Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Eternal Punishment or Annihilationism?

shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:09:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've noticed that there's a ton of discussion about this on YouTube. A lot of people get quite passionate about it. Eternal punishment(ists?) often associate annihilationism with universalism and reject it as a heresy, while annihilationists call their opponents cruel, heartless, etc and say that their doctrines are based upon pagan beliefs and will sometimes use other insults (one annihilationist I saw called people who disagreed with him "whores of Babylon"). Anyway, I wasn't sure so I did some research on it and debated my dad about it. The parts of the debate are to the right ->

I haven't done a whole lot of research, but here are a couple things that I've found:

1 - Hell exists
2 - Hell very obviously burns forever
3 - The unsaved face eternal punishment

but then I realized a lot of things that made me favor annihilationism:

1 - In the NT, the Greek word for immortal is used only with the saved and God, never with the unsaved (to be fair, it's not used a lot, but interesting to note).
2 - The verse "fear not the one who can destroy the body, but the one who can destroy the body and soul in hell" at the minimum implies that God is able to destroy the soul. It makes you wonder why Jesus said specifically "in hell" rather than "in general" if the soul really is meant to last forever in hell.
3 - Hell is compared with Sodom and Gomorrah which is interesting since Sodom and Gomorrah is consumed.
4 - Eternal life and eternal punishment are contrasted often. If everyone has eternal life, then why is it contrasted with punishment unless the punishment is death? Or is eternal life some type of phrase meaning specifically, eternal bliss?
5 - The ONLY verse that I've ever heard anyone use (Matt Slick, Kyle Butt, etc) that actually supports (or seems to support) the soul burning in hell forever is Rev 14:9-11. This verse, from the context, definitely seems to be a finite punishment. First, Jesus is mentioned to be in the presence of those who are tortured which makes you wonder why he would spend eternity watching the unsaved tortured. This isn't the significant nor strong evidence, but it's significant nonetheless. Second, John very clearly seems to be quoting or paraphrasing Isaiah 34:10. Check it out for yourself, the verses have the same structure and use the same phrases. However, the context from Isaiah shows that Isaiah is describing a finite destruction. Some may bring up the argument that Aionos ton Aionon (used in Rev 14:9-11) means eternity, but in Revelations, it is used to mean a finite time (namely Rev 11:15 [read 1 Cor 15:23-26 for confirmation, Jesus does not rule for an infinite time on earth] and probably Rev 19:2-3 since the great whore is generally interpreted to be a city or institution). Also, the idea that John was paraphrasing the Old Testament is not implausible as Revelations is estimated to allude to the OT 518 times.

I remain agnostic on the issue but I lean towards Hell being eternal, souls being destroyed and then facing the eternal punishment - death.

One interesting thing that my dad brought up was the argument that in places such as Job, the devil tempted Job with eternal punishment, but this doesn't make sense if the soul is instantly consumed. It makes me wonder whether people face a finite punishment until Judgment day and then face another finite punishment until their soul is consumed or whether people don't face a punishment and are simply judged according to their sins at Judgment day. I haven't researched a lot on this. So anyway, comments? Questions? Disagreements?
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:03:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let me, a universalist with a God who is not your God, start with this.

I find it rather droll that you would think that an omnipotent God would burn someone for a time then judge them again and burn them again for a time and then finally destroy them.

-------------------------------

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct. Lose your barbaric tribal mentality. We are in 2010, not 110.

----------------------------------------

I think that the only way to judge the possible existence of hell and the veracity of the whole Bible is to judge their moral position.

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah's flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God's as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:52:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:03:08 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Let me, a universalist with a God who is not your God, start with this.

I find it rather droll that you would think that an omnipotent God would burn someone for a time then judge them again and burn them again for a time and then finally destroy them.

-------------------------------

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct. Lose your barbaric tribal mentality. We are in 2010, not 110.











----------------------------------------

I think that the only way to judge the possible existence of hell and the veracity of the whole Bible is to judge their moral position.

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.


To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah's flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God's as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL

You brought up some very interesting topics. Remember, I don't necessarily think that God will burn a soul for a certain time and then burn it again. I think it may be possible that he will judge the soul according to the person's deeds and then consume it. There are many things that I'd like to respond to, but first, would you like to challenge me to a debate? I'd like to defend the position of eternal punishment (even though I'm skeptical as to whether that is true).

