Divine Punishment No Corrective Intent.

[Llwellyn]

Orthodoxy still teaches eternal torment for a finite crime and this makes God a monster. The end effect is the same - eternal torture for a finite crime and its splitting hairs to suggest that that was not the intention. There is no essential need for a process of transformation. He could have avoid all of this whilst preserving free will. My take is that God is still very evil according to the modified from of xtainity they preach. They think by asserting that since God did not intend eternal punishment that its gross injustices now become acceptable - they don’t.

NeoPlatonism is not modified Christianity, rather Christianity is modified NeoPlatonism. Plato knew nothing about Abraham's religion, but knew only of Paganism. NeoPlatonism is the philosophical and theological "engine" of pagan mythology, liturgy, and sacramentology. Read a little Plotinus, it is the best basic groundwork for all Pagan theological ideas.

 

Anyway...

 

I keep wondering, why wouldn't you want to be burned and tortured and punished by God? I mean, honestly, it seems a little naive to be complaining so much about what God would do to you, and trying to scheme up ideas in your head why it is not true and why you shall avoid it. Do you believe God is cruel? If not, why are you bitching about and trying to avoid eternal punishment? These efforts seem to be something you have in common with Biblical Christianity.

[Golden Meadows]

Llwellyn: I keep wondering, why wouldn't you want to be burned and tortured and punished by God?

"The Problem of Pain"

 

I mean, honestly, it seems a little naive to be complaining so much about what God would do to you, and trying to scheme up ideas in your head why it is not true and why you shall avoid it.

Deconversion/programming is a process. All the aquired negative thought processes have to be dealt with. This kind of dialogue helps serve that end. It helps wash clean the mind and builds up a defensive wall against false and damaging beliefs. At present I am going through a "fuck you" phase with xtianity as part of the process of disentangling myself from it. I used to be sheep like and this has had very adverse affects in my life, much of which cannot be undone. I have to fight the old habits of thought aggressively until I am free of their pernicious effects. I am not complaining about God but rather attacking the xtian false god that makes him into something evil.

 

Do you believe God is cruel?

The true God is not but the xtian false god is.

 

If not, why are you bitching about and trying to avoid eternal punishment?

I am not trying to avoid eternal punishment because I do not believe there is such a thing. This is an ex-christian web site were we give mutual support to people who have had big problems through their involvement with xtianity. Sometimes xtians come here and try to bring us back therefore these kind of discussions are inevitable. The doctrine of hell seems to be one, if not the most, popular cause of peoples problems, directly or indirectly, with xtianity. I was responding to someone posting a link to an article suggesting that God was love even though people could suffer infinite punishment for a finite crime.

 

These efforts seem to be something you have in common with Biblical Christianity.

If you are suggesting that I am coming from bible-centric background then you are partially correct. Though I was never a literalist I did actually believe it was Gods word even though at times I did not know if I was dealing with history, allegory..... I was, I think, a very committed catholic whose church did indeed teach that the bible was the inerrant and infallible word of God even though the average catholic seems indifferent to it. But yes, scripture was a very big part of my daily spiritual life.

[Llwellyn]

My point is simply that the idea that the ONE shall render eternal and infinite punishments upon non-Christians like me does not make him cruel.

 

Suppose God's intent in punishing a non-Christian is to destroy them, as the Bible teaches. (Deuteronomy 7:10 ). In that case, his intent is their destruction, his punishment achieves their destruction, and the achievement of this destruction is a consummation of his intent. In this case it would be obviously cruel to punish them eternally -- to regard any destruction with satisfaction comes of evil. Abraham's Yahweh is a demon (or at least a cognitive distortion, mind virus).

 

Now, suppose God's intent in punishing a non-Christian is to correct them, as Plotinus and the modern Roman Catholic Church teaches (see Hans Urs Van Balthasar, and John Paul II's sermon on Hell). In that case, his intent is their transfiguration, his punishment shall achieve their transfiguration so long as they cooperate synergistically, and the acheivement of this transfiguration is a consummation of his intent. In this case it would be obviously not cruel to punish them them eternally. In fact, it would be cruel for God to relent in his punishment of them or to forebear operating his eternal punishment upon them. What lover would yield his lady to her passion for crack cocaine?

