How does infinite punishment for finite sin make any sense?

Religiousfags please explain

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You die. Soul is exposed to God. If your soul is in a shitty state it suffers in the presence of God. Sin makes your soul shitty. It's how having AIDS all your life because of just one sexual encounter makes sense.

discussion of fairytales and superstition belong on /x/

*tips fedora

not an argument

Don't forget that Jesus suffered less than a week, but it somehow outweights all sins of billions of a people...

>Thinks retarded statement warrants discussion

not an argument

> it suffers in the presence of God
Then why would God be around you only for you to suffer from his presence? Pretty shitty act from his side, desu.

Edgy Poster of The Year 2017 winner right here, we don't even have to wait for 2018.

not an argument.

>implying HIV from one sexual encounter isn't a rare circumstance even when talking unprotected anal with a known HIV+ partner and unheard of when talking oral

So you propose the total absense of god from your existence. That's a reasonable understanding of Hell, actually.

Because remember, God literally IS everything that is good in the universe.

Define good

You have to return to your source eventually.

>taking an allegory literally

I just did.

Between literal Hell and some neutral state without anything good, second is better.

> You have to return to your source eventually.
Why so?.. Why not just be reincarnated forever, for example? What exactly is need for return to source?

Why do you imagine the absence of all good to be a neutral state?

Because presence of all good amounts to suffering of your soul in hell in the end.

Because that's the nature of our reality. You could just keep on asking "why?" for hours, I just came here to write one post about hell.

That doesn't answer the question. The fact that you suffer in the presence of good doesn't make the absence of good any better, nevermind a 'neutral' experience.

Well. God can change the nature of our reality or at least accept only souls that doesn't suffer from his presence.

I am pretty sure if even presence of so called good amounts to suffering, absence wouldn't hurt at this point.

I'm going to offer an explanation from a more neurological perspective of faith, while not doing away with the sheer spiritual perspective of which I'm even more so (if that's possible) ill-qualified to respond to. More succinctly, I'll be explaining this from the "religion" being a metaphor thing.

To proceed, I will define very loosely and informally 'Heaven' and 'Hell' according to my terms (the neurological ones. My definition of Heaven and Hell refer not to eternal post death states of the sort we typically think on when we consider conceptualizations of Heaven and Hell. And not only that cartoon image of fluffy white clouds with St. Peter at the gates, or of fiery brimstone with a red horned devil, but too, my definitions avoid anything like a 'metaphysical' conception of the same, of some nebulous state that science still can't explain if this is possible. Again, I'm not precluding these from being, but that's not what I'll be about. Instead, my definitions of 'Heaven' and 'Hell' fall within the logic of conditioning and neuro-behavioral response and habit formation. Doing so may offer something of an explanation for why there can be something like infinite punishment for finite sin.

For we know in terms of habit and cognitive science that a human individual first makes a perception, and, if that perception results in some combination of avoiding pain and increasing pleasure, then that perception is tied with that end result and is interpreted and stored as a pattern, a pattern that can readily be summoned once more when the first part of that pattern is perceived once more. We do this in all manners of life from womb to the tomb. Early primitive man takes a walk and finds a tree where there's fruit a plenty, he knows to make that walk again.

[continued from above]

But of course, this ability to rapidly take on and ingrain into ourselves all manner of habit can lead to one of the deepest problems of humanity -- internal conflict. You built up a habit for an original net gain (I'm going to start smoking cigarettes because they make me feel cool), but soon, you experience new problems that demand new patterns (the smell of cigarettes is nasty, and I want to be healthy again). Problem is, as with learning how to ride a bicycle, once the pattern is set, the needs it satisfies never entirely goes away. Thus we experience what we experience every time we try to 'break' a bad habit. You try to stop smoking cigarettes, and you fail, because unfortunately 'I need to be healthy' doesn't totally override 'I need to be cool'/'satisfy this nicotine craving'/de-stress in the way only cigarettes can help me' and thus, you find yourself reverting to that old habit.

Sin works something in the same manner. Virtue too. And thereby we can offer something of an every day man's definitions for both "eternal" 'Heaven' & 'Hell.' For the flesh is weak and made weaker by the years. You take on a bad habit, you sin -- consciously especially. And it begins to bury itself into the fabric of your being, ever hanging over you. Your sinning, however finitely at first, has now manifested in a perpetual 'hell' for you, and once your conscious to this, it becomes a damning experience. Thus, something like a working man's definition of 'Heaven' can be found too. Perpetual virtue (and virtue for virtue's sake, a man never 'being entitled to the fruits of his labor' and all that) soon leads to a constant state of 'blessedness' where being good comes as simple as breathing.

