to harden.
Letting a person stumble into certain doom (by not using your privileged knowledge or the power to prevent it) makes you culpable.

In legal terms, the LORD would be constantly guilty of denial of assistance - a crime in and of itself.

 

[Chriliman]

I can see that. But it does not make that belief/feeling more justifiable.
Let's ignore the bizarre notion that parking infractions, insincere compliments and lustful thoughts somehow deserve a sentence that is a bazillion times worse than capital punishment just by adding them up.
Let's focus instead on the blame-shifting of suggesting that people "choose hell": as a Christian, you believe that God can change this. Depending on your predestination-mileage, this can go from God specifically creating people to be saved, over unconditional grace redeeming those whom God chooses, to people "choosing God" and thereby earning their Get-out-of-hell-ticket by no merit of their own.
What ALL of these have in common, however, is that the power to save lies with God, not us.
You don't need to study theology (professionally or, like me, as an interested layperson) to understand why:
There are Christians who believe that God helps them even in minor matters. (Can't find that lost contact lens? Your prayer has prompted the LORD to help you find it!) Now, as a human being, I am capable of helping others see where their thoughts veer off in an erroneous direction. I'm not always successful in convincing them, but that's only because I do not have the expert knowledge of how they "tick", don't know for sure what information they need in order to snap out of their mental dead end. An omniscient god, however, would possess that information. There could never be a "hardened heart" that God couldn't "soften" - or that's not gotten hard just because God allowed it to harden.
Letting a person stumble into certain doom (by not using your privileged knowledge or the power to prevent it) makes you culpable.

In legal terms, the LORD would be constantly guilty of denial of assistance - a crime in and of itself.

I posed this to someone else elsewhere, but I think it fits here too.

I hear people say “grace and mercy are the suspension of justice”, but why wouldn’t it be more just to show grace and mercy through forgiveness and restoration rather than simply imprison or kill someone for what they did?

As this relates to an afterlife, let’s say you murdered someone and then you met them again in the afterlife, would they be just to forever torment you for murdering them? Would it not be more just to forgive you and live in peace for eternity?

 

[Silmarien]

Silmarien, let's not derail the thread. A focus on the "justice" of hell necessitates a focus on the factor of punishment, not how we seek to help victims. (Otherwise, we could shift to discussing how Christianity expects people to not only accept that all of their non-Christian loved ones will suffer in a cosmic gulag (regardless of kindness or conduct), but also to potentially face those who've harmed, raped or killed them in heaven if the perps "found Jesus" at some point in their lives.

Yes, helping victims is important. Satisfying their (understandable, but unacceptable) desire to harm those who've harmed them and see them suffer, however, should not be part of those efforts.

Combating the kind of cultural dynamic that encourages men to sexually assault women does more to break the vicious chain than any punishment visited upon the convicted rapists.

As for white collar crime: it causes more death and harm than any robbery.

If you don't want to derail the thread, you should refrain from making claims about how criminal justice ought to be carried out, declaring any alternative perspective to be unenlightened barbarism suited only for totalitarian regimes. I'm a progressive attorney--there are few issues more important to me than legal justice, and what I'm reading here actually horrifies me.

The fact of the matter is that I do find your position more disturbing than the one you're criticizing. I take serious issue with suggesting that victims ought to be educated in what is and is not an acceptable way to react to what happened to them. State punishment exists for a reason: to break the cycle of vengeance while still providing resolution and vindication to the victim. You've eliminated the possibility of vindication entirely--I would agree that victims should not wish their attackers to suffer, but they have every right to expect that payment will be made in the form of prison time, that there will be recognition of the fact that an actual wrong occurred.

We see violations of the notion of just punishment all the time: young white men get a slap on the wrist for rape while a black woman goes to prison for self-defense. Two people committing the same crime may receive different sentences, where the only difference between the criminals are ethnicity and income level. There are serious problems with the way criminal justice is carried out even today, but the fact that the notion of retribution plays a role is not one of them. Victims deserve better than to be told that their attackers merely need to be corrected and rehabilitated, but owe them no genuine debt.

