Is there anything a God could do that would make him evil?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Note, I tried to be charitable and answer what I think he meant and not nit-pick semantics and try to score some meaningless point.

As an unbeliever reads, who may hold to many other gods, what is important to unbelievers reading ? Do you think they know the difference between a god, and God ?

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't think it was comedy either, you called it "jest" though, so I wasn't going to knock you for giving it your best shot. Your sci-fi daydreaming was creative though, is that where you get all these ideas about what I didn't say from?

You didn't explain anything, though. You claimed that promise keeping is just without explanation, then straw manned me like crazy. Now you can't defend your straw men, and you certainly aren't going to acknowledge your mistakes, so you're leaving.

No, I am leaving on a methodological basis, and my explanation was related to that fact. Explaining something to someone who doesn't want to understand is not a fruitful activity, and of late I have not even been trying to explain reality so much as my views on reality. I think you are on the cusp of understanding dialectical science, but I don't see any clear way to aid you. I still see this post as a good attempt. I hope you think about it at some point.

Love that line. "If you're actually interested in learning". Such condescension from someone who never bothered to read what I wrote. Nice touch.

Perhaps, but I would bet $100 that you have no significant understanding of retributive justice (or punishment). That's what our discussion of justice centers around, and if you are interested in learning about it then you can go read about it. I don't take it that interest in learning is some sort of given. Learning is taxing.

 

[SPF]

As an unbeliever reads, who may hold to many other gods, what is important to unbelievers reading ? Do you think they know the difference between a god, and God ?

I think most atheists who peruse these forums are educated enough to read my post and understand what I said and give an appropriate response. And if I then need to further clarify what I wrote after their response, then I am fully capable of doing that. It's... you know.. what dialogue looks like.

Now, unless you want to respond to the content of what I wrote, I don't see anything else you can say that would be helpful or on topic to what I wrote.

 

[zippy2006]

2) What is unjust about eternal conscious torment?

In the first answer, the interpretation of eternal conscious torment implicit in the opening post is rejected. In the second, the entire moral framework assumed by the opening post is rejected.

I took this line, but I was trying to draw out some syllogisms and reasoning from those who support the OP (example).

My suspicion is that at the bottom of this issue is a kind of anthropomorphism where divine justice is taken to be too similar to human justice. For example:

1) Eternal conscious torment, if it exists, would need to be in some sense the result of the individual's existential state...

This is arguably an extended kind of retributive punishment, where an evil act results in suffering. Hellfire is a metaphorical representation of that consequential suffering.

...and not intentionally inflicted upon them by God for it to be reconcilable with a good God.

I think we would have to pursue what is meant by "intentionally inflicting," especially when talking about God. We would probably have to say that, at the very least, God is intentionally allowing justice and the spiritual principles he authored to take their course.

As far as the modern mind is concerned, I think @Tinker Grey was en route with his emphasis on rehabilitation.

It seems to me that this is an issue where contemporary ethics contradicts revelation, and neither is intrinsically irrational.

 

[Silmarien]

That is what he wanted. See post #18 that he clicked "Agree" to. He framed the question wrong by trying to say, "Gee whiz, if you guys are okay with eternal torture what won't you be okay with?" And so everyone is saying, "This is why I'm okay with eternal torture". Or a few are mentioning annihilationism, which is kind of against the rules to support here. Neither of which answers what he was getting at initially.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the "Agree" rating, since it's often used in a tribalistic fashion. But the literal question has been answered also. There have been two types of answers:

1. Nothing would make God a moral monster, because anything God proclaims is by definition good.

2. There are things that would make God a moral monster, but eternal conscious torment (at least on some interpretations) isn't one of them.

I would go with the second response. I think there are entire branches of theology (Ockham's voluntarism, for example) that start getting dangerously close to "moral monster" territory, so I have no problem answering the initial question, but I still don't think the point of this thread was to invite a conversation about the finer points of the doctrine of divine sovereignty. It's pretty clearly about complaining about hell.

 

[Silmarien]

I took this line, but I was trying to draw out some syllogisms and reasoning from those who support the OP (example).

My suspicion is that at the bottom of this issue is a kind of anthropomorphism where divine justice is taken to be too similar to human justice. For example:

Yeah, I had your responses in mind. I think they're fair questions to ask, since there are tons of assumptions about the nature of justice going on here that are just obviously not being shared by all parties.

This is arguably an extended kind of retributive punishment, where an evil act results in suffering. Hellfire is a metaphorical representation of that consequential suffering.