[continued from above]

But of course, these definitions are still within the confines of singular human lives, why would they be 'infinite'? Well, in my own personal interpretations, I've always applied to concepts of religious 'infinities' to not necessitate capital-T Total infinity. We know infinites, after all, can come in different sizes. So its enough in our conceptions of infinity that what is infinite (especially w/r/t our lives and the moments and acts that make them up) that we're merely talking about something that outstrips us, and outlasts our individual contributions and actions. So, we can consider the 'Infinite' here, in terms of your bloodline, and your part as a link in that great chain of genetic information that makes up your individual line. Here we're talking about 'the sins of the fathers go to the sons.' In a very real way we know how this tends to play out. Not just in the dramatic examples that easily come to mind, that is, we might know how alcoholism tends to continue in families -- not necessarily for sheerly genetic reasons. Even less sexy examples. My family for example readily shrieks about and yells where gentler tones would get three times as much done (I'm trying really hard to assuage this). Well, sin can work like this as well. You sin enough, and your letting loose a plague that will persist in your genetic line, which, philosophy on individualism aside, constitutes a big portion of who 'you are.' Thus, you really can send your family to "Hell."

It's a strange and flawed perspective, but one I keep returning too.

STILL WAITING for proof that god exists

Sure it can. I still can't imagine what you would base the idea that because something causes you suffering, the absence must be a neutral experience.

If the test is belief, rather than deeds, why can't you change your mind once in hell?

Why will god forgive you for every possible sin while you're alive but no longer once you die, and can be actually sure he exists? Is it really just about believing on faith within an arbitrary timeframe?

>If the test is belief, rather than deeds, why can't you change your mind once in hell?
Because saved by faith alone is heretical nonsense.

> everything I dont' like is heretical nonsense

So let's imagine a scenario. Say a serial rapist and murderer, Ted Bundy in the flesh, has a genuine come to Jesus moment and genuinely repents of his actions. He takes his punishment and is executed as normal.

Does he go to hell for his deeds? My understanding of Christianity was that genuine repentance and faith was all that was required of salvation. God forgives all sins and no man is deserving of salvation based on his deeds.

What I'm curious of is why you can't have that come to jesus moment while within hell.

because hell doesn't exist,

Why can't one repent in hogwarts?

You can't if you are muggle, you need to be a wizard to be allowed here.

Frankly it doesn't. As per the rules of the game, God is all-powerful and eternal. He is free from blemish as the author of morality himself. Any flaw at all is more than he has, so you are infinitely lower than he is and, being in full control of everything, punishes mercilessly.

Doesn't make sense.

Why?

You're saying that like it's independent of God's will because you want to make him seem kind and innocent
Mental gymanastics
But when kikes invented your religion thousands years ago, that's not how they thought it
God was supposed to be a tyrant everyone had to fear

As I understand it, hell is also timeless, so it's more like being stuck in an absolute state rather than suffering continually.

Heaven is timeless to and therefore hellish

Modern Jews don't believe in hell or heaven and were never agreed on that question historically. So in many interpretations everyone went to some Hades-like place called Sheol which was/is similar to the account of the afterlife given in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

However his more philosophical description of hell is also a more recent invention of Catholic and Orthodox philosophy/theology.

Yeah, I've always found the description of heaven appalling.

But both being timeless are basically just different forms of oblivion.

Paul says that it's faith that saves you.

I formulated this when I was a teenager: "Finite sin is undeserving of infinite punishment." I even scrawled a little formula on my wall: F_s =/= I_p, or similar.

The thing of it is, that this turned out not to be a naive teenage petulance, that I was quite right then, as I am right now, and as the OP is right now, to recognize the stupidity of the concept of hell, /the more stupid, even and especially in the case that it is true, that hell is real/, which above all requires the rejection of such a hypothetical reality, and of such an unjust god. There's nothing to "grow out of": I got it right back then, and my basic views haven't changed, nor should they. You ought to think as I do.

Notice how most of the thread has been the usual fedora sniping about tone and total unwillingness to get at the philosophical, theological heart of the matter: theodicy, the problem of hell, the problem of evil, and so on.

The inherent problem with this question is that one assumes that our standards for what finite sin is deserving of really don't matter if God is real. If he is real, we have to play by his rules or suffer for it because he holds all the cards.