You treat the different aspects of justice as if they were in conflict--as if we cannot expect criminals to serve sentences in recognition of the actual harm that they have done while the system simultaneously seeks to rehabilitate them. The various elements of justice are complementary, and there's no wisdom in seeking to eliminate one of them entirely.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I posed this to someone else elsewhere, but I think it fits here too.

I hear people say “grace and mercy are the suspension of justice”, but why wouldn’t it be more just to show grace and mercy through forgiveness and restoration rather than simply imprison or kill someone for what they did?

As this relates to an afterlife, let’s say you murdered someone and then you met them again in the afterlife, would they be just to forever torment you for murdering them? Would it not be more just to forgive you and live in peace for eternity?

See silmarien's post right below this one for an answer as to why this constitutes a problem:
Do you wish to tell Anne Frank and other murdered Jews to "get over themselves" when meeting their happy, smiling, forgiven murderers in heaven? (That is, if we ignore Christian orthodoxy and assume "Christ-denying" Jews go to heaven to begin with. Since almost every German was Protestant or Catholic back then, the foot soldiers in the death camps are more likely to invokw Jesus as their lord and saviour than most of their victims.)
Is their desire for others to acknowledge thst they have been wronged incorrect? Do you demand their compliance to the dictum of forgiveness?

 

[Chriliman]

See silmarien's post right below this one for an answer as to why this constitutes a problem:
Do you wish to tell Anne Frank and other murdered Jews to "get over themselves" when meeting their happy, smiling, forgiven murderers in heaven? (That is, if we ignore Christian orthodoxy and assume "Christ-denying" Jews go to heaven to begin with. Since almost every German was Protestant or Catholic back then, the foot soldiers in the death camps are more likely to invokw Jesus as their lord and saviour than most of their victims.)
Is their desire for others to acknowledge thst they have been wronged incorrect? Do you demand their compliance to the dictum of forgiveness?

Isnt an afterlife where genuine repentance and forgiveness happens, better than one where it doesn’t?

 

[createdtoworship]

I can see that. But it does not make that belief/feeling more justifiable.
Let's ignore the bizarre notion that parking infractions, insincere compliments and lustful thoughts somehow deserve a sentence that is a bazillion times worse than capital punishment just by adding them up.
Let's focus instead on the blame-shifting of suggesting that people "choose hell": as a Christian, you believe that God can change this. Depending on your predestination-mileage, this can go from God specifically creating people to be saved, over unconditional grace redeeming those whom God chooses, to people "choosing God" and thereby earning their Get-out-of-hell-ticket by no merit of their own.
What ALL of these have in common, however, is that the power to save lies with God, not us.
You don't need to study theology (professionally or, like me, as an interested layperson) to understand why:
There are Christians who believe that God helps them even in minor matters. (Can't find that lost contact lens? Your prayer has prompted the LORD to help you find it!) Now, as a human being, I am capable of helping others see where their thoughts veer off in an erroneous direction. I'm not always successful in convincing them, but that's only because I do not have the expert knowledge of how they "tick", don't know for sure what information they need in order to snap out of their mental dead end. An omniscient god, however, would possess that information. There could never be a "hardened heart" that God couldn't "soften" - or that's not gotten hard just because God allowed it to harden.
Letting a person stumble into certain doom (by not using your privileged knowledge or the power to prevent it) makes you culpable.

In legal terms, the LORD would be constantly guilty of denial of assistance - a crime in and of itself.

God predestinates people based on foreknowledge. He chooses them yes, but not if they will not return the favor and believe. This is a common calvinistic mistake, and not for this thread but 1 Pet 1:2 does say that we are elect according to foreknowledge. And my main premise is that over any given life, we have 30000 to over a million or more sins. There is a cumulative affect. There has to be. See you are seeing judgement in a linear fashion. For one sin we get hell, and while that is theologically true that is not part of my logical arguement. I am not using the Bible at this point. I am warming you up to it. Right now, if you commited over a million sins, say ten million. You do not think that a perfect God has the right to punish you forever? Realizing that looking at someone is actually adultery in the heart, and that hating someone is actually murder, and that taking a paper clip from work makes you a a thief. See what do you call someone who takes things? a thief. What do you call someone you tells lies? A liar. And if you ever have looked with lust at someone you are an adulterer.

so yes, being an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, not just one one count but on multiple thousands of counts, does disqualify us for a perfect place called heaven.