 

You say "The Problem of Pain" is the reason why you wouldn't wish to be tortured and burned by God. But, as I said, there are worse things that experiencing pain. Much worse is to have a half-dead soul that is disintegrated from union with the ONE. The pain that the ONE renders upon you eternally through his punishment and torture of you is intended to lustrate your soul and draw you into union with him, and thereby turning you into a dazzling creative beauty, the way He is.

 

The notion that union with God is forebearance of divine punishment (justification) is a false, mean, low notion. The salvation of the ONE is salvation from the smallest tendency or leaning to sin. It is a deliverance into the pure air of God’s ways of thinking and feeling. It is a salvation that makes the heart pure, with the will and choice of the heart to be pure. To such a heart, sin is disgusting. It sees a thing as it is,—that is, as God sees it, for God sees everything as it is. The soul thus saved would rather sink into the flames of hell than steal into heaven and skulk there under the shadow of an imputed righteousness. No soul is saved that would not prefer hell to sin.

 

In other words, God's eternal, unrelenting, infinite wrath is the antidote for what ails you, if you would just drink it and be transfigured by it. God's fires will go on burning within us after all that is foreign to it has yielded to its force, no longer with pain and consuming, but as the highest

consciousness of life, the presence of the ONE. When we say that God is Love, do we teach men that their fear of Him is groundless? No. As much as they fear will come upon them, possibly far more. The wrath will consume what they call themselves; so that the selves God made shall appear. The thought that NeoPlatonists go to hell, and hell's fires burn hot is the NeoPlatonist's hope.

 

As for Christians, can it be any comfort to them to be told that God loves them so that He

will burn them clean? They do not want to be clean, and they cannot bear to be tortured. The person whose deeds are evil, fears the burning. But the burning will not come the less that he fears it or denies it. Escape is hopeless.

[chad]

Llwellyn,

 

You seem to claim that liberal reconstructions or expressions of Christianity have not and do not minimize the negative effects of fundamentalism and thus engender a better relationship between non-believers and believers, because members of a particular, liberal church are still ready to condemn heathens and pagans (or the non-religious) in the same or similar manner as fundamentalist Christians; thereby implying that my assertion of a more peaceful co-existence between these two parties, on the grounds of liberal Christianity, is dubious. Although I can agree with what strikes me as one of your underlying themes – that all religion, whether it is a liberal or fundy flavored, will always display prejudice toward non-believers to one degree or another – the specifics of your claim don’t acknowledge the crucial distinctions of degree between the prejudice of a liberal versus fundamentalist Christian–the failure to do so has severely tainted your judgement of liberalized Christianity. Therefore, your rationale, from my perspective, lacks necessary scope, fair-mindedness, and simple objectivity. After all, if a liberalized theology harbored much less prejudice against non-believers than a bible-thumpin theology, then your implicit notion that liberalized Christianity is just as or almost as bad as fundamentalist Christianity is faulty; which I will attempt to argue in what follows.

But before doing so, I want to address the “assumption-loaded” terminology (viz. Heathen and pagan) that you’ve inappropriately used as a reason to support your argument’s claim–how the denotation of these rhetorical labels are inconsistent (and may outright contradict) with the denotation of one of the primary subjects your argument refers to: unbelievers, ex-christians, and the non-religious overall. Plainly stated, despite agreeing that some parallels exist, essential differences exists between what is commonly understood by the terms heathen/pagan and what is commonly understood by the terms unbeliever, ex-christian, and the non-religious; consequently, your argument’s reason(s) contains a grave mistake. According to the principles of logic, you’ve committed the fallacy of semantic ambiguity and the fallacy of assumption-loaded labels. Semantic ambiguity consists in presenting an argument that uses a term that can be interpreted in two or more ways without clarifying which meaning is intended. If a key reason of the argument is open to multiple interpretations, its meaning is not clear or known and is therefore unacceptable. Assumption loaded labels consist in using a label to advance a reason in support of a claim on the basis of questionable assumptions embedded in that label.