Can we debate on the topic of "It is immoral for an omnibenevolent God to torture souls eternally in Hell?". I'll take the con position. 5 rounds, 72 hours and 8000 characters is preferable, but it's my first debate so I don't really care.
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:03:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sorry, to be more accurate, the topic should be "It is immoral for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God to torture souls eternally in Hell."
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:18:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:03:05 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
Sorry, to be more accurate, the topic should be "It is immoral for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God to torture souls eternally in Hell."

I agree. LOL.

Seriously, we do not need formalities and I am usually short winded. I gave a few questions above that show why an eternal hell would be immoral.

If you want to start by speaking to those, we can see where we end up.

The only basic argument i have ever gotten back is that God is God and he can do whatever he likes, moral or not. I do not count that as a legitimate argument.

I get the feeling that you may be brighter. I hope so.

Regards
DL
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 4:33:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:18:19 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:03:05 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
Sorry, to be more accurate, the topic should be "It is immoral for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God to torture souls eternally in Hell."

I agree. LOL.

Seriously, we do not need formalities and I am usually short winded. I gave a few questions above that show why an eternal hell would be immoral.

If you want to start by speaking to those, we can see where we end up.

The only basic argument i have ever gotten back is that God is God and he can do whatever he likes, moral or not. I do not count that as a legitimate argument.

I get the feeling that you may be brighter. I hope so.

Regards
DL

Aww, ok. I'm very long winded, but I'll try to give a quick response.

First, as you know, I lead towards annihilationism and I am skeptical of the idea that people are tortured in Hell forever. However, I think the argument that hell is immoral is possibly the weakest argument given. The primary and fundamental problem with your argument is that it's not an argument, at least in the way that you stated it.

Your questions seem to imply that I will be unable to respond "yes", or if I do, I am immoral. You make two basic assumptions:

1 - There is a moral absolute.
2 - The moral absolute is at least close to your definition of morality (or something like utilitarianism).

There are some problems here. First, there's no direct proof for any type of moral absolute (if you try to give evidence for God, then that may give evidence for a moral standard, but it is indirect). And there's definitely no proof of a moral absolute without God. A good question is, can you give any evidence at all that there is a moral absolute outside of a deity and that mankind's opinions on morality are not simply evolved? Even if there is an argument for non-supernatural absolute morality, unless the point is proved, there's always some sort of doubt.

I assume though that you do not believe in a non-supernatural moral absolute. It seems as though you rely on utilitarianism. The problem with this is that utilitarianism is only useful if there is no God (or transcendent morality system). Why? Well, if a God exists, and that being has created a morality system, then utilitarianism is nullified. If Thor exists and thinks that murdering people is moral, and he creates a transcendent morality system (assuming that he can, of course), then it would be moral to kill people. Period. There isn't much point of arguing that it is immoral because it would be moral by definition.

So what if there is a supernatural morality system? Well, in skepticism, I wont claim that I know with absolute certainty that Thor does not exist nor will I claim that I know with absolute certainty that there is some other type of supernatural absolute moral standard that exists. However, these hypothetical morality systems are irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can specifically give evidence for a particular one.

The only relevant morality system is the Christian God's morality system. Now, I will finally get around to answering your question of how a omnipotent God can torture people endlessly. Remember, we are assuming that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and there is no other moral standard that is higher than God's.

When answering this question, we should define omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything. We should ask the question here, though, "Can God create a rock that's too heavy for him to lift?". The answer is no. Isn't he not omnipotent then? No. The fact is, if God can hypothetically create a rock too heavy for him to lift, then making any type of logical argument regarding God would be pointless. If God is beyond logic, then he exists and he doesn't exist. If he is beyond logic, then he tortures souls for eternity and he doesn't torture souls for eternity. I have to assume that God limits himself with the laws of logic, even though hypothetically, God could be beyond logic. So when answering this question, God can either do anything within the laws of logic or it's pointless to talk about it.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Well, if God is eternally holy and eternally good and eternally just, then he must give out some type of punishment, lest he contradict himself (unholy, evil, unjust). He can't logically contradict himself, even though he is omnipotent. Now, why does he torture souls forever? Well, if he is eternally holy, then it's at least very possible that he is REQUIRED by definition, to torture souls eternally. Why? Well, if he is eternally holy, then it is an infinite offense towards him. He is infinitely good, so anything that is not good (our sin) is infinitely bad. So basically, our sin is an infinite offense and because of God's infinitely holy characteristic, he MUST torture souls infinitely.

