Eternal punishment unjust?

[Bryan]

In other words, Bryan can't answer the question, this time not even with his convoluted distortions of logic and language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What law school was willing to graduate you, Paul?

The post consisting of five fallaciously complex questions and ignored the opening post, which answered the questions.

"Guest" could have criticized my answers, as you attempted to do (before your attention began to wander), but "Guest" didn't even bother to do that.

It's flatly ridiculous to suggest that my reply to him was tantamount to not answering his/her question; thus it is your latest reply that is an affront to logic.

And you've established a bit of a habit with that kind of thing here at KOTW.

You're still welcome to join the discussion, of course, though perhaps you'd prefer to remain part of the burgeoning peanut gallery.

[Guest Guest]

In other words, Bryan can't answer the question, this time not even with his convoluted distortions of logic and language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan can only speak on punishment, damnation and human failings.

That's why he can't answer. To him and others, God is merely a donut hole, defined as the abscence of whatever ugliness they can project onto others. You need only look at Bryan's posts for proof.

Makes me wonder who Bryan and those like him actually worship.

[Bryan]

Bryan can only speak on punishment, damnation and human failings.

Huh?

That's why he can't answer.

So "Guest" didn't bother to double-check Paul's claim. I did answer, short of affirming the contested premise contained in the series of fallaciously complex questions.

To him and others, God is merely a donut hole, defined as the abscence of whatever ugliness they can project onto others.

Piffle. I simply take the traditional conception of God as developed by Christian theologians over the centuries and show how the criticisms of skeptics are often fallacious.

You need only look at Bryan's posts for proof.

You need only ask "Guest" to point to a post of mine that actually proves his claim to see that he's bonkers.

[Bern]

Bryan can only speak on punishment, damnation and human failings.

That's why he can't answer.  To him and others, God is merely a donut hole, defined as the abscence of whatever ugliness they can project onto others.  You need only look at Bryan's posts for proof.

Makes me wonder who Bryan and those like him actually worship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Will this help?

http://www.venganza.org/

[Guest Guest]

Huh?

So "Guest" didn't bother to double-check Paul's claim.  I did answer, short of affirming the contested premise contained in the series of fallaciously complex questions.

Piffle.  I simply take the traditional conception of God as developed by Christian theologians over the centuries and show how the criticisms of skeptics are often fallacious.

You need only ask "Guest" to point to a post of mine that actually proves his claim to see that he's bonkers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright Bryan.

Point me to a link where you posted something Jesus taught about like tolerance, forgiveness, helping the poor... Anything representative of the Gospels of the New Testament. Anything.

All I see is you marking the way to Heaven with sign posts pointing to Hell. That's apparently your definition of God.

I dare you to prove me wrong, so link away.

All I see is you calling people stupid in Frasier-esque style that you hope masks your vapidness.

I know that's what you think people like me do, but I guess we're supposed to since you think we're ignorant heathens. What's your excuse?

Let's see if you can reply without cutting out parts of my post you don't like.

[Bryan]

Strife, you need to learn a bit more about logic.

Where you state "given," it appears that you mean to state a premise of your argument.  If that's the case, then your fourth premise begs the question (fallaciously).

Finite perfection is infinitely short of infinite perfection.

Moreover, the "infinite" punishment you're talking about is infinite duration.  By that measure, a slap on the wrist that takes an eternity is too severe.  Isn't that absurd?

What's absurd is you trying to redefine how Christians define Hell,

There was none of that in my response to you.

My response emphasized only the logical failings of your post (fallaciously begging the question by making hell unjust as a premise of your argument against the notion that hell is just, and by arguing by implication that argument of infinite duration entails infinite severity of the punishment.

I know of no explicit doctrine that specifies that the suffering in hell is maximally severe.

Do you?

The fact of that matter is that the Bible talks about punishments according to what was done. That idea implies that the punishment in hell is not equal for all.

or at least, make assumptions that apparently have to do with _me_ misdefining it

There are a wide variety of conceptions of hell within the broad umbrella of Christian belief (even under the somewhat narrower umbrella of orthodoxy). Would you disprove the justice of hell by refuting one or two of those notions?

...all I hear people describe it is as to feel on fire constantly, to be tortured constantly, etc. I think you know damned well what I mean by "infinite punishment," but you want to distract with stupid semantics yet again. I'm not falling for it.

... yeah, you're far too intelligent for that.

Being burned/tortured etc. for eternity is NEVER just, because sinning for eternity is NEVER possible.

Why isn't sinning for eternity possible?

And why isn't one sin resulting in eternal imperfection sufficient reason to impose eternal punishment?

Therfore believing in the Christian Hell is to believe in an unjust god. The end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your argument is a gloss.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

I wrote:

The phrase, 'in the image of God', does not mean what most modern folks understand it to mean.

To which Bryan responded:

Moreover, it probably doesn't mean what Dingo Dave supposes it to mean.