More specifically, regardless of the technical inaccuracy, most religious to semi-religious people understand the words heathen and pagan in a completely negative light; these words typically denote a very weak or offensive moral/ethical character; thus, they are nearly synonymous with the concept of a immoral/unethical person. So, no wonder the members of this particular church, or any other Christians of a liberal persuasion for that matter, stand ready to “look down their noses at heathens and pagans.” I’m confident that ex-Christians would be ready to stand in unison with Christians, also ready to condemn immoral/unethical persons. All that being said, to avoid denotational inconsistency and the above mentioned fallacies, you should probably replace the loaded terms heathen/pagan with more neutral terms such as ex-christians, unbelievers, or the non-religious; which would expose the reader to less rhetorical manipulation and give him the intellectual courtesy of drawing his own conclusions. Now, moving on to my main point.

 

The reason(s) that you give to support your claim exhibit a significant lack of evidence; or to be more precise, a presentation of evidence that is extremely questionable. At the risk of sounding like a real pain in the ass but with all due respect, how did you ascertain the certainty, in the name of epistemological integrity, that the members of this church are ignorant or unaware of a more progressive theology and hence stand poised to condemn non-believers with the same zealotry/prejudice as their fundamentalist counterparts? Have you interviewed or performed case studies on a representative sample of the congregation? Have you attended the church for enough time to draw an accurate picture of the memberships’ theological perspectives, specifically whether those perspectives tend to lean toward fundamentalism rather than liberalism. Have you engaged in an ample number of friendships/associations therein to really understand the general, theological slant of this congregation? If the answer to such questions is no, then the basic claim/rationale that this church provides an authoritative example of how liberalized Christianity fails to tame the prejudices of fundamentalism due to the condescending religiousity of one left-leaning church must be considered problematic until better evidence is offered. And even if a sufficient level of evidence was offered to demonstrate that this, single church retained substantive, fundamentalist prejudices despite its “reformed” theology, please keep in mind that one measly incidence does not carry adequate cogency to confirm the grand-scale claim that liberal reconstructions of Christianity have “gotten us nowhere”. Put another way, to maintain that one, mere example of a liberalized church, which didn’t pacify fundamentalist prejudice, serves as proof positive that all liberalized churches don’t pacify fundamentalist prejudice is to draw a logically irresponsible and hasty conclusion–what about the myriads of other, progressive churches unaccounted for in your assessment? Not to mention that based on the small amount of information you divulged about the unconventional profile of the parishioners, the exact opposite may be the case: they are vacating conservative churches precisely because their theological dispositions are more liberal. By definition, if they are more liberal, then they are less likely to “look down their noses” at the non-religious–period.

 

On that note and remembering that the claim in question is whether liberal reconstructions or expressions of Christianity reduce the Bible-thumpin bullshit of fundamentalism, lets examine how liberalized Christianity differs from fundamentalism. If the theological/doctrinal content of such is in contrast to or a reaction against fundamentalism, then the conclusion that liberalism has and does indeed chip away at the bane of fundamentalism is worthy of serious thought, thereby discounting your anti-liberal contentions at least somewhat--insofar as Christians’ attitudes and behavior usually flow from their doctrinal/theological stance.

 

* Fundamentalism believes that Jesus’ chief purpose was to carry out the act of blood atonement; liberal Christians believe Jesus’ chief purpose was to teach that God loves all people as parents love their children, and that all humankind is one family.

* Fundamentalism holds that God loves only the “saved” and that they alone are truly his children; liberal Christians hold that God loves all human beings, and that all are his true children.

* Fundamentalists see Satan as a real entity, a tempter and deceiver from whom true Christians are defended by their faith but by whom atheists, members of other religions, and “false Christians” are deceived, and whose instruments they can become; for liberal Christians, Satan is a metaphor for the potential for evil that exists in each person, Christian or otherwise, and that must be recognized and resisted.

* Fundamentalists believe that individuals should be wary of trusting their own minds and emotions, for these can be manipulated by Satan, and that questions and doubts are to be resisted as the work of the Devil; liberal Christians believe that the mind is a gift of God and that God wants us to think for ourselves, to follow our consciences, and to ask questions.

* Fundamentalists see “truth” as something established in the Bible and known for sure by true Christians; liberal Christians see truth as something known wholly only by god toward which the belief statements of religions can only attempt to point the way.

* Fundamentalists read the Bible literally and consider it the ultimate source of “truth”; liberal Christians insist that the Bible must be read critically, intelligently, and with an understanding of its historical, cultural, and scientific limitations.