As much as I'm sure this will make me sound like a fedora, I've always found the concept of the Christian God to evoke in me a certain sense of Lovecraftian dread in me the way gamma ray bursts never could. We're trapped in what is effectively a cosmic terrarium (cosmarium?) to be harvested to satisfy God's desires with no way out, as those of us that don't meet his standards will just be cast aside in eternal torment, and only the word of him and his servants that his aim in so doing is benevolent (and considering that his behaviour thus far has involved a lot of death, destruction, and suffering, with promises of worse during the time of Revelations, I find reason to doubt it).

you lose your concept of time so it's okay
the same can be said of paradise etc technically they are one and the same, being with god or being with his absence

Couldn't you say it was suppressed into a week?

Your first paragraph gets it right, and that's precisely what I reject, since we are free at the moment to regard the matter as an intellectual exercise.

Suppose that there does in point of fact exist a god who is actually like our historically based projections of him (the human imagines himself as infinitely powerful, and from this projection comes the idea that God is a total and arbitrary asshole who yet periocally exhibits kindnesses - just as certain powerful humans, sociopaths, or those who can project themselves personally into the Godhead, etc, can imagine themselves being after an extended period). In other words, suppose some asshole god who you are really powerless to reject, if you value your salvation, self-preservation, etc. This is /exactly my point/. The only really genuinely moral choice is precisely the impossible choice: to therefore rightfully reject that god, even knowing that so doing earns you damnnation. You're on to, in your very formulation and fear, the exact problem that I impossibly solve through righteous petulance.

I don't quite know how to read your latter sentences, though you seem to be riffing on the historical conception of the false (it is sincerely to be hoped!) abrahamic god. A pedantic point: The book of Revelation is reported in the english language without the plural s, a common mistake.

>This is /exactly my point/. The only really genuinely moral choice is precisely the impossible choice: to therefore rightfully reject that god, even knowing that so doing earns you damnnation. You're on to, in your very formulation and fear, the exact problem that I impossibly solve through righteous petulance.

Sort, an alternate solution is to instead discard your own moral standards and take up something akin to divine command theory. The problem being that if you do so in an attempt to escape damnation, you would fundamentally weaken your attempt. It would either require not fearing damnation or doublethink.

>I don't quite know how to read your latter sentences, though you seem to be riffing on the historical conception of the false (it is sincerely to be hoped!) abrahamic god.

Not exactly riffing on, I've just always found the concept of the Abrahamic god vaguely terrifying and can't really understand how anyone takes comfort from the notion.

The idea religious people have is that god doesn't "send you" to hell, you send yourself to hell by sinning.
In that sense it's not punishment, but rather a consequence of our actions.
And god wont lift a finger to help those people but that's a different story i guess.

Freely rejecting God is a sin of infinite magnitude.

Thank you for an informative reply, now I know what divine command theory is - a simple technical reiteration of a basic Christian idea that god's will (or more generally, the theoretical god's will) is coterminous with good - /regardless of the POV of any humans, subjects, etc/. Closely related to this is a definition of sin: "that which is against god's will".

I am especially gratified that along with the above dialougue, your latter sentiment gives voice to the simple fact that /people shouldn't feel good about the possibility of such an asshole/. /You shouldn't wish eternal hell on a Hitler, or a Stalin, Trump, etc/. None of them have done, nor possibly can do, enough to earn it. The man who rapes and murders your child doesn't deserve that. He may perhaps instead simply deserve to die, of course, but that's an ontologically and theologically different matter.

I personally see the clinging to Abrahamic God (the cultural fiction about which I am best qualified to write in world religious tradition) as a Team thing, and the better that we have Old Traditions, as opposed to Truth, then this makes us feel that much better about ourselves. You see it in Catholics. They love to wear the colors, despite everything. Jews as well. I haven't observed many Orthodox in the wild but I assume that this same false cultural chauvinism is at work with them, as it must be with hindus, buddhists...

You are not god, and do not have the authority to advance such a proposition.

I know where you're going. It has to be a specific "gotcha" to continue to make Christianity work (it doesn't).

Take, instead, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Like all religious traditions, there is with them so much that is worth hating (their warping of their young), so much that is worth rejecting. And yet they through no merit of their own, have autistically through sincere bible study, managed to hit on a theological idea or two that is objectively the superior of mainstream christianity, by which I specifically mean the doctrine of annihilationism.

The simple idea is that for them it does not happen that most people burn in hell for ever and ever, but are instead simply totally destroyed, and ceased to exist. Now that's an idea that I can live with, can get behind. Better, they are even quite honest and up-front about their beliefs, as explained on the jw.org. website. I give them credit for their more palateable flavor of falsity. Their management to reject all existing states is also partially admirable, except insofar as they instead invoke their false god.