Now, it does get a bit speculative at this point, which is why I don't necessarily accept that God tortures souls forever. It's very hard, though, to make an argument against this, because any argument will also be speculative. It could be, for example, that God sees sin as an infinite offense but his infinite justice "negates" that and he punishes people fairly, only according to what they have done, instead of the way that he sees it. I'm not entirely sure we can comment on this though. It's all speculation.

So, in conclusion. You must 1 - prove that God is not required to torture souls eternally, or you must 2 - prove that there is no God nor any transcendent morality system, or you must 3 - prove that there is a non-divine absolute and transcendent morality system. Sorry that this is so long and confusing and thanks for listening :).
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 7:24:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 4:33:48 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:18:19 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
So, in conclusion. You must 1 - prove that God is not required to torture souls eternally, or you must 2 - prove that there is no God nor any transcendent morality system, or you must 3 - prove that there is a non-divine absolute and transcendent morality system. Sorry that this is so long and confusing and thanks for listening :).

I give up. I cannot prove anything.

If there were answers to the questions you pose, we would have likely stopped asking them 3,000 years ago. That is how long that debate has been going.

That is why I wanted to show the reasoning in my thinking from a moral POV in my original post.

Those issues may lead us somewhere new. Your issues are old and well worn and many a good mind has wrestled with them to no avail.

Take your number two for instance. My usual response to such is usually----

Here is why------------

That is why I am interested in your moral position.
God or no God, absolutes or not etc. does not matter to me.
It is your good moral thinking that maters.

I have a few questions above that can be answered. Give them a try please and if we are anywhere near consensus on the morality of hell then we can proceed.

Regards
DL
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 7:49:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe in Eternal Punishment. God is just and justice is everlasting. If the evil-doers persist in sin, then it is just for God to punish them in the Hereafter.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 8:00:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 7:49:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
I believe in Eternal Punishment. God is just and justice is everlasting. If the evil-doers persist in sin, then it is just for God to punish them in the Hereafter.

How does a sinner persist in sin in hell for eternity?

You also ignored all the moral implications in my post # 2.

Care to speak to the morality?

Regards
DL
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 9:00:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 8:00:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/29/2011 7:49:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
I believe in Eternal Punishment. God is just and justice is everlasting. If the evil-doers persist in sin, then it is just for God to punish them in the Hereafter.

How does a sinner persist in sin in hell for eternity?

You also ignored all the moral implications in my post # 2.
I did not address you specifically.

Care to speak to the morality?

Regards
DL
So, you wondered why Hitler should be put in the same place for an eternity as a casual sinner? Well, if you believe in the various levels of Hell, this solves the problem. Just because both are in Hell doesn't mean that they are in the same level of punishment at all. Some will be far worse punished than others, but still all will be punished in Hell.

Should Hitler be punished for an eternity? If you take into consideration that annihilation is in no way justified against him, and that he has forever prevented millions upon millions of people from living their lives to a natural end, he has prevented millions of people from doing good deeds forever, and ad infinitum, then Hell is a just punishment for such a person.
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 1:44:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 7:24:23 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/28/2011 4:33:48 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:18:19 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
So, in conclusion. You must 1 - prove that God is not required to torture souls eternally, or you must 2 - prove that there is no God nor any transcendent morality system, or you must 3 - prove that there is a non-divine absolute and transcendent morality system. Sorry that this is so long and confusing and thanks for listening :).

I give up. I cannot prove anything.

If there were answers to the questions you pose, we would have likely stopped asking them 3,000 years ago. That is how long that debate has been going.

That is why I wanted to show the reasoning in my thinking from a moral POV in my original post.

Those issues may lead us somewhere new. Your issues are old and well worn and many a good mind has wrestled with them to no avail.

Take your number two for instance. My usual response to such is usually----



Here is why------------



That is why I am interested in your moral position.
God or no God, absolutes or not etc. does not matter to me.
It is your good moral thinking that maters.

I have a few questions above that can be answered. Give them a try please and if we are anywhere near consensus on the morality of hell then we can proceed.