Oh really?

According to Strong's Concordance, the word "image" comes from the Hebrew word "tselem" (tseh'-lem) which is derived from an unused root which means to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol.

"Likeness" comes from the Hebrew word "demuwth" (dem-ooth'); and its root word means resemblance; concretely, model, shape.

The Genesis author meant that human beings have the same general form and shape that Yahweh does. You may argue against this, but the Bible is quite clear on the point.

The Bible says that Adam “begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Genesis 5:3). Seth looked like his father, just as Adam looked like God!

The Bible is replete with references to God having human form—with a head, arms, feet, nose, fingers, bowels etc. He is even described as sitting on a throne in Heaven, which means he must also have buttocks.

Many will attempt to argue against this fact by saying that such references are mere poetic metaphors or just visions that God gave so that people could relate to Him. But when God allowed Moses to see Him, saying, “Thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen’ (Exodus 33:23 KJV), that could, in no way, be a mere metaphor or vision.

Furthermore, notice what God angrily told Moses’ brother and sister when they spoke against Moses, thinking that God spoke through them just as much as through him: “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; and I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses [what Moses saw was not a mere vision]; he is faithful in all my house. I speak with him face to face [as meeting with a friend], even plainly, and not in dark sayings [not in poetic metaphors]; and he sees the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:6–8). What Moses saw was the actual form of God! It wasn’t a vision, dream, apparition—or anything like that.

http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/qanda/lcg-q...item=1121733780

Bryan asked:

And why no mention of female gods in the would-be Hebrew pantheon?….

You can always suppose a developing theology, but that simply puts you in the position of engaging in the type of guesswork you despise from apologists.

Have you ever heard of the goddess Asherah who was believed to be Yahweh’s female consort? Her image was venerated in the Jerusalem temple for almost all of its existence, and she was worshipped by the ancient Hebrews right up until the Babylonian exile. Asherah was a beloved household Goddess of the Hebrews and the Canaanites. She was the Goddess worshipped by King Solomon, and was known as "Qaniyatu Elima" "She Who Gives Birth to the Gods." Most Canaanite and Hebrew households had altars dedicated to Asherah. She inspired great devotion. Ashratum, Atharath, Astoreth, Elath, Eliat and ‘Queen of Heaven’ are some of her many names.

The Bible has been selectively compiled from many different writings, and has been heavily edited by the Yahwist priests in an unsuccessful attempt to disguise the fact that up until the exile, the Hebrews were as polytheistic as any of their neighbours. The Bible mentions that the pre-exilic Hebrews worshiped the serpent god Nehushtan, and the dying and resurrected fertility god Tammuz. They also worshipped the Canaanite storm god Baal Hadad, as well as Asherah otherwise known as ‘The Queen of Heaven’, along with other members of the divine pantheon. The idea that the early Israelites were predominantly monotheistic is a fiction created by Yahwist Bible editors.

"The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not -- as the book of Kings imply -- apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighbouring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways -- and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. From the indirect (and pointedly negative) evidence of the books of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned incense on the high places to the sun, the moon, and the stars" I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, Toronto: Free Press, 2001), pp. 241-42.

We need look no further than Psalm 82 to see how polytheistic the Yahwist theology originally was, before it was ‘sanitised’. It reads,

“God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”

Or consider this passage from Deuteronomy 32 in which Yahweh is described as merely one of the many sons of the Canaanite high god El.

“Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High (El) gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”

or Psalm 89;

‘The heavens praise thy wonders, 0 Yahweh,

thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones.

For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh?

Who among the sons of gods is like Yahweh?

A God feared in the council of the holy ones,

mighty and terrible above all that are round about him.’

If you believe that the Yahwist cult was always monotheistic, then I’m afraid that the clergy have succeeded in deceiving you.

[Strife767]

I know of no explicit doctrine that specifies that the suffering in hell is maximally severe.

Do you?

I do believe the Bible itself makes several refereces to there being eternal 'wailing and gnashing of teeth.'

The severity of the punishment is a non-issue (though 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' sure doesn't sound like a walk in the park), because the eternal _length_ of the punishment still makes it infinite, regardless of the severity. As an extreme example, being simply slapped in the face repeatedly for eternity is worse than any punishment inflicted once (or twice, or any number of finite times). Think about it.

Why isn't sinning for eternity possible?

Because people die. One can only sin for as long as they live. Duh.

And why isn't one sin resulting in eternal imperfection sufficient reason to impose eternal punishment?

By your logic, someone who steals a pack of gum from a corner store should go to jail for life, because they will eternally be 'imperfect.'

If perfection is the only thing you think gets into heaven, then you must imagine heaven to be a very lonely and barren place indeed.

Your argument is a gloss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yours is insane.

[Bryan]

Oh really?

Yes, really.

According to Strong's Concordance, the word "image" comes from the Hebrew word  "tselem" (tseh'-lem) which is derived from an unused root which means to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol.