And I believe if you can get 100 years in prison for murdering one person, then whenever you are angry with someone, according to God's holy word, that is like adding a hundred years to your sentence. I am not even talking about all the other sins.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You do not think that a perfect God has the right to punish you forever?

You intended this as a purely rhetorical question, but I'll take the liberty of treating it as a real one.
No, I do not think any entity, perfect or otherwise, has the right to punish any sentient being forever. In fact, I object to this concept on so many levels that I hardly know where to start in explaining my intellectual rejection and emotional revulsion at the idea.

First of all, while repeat offenses are certainly treated more severely than isolated incidents, even a trillion speeding tickets would never add up to the same gravity as a single premeditated murder, and neither of those offenses would justify torture, let alone an ETERNAL state of torment.
Justice has got a social function, first and foremost: encourage cooperation, penalize anti-social behaviour, protect the herd from harm, and yes: also a certain degree of basic reciprocity ("you hurt me, so now I want to (see you) hurt you in turn").
Only that last point touches upon your concept of eternal damnation as justice, and even in that case, it is not a sustainable argument. To suggest that an eternal deity is so mortally offended and hurt by Suzy's theft of grandma's cookies as to be compelled to torment the girl throughout infinity is beyond spurious. It would even be spurious if Suzy turned out to be a serial killer at some point and proceeded to butcher thousands of people in her lifetime.
Her torture would be literally pointless: it didn't prevent the murders, it won't discourage similar deeds in the future, it doesn't recompensate the victims, it does not redeem or enlighten Suzy to the error of her ways. It just inflicts an infinite amount of agony for finite crimes.
Neither a deity's supposed "perfection" (which is seriously jeopardised by the notion that it is offended by the naughty thoughts of some sapient apes on a speck of dust in the infinite sea of space-time) nor their status as "creator" gives it the right to inflict torment (eternal or otherwise) upon sentient, self-aware beings.
Such behaviour is such a huge disqualifier that it precludes any worship.
IF there was a deity, and IF it placed even one being in eternal torment, I'd consider it my moral duty to oppose it - even if my efforts were rendered futile by my comparative powerlessness. No promise of bliss, exaltation, or other rewards could entice me to ignore the sheer injustice of that one being suffering senselessly.

Realizing that looking at someone is actually adultery in the heart, and that hating someone is actually murder, and that taking a paper clip from work makes you a a thief. See what do you call someone who takes things? a thief. What do you call someone you tells lies? A liar. And if you ever have looked with lust at someone you are an adulterer.

No.
There is a reason why no legal system outside of a dystopian dictatorship will ever penalize "thoughtcrime".
There is an important and fundamental difference between thinking about doing something, or even being tempted to do it, and actually turning that impulse into action.

There is a moral dimension to trying to avoid such impulses, but it's NOT what you seem to suggest here. Social behaviour based on fear of external authorities/punishment is a very fragile construct: remove the authority figure, and people will turn into monsters, since their good conduct was conditional on the application of external force. It's far more sustainable to have people realize *why* a certain course of action is wrong.
For example, even if you removed every means of penalising me, I'd still not be tempted to harm the people around me (or even random strangers). The prospect of their hurt causes me considerable discomfort, and I also understand that I'd be in dire straits if everybody else dismissed social behaviour.

so yes, being an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, not just one one count but on multiple thousands of counts, does disqualify us for a perfect place called heaven.

You are moving the goalposts. Between "disqualifying for a perfect place" and "deserving eternal torment" lies an infinite amount of other options.