Regards
DL

I'll try to restate the possibilities.

1 - You can give evidence for an absolute non-divine morality system
2 - You can show that if God exists, he would not be required to torture souls eternally, or you can present an argument that would strongly favor the non-torture of souls.
3 - You can provide evidence that there is no transcendent morality system.

Now remember, we are discussing whether it is immoral for God to torture souls eternally. This means that number 3 would be pretty much pointless to argue. If God does not exist, then of course it would be immoral for him to torture souls eternally.

I would suggest providing evidence for #1 or #2.

Now, for your questions:

1 - If God exists, and he is infinitely holy, it is moral and required for him to torture souls eternally, yes. Do I find this idea shocking? Yes, but it is irrelevant.

2 - There is nothing longer than eternity. I find this immoral in my personal opinion but if sin is an infinite offense, then my opinion is irrelevant and it is moral.

3 - Again, if God exists and is infinitely holy, it is necessary and moral.

4 - It may and it may not. I don't know.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:25:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:00:18 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/29/2011 8:00:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/29/2011 7:49:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
I believe in Eternal Punishment. God is just and justice is everlasting. If the evil-doers persist in sin, then it is just for God to punish them in the Hereafter.

How does a sinner persist in sin in hell for eternity?

You also ignored all the moral implications in my post # 2.
I did not address you specifically.

Care to speak to the morality?

Regards
DL
So, you wondered why Hitler should be put in the same place for an eternity as a casual sinner? Well, if you believe in the various levels of Hell, this solves the problem. Just because both are in Hell doesn't mean that they are in the same level of punishment at all. Some will be far worse punished than others, but still all will be punished in Hell.

Should Hitler be punished for an eternity? If you take into consideration that annihilation is in no way justified against him, and that he has forever prevented millions upon millions of people from living their lives to a natural end, he has prevented millions of people from doing good deeds forever, and ad infinitum, then Hell is a just punishment for such a person.

So now Dante is more informed of hell than scriptures. Sweet.

Thanks for showing us your low level of morality.

Regards
DL
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:30:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:25:17 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/29/2011 9:00:18 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/29/2011 8:00:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/29/2011 7:49:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
I believe in Eternal Punishment. God is just and justice is everlasting. If the evil-doers persist in sin, then it is just for God to punish them in the Hereafter.

How does a sinner persist in sin in hell for eternity?

You also ignored all the moral implications in my post # 2.
I did not address you specifically.

Care to speak to the morality?

Regards
DL
So, you wondered why Hitler should be put in the same place for an eternity as a casual sinner? Well, if you believe in the various levels of Hell, this solves the problem. Just because both are in Hell doesn't mean that they are in the same level of punishment at all. Some will be far worse punished than others, but still all will be punished in Hell.

Should Hitler be punished for an eternity? If you take into consideration that annihilation is in no way justified against him, and that he has forever prevented millions upon millions of people from living their lives to a natural end, he has prevented millions of people from doing good deeds forever, and ad infinitum, then Hell is a just punishment for such a person.

So now Dante is more informed of hell than scriptures. Sweet.

Thanks for showing us your low level of morality.

Regards
DL
Thanks for showing supposed moral superiority.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 7:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 1:44:54 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:

I'll try to restate the possibilities.

1 - You can give evidence for an absolute non-divine morality system

There is no such evidence.

2 - You can show that if God exists,

There is no evidence that God exists.

he would not be required to torture souls eternally,

Any requirement of any kind would negate God or mans free will.

or you can present an argument that would strongly favor the non-torture of souls.

If God is moral, he would know that any punishment is given to change attitudes and actions. He can just as easily cure that condition as torture the individual forever and curing is the moral thing to do.

3 - You can provide evidence that there is no transcendent morality system.

The only evidence to show a negative is that it is not there.
Only the positive can be shown.
:

Now remember, we are discussing whether it is immoral for God to torture souls eternally. This means that number 3 would be pretty much pointless to argue. If God does not exist, then of course it would be immoral for him to torture souls eternally.

Nothing non existant can do anything immoral.


I would suggest providing evidence for #1 or #2.

Now, for your questions:

1 - If God exists, and he is infinitely holy, it is moral and required for him to torture souls eternally, yes. Do I find this idea shocking? Yes, but it is irrelevant.