"Comes from" and in turn "derived from"--yet DD is going to present himself as absolutely positive he's got it pinned down.

"Likeness" comes from the Hebrew word "demuwth" (dem-ooth'); and its root word means resemblance; concretely, model, shape.

More fully, "resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like:--fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude."

"Resemblance" is offered (note the semicolon) separately from "concretely, model, shape"--DD's presentation reflects his wish that all three communicate the same idea and helps influence the reader to think similarly by shearing away the context.

Resemblance need not be physical, and that should be obvious.

The Genesis author meant that human beings have the same general form and shape that Yahweh does. You may argue against this, but the Bible is quite clear on the point.

That's some impressive hyperbole. Your argument fails to live up to the promise of the claim.

The Bible says that Adam “begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Genesis 5:3). Seth looked like his father, just as Adam looked like God!

You don't think the idea was to demonstrate that Adam's descendants maintained the likeness and image of the god who created them?

This argument of yours perfectly begs the question.

The Bible is replete with references to God having human form—with a head, arms, feet, nose, fingers, bowels etc. He is even described as sitting on a throne in Heaven, which means he must also have buttocks.

What about the wings of God?

"Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings."

No doubt if we looked hard enough on Adam, we'd see wings on him as well.

Could Adam also turn himself into a pillar of fire? If he shapeshifted into a dove (the form of the Holy Spirit in the account of Jesus' baptism) would he still be in the image and likeness of God?

Your argument means both everything and nothing unless you simply fallaciously beg the question.

Many will attempt to argue against this fact by saying that such references are mere poetic metaphors or just visions that God gave so that people could relate to Him. But when God allowed Moses to see Him, saying, “Thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen’ (Exodus 33:23 KJV), that could, in no way, be a mere metaphor or vision.

lol

Are you for real? There's nothing in that passage at all about physical resemblance to human form. There a "face" to a rock, there's a "face" to a giraffe. Hindparts as well.

Furthermore, notice what God angrily told Moses’ brother and sister when they spoke against Moses, thinking that God spoke through them just as much as through him: “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; and I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses [what Moses saw was not a mere vision]; he is faithful in all my house. I speak with him face to face [as meeting with a friend], even plainly, and not in dark sayings [not in poetic metaphors]; and he sees the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:6–8). What Moses saw was the actual form of God! It wasn’t a vision, dream, apparition—or anything like that.

http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/qanda/lcg-q...item=1121733780

Wow! More proof of nothing. You're amazing!

And why no mention of female gods in the would-be Hebrew pantheon?….

You can always suppose a developing theology, but that simply puts you in the position of engaging in the type of guesswork you despise from apologists.

Have you ever heard of the goddess Asherah who was believed to be Yahweh’s female consort?

lol

According to which Bible passage?

You're doing exactly as I predicted you've have to do: Coming up with what-ifs such as "What if the author of Genesis had Asherah in mind while writing?"

Her image was venerated in the Jerusalem temple for almost all of its existence, and she was worshipped by the ancient Hebrews right up until the Babylonian exile. Asherah was a beloved household Goddess of the Hebrews and the Canaanites. She was the Goddess worshipped by King Solomon, and was known as "Qaniyatu Elima" "She Who Gives Birth to the Gods." Most Canaanite and Hebrew households had altars dedicated to Asherah. She inspired great devotion. Ashratum, Atharath, Astoreth, Elath, Eliat and ‘Queen of Heaven’ are some of her many names.

The Bible has been selectively compiled from many different writings, and has been heavily edited by the Yahwist priests in an unsuccessful attempt to disguise the fact that up until the exile, the Hebrews were as polytheistic as any of their neighbours. The Bible mentions that the pre-exilic Hebrews worshiped the serpent god Nehushtan, and the dying and resurrected fertility god Tammuz. They also worshipped the Canaanite storm god Baal Hadad, as well as Asherah otherwise known as ‘The Queen of Heaven’, along with other members of the divine pantheon. The idea that the early Israelites were predominantly monotheistic is a fiction created by Yahwist Bible editors.

Why didn't the Yahwist Bible editors do a better job of cutting out the parts where the Israelites worshiped other gods?

Again, as I predicted, you're using a hypothetical reconstruction to support your argument. Don't you just hate that?

"The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not -- as the book of Kings imply -- apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighbouring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways -- and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. From the indirect (and pointedly negative) evidence of the books of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned incense on the high places to the sun, the moon, and the stars" I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, Toronto: Free Press, 2001), pp. 241-42.

Pretty funny. They use evidence from the book of Kings to try to undermine what is supposedly implied by the book of Kings. Apart from that, you've got a hypothetical reconstruction of early Israelite belief.

Don't you hate that (or is it only when the view disagrees with yours that you hate it)?