I wouldn't consider it retributive so much as simply consequential. If you put your hand on a fire and get burned, the fire isn't intentionally inflicting punishment on you.

It admittedly gets trickier with an underlying theistic ontology. My frustration with this question is that if one accepts the immortality of the soul and rejects theism, the existential version of eternal hell is practically a given, since the fire you've placed your hand on will continue to burn, since there is no intrinsic purpose either for retribution or for rehabilitation. All you are left at is the consequences of your actions. With theism, on the other hand, there actually are alternatives in play.

I think we would have to pursue what is meant by "intentionally inflicting," especially when talking about God. We would probably have to say that, at the very least, God is intentionally allowing justice and the spiritual principles he authored to take their course.

As far as the modern mind is concerned, I think @Tinker Grey was en route with his emphasis on rehabilitation.

It seems to me that this is an issue where contemporary ethics contradicts revelation, and neither is intrinsically irrational.

Well, I wouldn't specifically say that the conflict here is between modern ethics and revelation. To a certain extent, it's between revelation and revelation--I've been rereading the Pauline Epistles, and there's definitely an interesting interplay between a focus on divine sovereignty and a desperate universalist hope going on towards the end of Romans.

I think the modern problem is that the emphasis on rehabilitation is so extreme that we can't really have a discussion about the tension between retribution and rehabilitation at all. I don't actually think the modern stance is entirely rational, though--people can be very arbitrary about when they think retributive justice is and isn't appropriate. They will attack hell, and then turn around and complain that it's not fair that a murderer who converts to Christianity doesn't have to pay for their crimes.

 

[drich0150]

If God can torture people in Hell for eternity, and still be the epitome of goodness and love, what would make this God a moral monster?

morality being the supreme standard of man, Man can use this ideology to deem anything he wants evil. Hitler used 'morality' to make a segment of his society 'immoral/inhuman monsters.' thus deemed it every german's moral obligation to eradicate the monsters in their soceity.

Morality is a slippery slop.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I wouldn't put too much weight on the "Agree" rating, since it's often used in a tribalistic fashion. But the literal question has been answered also. There have been two types of answers:

1. Nothing would make God a moral monster, because anything God proclaims is by definition good.

2. There are things that would make God a moral monster, but eternal conscious torment (at least on some interpretations) isn't one of them.

I would go with the second response. I think there are entire branches of theology (Ockham's voluntarism, for example) that start getting dangerously close to "moral monster" territory, so I have no problem answering the initial question, but I still don't think the point of this thread was to invite a conversation about the finer points of the doctrine of divine sovereignty. It's pretty clearly about complaining about hell.

i.e. (or also?)
Even IF God did as the op insinuates or states,

He Is God - There is NO OTHER. He Does As HE PLEASES. (always just and right)

So, if fallen mankind disagrees, so ? Mankind has always with few exceptions disagreed with God. (AND rebelled against Him )

He Is Still God, there is NO OTHER.

He get to do what He wants to DO. He created everything, so everything is HIS to do with as He wants to.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I am leaving on a methodological basis, and my explanation was related to that fact. Explaining something to someone who doesn't want to understand is not a fruitful activity, and of late I have not even been trying to explain reality so much as my views on reality. I think you are on the cusp of understanding dialectical science, but I don't see any clear way to aid you. I still see this post as a good attempt. I hope you think about it at some point.

Yeah, it doesn't hurt that the timing of your exit let's you sidestep addressing a series of blunders though.

Perhaps, but I would bet $100 that you have no significant understanding of retributive justice (or punishment).

I have a good understanding of punishment from my degree in psychology. I probably don't know that much about retributive justice, that's why I asked what's so good about it. Your sentence looks a bit like you're conflating the two things. That would be a bit like conflating a star with hydrogen. If you aren't conflating them, and you're betting I don't know that much about retributive justice or punishment, what makes you think I don't know that much about punishment? And also, if you aren't conflating them, I'll PM you my PayPal info for you to send me that $100.

That's what our discussion of justice centers around, and if you are interested in learning about it then you can go read about it. I don't take it that interest in learning is some sort of given. Learning is taxing.

I asked, repeatedly, so telling me I'm not interested is accusing me of being disingenuous in my inquiry. Just because I figure I'm probably going to be able to explain why it's still bad doesn't mean I'm not interested in understanding what you think either. There's a difference between a desire to understand and a desire to be convinced. And since this is a new thought of mine, it isn't cemented strong enough for me to think I couldn't be convinced it was a bad one, but of course I'm going to challenge the opposition to test it as much as I can.