 

The preceding, theological disparities are by no means meant to be an exhaustive representation, but I’m relatively convinced that they are sufficient to establish the condition of my above assertion. In effect, the conclusion that liberal Christianity diminishes the negative aspects and prejudices of fundamentalism, leading to better relations between believers and non-believers, is sound.

 

The sub-argument in the last paragraph of your post seems to contend that liberal Christianity should be eradicated, because it appeals to the masses and thus fuels growth and the staying power of religion. This argument requires one to assume that all religion, whether liberal or fundamentalist, is basically bad. I’ll be the first to emphatically agree that many elements of religion are egregiously bad; however, a comprehensive list of these elements doesn’t render religion categorically bad. Arguing as such would amount to the logical fallacy of neglecting relevant evidence, which consists in overlooking or downplaying significant evidence unfavorable to one’s position. And what is this Evidence? Evidence that liberal religion is good in at least some key respects. What about the multitudes of people who are saved from chronic depression solely due to their belief in some sort of benevolent God? What about the multitudes of people who are dependent upon religious principles of some sort to sustain their moral/ethical strength? And finally, what about the impressive degree of humanitarian benefit religion has merited?

[Golden Meadows]

My point is simply that the idea that the ONE shall render eternal and infinite punishments upon non-Christians like me does not make him cruel.

This false god is an evil monster not just a being with a tendency to be cruel. Justice implies proportion. If one accepts that the sense of justice we all have is a direct reflection of Gods justice ergo anything which fails the test of justice in this world also opposes God. I have never heard anyone denying that an infinite/eternal punishment for a finite/temporal crime was anything other than grossly unjust. The xtain apologist, at least those prone to self deception, try to get out this bind by saying that to sin against the infinite perfection and absolute holiness of God merits, as an act of justice, eternal punishment - no! According to those same xtians we are damaged goods, in effect made imperfect by God. That being the case we are therefore incapable of sinning infinitely. Our knowledge is limited and our will power is highly imperfect through the way we are made.

 

 

Suppose God's intent in punishing a non-Christian is to destroy them, as the Bible teaches. (Deuteronomy 7:10 ). In that case, his intent is their destruction, his punishment achieves their destruction, and the achievement of this destruction is a consummation of his intent. In this case it would be obviously cruel to punish them eternally -- to regard any destruction with satisfaction comes of evil. Abraham's Yahweh is a demon (or at least a cognitive distortion, mind virus).

So is yours by the description you give. Words like cruel should maybe be avoided as a substitute for injustice. Eternal punishment for a finite crime is unjust. Annihilation for a finite crime is a separate issue. Its seems a better end than eternal torture but even here there is something that tells me annihiliation will not happen to anybody, it seems to be an offence against Gods goodness. My thoughts are that God has brought each one of us into existence for all eternity. I do not accept the hell/heaven model of eternal life, I believe that all are destined to be with God and that includes the worst tyrants that ever lived.

 

Now, suppose God's intent in punishing a non-Christian is to correct them,

as Plotinus and the modern Roman Catholic Church teaches (see Hans Urs Van Balthasar, and John Paul II's sermon on Hell).

This applies to all human beings in the world but in hell it there is no corrective purpose as the catholic church teaches it is for eternity. JP2 nor any other Pope can change the basic doctrines that have been handed down by tradition and/or confimed by councils. If you think JP2 was suggesting change then I think you have misinterpreted. The catholic church is locked into the doctrine of hell more than any other church because it believes such basic doctrine is covered by infallibilty and that by definition cannot change.

 

 

In that case, his intent is their transfiguration, his punishment shall achieve their transfiguration so long as they cooperate synergistically, and the acheivement of this transfiguration is a consummation of his intent. In this case it would be obviously not cruel to punish them them eternally.

It would be unjust! We have covered this several times now - can you not see that it is impossible for God to be unjust. He would never have thought of the doctrine of transfiguration as you suggest it if it allowed for eternal punishment for a finite crime for the reason I give - God cannot , under any circumstances, be unjust. Don't confuse the issue with intents and undesired results - God will never intend anything that can give rise to undesired results. Your model is essentially xtian - I am saying the xtian model is plain wrong. The arguments put forward to support the xtain model collapse under scrutiny - the model has to go, it cannot be mended.

 

In fact, it would be cruel for God to relent in his punishment of them or to forebear operating his eternal punishment upon them.