Requirments for God cannot exist. Theist explain away any of God's immoral acts by saying, he is God, he can do whatever he wants.

2 - There is nothing longer than eternity. I find this immoral in my personal opinion but if sin is an infinite offense, then my opinion is irrelevant and it is moral.

The question did not speak to eternity. it spoke of mediocre sinners, liars for instance, having the same penalty as Hitler and Stalin.

3 - Again, if God exists and is infinitely holy, it is necessary and moral.

You keep stating necessary and moral without telling us why it is necessary and moral. What is moral and necessary about torturing someone without any goal or possible benefit to anyone?

If you like I can answer all of your points as you do and say that all is unnecessary and immoral.

4 - It may and it may not. I don't know.

Yes you do. You just do not like your answer.

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

Regards
DL
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:12:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:09:57 AM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
3 - Hell is compared with Sodom and Gomorrah which is interesting since Sodom and Gomorrah is consumed.

I can't wait.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 8:49:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 7:03:55 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/29/2011 1:44:54 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:

I'll try to restate the possibilities.

1 - You can give evidence for an absolute non-divine morality system

There is no such evidence.

2 - You can show that if God exists,

There is no evidence that God exists.

he would not be required to torture souls eternally,

Any requirement of any kind would negate God or mans free will.

or you can present an argument that would strongly favor the non-torture of souls.

If God is moral, he would know that any punishment is given to change attitudes and actions. He can just as easily cure that condition as torture the individual forever and curing is the moral thing to do.

3 - You can provide evidence that there is no transcendent morality system.

The only evidence to show a negative is that it is not there.
Only the positive can be shown.
:

Now remember, we are discussing whether it is immoral for God to torture souls eternally. This means that number 3 would be pretty much pointless to argue. If God does not exist, then of course it would be immoral for him to torture souls eternally.

Nothing non existant can do anything immoral.


I would suggest providing evidence for #1 or #2.

Now, for your questions:

1 - If God exists, and he is infinitely holy, it is moral and required for him to torture souls eternally, yes. Do I find this idea shocking? Yes, but it is irrelevant.

Requirments for God cannot exist. Theist explain away any of God's immoral acts by saying, he is God, he can do whatever he wants.


2 - There is nothing longer than eternity. I find this immoral in my personal opinion but if sin is an infinite offense, then my opinion is irrelevant and it is moral.

The question did not speak to eternity. it spoke of mediocre sinners, liars for instance, having the same penalty as Hitler and Stalin.

3 - Again, if God exists and is infinitely holy, it is necessary and moral.

You keep stating necessary and moral without telling us why it is necessary and moral. What is moral and necessary about torturing someone without any goal or possible benefit to anyone?

If you like I can answer all of your points as you do and say that all is unnecessary and immoral.

4 - It may and it may not. I don't know.

Yes you do. You just do not like your answer.

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

Regards
DL


You have two serious problems.
1 - You are completely relying on your emotions. You don't have any defense for what you declare to be "moral" and "immoral". You simply ask people four questions and, if they disagree, then you declare them sick and immoral. This is nonsensical and unwarranted. I presented an argument that shows that utilitarianism is useless when discussing hypothetical morality systems that are transcendent of utilitarianism. Your only response is to say that you don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is mine. The problem with this is obviously that you are taking the affirmative - you are calling my position immoral, I'm being skeptical, I'm not calling God moral or immoral.

2 - You've completely disregarded my argument that if God exists and sin eternally offends him, he must torture souls eternally. All sin is equal to him and is by definition equal to him, because all sin eternally offends him. Requirements DO apply to him as I've repeated over and over. God works within the laws of logic. Did you actually read my post?
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 9:07:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:12:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:09:57 AM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
3 - Hell is compared with Sodom and Gomorrah which is interesting since Sodom and Gomorrah is consumed.

I can't wait.

Jason Lee kicks as s in this scene. Understandable why it was cut, though-- just because it was a little *too* philosophical for a comedy.

Regards
DL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 9:10:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Our beliefs are a result of our unconscious desires. Believing in eternal punishment speak volumes about one's character.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 9:27:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 8:49:45 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
At : You have two serious problems.
1 - You are completely relying on your emotions. You don't have any defense for what you declare to be "moral" and "immoral". You simply ask people four questions and, if they disagree, then you declare them sick and immoral. This is nonsensical and unwarranted.

