Eudaimonist

I fully believe in freedom and responsibility, and that good and evil acts do not generally produce the same consequences. I simply don't believe in the actual existence of hell (or heaven), and to my knowledge the consequences of good and evil acts only occur in this life. We generally produce our own heavens or hells through our own thoughts and actions.

-RRH-

I guess I can be a little less cryptic. Devnet, if you feel the physical world is cruel and terrible, then why assume that the supernatural world is any different? Why would an unjust and selfish god be any less likely than a kind one? Humans with power do not always use that power for good, why should supernatural beings be any better?

I would say that rather than make unfounded assumptions that the supernatural gives a hoot what happens to you, you can do more good by caring for yourself and those who live with you in this world.

Rousseau_CHN

Too naive...

Under their kindness, under their power.

And You know what they say about power and corruption.

Perchance

Hey Gemma, if something being eternal makes it unjust, then does this mean that we don't deserve Hell either? (If it existed).

*******

Devnet:

I'm sorry you're feeling this way. If you feel you need to turn to supernature to support yourself, I fully understand, but I will add that I don't think naturalism need be cold and hard. Life can matter without having to extend forever. And, personally, I value the sense of freedom I have from knowing that no gods or fates control me at least as much as I would the sense of security in thinking the supernatural existed.

-Perchance.

GunnerJ

T PERCHANCE: Gemma's statement that Heaven is eternal and therefore unjust is a sloppy straw man of my argument about the concept of hell. She's not actually arguing that, she's just pretending that I was to... well, I really don't know what her goal was in saying that. I think I made it pretty clear that I don't believe in heaven, so I can't say for sure what she was trying to accomplish. My best guess is she was just trying to distract from her poor, failing argument.

Gemma Therese

Rimstalker,

My point is this:

People try to disprove hell by saying it is unjust to punish a finite act with an infinite punishment.

If this is true, then to reward a finite act with an infinite reward is also unjust.

However, I believe the results of both good and evil can be infinite, therefore God is still just in imposing infinite punishment / reward.

Gemma Therese

Gemma Therese

Rimstalker,

Also, I know there has been talk on this board about the absurdity of Purgatory, but Purgatory exists because God is both merciful and just.

To deny Purgatory, one must deny either the perfection of God or the heinousness of sin.

Gemma Therese

brighid

Such as the mere belief in Christ?

Brighid

Philosoft

Bah. Sophistry. God's mercy and God's justice are mutually exclusive propositions if the state-of-affairs he intends to bring about is eternal. If God has a reward/punishment system for our actions, the instantiation of a particular reward or punishment is, by definition, just, simply because God is the 'gold' standard. Conversely, God's failure to instantiate a particular reward or punishment where it is warranted by the aforementioned standard is merciful.

I will grant the possibility that God can make merciful decisions and just decisions without contradiction, but with respect to the decision to reward or punish eternally, there is either justics or there is mercy, not both.
Does that mean I get to go to double-Purgatory?

GunnerJ

Excellent! Finally something approaching a concrete argument.

Which people, specifically? I think I made it pretty clear that my argument had nothing to do with the existence of hell, merely the justice of it (Should we assume its existence merely for the sake of argument).

Yes, and? Please remember, I disbelieve in both your heaven and your hell.

Well, I never doubted that you believe this. I call to question the logic of it. It is my contention that punishing people for finate crimes with infinate torture is unjust, for the reason that the punishment does not fit the crime. I will admit that I have not worked out any specific calculus of determining what punishments are fair for any given crime, but it seems to flout all logic to assume that it is fair to torture someone for eternity for actions which only have finate consequences. What action could possibly be so bad that it deserves an infinate amount of pain to repay it?

Well, that's interesting, but I don't see how it relates to anything. However, I will say that the concept of purgatory is at least more logical that that of an eternal hell; at least purgatory represents an attempt to make the punishment fit the crime.

However, since you bring up the subject of god's mercy, I should like to remind you of the consequences of such an assertion. If you assert that god is merciful, you remove the possibility of defending hell by saying that god is the only one who may decide what punishment fits any given crime. To torture someone fore an eternity is to abandon any claim of a merciful nature.