Is this a wind up? Do you really believe this crap?

 

What lover would yield his lady to her passion for crack cocaine?

The xtian version of God. In this model he made her with inbuilt faults such that her body was not fully under the control of her spirit. Not only did he make her with a body inclined to various kinds of addictive behaviour but he then condemns her (or as you put it "yields her") to the eternal fires. Some lover!

 

 

You say "The Problem of Pain"

You do not seem to share my sense of humour.

is the reason why you wouldn't wish to be tortured and burned by God. But, as I said, there are worse things that experiencing pain. Much worse is to have a half-dead soul that is disintegrated from union with the ONE.

The pain of separation is considered by mainstream xtianity to be the primary punishment of hell. I do not know what you mean when you talk of a suffering that is not pain. Frankly it reads like muddled thinking from wherever you have picked it up from. Maybe if you paste in the actual text we can make better progress. As it stands it reads as nonsense.

 

 

The pain that the ONE renders upon you eternally through his punishment and torture of you is intended to lustrate your soul and draw you into union with him, and thereby turning you into a dazzling creative beauty, the way He is.

But hell is one way street according to xtianity, there is no getting out, there is no possibilty of union with God. It makes God into a monster and that cannot be. Once again you seem to making the case that God intends by his punishment to draw us near to him but if it should happen that it results in eternal punishment then thats not his fault because he didn't intend it! God cannot have intentions that result in injustice? Can you not see why this is so?

 

The notion that union with God is forebearance of divine punishment (justification) is a false, mean, low notion.

The whole xtian model of heaven/hell reward/punishment I reject as being unworthy of God and I am not tempted to try and patch it up.

 

The salvation of the ONE is salvation from the smallest tendency or leaning to sin. It is a deliverance into the pure air of God’s ways of thinking and feeling. It is a salvation that makes the heart pure, with the will and choice of the heart to be pure. To such a heart, sin is disgusting. It sees a thing as it is,—that is, as God sees it, for God sees everything as it is. The soul thus saved would rather sink into the flames of hell than steal into heaven and skulk there under the shadow of an imputed righteousness. No soul is saved that would not prefer hell to sin.

Then why did your xtian god not simply make us the complete article with freewill from the very beginning but having no pleasure in doing that which is wrong ? This is like speaking to a brick wall. You say you are not a xtian but you are indeed by heart. Anyone who justifies hell as you do is a xtian no matter how they chip around the edges with obscure arguments on the finer details.

 

In other words, God's eternal, unrelenting, infinite wrath is the antidote for what ails you,

Who are you to diagnose what ails me? Watch out that the medicine you prescribe to others you shall recieve yourself as a cure for your arrogance.

 

if you would just drink it and be transfigured by it. God's fires will go on burning within us after all that is foreign to it has yielded to its force, no longer with pain and consuming, but as the highest

consciousness of life, the presence of the ONE. When we say that God is Love, do we teach men that their fear of Him is groundless? No. As much as they fear will come upon them, possibly far more. The wrath will consume what they call themselves; so that the selves God made shall appear. The thought that NeoPlatonists go to hell, and hell's fires burn hot is the NeoPlatonist's hope.

I am not into sado-masochism. My hope is that God will only speak the word and my soul shall be healed after its time in exile in this world. Are you really so repelled by sin as you suggest? You have a very imperfect nature that God gave you. You are not meant to be perfect in this world and the true God does not need to punish you in fire to mend you - He simply wills it and you are the complete article with no pleasure in sin and no desire to indulge in it. By your own freewill you choose always to be in union with God who now gives you the nature to do so. Instead of the firey monster of xtianity I see a loving father taking a small child by the hand.

 

As for Christians, can it be any comfort to them to be told that God loves them so that He

will burn them clean? They do not want to be clean, and they cannot bear to be tortured. The person whose deeds are evil, fears the burning. But the burning will not come the less that he fears it or denies it. Escape is hopeless.

God is good and no amount of wicked philosophy invented by proud men, in despair of their own imperfections, can change that.

[Llwellyn]

I have never heard anyone denying that an infinite/eternal punishment for a finite/temporal crime was anything other than grossly unjust. Eternal punishment for a finite crime is unjust. He would never have thought of the doctrine of transfiguration as you suggest it if it allowed for eternal punishment for a finite crime for the reason I give - God cannot , under any circumstances, be unjust.