We need look no further than Psalm 82 to see how polytheistic the Yahwist theology originally was, before it was ‘sanitised’. It reads,

“God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”

You date psalm 82 to an earlier time than the Pentateuch, then?

Or consider this passage from Deuteronomy 32 in which Yahweh is described as merely one of the many sons of the Canaanite high god El.

“Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High (El) gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”

Yet another hypothetical (ultimately reliant on question-begging). The identity of the "sons of god" is quite uncertain, but this passage as well as some others seems to imply that it refers to the Israelites themselves. See the last sentence you quoted (and props for including the context).

or Psalm 89;

‘The heavens praise thy wonders, 0 Yahweh,

thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones.

For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh?

Who among the sons of gods is like Yahweh?

A God feared in the council of the holy ones,

mighty and terrible above all that are round about him.’

So, what you're doing is just trying to collect the data that might appear to support your position, regardless of date?

I'm guessing that you never even gave the slightest thought to the Hebrew tradition of lampooning the claims about rival gods in their own literature.

If you believe that the Yahwist cult was always monotheistic, then I’m afraid that the clergy have succeeded in deceiving you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, even though the Bible has scads of verses talking about man's tendency to pursue gods other than Yahweh, the clergy is teaching that there was no such tendency on the part of the Israelites?

For example?

Your post, Dingo Dave, makes you look like somebody who had to cram at the last minute in the attempt to bolster his argument.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I wrote:

To which Bryan responded:

Oh really?

According to Strong's Concordance, the word "image" comes from the Hebrew word  "tselem" (tseh'-lem) which is derived from an unused root which means to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol. 

"Likeness" comes from the Hebrew word "demuwth" (dem-ooth'); and its root word means resemblance; concretely, model, shape.

The Genesis author meant that human beings have the same general form and shape that Yahweh does. You may argue against this, but the Bible is quite clear on the point.

The Bible says that Adam “begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Genesis 5:3). Seth looked like his father, just as Adam looked like God!

The Bible is replete with references to God having human form—with a head, arms, feet, nose, fingers, bowels etc. He is even described as sitting on a throne in Heaven, which means he must also have buttocks.

Many will attempt to argue against this fact by saying that such references are mere poetic metaphors or just visions that God gave so that people could relate to Him. But when God allowed Moses to see Him, saying, “Thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen’ (Exodus 33:23 KJV), that could, in no way, be a mere metaphor or vision.

Furthermore, notice what God angrily told Moses’ brother and sister when they spoke against Moses, thinking that God spoke through them just as much as through him: “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; and I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses [what Moses saw was not a mere vision]; he is faithful in all my house. I speak with him face to face [as meeting with a friend], even plainly, and not in dark sayings [not in poetic metaphors]; and he sees the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:6–8). What Moses saw was the actual form of God! It wasn’t a vision, dream, apparition—or anything like that.

http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/qanda/lcg-q...item=1121733780

Bryan asked:

Have you ever heard of the goddess Asherah who was believed to be Yahweh’s female consort? Her image was venerated in the Jerusalem temple for almost all of its existence, and she was worshipped by the ancient Hebrews right up until the Babylonian exile. Asherah was a beloved household Goddess of the Hebrews and the Canaanites. She was the Goddess worshipped by King Solomon, and was known as "Qaniyatu Elima" "She Who Gives Birth to the Gods." Most Canaanite and Hebrew households had altars dedicated to Asherah. She inspired great devotion. Ashratum, Atharath, Astoreth, Elath, Eliat and ‘Queen of Heaven’ are some of her many names.

The Bible has been selectively compiled from many different writings, and has been heavily edited by the Yahwist priests in an unsuccessful attempt to disguise the fact that up until the exile, the Hebrews were as polytheistic as any of their neighbours. The Bible mentions that the pre-exilic Hebrews worshiped the serpent god Nehushtan, and the dying and resurrected fertility god Tammuz. They also worshipped the Canaanite storm god Baal Hadad, as well as Asherah otherwise known as ‘The Queen of Heaven’, along with other members of the divine pantheon. The idea that the early Israelites were predominantly monotheistic is a fiction created by Yahwist Bible editors.

"The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not -- as the book of Kings imply -- apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighbouring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways -- and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. From the indirect (and pointedly negative) evidence of the books of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned incense on the high places to the sun, the moon, and the stars" I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, Toronto: Free Press, 2001), pp. 241-42.

We need look no further than Psalm 82 to see how polytheistic the Yahwist theology originally was, before it was ‘sanitised’. It reads,

“God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”

Or consider this passage from Deuteronomy 32 in which Yahweh is described as merely one of the many sons of the Canaanite high god El.

“Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High (El) gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.  For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”

or Psalm 89;

‘The heavens praise thy wonders, 0 Yahweh,

thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones.

For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh?

Who among the sons of gods is like Yahweh?

A God feared in the council of the holy ones,

mighty and terrible above all that are round about him.’

