A Philosophical Look at Hell

[Guest]

A sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sentence. How does this work logically....

That Dead Men Walking

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

Would Choose

Of sin, because they believe not on me; John 16:9

Death

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Colossians 2:13

Over Infinite Love

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:13-16

Does Not Seem Logical To Me Either

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.Isaiah 1:18

[Guest]

This line of reasoning has always confused me.

A sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sentence. How does this work logically ?

Whether I hold this position or not I haven't found it logical at this stage.

What, you didn't find this at all compelling?:

Perhaps that might be more easily understood if we think about how we think about other things. I a person stood accused of pulling the wings off of a Malaria infected Mosquito, we would scarcely expect to see that person punished, for cruelty to animals, in spite of the fact, that that is what it is. If person were to kill a dog on a whim, most of us would expect some sort of punishment, but we would not expect the punishment, to rise to the same level as it would be for killing a human on a whim, see the progression?

In any case, it does not really boil down to logic. What you and I think is or is not logical, is totally irrelevent. What has God revealed is relevant. If He reveals Himself as just, and reveals that rebeliouse people will receive eternal damnation, then there is nothing more that need be said, I accept His sovereignty and every right to do with His creation as He sees fit for His own reasons and purposes. He is not in any way, accountable to me or my philosophy.

[Guest]

Right ome. The other thing that bugs me is what the idea of a finite sin does to the sacrifice of Christ. I believe He paid the ultimate sacrifice. But dying for the forgiveness of a finite set of sins is different to an infinite set / infinite weight of sins. Jesus had to be perfect for a reason.

Yes, adding to what Candice says here, It seems to me that Jesus had to die as the God man, not just a sinless man, in order for the payment and sacrifice to be of such worth, as to pay for the sins of mankind.

[Guest ninhao]

This line of reasoning has always confused me.

A sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sentence. How does this work logically ?

Whether I hold this position or not I haven't found it logical at this stage.

What, you didn't find this at all compelling?:

Perhaps that might be more easily understood if we think about how we think about other things. I a person stood accused of pulling the wings off of a Malaria infected Mosquito, we would scarcely expect to see that person punished, for cruelty to animals, in spite of the fact, that that is what it is. If person were to kill a dog on a whim, most of us would expect some sort of punishment, but we would not expect the punishment, to rise to the same level as it would be for killing a human on a whim, see the progression?

In any case, it does not really boil down to logic. What you and I think is or is not logical, is totally irrelevent. What has God revealed is relevant. If He reveals Himself as just, and reveals that rebeliouse people will receive eternal damnation, then there is nothing more that need be said, I accept His sovereignty and every right to do with His creation as He sees fit for His own reasons and purposes. He is not in any way, accountable to me or my philosophy.

No not compelling unfortunately. If we look at even scales pulling the wings off a malaria infected mosquito is being as cruel as someone who mames a dog However killing the mosquito or dog because they are infected would be equally just.

We cannot use any scale of comparing killing an animal to a human ( from a Christian position ) simply because humans are created in the image of God and other animals are not. Giving preference for killing one human over another may indeed create an imbalance of justice and this can be seen in the trolly experiment.

I accept logic isn't always clear and I accept God's sovereignty also.

[Guest]

This line of reasoning has always confused me.

A sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sentence. How does this work logically ?

Whether I hold this position or not I haven't found it logical at this stage.

What, you didn't find this at all compelling?:

Perhaps that might be more easily understood if we think about how we think about other things. I a person stood accused of pulling the wings off of a Malaria infected Mosquito, we would scarcely expect to see that person punished, for cruelty to animals, in spite of the fact, that that is what it is. If person were to kill a dog on a whim, most of us would expect some sort of punishment, but we would not expect the punishment, to rise to the same level as it would be for killing a human on a whim, see the progression?

In any case, it does not really boil down to logic. What you and I think is or is not logical, is totally irrelevent. What has God revealed is relevant. If He reveals Himself as just, and reveals that rebeliouse people will receive eternal damnation, then there is nothing more that need be said, I accept His sovereignty and every right to do with His creation as He sees fit for His own reasons and purposes. He is not in any way, accountable to me or my philosophy.

No not compelling unfortunately. If we look at even scales pulling the wings off a malaria infected mosquito is being as cruel as someone who mames a dog However killing the mosquito or dog because they are infected would be equally just.

We cannot use any scale of comparing killing an animal to a human ( from a Christian position ) simply because humans are created in the image of God and other animals are not. Giving preference for killing one human over another may indeed create an imbalance of justice and this can be seen in the trolly experiment.

I accept logic isn't always clear and I accept God's sovereignty also.

