Eternal punishment is invalid

[sgttomas]

The notion of eternal punishment is a heritage of the development of mathematics from the classical to modern times. We now understand infinity is a class by itself, in numerical terms. Our experience of a linear progression of time is insufficient to allow us to conceive of eternal existence. Whatever was imagined to be the case was simply the product of ignorance. Therefore, the idea of eternal punishment for finite sin is not valid, because it is a fundamental attribution error.

God is described as being perfectly just. I view hell as a complete punishment. I don't pretend to understand what the afterlife will be like in realistic terms, only what I know to have been said about it through metaphor. The conclusion of eternal punishment is based on the understanding of the word used to convey "eternity". Since it is clear that this notion is metaphorical, the conclusion of eternal punishment is invalid.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[Gwarlroge]

finite sin

What do you mean by that?

[sgttomas]

1 sin, 2 sin, red sin, blue sin, you add it all up and one could still have sinned more. No one can be an infinte sinner because we don't live for an infinite time. So all our sin is finite, less than infinity, some meager amount (relatively speaking). What's the most just thing, to be punished beyond measure or to be punished FULLY. Still a terrifying concept because our sin propagates out from us, possibly for the rest of humanity's time. I kick a dog, who bites his neighbor, who beats his wife, who abuses her child, who grows up to be Hitleriffic...etc.

Anyways, I'm sure there are enough semantics arguments and linguists out there who would say I am wrong, that, "NO! It says 'infinite', 'everlasting'". And I'm like, "whatever man, if circular reasoning floats your boat then have at 'er". The point being that they've been told that word means infinite because of the progression of knowledge from times afore. The problem being that those afore were wrong. Or else we are wrong now, in assessing what they meant by such words. And of course, many religions do in fact absolutely and without doubt state an "everlasting" punishment. For that, they claim to know God's ways. Okay. ....coz that always proves so valid. ....hmm........

Peace,
-sgttomas

[Gwarlroge]

1 sin, 2 sin, red sin, blue sin, you add it all up and one could still have sinned more. No one can be an infinte sinner because we don't live for an infinite time. So all our sin is finite, less than infinity, some meager amount (relatively speaking).

I think I shall quote Jonathan Edwards and see what you do, Tom. (I think this is relevant because Edwards uses "infinite" in a different way than it's used in mathematics.)

Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.

But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.

So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.

[Gwarlroge]

What's the most just thing, to be punished beyond measure or to be punished FULLY.

The latter, if the sin be finite.

Still a terrifying concept because our sin propagates out from us, possibly for the rest of humanity's time. I kick a dog, who bites his neighbor, who beats his wife, who abuses her child, who grows up to be Hitleriffic...etc.

True.

(It follows from what you said that, since humanity doesn't last forever, no sin can be infinite--unless we count certain effects of humanity's extinction as sinful, etc. That's what you meant, I think--just sayin' )

Anyways, I'm sure there are enough semantics arguments and linguists out there who would say I am wrong, that, "NO! It says 'infinite', 'everlasting'". And I'm like, "whatever man, if circular reasoning floats your boat then have at 'er".

Why should it be circular reasoning? Because 1st-century Jews couldn't have imagined an "infinite" future in the modern mathematical sense?

The point being that they've been told that word means infinite because of the progression of knowledge from times afore. The problem being that those afore were wrong. Or else we are wrong now, in assessing what they meant by such words. And of course, many religions do in fact absolutely and without doubt state an "everlasting" punishment. For that, they claim to know God's ways. Okay. ....coz that always proves so valid. ....hmm........

Not all of God's ways! Just a few of them. And maybe not the most awesome and terrifying ones...

[sgttomas]

No, I disagree with Edwards. He's being presumptuous. God is Most Merciful, Loving.

Peace,
-sgttomas