If you believe that the Yahwist cult was always monotheistic, then I’m afraid that the clergy have succeeded in deceiving you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to get a girlfriend.

[Bryan]

I know of no explicit doctrine that specifies that the suffering in hell is maximally severe.

Do you?

I do believe the Bible itself makes several refere[n]ces to there being eternal 'wailing and gnashing of teeth.'

Is it the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, or the combination of the two that logically entails maximum severity of suffering?

The severity of the punishment is a non-issue (though 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' sure doesn't sound like a walk in the park), because the eternal _length_ of the punishment still makes it infinite, regardless of the severity.

So why don't you deal with my counterexample to that argument?

I give you a slap on the wrist that takes forever. That's an infinite punishment, right?

And apparently it's worse that a slap on the wrist that takes half a second, for some odd reason (Strife will explain it?).

As an extreme example, being simply slapped in the face repeatedly for eternity is worse than any punishment inflicted once (or twice, or any number of finite times). Think about it.

No doubt receiving the same punishment more than once is more severe than having the punishment a single time--but it still doesn't follow that the punishment itself is infinite. You're still talking about punishment of infinite duration as though it cannot be appropriate for a one-time action that results in imperfection of infinite duration.

Your logic still doesn't follow on that point.

Why isn't sinning for eternity possible?

Because people die. One can only sin for as long as they live. Duh.

What makes you say that? Aren't certain thoughts sinful in and of themselves? Will the people in hell be unable to think?

If they can't think, then how severe could the punishment really be?

By your logic, someone who steals a pack of gum from a corner store should go to jail for life, because they will eternally be 'imperfect.'

I don't mistake civil justice for absolute justice.

That would make for a great straw man, though.

If perfection is the only thing you think gets into heaven, then you must imagine heaven to be a very lonely and barren place indeed.

Only if God miscalculated with the substitutionary atonement idea.

Yours is insane.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then you should be able to point out a flaw in it.

[Guest Paul]

I do believe the Bible itself makes several refereces to there being eternal 'wailing and gnashing of teeth.'

The severity of the punishment is a non-issue (though 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' sure doesn't sound like a walk in the park), because the eternal _length_ of the punishment still makes it infinite, regardless of the severity. As an extreme example, being simply slapped in the face repeatedly for eternity is worse than any punishment inflicted once (or twice, or any number of finite times). Think about it.

Because people die. One can only sin for as long as they live. Duh.

By your logic, someone who steals a pack of gum from a corner store should go to jail for life, because they will eternally be 'imperfect.'

If perfection is the only thing you think gets into heaven, then you must imagine heaven to be a very lonely and barren place indeed.

Yours is insane.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The above was in response to "I know of no explicit doctrine that specifies that the suffering in hell is maximally severe. Do you?"

It's fascinating to watch the various conceptions and doctrines of hell played out. The writer was correct: There is no specific biblical description of what happens in hell except a statement about wailing and gnashing of teeth, and maybe one or two other references that, while graphic, are not specific as to degree or duration.

What's more fascinating is to watch a self-proclaimed biblical literalist like David Paszkiewicz contradict himself. On the hand, the entire truth is in the Bible. On the other hand, where it isn't in the Bible he is free to believe as he chooses. That would be his right and his prerogative if he wasn't telling other people's kids that they belong in eternal torment for eternity if they don't share his beliefs. Under those circumstances, it is neither his right nor his prerogative. The fascinating part of it is watching the self-proclaimed biblical literalist either make it up, or accept what someone else has made up. The other fascinating part is watching people defend him because after all, he's such a nice guy. To them maybe he is, but there's nothing nice about this completely unacceptable behavior.

[Bryan]

The above was in response to "I know of no explicit doctrine that specifies that the suffering in hell is maximally severe. Do you?"

It's fascinating to watch the various conceptions and doctrines of hell played out.

The writer was correct: There is no specific biblical description of what happens in hell except a statement about wailing and gnashing of teeth, and maybe one or two other references that, while graphic, are not specific as to degree or duration.

Yet the argument against was that hell could not be a just end. It was apparently assumed that the suffering there was maximal (and could not, therefore, be a fitting punishment).

What's more fascinating is to watch a self-proclaimed biblical literalist like David Paszkiewicz contradict himself. On the hand, the entire truth is in the Bible.

When did Paszkiewicz say that, and in what context?

On the other hand, where it isn't in the Bible he is free to believe as he chooses.

When did Paszkiewicz say that, and in what context?

That would be his right and his prerogative if he wasn't telling other people's kids that they belong in eternal torment for eternity if they don't share his beliefs.

So Paul hasn't tired of taking Paszkiewicz's statements out of context. Paszkiewicz, while answering Matthew LaClair's question relating to the problem of evil, stated that it was his view that hell was an appropriate (just) end for those who reject the atonement of Jesus.

Now, people could believe in Jesus' atonement without accepting it (I've met some). Thus they share Paszkiewicz's belief--yet they would still be doomed to hell based on the action of rejecting the atonement.