 

[Silmarien]

i.e. (or also?)
Even IF God did as the op insinuates or states,

He Is God - There is NO OTHER. He Does As HE PLEASES. (always just and right)

So, if fallen mankind disagrees, so ? Mankind has always with few exceptions disagreed with God. (AND rebelled against Him )

He Is Still God, there is NO OTHER.

He get to do what He wants to DO. He created everything, so everything is HIS to do with as He wants to.

Yes, this is the first option that I mentioned. Nothing would make God a moral monster, because anything God proclaims is by definition good.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, I had your responses in mind. I think they're fair questions to ask, since there are tons of assumptions about the nature of justice going on here that are just obviously not being shared by all parties.

Indeed.

I wouldn't consider it retributive so much as simply consequential. If you put your hand on a fire and get burned, the fire isn't intentionally inflicting punishment on you.

It admittedly gets trickier with an underlying theistic ontology.

Yeah, it gets trickier. Personally I would be interested in a view that could make better sense of scriptural metaphors (many of which are retributive). Admittedly, lots of Christians aren't concerned about that.

My frustration with this question is that if one accepts the immortality of the soul and rejects theism, the existential version of eternal hell is practically a given, since the fire you've placed your hand on will continue to burn, since there is no intrinsic purpose either for retribution or for rehabilitation. All you are left at is the consequences of your actions.

That's a good point, and the purposelessness would continue to burn, too.

Such an example is somewhat similar to your idea above that the suffering is merely consequential and not retributive (or even intentional). There is a similarity between prescinding from the moral nature of the suffering and having no ontological moral grounding for the suffering, at all. ...Just some vague thoughts.

Well, I wouldn't specifically say that the conflict here is between modern ethics and revelation.

To be more precise, I was trying to assert that revelation rejects the idea that rehabilitation is a necessary condition of punishment.

To a certain extent, it's between revelation and revelation--I've been rereading the Pauline Epistles, and there's definitely an interesting interplay between a focus on divine sovereignty and a desperate universalist hope going on towards the end of Romans.

Hehe, that's certainly true. That bifurcation goes rather deeper than a simple difference on retributive punishment. I agree that modernism includes a universalist hope, sure. If universalism is the grounds for the strong rehabilitation tradition then they have scriptural warrant. Or, I should say, "hope for universal salvation," but I think you understand me.

I think the modern problem is that the emphasis on rehabilitation is so extreme that we can't really have a discussion about the tension between retribution and rehabilitation at all.

Yes, and that's exactly the puzzle of this thread.

I don't actually think the modern stance is entirely rational, though--people can be very arbitrary about when they think retributive justice is and isn't appropriate. They will attack hell, and then turn around and complain that it's not fair that a murderer who converts to Christianity doesn't have to pay for their crimes.

Yep, I agree, and that's a great example.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, it doesn't hurt that the timing of your exit let's you sidestep addressing a series of blunders though.

Every time someone exits a conversation they are left open to the charge that they are sidestepping the blunders outlined in the most recent post.

That said, I can try to give you a bit more information. The list of five points I gave were criticisms of the example you chose to employ, not your intention in choosing that example, or your description--or lack of description--of the example. Different examples have different intrinsic qualities.

I have a good understanding of punishment from my degree in psychology. I probably don't know that much about retributive justice, that's why I asked what's so good about it. Your sentence looks a bit like you're conflating the two things. That would be a bit like conflating a star with hydrogen. If you aren't conflating them, and you're betting I don't know that much about retributive justice or punishment, what makes you think I don't know that much about punishment? And also, if you aren't conflating them, I'll PM you my PayPal info for you to send me that $100.

"...no significant understanding of retributive justice (or [retributive] punishment)."

I asked, repeatedly, so telling me I'm not interested is accusing me of being disingenuous in my inquiry. Just because I figure I'm probably going to be able to explain why it's still bad doesn't mean I'm not interested in understanding what you think either. There's a difference between a desire to understand and a desire to be convinced. And since this is a new thought of mine, it isn't cemented strong enough for me to think I couldn't be convinced it was a bad one, but of course I'm going to challenge the opposition to test it as much as I can.

In this post I "Challenged the opposition as much as I could." Such a strategy is not a good way of arriving at truth.