 

[createdtoworship]

You intended this as a purely rhetorical question, but I'll take the liberty of treating it as a real one.
No, I do not think any entity, perfect or otherwise, has the right to punish any sentient being forever. In fact, I object to this concept on so many levels that I hardly know where to start in explaining my intellectual rejection and emotional revulsion at the idea.

First of all, while repeat offenses are certainly treated more severely than isolated incidents, even a trillion speeding tickets would never add up to the same gravity as a single premeditated murder, and neither of those offenses would justify torture, let alone an ETERNAL state of torment.
Justice has got a social function, first and foremost: encourage cooperation, penalize anti-social behaviour, protect the herd from harm, and yes: also a certain degree of basic reciprocity ("you hurt me, so now I want to (see you) hurt you in turn").
Only that last point touches upon your concept of eternal damnation as justice, and even in that case, it is not a sustainable argument. To suggest that an eternal deity is so mortally offended and hurt by Suzy's theft of grandma's cookies as to be compelled to torment the girl throughout infinity is beyond spurious. It would even be spurious if Suzy turned out to be a serial killer at some point and proceeded to butcher thousands of people in her lifetime.
Her torture would be literally pointless: it didn't prevent the murders, it won't discourage similar deeds in the future, it doesn't recompensate the victims, it does not redeem or enlighten Suzy to the error of her ways. It just inflicts an infinite amount of agony for finite crimes.
Neither a deity's supposed "perfection" (which is seriously jeopardised by the notion that it is offended by the naughty thoughts of some sapient apes on a speck of dust in the infinite sea of space-time) nor their status as "creator" gives it the right to inflict torment (eternal or otherwise) upon sentient, self-aware beings.
Such behaviour is such a huge disqualifier that it precludes any worship.
IF there was a deity, and IF it placed even one being in eternal torment, I'd consider it my moral duty to oppose it - even if my efforts were rendered futile by my comparative powerlessness. No promise of bliss, exaltation, or other rewards could entice me to ignore the sheer injustice of that one being suffering senselessly.


No.
There is a reason why no legal system outside of a dystopian dictatorship will ever penalize "thoughtcrime".
There is an important and fundamental difference between thinking about doing something, or even being tempted to do it, and actually turning that impulse into action.

There is a moral dimension to trying to avoid such impulses, but it's NOT what you seem to suggest here. Social behaviour based on fear of external authorities/punishment is a very fragile construct: remove the authority figure, and people will turn into monsters, since their good conduct was conditional on the application of external force. It's far more sustainable to have people realize *why* a certain course of action is wrong.
For example, even if you removed every means of penalising me, I'd still not be tempted to harm the people around me (or even random strangers). The prospect of their hurt causes me considerable discomfort, and I also understand that I'd be in dire straits if everybody else dismissed social behaviour.


You are moving the goalposts. Between "disqualifying for a perfect place" and "deserving eternal torment" lies an infinite amount of other options.

The Bible says for one sin we die, but for illustration purposes lets forget that part, because you are not ready for that concept yet. Lets multiply all our sins together and see if rationally speaking it is possible for God to be just in eternal damnation.

so how many life sentences should a person have if anger is considered murder?

lets start there, how many years would a NON christian be in prison if every time they were angry they got a life sentence in Hell?

say when someone cuts in front of you, thats a hundred years.

say your stuck in traffic, a hundred

say you are in a fight with your boyfriend and you say " you idiot!"

thats a hundred years (matthew 5:22)

every time you have called someone a moron or idiot, 100 years

the line at the bank is too long, and your late for your dentist appointment and you lose your cool - 100 years.

someone at taco bell puts ketsup on your taco, when you wanted hotsause, 100 years

at school the teacher gives you a bad grade unjustly, and you throw your books- 100 years.

note being frustrated is not the same as being angry. Anger has a way of manifesting itself physically. So I tried to isolate frustration from anger.

it's okay to be frustrated, just not to manifest it in an angery way at other people and act rudely because of it.