It's a small point, but illustrative of the way Mr. LaClair's theological ignorance leads him into errors of reasoning.

It goes without saying that numerous sects exist which agree with Paszkiewicz's beliefs regarding the necessity of Jesus' atonement with respect to entering heaven. Yet LaClair paints Paszkiewicz with language that suggests that Paszkiewicz is saying that only members of his particular sect may enter heaven.

Under those circumstances, it is neither his right nor his prerogative. The fascinating part of it is watching the self-proclaimed biblical literalist either make it up, or accept what someone else has made up.

For example?

The other fascinating part is watching people defend him because after all, he's such a nice guy. To them maybe he is, but there's nothing nice about this completely unacceptable behavior.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unnacceptable to the LaClairs, anyway. Paszkiewicz seemed to stay well within community standards until the LaClairs came along with their ideal of a default secular Humanist state religion.

And if it's good enough for the LaClairs, it's good enough for everyone.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Bryan

[Bryan]

Alright Bryan.

Apparently this is the "Guest" who posted this:

"Bryan can only speak on punishment, damnation and human failings."

Point me to a link where you posted something Jesus taught about like tolerance, forgiveness, helping the poor...  Anything representative of the Gospels of the New Testament.  Anything.

Why?

Do you think that if I haven't posted anything like that at KOTW that I am incapable of doing so?

Couldn't I just point to a post on, say, the interpretation of the "image of God" in order to show that I can speak on matters beyond "punishment, damnation and human failings"?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=50424

In this thread, no less.

All I see is you marking the way to Heaven with sign posts pointing to Hell.  That's apparently your definition of God.

I guess you see what you wish to see.

I dare you to prove me wrong, so link away.

I've provided a link. Don't forget to let us know what you see there.

All I see is you calling people stupid in Frasier-esque style that you hope masks your vapidness.

Again, you appear to see what you wish to see.

I've complimented Strife on some improvements I've noticed in his use of logic, and even Dingo Dave when he posted about science.

You forgot to include an example of my supposed vapidness, BTW.

I know that's what you think people like me do, but I guess we're supposed to since you think we're ignorant heathens.

It's wonderful that I have such control over your behavior. You bend yourself to what you imagine my expectations will be.

What's your excuse?

What do I need an excuse for? Am I less respectful than the average KOTW participant? Do you hold me to a higher standard?

Let's see if you can reply without cutting out parts of my post you don't <snip>.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. Couldn't do it.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Paul]

Yet the argument against was that hell could not be a just end.  It was apparently assumed that the suffering there was maximal (and could not, therefore, be a fitting punishment).

When did Paszkiewicz say that, and in what context?

When did Paszkiewicz say that, and in what context?

So Paul hasn't tired of taking Paszkiewicz's statements out of context.  Paszkiewicz, while answering Matthew LaClair's question relating to the problem of evil, stated that it was his view that hell was an appropriate (just) end for those who reject the atonement of Jesus.

Now, people could believe in Jesus' atonement without accepting it (I've met some).  Thus they share Paszkiewicz's belief--yet they would still be doomed to hell based on the action of rejecting the atonement.

It's a small point, but illustrative of the way Mr. LaClair's theological ignorance leads him into errors of reasoning.

It goes without saying that numerous sects exist which agree with Paszkiewicz's beliefs regarding the necessity of Jesus' atonement with respect to entering heaven.  Yet LaClair paints Paszkiewicz with language that suggests that Paszkiewicz is saying that only members of his particular sect may enter heaven.

For example?

Unnacceptable to the LaClairs, anyway.  Paszkiewicz seemed to stay well within community standards until the LaClairs came along with their ideal of a default secular Humanist state religion.

And if it's good enough for the LaClairs, it's good enough for everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is like being called ugly by a frog.

Bryan, you think telling other people's kids that they belong in hell because they don't share the speaker's religious beliefs is consistent with community standards, and apparently with necessary standards of common decency. I don't. As to the remainder of your questions, I'd tell you to listen to the recordings --- except you already did, but you only heard what you wanted to hear. It's the same with the arguments you make, which is why I don't respond to most of them.

[Bryan]

This is like being called ugly by a frog.

Bryan, you think telling other people's kids that they belong in hell because they don't share the speaker's religious beliefs is consistent with community standards, and apparently with necessary standards of common decency. I don't.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I disagree that Paszkiewicz told the kids they belong in hell if they don't share the speaker's religious beliefs.

Yet here you are telling people that I believe something other than what I've stated.

Is that your objective morality in action?

As to the remainder of your questions, I'd tell you to listen to the recordings --- except you already did, but you only heard what you wanted to hear.

Any excuse to avoid providing evidence in support of your claims, eh?

It's the same with the arguments you make, which is why I don't respond to most of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet again we have the accusation minus the example.

