The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Biblical Basis For Purgatory And An Infinitely Heinous Punishment


#41

If you slander someone, and die, and go to hell to burn for an infinite time and with infinite torture;
I don’t see how who you kill makes much difference - the penalty cannot get any worse, eh?


#42

Dave,

The eternal sin is blasphemy against the Spirit. The Jews hated Christ and committed this sin. They killed Christ. Only a hatred and rejection of Christ is an eternal seeing who God is.


#43

I don’t think human actions can be given a numerical value (“infinitely bad”). Further, even if they could, to say an action deserves infinite punishment since it’s against a Being of infinite worth, is a non-sequitur.


#44

I never claimed that it was certain only plausible. No arguments are deductively certain.

Certain

highly likely

likely

reasonable

unlikely

highly unlikely

It’s reasonable based on the argument. Our courts judge some acts as being more heinous than others all the time (different penalties for different crimes). How you don’t see killing the Son of God is the worst evil imaginable is a mystery. Perhaps you don’t believe he’s the Son of God? Rejecting Christ separates one from His grace. God hardens whom He pleases. It is a hatred of Christ that lasts forever.


#45

I think the average person is more valuable than a serial rapist. That doesn’t mean I think murdering an average person should land the murderer a greater prison sentence than someone who murders a serial rapist.


#46

qaz

We’re talking about ontology. We’re talking about the type of being. Surely you see different value on different types of being. Killing a blade of grass isn’t as bad as killing a cat and killing a cat isn’t as bad as killing a human. The worst evil ever committed was the killing of the Son of God. We see this because of who Christ is being infinite in value and worth. We attach value to things. The penalty for killing a cat isn’t the same as killing a human.


#47

qaz I would like to get your take on why that is so?


#48

And I like to know…if Chad thinks that the average person…is more valuable, than the average zombie of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)?


#49

I’m not sure evil can be graded like that The way I see it, something is evil or it isn’t. To say killing a regular person is less evil than killing Jesus is to embrace a framework that assigns a sort of numerical value to actions. And that seems contrived to me.


#50

Because the rapist causes such horrible suffering.


#51

qaz,

Like you said. That’s just the way you see it. I claim the argument is reasonable not certain. It holds within the framework of retributive justice. In a court of law one receives a more severe penalty for abusing a human child than he does for abusing a hamster. This is the world we live in . We do assign numerical value to actions. Torturing a fly isn’t as bad as torturing a human baby.


#52

Hollytree, your error is that you’re jumping first from something that can’t feel pain (grass) to something that can (cat), and then from a non-rational creature (cat) to a rational creature (human). The jump from cat to human is non-rational to rational, whereas the jump from regular human to Jesus is rational to rational.


#53

Even painlessly killing a fly isn’t as bad as painlessly king a human baby. It holds whether there’s pain or not. Painlessly killing a chimpanzee isn’t as bad as painlessly killing a human. The point is that different types of being have different value.


#54

A chimpanzee isn’t rational / made in God’s image.


#55

Therefore, he doesn’t have the value a human does. Christ is infinite in value. Torturing the infinitely valuable has and infinite penalty. There’s a fine to pay.


#56

I agree, but to say that anyone is more valuable than anyone else just rubs me the wrong way…


#57

The severity should not be proportional to the value of the subject or else this would be a retributive punishment, a revenge. It’s one thing to reform people who commit sins. But if the Jews or Romans who killed Jesus are punished for eternity, then this is not a restorative punishment, it is punishment for the sake of punishment, it is revenge, it is sadism. This is not what a morally perfect and maximally good God would do, only an insecure, despicable and sadistic human would think like this.


#58

During the first half of the twentieth century, under the influence of social scientists, retributive theories of justice were frowned upon in favor of consequentialist theories. Fortunately, there has been, over the last half-century or so, a renaissance of theories of retributive justice, accompanied by a fading of consequentialist theories, so that we need not be distracted by the need to justify a retributive theory of justice. ~~ William Lane Craig, The Atonement pp. 68-69

People are in hell because they deserve to be. This is not sadism. God doesn’t delight in the suffering in and of itself of those in hell but the glories of His justice.


#59

Retributive theories of justice are primitive. Punishing someone to even out some imaginary scales of justice strikes me as the kind of thing an immature person would demand, not a maximally good Being.


#60

Well, you’re wrong. Retribution is the way the courts operate. God is holy. Not a maximally good being. You blaspheme a holy God by calling Him unjust and sadistic.