As compared to what? Your "it is necessary and moral." without any further explanation? LOL. Pot calling the kettle black.

I presented an argument that shows that utilitarianism is useless when discussing hypothetical morality systems that are transcendent of utilitarianism. Your only response is to say that you don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is mine. The problem with this is obviously that you are taking the affirmative - you are calling my position immoral, I'm being skeptical, I'm not calling God moral or immoral.

You may have satisfied your own requirements but I do not recall accepting anything yet.


2 - You've completely disregarded my argument that if God exists and sin eternally offends him, he must torture souls eternally.

Because God would have no limits with a pocketful of miracles. There is nothing he must do like some limited entity.
If God is eternally offended, then he is not a loving or forgiving God now is he.
Further I sin against man, not against God. If I steal your food, you go hungry, not God. You are the victim and it is to you to forgive. God is not even in the equation. The O T is based on the Jewish tradition. You will note that they take the same position I do. Except for murder, where the perpetrator cannot repent to his victim.


All sin is equal to him and is by definition equal to him, because all sin eternally offends him. Requirements DO apply to him as I've repeated over and over. God works within the laws of logic. Did you actually read my post?

If God works within the laws of logic then he will know that all sins are not equal.
If you believe they are then your logic and reason are faulty.

Regards
DL
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 3:21:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 9:10:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Our beliefs are a result of our unconscious desires. Believing in eternal punishment speak volumes about one's character.

Interesting to know that you believe that. There should be a multitude of points brought up here:

1 - Assuming, of course, that there is an implication in your statement that I believe in eternal Hell (and presumably because I seek "eternal revenge" due to some type of childhood trauma or experience), you haven't read my earlier posts. I am arguing that there is eternal punishment based solely for my amusement and for the sake of argument. I actually think that the Bible supports annihilationism more than eternal punishment, but I'm still not completely sure. I actually argued for annihilationism in my first post.

2 - Even if I did hold the position of eternal punishment, your assessment has the assumption that I am basing this only on my emotions instead of (at least to some extent) any empirical, philosophical or logical reasoning or evidence. If I was simply basing it from nothing, at least then you would have more of an inductive case for your implied accusation about a position that I don't hold.
Again, if you had read any of my posts, you would have known that I wasn't simply basing it from nothing. I'm basing it off what is Biblical. Of course, there could be several objections raised here. The first objection would probably be that the Bible isn't empirical evidence. Depending on your definition of "evidence", I think it could be. However, the fact that people wrote down that Hell exists in a book several thousand years ago, according to my standard and presumably many others, is such insignificant evidence, that it doesn't really count. My answer, then, to the first objection is that I have personal (and other) evidence that leads me to believe (or conclude based on evidence) that the Bible is at least somewhat inspired. The second objection would be that I may still have unconscious "desires" for eternal punishment which is leading me towards interpreting the Bible in favor of eternal punishment. As I said before, however, I don't. I lean towards annihilationism and my willingness to debate both sides I hope should give some evidence that I try as hard as I can not to let my "feelings" get in the way of my interpretation of the Bible.

On a side note, is it perhaps because of unwarranted assumptions that psychologists sometimes make that cause a large amount of people to regard psychology as a non-scientific study?

At 4/30/2011 9:27:47 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/30/2011 8:49:45 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
At : You have two serious problems.
1 - You are completely relying on your emotions. You don't have any defense for what you declare to be "moral" and "immoral". You simply ask people four questions and, if they disagree, then you declare them sick and immoral. This is nonsensical and unwarranted.

As compared to what? Your "it is necessary and moral." without any further explanation? LOL. Pot calling the kettle black.

I presented an argument that shows that utilitarianism is useless when discussing hypothetical morality systems that are transcendent of utilitarianism. Your only response is to say that you don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is mine. The problem with this is obviously that you are taking the affirmative - you are calling my position immoral, I'm being skeptical, I'm not calling God moral or immoral.

You may have satisfied your own requirements but I do not recall accepting anything yet.


2 - You've completely disregarded my argument that if God exists and sin eternally offends him, he must torture souls eternally.