[Guest Guest]

Apparently this is the "Guest" who posted this:

"Bryan can only speak on punishment, damnation and human failings."

Why?

Point me to a link where you posted something Jesus taught about like tolerance, forgiveness, helping the poor...  Anything representative of the Gospels of the New Testament.  Anything.

Do you think that if I haven't posted anything like that at KOTW that I am incapable of doing so?

Couldn't I just point to a post on, say, the interpretation of the "image of God" in order to show that I can speak on matters beyond "punishment, damnation and human failings"?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=50424

In this thread, no less.

I guess you see what you wish to see.

I've provided a link. Don't forget to let us know what you see there.

Again, you appear to see what you wish to see.

I've complimented Strife on some improvements I've noticed in his use of logic, and even Dingo Dave when he posted about science.

You forgot to include an example of my supposed vapidness, BTW.

It's wonderful that I have such control over your behavior. You bend yourself to what you imagine my expectations will be.

What do I need an excuse for? Am I less respectful than the average KOTW participant? Do you hold me to a higher standard?

Nope. Couldn't do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You create a thread on eternal damnation to create this little religious pulpit for yourself, and you mention nothing about what it takes to achieve Salvation. That's why I say the only signposts you put up point to Hell.

Yes Bryan. Why mention anything about tolerance, forgiveness or helping the poor? What has that to do with this "Christianity" you go on and on about? Touche.

You could also post on how the Bible says we shouldn't be eating shellfish. What would that prove? And you still haven't linked any post representative of the Gospels, like I asked.

Why should I hold you to a higher standard when you don't ask that of yourself? You just ask that of others by calling them stupid in your lawyeresque ways. (No offense, Paul.)

And the whole point of my original comment was because of your vapidness, as exemplified by the fact that you get your Jesus on without talking about Salvation.

Make Jesus happy and PROVE ME WRONG.

Play around with me and "control" my behaviour all you want. Please do. I love your little delusions of grandeur.

[Bryan]

This is like being called ugly by a frog.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? When have I threatened a lawsuit intended to force a community to adopt my standards?

[Bryan]

You create a thread on eternal damnation to create this little religious pulpit for yourself, and you mention nothing about what it takes to achieve Salvation.  That's why I say the only signposts you put up point to Hell.

That's ridiculous.

The topic was introduced by people who criticized the notion of hell as being inherently unjust. Rather than pressing them to support their assertions, I went out of my way to make it easier to discuss the topic by making an affirmative case that hell is (or at least can be) a vehicle for perfect justice.

The thread is a vehicle for philosophical discussion, not a "religious pulpit."

Hell can either be logically criticized for being unjust or it cannot be logically criticized on that point. The purpose of the thread is to treat that issue, period.

Yes Bryan.  Why mention anything about tolerance, forgiveness or helping the poor?

I'm thinking that the assertion that hell is inherently unjust would not be addressed adequately by referring to tolerance, forgiveness, or helping the poor. On the contrary, I'd be making myself a target for having committed a red herring fallacy.

What has that to do with this "Christianity" you go on and on about?  Touche.

You could also post on how the Bible says we shouldn't be eating shellfish.  What would that prove?

Nothing, which is why I haven't posted about how the Bible says we shouldn't be eating shellfish.

Why don't you ask me about the purpose of the Bible verses I have posted?

And you still haven't linked any post representative of the Gospels, like I asked.

Well, I didn't want you to potentially get away with the dishonesty of claiming that I only talk about damnation and human flaws and "proving" it with irrelevant evidence.

If you had started out by accusing me of not explicity emphasizing Jesus' messages of love and forgiveness, I would have readily granted that accusation.

That's not how you proceeded, however.

Why should I hold you to a higher standard when you don't ask that of yourself?

Wouldn't it be silly to have that question answered before you answer as to whether or not you hold me to a higher standard?

lol

It's quite simple. I'll lead you through it.

If you do not hold me to a higher standard, then we do not need to answer your question (it becomes superfluous).

If you do hold me to a higher standard, then I will be happy to ask you why you hold me to a higher standard (since it's a much better question to ask of you than it is to ask of me).

You either do or you do not hold me to a higher standard.

So take your time in figuring out whether you do or you don't.

You just ask that of others by calling them stupid in your lawyeresque ways.  (No offense, Paul.)

I ask others to hold me to a higher standard when I insult them?

How does that work? I don't quite see it.

And the whole point of my original comment was because of your vapidness, as exemplified by the fact that you get your Jesus on without talking about Salvation.

What do you mean by "get your Jesus on"?

I suspect that if you apply your standard evenly, there will be precious few posts at KOTW that you could admit were not vapid (not many posts refer to salvation as such at all).

Make Jesus happy and PROVE ME WRONG.

I already proved you wrong.

If you want me to explain about the love of Christ and God's plan of salvation, however, feel free to send me a private message.

Or is that privilege not granted to unregistered guests?