Since I believe that the ONE's intent in punishing me is to correct me rather than to destroy me, I have no wish to ever leave "hell" where he punishes me forever. There is nothing at all cruel or unjust about the ONE's treatment of me in this manner. I wish to be eternally punished because I wish to unite with the ONE, and this is a process of infinite ascent. Why would I wish God to relent punishing me if it's the means by which he teaches me and loves me and draws me into himself? Me thinks you are too caught up with the idea of a vindictive God to understand why someone like me would wish God to punish me forever. God punishes in a virtuous way, and only ignorant people or people who wish to participate in evil would wish to avoid the operation of the ONE's eternal punishment.

But hell is one way street according to xtianity, there is no getting out, there is no possibilty of union with God. It makes God into a monster and that cannot be.

Who cares what Christians or the Bible say?

 

Then why did your xtian god not simply make us the complete article with freewill from the very beginning but having no pleasure in doing that which is wrong ?

The pleasure that a person has in doing wrong is something that only they and not God, keep alive at a moment by moment basis. Ask yourself why you have pleasure in doing wrong, and don't ask God why you do, because only you are responsible for your pleasures. Perhaps you wish you had never been born and never existed, or existed as a rock. So sorry, you are a human now, and must face up to the corrupted pleasures that you choose to nurture. God is not responsible for moral disentegration of a person, only the person is, and if you wish to be integrated with the ONE, the wrath of God stands always ready to chew you up if you wish to come clean.

 

My hope is that God will only speak the word and my soul shall be healed after its time in exile in this world.

And this is the kind of moral laziness that Christianity creates in people. In other words, you wish to start again. But you can't. You've climbed 50 feet into a cave, and now you have to climb 50 feet out. The point is to enjoy the process instead of wishing you had never been born.

[Golden Meadows]

Your model I don't accept for reasons I have repeated several times. You have a viewpoint about the nature of punishment that seems to be in flat contradiction to the attributes that are normally associated with Gods goodness. You seem to be suggesting that only a moral deliquent can be blind to your version of the truth. Whatever my moral state is I can normally follow a sound argument but at present I can't follow yours. There are many bright people on this forum and some seem gifted with the ability to see right to the heart of an issue with great clarity and express in similar fashion. I can readily accept that my powers of intellect may not be up the level required to understand your thesis but am certainly open to learning. All I can hope for is that somebody does pick up this thread and perhaps convey your ideas in different style that makes it understandble - assuming that is indeed possible. Until that happens your arguments do not ring true with me for the reasons I have repeated over and over and that you seem to ignore.

 

Any takers?

[Llwellyn]

Let me see, you say:

 

1. "Why couldn't God have created me with no possibility of doing anything wrong at all?"

 

To me it seems obvious that when a God creates a moral being with the freedom to do right, he takes the risk that that moral being will exercise the freedom not to do what is right. This has happened, and we have imperical evidence that it has, and we have only ourselves to blame for any evil we have introduced into the world and any ontological disruption that we have experienced as a result of the evil we have chosen. There may indeed be other worlds where that choice has not been made, but this is not one of them. So why cry over spilt milk? The choice of doing rightly and undoing primordial mistakes is open to you now. Do rightly now, and the problems you complain about -- that we do wrongly and have an inclination to do wrongly -- shall progressively end.

 

2. "You have a viewpoint about the nature of punishment that seems to be in flat contradiction to the attributes that are normally associated with Gods goodness."

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Does a "good" father punish his son? Yes, when it would do anything to help the son grow and develop. It is very easy to imagine that when growth and development is an infinite process, God would punish us like a father, but would do so... forever. What is the problem with this kind of punishment? If this is the nature of God's punishment, then what is the problem with the thought that God shall punish you forever and ever and ever? Could God ever use hellfire of the Jonathan Edwards variety on his creatures? Although it might be difficult to imagine the practicalities of how this could be useful, I believe that no hellfire will be lacking which would help the God to redeem his children.

 

Do you have any other objections?