See there just is a few paragraphs that is 800 years, and all this can happen in one day, if it's a bad day. And usually when we have a bad day, it does multiply itself like the above.

so simply for losing your cool, to God, that is 800 years.

you have murdered someone in your heart, and hated that person.

that is murder to God, because God cares less about the physical killing of someone, thats just a symptom. The root cause is bitterness in the soul. Once we deal with the root bitterness we have in our life, we are able to forgive and forget.

The Bible says if we can't forgive our brother, that God will neither forgive us.

Love is the first fruit of the spirit, when you are forgiven of all your wrongs, by love and Grace, you are free to love other people.

So I have dealt with only one sin above, that was anger.

in the old testament adultery was judged by death as well, if you stole something your hand was cut off.

These were laws God made.

a homosexual was killed.

so if we see that these laws are for sins like the above, it is not to far stretched to believe hypothetically that a life in prison is equivalent to the death penalty,

so for every time you looked at someone in lust, 100 years.

for guys that is probably a harder one.

But I see God's mindset, logically.

Something dies in us when we sin.

the other week I was just driving a loving God, and I committed this sin (one that I had been struggling with that week), and all of a sudden I was mad and angry at God, because he made that sin illegal. I really was angry. I even agreed it was wrong, but I was angry at the lawmaker for that short while, just over one sin.

if you multiply say 30,000 sins over a typical (moral) lifestyle.

thats a lot of anger.

It is my hypothesis, that the people who go to hell, are perfectly fine going to any place where God is not. Even though technically He is everywhere, and you can't get away from that. They are perfectly happy to go to hell, at least initially.

then after the first few moments, all their sensors are overloaded with pain, all 5 senses burning. Ears filled with screeming of other people, skin cells burning yet not being consumed. See what people don't realize is right before people go to hell, they are resurrected and are in their glorified resurrected bodies. So they have a glorified flesh. So fire won't consume and angel, at least not normal fire. It is my thesis that both the fire and the flesh in there, and the angels are all glorified beings, and this is a supernatural and physical (both) type of torture instrument.

If I was able to hear everythought of every individual, every sin. Especially when I asked them not to, lying to my face, disrespecting my words, every day all day, 30,000 times. And being able to pull anyone of the 30,000 sins in my memory, as if it was just now.

I would justify eternal hell too, wouldn't you?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

so how many life sentences should a person have if anger is considered murder?

That's like asking: "How many times do you have to put out your cigarette on your child's arm if burning them is a sign of affection?"
It's a GIGANTIC "if", and one that does not follow at all for the very reasons I outlined in my previous post. The whole question is nonsensical.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's like asking: "How many times do you have to put out your cigarette on your child's arm if burning them is a sign of affection?"
It's a GIGANTIC "if", and one that does not follow at all for the very reasons I outlined in my previous post. The whole question is nonsensical.

Remember you are questioning a christian God, trying to disprove the logic. So the best bet in debate is to use concepts from the christian point of view. I have given you several examples proving that at least hypothetically speaking, a God would be justified in eternal torment. Instead of actually addressing these points, you have resorted to fallacy, such as stating the comment "putting out a cigarette on someone's arm." Which indicates an unresponsible father. But this is poisoning the well.

Now I want to include another post from another thread as it may help. I usually don't post duplicates.