Play around with me and "control" my behaviour all you want.  Please do.  I love your little delusions of grandeur.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. You're the one who intimated that you would behave as I expected you to behave, as if it's some kind of excuse for poor behavior.

I simply pointed out the logical extension of that idea, that it gives me control over you.

It's nice to see that pointing it out had the effect on you I had hoped for. It's even better than you trying to behave to meet my expectations.

[Strife767]

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I disagree that Paszkiewicz told the kids they belong in hell if they don't share the speaker's religious beliefs.

Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the obvious truth. See: first quote in my signature.

[Stixx3969]

Really?  When have I threatened a lawsuit intended to force a community to adopt my standards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's Bullshit and you know it! It was a violation of separation of Church and state and they got busted, end of story. S**K it up and move on.

[Bryan]

Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the obvious truth. See: first quote in my signature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cardinal Rule of the LaClairites: When in doubt, repeat Paskiewicz taken out of context.

"Why would God give up on a human being after just one lifetime?"

Why would God give up on a human being after just two lifetimes?

Why would God give up on a human being after just three lifetimes?

Why would God give up on a human being after just four lifetimes?

See where this is going?

[Strife767]

Cardinal Rule of the LaClairites:  When in doubt, repeat Paskiewicz taken out of context.

I defy you to show 'context' leading up to the first quote in my signature that shows that Paszkiewicz is 'answering a question about what the Bible says,' as he often claimed in the meeting his religious comments were, or doing anything else other than exactly what the quote portrays. Go ahead, copy and paste from the transcript the question he was answering in my quote.

[Guest Guest]

That's ridiculous.

The topic was introduced by people who criticized the notion of hell as being inherently unjust.  Rather than pressing them to support their assertions, I went out of my way to make it easier to discuss the topic by making an affirmative case that hell is (or at least can be) a vehicle for perfect justice.

The thread is a vehicle for philosophical discussion, not a "religious pulpit."

Hell can either be logically criticized for being unjust or it cannot be logically criticized on that point.  The purpose of the thread is to treat that issue, period.

I'm thinking that the assertion that hell is inherently unjust would not be addressed adequately by referring to tolerance, forgiveness, or helping the poor.  On the contrary, I'd be making myself a target for having committed a red herring fallacy.

Nothing, which is why I haven't posted about how the Bible says we shouldn't be eating shellfish.

Why don't you ask me about the purpose of the Bible verses I have posted?

Well, I didn't want you to potentially get away with the dishonesty of claiming that I only talk about damnation and human flaws and "proving" it with irrelevant evidence.

If you had started out by accusing me of not explicity emphasizing Jesus' messages of love and forgiveness, I would have readily granted that accusation.

That's not how you proceeded, however.

Wouldn't it be silly to have that question answered before you answer as to whether or not you hold me to a higher standard?

lol

It's quite simple.  I'll lead you through it.

If you do not hold me to a higher standard, then we do not need to answer your question (it becomes superfluous).

If you do hold me to a higher standard, then I will be happy to ask you why you hold me to a higher standard (since it's a much better question to ask of you than it is to ask of me).

You either do or you do not hold me to a higher standard.

So take your time in figuring out whether you do or you don't.

I ask others to hold me to a higher standard when I insult them?

How does that work?  I don't quite see it.

What do you mean by "get your Jesus on"?

I suspect that if you apply your standard evenly, there will be precious few posts at KOTW that you could admit were not vapid (not many posts refer to salvation as such at all).

I already proved you wrong.

If you want me to explain about the love of Christ and God's plan of salvation, however, feel free to send me a private message.

Or is that privilege not granted to unregistered guests?

Heh.  You're the one who intimated that you would behave as I expected you to behave, as if it's some kind of excuse for poor behavior.

I simply pointed out the logical extension of that idea, that it gives me control over you.

It's nice to see that pointing it out had the effect on you I had hoped for.  It's even better than you trying to behave to meet my expectations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All these religious discussions revolve around Mr. Paszkiewicz and his religious assertions. In none of your 400+ posts have you mentioned Jesus' message of love and forgiveness.

What's wild is that you finally admit that fact but state you didn't like how I presented it. And yet, I'm the one who supposedly holds you to a higher standard? Next time I'll be sure to kiss the royal hand first.

Imagine that. 400+ posts defending aspects of Christianity, and you fail to mention the central tenets of Jesus' message.

Parse my inadequate use of the English language and "control" me all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you would rather start a thread on Hell rather than on Salvation.

[Guest Paul]

Cardinal Rule of the LaClairites:  When in doubt, repeat Paskiewicz taken out of context.

"Why would God give up on a human being after just one lifetime?"

Why would God give up on a human being after just two lifetimes?

Why would God give up on a human being after just three lifetimes?

Why would God give up on a human being after just four lifetimes?

See where this is going?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Do you?

A loving parent would never give up on his child, especially if he was all-powerful and perfectly good. If you don't get that, then I can't help you understand it.