Because God would have no limits with a pocketful of miracles. There is nothing he must do like some limited entity.
If God is eternally offended, then he is not a loving or forgiving God now is he.
Further I sin against man, not against God. If I steal your food, you go hungry, not God. You are the victim and it is to you to forgive. God is not even in the equation. The O T is based on the Jewish tradition. You will note that they take the same position I do. Except for murder, where the perpetrator cannot repent to his victim.


All sin is equal to him and is by definition equal to him, because all sin eternally offends him. Requirements DO apply to him as I've repeated over and over. God works within the laws of logic. Did you actually read my post?

If God works within the laws of logic then he will know that all sins are not equal.
If you believe they are then your logic and reason are faulty.

Regards
DL


I'll try once again to summarize my arguments which you must not have read.

First, I am NOT arguing that God is moral if he does, in fact, torture souls in Hell. I am skeptical. I am not taking a side, I am trying to disprove you. I can't say for sure whether God is moral because to do that, I would have to provide evidence that he does exist, which is a completely different topic. YOU have the burden of proof, YOU are trying to convince ME that the Christian God is evil.

Second, if we assume for a moment, that God really does exist and we try to assign attributes to him as is described in the Bible, we get at least three relevant attributes. 1 - He is eternally loving; 2 - He is eternally holy; 3 - He is eternally just; 4 - He is eternally powerful.
Now, if we are to only consider that God is eternally loving and eternally powerful, of course we would object to God sending people to Hell. However, I am arguing, that if we consider that God is eternally holy, then that would create a problem. Sin is unholy. So if a being sins, that is contrary to God's nature. Because of sin and because of God's eternal justice, there are only two possibilities: 1 - God must punish sin eternally because if he does not, he will be holy or unjust. God CANNOT be unholy or unjust, that's a contradiction of his nature. Therefore, he must punish sin eternally. Because of his omnibenevolence, he does the best thing possible that is good. Unfortunately, the best and most moral thing to do, is to torture souls eternally because of his justice and holiness; 2 - God must punish sin, but his punishment is just according to what we have done, instead of how God perceives the sin in his omniholiness. If he does not punish the sin, he will deny his omnijustice.
As I said before, I don't know which one is the correct position. I think it's completely possible that the best good thing that God can do that is eternally just and holy is torturing souls forever. I also think that punishing souls for a finite time may be the best good thing that God can do that is eternally just and holy. I'm not going to assume which one is correct, but I will respond in a critical manner if you persist in denying the possibility of God's infinite holiness requiring eternal punishment without any evidence. It's a speculative topic. Please back up your position.

I've now responded several times to this:

Because God would have no limits with a pocketful of miracles. There is nothing he must do like some limited entity.

this:

If God is eternally offended, then he is not a loving or forgiving God now is he. Further I sin against man, not against God. If I steal your food, you go hungry, not God. You are the victim and it is to you to forgive. God is not even in the equation. The O T is based on the Jewish tradition. You will note that they take the same position I do. Except for murder, where the perpetrator cannot repent to his victim.

and this:

If God works within the laws of logic then he will know that all sins are not equal. If you believe they are then your logic and reason are faulty.
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 3:43:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Eh what the heck, I'll quote myself so that we can clarify this issue.

Because God would have no limits with a pocketful of miracles. There is nothing he must do like some limited entity.

When answering this question, we should define omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything. We should ask the question here, though, "Can God create a rock that's too heavy for him to lift?". The answer is no. Isn't he not omnipotent then? No. The fact is, if God can hypothetically create a rock too heavy for him to lift, then making any type of logical argument regarding God would be pointless. If God is beyond logic, then he exists and he doesn't exist. If he is beyond logic, then he tortures souls for eternity and he doesn't torture souls for eternity. I have to assume that God limits himself with the laws of logic, even though hypothetically, God could be beyond logic. So when answering this question, God can either do anything within the laws of logic or it's pointless to talk about it.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Well, if God is eternally holy and eternally good and eternally just, then he must give out some type of punishment, lest he contradict himself (unholy, evil, unjust). He can't logically contradict himself, even though he is omnipotent. Now, why does he torture souls forever? Well, if he is eternally holy, then it's at least very possible that he is REQUIRED by definition, to torture souls eternally. Why? Well, if he is eternally holy, then it is an infinite offense towards him. He is infinitely good, so anything that is not good (our sin) is infinitely bad. So basically, our sin is an infinite offense and because of God's infinitely holy characteristic, he MUST torture souls infinitely.