[Golden Meadows]

"Let me see, you say: 1. "Why couldn't God have created me with no possibility of doing anything wrong at all?" To me it seems obvious that when a God creates a moral being with the freedom to do right, he takes the risk that that moral being will exercise the freedom not to do what is right. This has happened, and we have imperical evidence that it has, and we have only ourselves to blame for any evil we have introduced into the world and any ontological disruption that we have experienced as a result of the evil we have chosen. There may indeed be other worlds where that choice has not been made, but this is not one of them. So why cry over spilt milk? The choice of doing rightly and undoing primordial mistakes is open to you now. Do rightly now, and the problems you complain about – that we do wrongly and have an inclination to do wrongly – shall progressively end."

 

 

When a person does evil they do so for some perceived good to themselves, e.g. If somebody takes what does not belong to them its because the thing gives pleasure to them. It does not pain them enough that the suffering of another person results. God being all powerful could have have made us with an acute sense of pain felt at the suffering we cause to one another. There is no denial of free-will just because there is a revulsion at doing evil. Indeed the argument could be turned on its head show that its absence hinders the operation of my freewill.

 

Lets move now on to your spilt milk analogy. You are correct that for whatever reason we find ourselves in this mystery, i.e. why has a perfect being, God, made us imperfectly such that we hurt one another by our acts. This can be one of the valid reasons used by an atheist who rejects the the idea of supremely good creator. Yes we have to run with what we have but its importance emerges when we deal with death and the idea of punishment covered in your next point.....

 

2. "You have a viewpoint about the nature of punishment that seems to be in flat contradiction to the attributes that are normally associated with Gods goodness."

 

"This doesn't make sense to me."

 

To recap: God cannot be unjust. Our sense of justice is a reflection of Gods. What is unjust to us is unjust to God. I do not believe God punishes only for punishments sake, rather he punishes in order to convert and that applies to this life and the next. That he has chosen this "spilt milk" way is a mystery for the reasons given above. I object to the xtian doctrine of hell because it is manifestly unjust. It's not just me but every other person I have dealt with has said the same and that includes hard line xtian fundamentalists. The latter have to get out of this apparent paradox by invoking the infinite goodness of God and how sin against such a being must be infinite in its consequences, the apparent injustice of eternal punishment is solved by making the crime infinite in value. This is false reasoning since imperfect man is not capable of perfect malice. If God had wished to judge man in such a way then he would have made man accordingly – he did not.

 

"Does a "good" father punish his son? Yes, when it would do anything to help the son grow and develop."

 

OK.

 

"It is very easy to imagine that when growth and development is an infinite process,"

 

It cannot be since we are finite beings. The road to madness is the one sign posted "Be Perfect". For any passing xtian: I know Jesus in one gospel says "be perfect" but what stops me saying that he was indeed a madman is his qualification in another Gospel about the kind of perfection he wanted his followers to aim for - compassion.

 

"God would punish us like a father, but would do so... forever."

 

No sane father in this world would punish his child with out end, why should I try and say God is different?

 

"What is the problem with this kind of punishment?"

 

Its a violatation of justice, it is an offence against Gods goodness because it denies his love and in the final analysis is the ultimate in blasphemy because of its eternal and infinite dimensions.

 

"If this is the nature of God's punishment, then what is the problem with the thought that God shall punish you forever and ever and ever?"

 

"God is love" and "God is hate" as his essential nature cannot be reconciled. I choose the former because it explains my very existence and helps me to retain my sanity.

 

"Could God ever use hellfire of the Jonathan Edwards variety on his creatures?"

 

If you mean eternal hellfire then no I don't believe God has ever said such a thing.

 

"Although it might be difficult to imagine the practicalities of how this could be useful, I believe that no hellfire will be lacking which would help the God to redeem his children."

 

God only has to speak his word, he doesn't need any help, he doesn't need our sacrifices, he doesn't need our prayers, he doesn't need us to profess a particular creed. Even in the mystery of the "spilt milk" analogy you used earlier any punishment is not for punishments sake but for conversion of the heart.

 

"Do you have any other objections?"

 

Only that I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and we are not making any progress. Sometimes this can happen when two people, for whatever reason, are blind to the other persons position, thats why I invited anybody passing to chip in with something that will break the deadlock. As mentioned earlier I have never encountered your argument before – and I think its for a good reason.

 

ps My avatar states "pagan". I do not believe God has ever left man entirely alone and that he reveals himself through different Gods in different cultures in different ways in different times. I use terms like "God" and "he" to simplifiy the discussion - thats all.