I use 100 years per sin as an introductory non biblical example of the logic behind eternity. If someone sins 30,000 times a year, and served 100 years per sin. That's 3 million years. Now we sin way more than 1 times a day so that number is 10 or 40 times higher. Now to answer your question. If logically its rational to punish for 100 years per sin. Is it rational to kill for a sin. Murder for example many say is a situation where someone may be killed for their sin, called capital punishment. The logic is life for life. Which makes logical sense. Now if you take a Holy God. The punishment is more extreme. And for reasons I have mentioned before. Mainly His first hand koel edge of our sin and that while we can turn our heads and not look on sin, God cant. So that increases the punishment, say at this point we are killed for any sin. Just because of the fact God will never forget our sin, and cannot turn His face from our sin, it's purpetually in front of Him for eternity. Because God exists outside of time. So now the next logical step is eternity. We view eternity as lots of time. It's not. It's actually no time. So to compare 3 million years is prison compared to eternity is nit really the same. Eternity is a place, not a time period. So to kill someone in eternity means they have eternal death. Especially if their bodies are glorified flesh which cannot technically be killed. One may have the pain of dying, but not actually die. And so this is the statext of the unrepentant sinner. Eternally dying, and never accomplishing it. One sin is enough to condemn us to hell. Mainly because heaven and God is perfect. To be in God's presence as a sinner, is to be a log on a fire. Angels could not even be in God's presence without wings covering them. When God decended on Mount Sinai to talk to Moses what happened to the mountain, it caught on fire. So in an illustrating way hell could simply be what happens when when a sinner is in the presence of God, he is consumed with fire because of His impurity. In the old testament when God decended on the arc if the covenant if the arc tipped and a soldiet who was unclean touched the arc, he would die. When a non christian army opened up the arc, they all died instantly. They then returned the arc to israel. In the temple they would put a rope on the high priest, because if for some reason the annual purification sacrifice did not work, he would die when he entered the holiest place where the arc was. And no one else could go in for another year, so the priest would rot. So as we can see one sin does equal death, and eternity is not a lot of time, it's simply a place in the universe, a place without time. So all of these things justify eternal torment of the sinner logically in my mind.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You missed the point of my nonsensical question (namely, that it was nonsensical with horrifying implications in the "if"-part, just like yours).
Look, before you expand on how much we supposedly fall short in our lives, you need to establish how torture could ever be a reasonable response to our shortcomings. (Hint: it is not.)

Let's try a parable.
In the year 3000CE, a genius manages to create entirely independent, self-aware artificial intelligences. These artificial beings are entirely autonomous on purpose, yet their independence means that they do not solve tasks as efficiently and unerringly as "dumb" programs following a pre-conceived path.
For some reason, that angers the creator (even though his vast intellect could foresee that this would be the result of creating these beings), and he wants them to work just as perfectly as the shackled programs.
Now, would this man be justified in putting these self-aware beings in a state of perpetual torment for their "errors"?
You could make a case for a decision to deactivate them, perhaps, (although I'd argue that self-awareness entails human rights), but literal torture?

 

[createdtoworship]

You missed the point of my nonsensical question (namely, that it was nonsensical with horrifying implications in the "if"-part, just like yours).
Look, before you expand on how much we supposedly fall short in our lives, you need to establish how torture could ever be a reasonable response to our shortcomings. (Hint: it is not.)

Let's try a parable.
In the year 3000CE, a genius manages to create entirely independent, self-aware artificial intelligences. These artificial beings are entirely autonomous on purpose, yet their independence means that they do not solve tasks as efficiently and unerringly as "dumb" programs following a pre-conceived path.
For some reason, that angers the creator (even though his vast intellect could foresee that this would be the result of creating these beings), and he wants them to work just as perfectly as the shackled programs.
Now, would this man be justified in putting these self-aware beings in a state of perpetual torment for their "errors"?
You could make a case for a decision to deactivate them, perhaps, (although I'd argue that self-awareness entails human rights), but literal torture?

I have answered all of this in previous posts.

A God who knows every thought, and sin would be Justified yes. And seeing that sinners are angry with their creator, and don't wish to be with Him, they Justify it themselves as well.

at this point you must address what is posted, if you wish to continue the conversation.

(why use an illustration of a self aware intelligence, when we can simply use the real world example)?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

(why use an illustration of a self aware intelligence, when we can simply use the real world example)?

To break through your indoctrination by providing your mind with scenarios that you haven't rationalised yet. I am still hoping that you'll see just how monstrous your conception of god is, if provided with sufficient illustration of the horror scenario you conceive of as "justifiable".
No, nobody "chooses" to be tortured for all eternity. That is not how the human mind works. In fact, our fundamental drive to escape pain and death is so pronounced that people will do literally anything to escape it (which is why torture is not only an abomination, but also highly unreliable as an interrogation method: the victim will literally tell you everything you want to hear - even if it means making everything up).