I think you tiptoed around the point. Which was that even as humans, we assign a hierarchy of worth to things. We for example, value pathogenic bacterial very low, hence we use antibiotics, killing millions of microscopic plants (even beneficial ones), sometimes just for the sake of our own comfort. Not even P.E.T.A. is concerned about this 'injustice'. Doing an evil against a peer, we can expect a punishment that fits the crime. This is proportional to not only the nature of the crime, but the nature of the victim. We value humans higher than we value microscopic plants. It does not require that the person is created in God's image for this to be the case. It is obvious to most humans, even Atheists and Satanists, that humans have a high intrinsic value, it is wired into us, apart from our acceptance of being created in the image of God.

Just as a Human is more valuable or worthy of kindness than bacteria are, or for that matter, just as a dog, a dolphin a gorilla etc, is esteemed over even harmless bacteria, God is, by nature, of infinitely higher worth than a human, or all humanity, or even all of His creation. The smallest of crimes against Him are the largest crimes possible.

This is why sin, any sin, is never a small thing, but sufficient to to earn us eternal separation from God, which is also an eternal separation from all things good.

This is just my opinion, but to not see this as obvious, is to diminish the greatness and exceeding worthyness of God Himself, and I fell uncomfortably nervous for any who cannot grasp how serious sinning against an almighty, all good God to whom everyone and everything, owes it's existence and worship.

[Guest ninhao]

I think you tiptoed around the point. Which was that even as humans, we assign a hierarchy of worth to things. We for example, value pathongenic bacterial very low, hence we use antibiotics, killing millions of microscopic plants, sometimes just for the sake of our own comfort. Not even P.E.T.A. is concerned about this 'injustice'. Doing an evil against a peer, we can expect a punishment that fits the crime. This is proportional to not only the nature of the crime, but the nature of the victim. We value humans higher than we value microscopic plants. It does not require that the person is created in God's image for this t be the case. It is obvious to most humans, even Athiests and Satanists, that humans have a high instrinsic value, it is wired into us, apart from our acceptance of being created in the image of God.

Just as a Human is more valuable or worthy of kindness that bacteria are, of for that matter, just as a dog, a dophin, a gorilla etc, is esteemed over even harmless bacteria, God is, by nature, of infinetly higher worth than a human, or all humanity, or even all of His creation. The smallest of crimes against Him are the largest crimes possible.

This is why sin, any sin, is never a small thing, but sufficient to to earn us eternal separation from God, which is also an eternak separation from all things good.

If we look at the hierarchy of being from a secular standpoint I think it is very different than from the Christian perspective, of course. But then maybe you have a point considering the hierarchy we place upon all life. I don't claim not to do this nor do I claim I am just for swatting a fly. The fact I can justify killing the fly doesn't change the fact it is prejudiced. Now there are many variables we are not considering here of which one may include necessary hierarchy of worth in species which aids humans. So for the purpose of this discussion I think it is best, especially from a Christian perspective, to stay with human hierarchy and then the differences which come about when we consider how God is so far above our own worth.

The whole premise however is flawed because we have been discussing how killing discriminantly can be seen as a parallel for infinite punishment as the result of sinning against an infinite God. The premise would be suited if the punishment was death but at present you would have me justify pulling the wings of the malaria infected mosquito eternally. This of course can not be justified.

( the word for today is hierarchy )

[Guest ninhao]

This is just my opinion, but to not see this as obvious, is to diminish the greatness and exceeding worthyness of God Himself, and I fell uncomfortably nervous for any who cannot grasp how serious sinning against an almighty, all good God to whom everyone and everything, owes it's existence and worship.

I missed this in the wash.

What you see as obvious may also be because of a prejudiced outlook. Logically this is also possible.

When we speak face to face with God I will not debate His justice. I have a feeling some may

[Guest liquidearth260]

The problem is with the "finite" part. A better way to look at this is to consider the STATUS of the person, NOT the actual crime. For instance, if you steal, you're a thief; if you murdered someone, you're a murderer; and in summary, if you sinned, you're a sinner. That's why Christians say that "if you're broken one commandment, you've broken them all". What Jesus did was not only to pay the debt for our sin, but he also REMOVED it off of our account. So God looks on us as if we never committed the sin in the first place.

[ByFaithAlone]

Maybe I am looking into this a bit too far- but something caught my attention. . . you described all these finite things- then describe our punishment as finite- do you believe in Universalism?

I personally do not subscribe to universalism. This was a query posed by a deist friend of mine that I have been wrestling with.

[Tinky]

Hell is eternal because all sin is directed against an eternal God, and thus deserves an eternal punishment.