Edit: I'm not saying that the example of sophism that I identified in this thread is overwhelmingly egregious. Maybe I am also being somewhat impatient. But what's key is that you randomly fall into that sort of reasoning from time to time and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Beyond that, I really do hope that you learn to avoid that tactic, because I think it will be genuinely helpful to you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, this is the first option that I mentioned. Nothing would make God a moral monster, because anything God proclaims is by definition good.

I just thought of something ('as if' from the world's view) (which is prevalent on earth).

IF people believe that ANYONE who does things THEY THINK are immoral, then THEY would consider the One True Creator a 'moral monster', or at least immoral, because
THEY are sinners doomed for destruction "UNLESS they each likewise repent" as Jesus directly says. (not always, btw). But those who believe God's 'control' of all things, of who is saved and who is not, who also believe no one should be allowed to tell them what to do, rejecting God's Word (Jesus) and commands, call God at least 'wrong' and at worst, too many other things not good to repeat!

Still, God does give them that right, if they want to do that.

Of course, later, they perish.
Of later, if, while they can, while alive on earth, not after death, they come to Jesus, they get healed.

 

[Hawkins]

If God can torture people in Hell for eternity, and still be the epitome of goodness and love, what would make this God a moral monster?

The first wrong assumption made is that those in hell are still humans. What defines a human is his conscience which however belongs to God and God will take it back at some point from those don't belong to Him, in the sense that God is the God of the living but not the God of the dead.

Now the question left is, is it moral to kill a city of zombies in order to save a single human?

The second point is that it's not a torturing in the sense that it's Law which doesn't allow them to be released without a legal justification, which is the crucifixion of Christ. God already made that sacrifice to save the living. Now He said He's not the God of the dead, which means there won't be a way to save the zombies from the hell state they will be in.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Now the question left is, is it moral to kill a city of zombies in order to save a single human?

The second point is that it's not a torturing in the sense that it's Law which doesn't allow them to be released without a legal justification, which is the crucifixion of Christ. God already made that sacrifice to save the living. Now He said He's not the God of the dead, which means there won't be a way to save the zombies from the hell state they will be in.

zombies? < shrugs >

I don't know that it was necessary in order to save Lot, but perhaps ?
Sodom and Gomorrah would have been spared if only ten righteous had been found...

The wickednesses there greatly VEXED Lot, just as today for the Righteous ones serving God in many places.

Wiping out those cities, and the whole world with the flood saving 8, is part of the Plan...

 

[Hawkins]

zombies? < shrugs >

I don't know that it was necessary in order to save Lot, but perhaps ?
Sodom and Gomorrah would have been spared if only ten righteous had been found...

The wickednesses there greatly VEXED Lot, just as today for the Righteous ones serving God in many places.

Wiping out those cities, and the whole world with the flood saving 8, is part of the Plan...

That doesn't refute the analogy that the wicked are the zombies. They are the zombies because anything good belongs to God including our conscience. When anything belonging to God has been removed from a human then he's no longer a human at all.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That doesn't refute the analogy that the wicked are the zombies. They are the zombies because anything good belongs to God including our conscience. When anything belonging to God has been removed from a human then he's no longer a human at all.

The part that's possibly not good about all that,
is the thinking like the gestapo or the nazis (and surprisingly some churches!)
that those people can be killed and it is not a sin.
This is false. WHOEVER takes a life, their life will be required of them.

The 'zombies' might be brought to repentance (no, not all , not even most - most die in their sin) .. but we don't know which ones may be grafted in or grafted back in , as written, so
always seek the Father , always, about everything, even about who to pray for, and what prayer .....

 

[Hawkins]

The part that's possibly not good about all that,
is the thinking like the gestapo or the nazis (and surprisingly some churches!)
that those people can be killed and it is not a sin.
This is false. WHOEVER takes a life, their life will be required of them.

The 'zombies' might be brought to repentance (no, not all , not even most - most die in their sin) .. but we don't know which ones may be grafted in or grafted back in , as written, so
always seek the Father , always, about everything, even about who to pray for, and what prayer .....

No, people (mostly atheists though) don't feel that it is justifiable to put a human to eternal torture no matter what he did on earth! Here we are talking about those who did "nothing" (in terms of the atheists self review) as serious as killing another human, the majority of them are kept in such an eternal torturing.

Do you feel it justifiable?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Feelings are not a standard - feelings are unreliable, unpredictable, and not to be followed.

 

[Hawkins]

Feelings are not a standard - feelings are unreliable, unpredictable, and not to be followed.

You are distracting. It's just a yes or no.

Do you think it right to put all those in a hell, who he never did a serious crime as killing another human.
Why dodging this question?