God's omniscience is totally irrelevant here, by the way. Even if this deity knew our every thought, not even the most heinous actual deed (not to mention "thoughtcrime") could ever justify perpetual torment, and it is absurd to suggest that it does "because the Bible says so". It's not just an appeal to authority-fallacy, it's also dirt-poor exegesis of one of the more interesting philosophical lessons of the New Testament.

 

[createdtoworship]

To break through your indoctrination by providing your mind with scenarios that you haven't rationalised yet. I am still hoping that you'll see just how monstrous your conception of god is, if provided with sufficient illustration of the horror scenario you conceive of as "justifiable".
No, nobody "chooses" to be tortured for all eternity. That is not how the human mind works. In fact, our fundamental drive to escape pain and death is so pronounced that people will do literally anything to escape it (which is why torture is not only an abomination, but also highly unreliable as an interrogation method: the victim will literally tell you everything you want to hear - even if it means making everything up).

God's omniscience is totally irrelevant here, by the way. Even if this deity knew our every thought, not even the most heinous actual deed (not to mention "thoughtcrime") could ever justify perpetual torment, and it is absurd to suggest that it does "because the Bible says so". It's not just an appeal to authority-fallacy, it's also dirt-poor exegesis of one of the more interesting philosophical lessons of the New Testament.

rarely do people consider the horrors of prison life, but people still commit crime. It's just a typical non preparedness most people face. But I have given you sufficient logical reason for justification for Hell. But instead of actually addressing the points I made, you seem to be trying to wiggle out of the discussion.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But I have given you sufficient logical reason for justification for Hell.

No, you haven't - and I have addressed why. Repeatedly. Even in the post you just quoted.

But instead of actually addressing the points I made, you seem to be trying to wiggle out of the discussion.

Funny, I get the same impression from your replies. You gloss over everything I write, just to deliver what feels like a sermon/conversion attempt. Not really a two-sided conversation, but more of a blunt preaching mode that doesn't really engage in any real discussion.

 

[createdtoworship]

To break through your indoctrination by providing your mind with scenarios that you haven't rationalised yet. I am still hoping that you'll see just how monstrous your conception of god is, if provided with sufficient illustration of the horror scenario you conceive of as "justifiable".
No, nobody "chooses" to be tortured for all eternity. That is not how the human mind works. In fact, our fundamental drive to escape pain and death is so pronounced that people will do literally anything to escape it (which is why torture is not only an abomination, but also highly unreliable as an interrogation method: the victim will literally tell you everything you want to hear - even if it means making everything up).

God's omniscience is totally irrelevant here, by the way. Even if this deity knew our every thought, not even the most heinous actual deed (not to mention "thoughtcrime") could ever justify perpetual torment, and it is absurd to suggest that it does "because the Bible says so". It's not just an appeal to authority-fallacy, it's also dirt-poor exegesis of one of the more interesting philosophical lessons of the New Testament.

So you are not reading what I posted, I adress not individual sins, but 30,000 sins in a moral persons life span. To say I indicate one sin deserves torture is poisoning the well. I do agree that one sin means death theologically speaking. But you are not at the point of discussing verses you obviously don't comprehend at this point. The spirit teaches us. If you were to be converted you would understand what I mean. But trust me when I say that at this point that that specific theological point would be counterproductive for you. I mentioned to begin with, that it is logical to cumulatively punish for sin. For example ten cases of murder could have 10 life sentences added on to one another. Do you agree? Let's start there, one more time.

 

[JackRT]

More to the point, what exactly would torturing a person for all eternity actually accomplish? Seriously!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

More to the point, what exactly would torturing a person for all eternity actually accomplish? Seriously!

That is the question.
Gradyll, you seem to assume that a larger number of infractions somehow justifies torture, but - as I replied many, many posts ago - it does not. Al all. Even finite torture is a crime against humanity, but stretching it to encompass infinity (which is considerably more than the largest possible number you can think of) renders it utterly insane and monstrous. It's never just, no matter how severe the crime or how large the count of transgression. If you support torture, you are simply wrong.