In summary: he can't do things that deny his infinite justice or holiness.

If God is eternally offended, then he is not a loving or forgiving God now is he. Further I sin against man, not against God. If I steal your food, you go hungry, not God. You are the victim and it is to you to forgive. God is not even in the equation. The O T is based on the Jewish tradition. You will note that they take the same position I do. Except for murder, where the perpetrator cannot repent to his victim.

2 - You've completely disregarded my argument that if God exists and sin eternally offends him, he must torture souls eternally. All sin is equal to him and is by definition equal to him, because all sin eternally offends him. Requirements DO apply to him as I've repeated over and over. God works within the laws of logic. Did you actually read my post?

Now, if we are to only consider that God is eternally loving and eternally powerful, of course we would object to God sending people to Hell. However, I am arguing, that if we consider that God is eternally holy, then that would create a problem. Sin is unholy. So if a being sins, that is contrary to God's nature. Because of sin and because of God's eternal justice, there are only two possibilities: 1 - God must punish sin eternally because if he does not, he will be holy or unjust. God CANNOT be unholy or unjust, that's a contradiction of his nature. Therefore, he must punish sin eternally. Because of his omnibenevolence, he does the best thing possible that is good. Unfortunately, the best and most moral thing to do, is to torture souls eternally because of his justice and holiness

In summary: It's at least plausible that the most moral, loving, just and holy thing that God can do logically, is to torture souls infinitely. Also, who the sin is directed at is irrelevant. God is omniscient and eternally holy. He cannot stand sin and he must give a just punishment for the sin, even if it's not a sin towards him.

If God works within the laws of logic then he will know that all sins are not equal. If you believe they are then your logic and reason are faulty.

If we assume that God is infinitely holy, and is therefore infinitely opposed to sin, then he will be infinitely opposed to that sin. Let's say that that sin had a number, on a scale from one to ten. One is the least offensive sin and ten is the most offensive. If that sin was a one, then God must be infinitely opposed to that sin because of his infinite holiness. If that sin was a ten, then God must be infinitely opposed to that sin because of his infinite holiness. Why? Well, if God is infinitely opposed to the first sin, and he is infinitely opposed to the second sin by a degree of 10, he's still infinitely opposed. There isn't a 10 * infinity - it's still infinity.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 9:07:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
shinydarkrai94

I like to KIS and debate to win. You debate to debate and like to hear yourself.

Our two styles are too far for any benefit to either of us.

Till next topic.

Regards
DL
shinydarkrai94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 8:19:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 9:07:04 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
shinydarkrai94

I like to KIS and debate to win. You debate to debate and like to hear yourself.

Our two styles are too far for any benefit to either of us.

Till next topic.

Regards
DL

It's interesting to hear your perception of me. However, may I correct you by saying that I debate primarily because it's fun. I also debate to win and to try to change people's opinions on certain matters (if nothing else, to make them more skeptical). I do not debate so that I can hear (read?) myself.

I am slightly disappointed that you have given up backing up your assertions with logic or reasoning. Perhaps you cannot figure out a way to win and that is why you have given up.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 9:49:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 8:19:58 PM, shinydarkrai94 wrote:
At 5/1/2011 9:07:04 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
shinydarkrai94

I like to KIS and debate to win. You debate to debate and like to hear yourself.

Our two styles are too far for any benefit to either of us.

Till next topic.

Regards
DL

It's interesting to hear your perception of me. However, may I correct you by saying that I debate primarily because it's fun. I also debate to win and to try to change people's opinions on certain matters (if nothing else, to make them more skeptical). I do not debate so that I can hear (read?) myself.

I am slightly disappointed that you have given up backing up your assertions with logic or reasoning. Perhaps you cannot figure out a way to win and that is why you have given up.

It is fun for you because you seem to believe your own B S.

Like what I pointed out earlier. Your "it is necessary and moral." without any further explanation.

Hardly a rebuttal to what I started with the O P.

We began with 4 simple questions but with your loose distributions of all kinds of imaginary attributes to God, you are always speaking for him without any proof at all. He must do this and that does not cut it. Pure baseless assumptions.

Either way, our styles are not getting the job done.

Regards
DL