Duck off with that agape god is love bullshit. You'really literally defining god aso goodness itself, not as a divine being. Therefore God isn'the God, but "whatever feels good brah". That lax definition is so ambiguous and retarded that I hope I never hear someone spout this bullshit again.

Accidental click on , sorry

>Post Nitsche meme
>His Übermensch is basically Jesus

How does making a person who lives a life of sin live an eternal life that goes against everything they did in life make sense?
Hell is God, selflessly going against His desire to be with all mankind, respecting the freewill of sinners and not forcing them to live an eternal life that denies their free will. In this way Hell can be seen as an act of pure love, as God denies His own desires to instead respect the choice of an individual.

Now, this complete separation from God does lead to anguish, as the soul inhernetly desirse to be with Him and to be denied that utterly causes it great suffering and woe, but God can not be held at fault for this. He presents people many warnings, telling them exactly what will happen if they live a life of sin, and presents them many opportunities for forgiveness. And hell, if they didn't know it was wrong an act that would normally be a mortal sin, the type of sin that if you die without seeking forgiveness you go to hell for, is not a mortal sin, as one of the qualifications is one must know it was a mortal sin.
God did nothing wrong.

Play DOOM 2016 and you will konw what to do in hell.

In Islam you don't stay eternally in hell as long as you believe in a monotheistic god

Nietzsche was pretty open about Jesus being maybe halfway there. It was really fucking Paul that he hated.

the insanity of religion

There's no proof against God existing

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

God is supposed to be the personification of justice yet infinite punishment for finite crime is unjust
God is supposed to be all loving but he can stand to see his loved ones suffer for all eternity.
God is supposed to respect free will, but then acts like people sin not because of an immediate desire, but because they deliberately choose to go to hell.

Pretty much all i can say to this is

>How does infinite punishment for finite sin make any sense?
Its simple when you understand metaphysics. God made the souls of Humans like the souls of angels. This includes free will, something God endowed in each of us. Because our souls naturally go to a body appropriate to our nature before birth, using our free will, if you go into an evil body than you are an evil person. Now some Angels are fallen, they belong in Hell. People are the same way. Some people are like angels and belong in Heaven. Others are like demons and belong in Hell. The doctrine of Hell is not unjust. The only which makes us uneasy is the ambiguity of who goes to Hell.

rare, but it does happen

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,[b]
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Catholick Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.

You have no idea what nietzsche was saying.

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."

Leo Tolstoy

Sin is it's own punishment in the eyes of rational christians.

Do you copy paste this, or do you actually type it out?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed

More sophisticated christian theologians argue that hell is not really a place that god vengefully throws you as a punishment, but a place you go when you willfully reject god. You suffer because you are separated from him, not because anyone is torturing you.

The most interesting take on it I've read is Swedenborg's. Look up his book Heaven and Hell if you're interested in different takes on the christian afterlife. Basically his idea is that once you leave the physical earth the nature of your spirit itself is what creates your surroundings, so hell is the miserable state that people who are completely selfish and/or materialistic create around themselves, not a place god sends them.

As a nonbeliever I'll try to argue from their perspective.

"Finite" sin causes rippling in misery that extends outward from you. You bully someone, they develop insecurities, take it out on others. The others do the same, and so on and so forth, so that your sin ripples outward in space and forward in time, causing essentially infinite suffering in the future of which you are the local source.

In this sense, all finite sin has infinite consequences, and so the punishment is infinite on the condition you do not repent.

That is the best argument I can personally craft from a religious perspective, though I necessarily agree with it on the basis that I think the supernatural is superstition.

>Mental gymanastics
not an argument
>muh kikes
not an argument, RACIST!
>muh tyrant
>"I have never read the Bible in an intelligent way"
literally an argument lol.
Modus ponens is the most basic form of argument.
Who said punishment is eternal and sin is finite?
>IF YOURE NOT A FUNDIE YOURE NOT RELIGIOUS
>pic rel

>Modern Jews don't believe in hell or heaven

What? How's that?

>someone typed this, proofread it, nodded, and posted it.

He is like the place where God sends humans who would cause nothing but trouble in Heaven. I mean I would start raping immortal vaginas because I got nothing better to do for the rest of existence.

He tortures us bad people because we would probably go nuts.

Exactly God is the admin of the universe he can do whatever he wants, he doesnt need to justify shit.

He still is, what the fuck. If you aren't afraid of doing the wrong thing because of God, then you aren't doing it right. Do what you need to be honest, be a good person, and at the end of your life see what will happen.

people are like fruit trees in a vast orchard that God tends to, if a tree does not bear fruit or bears rotten evil fruit then God will throw it into the fire to be consumed it is common sense really.

What you call "finite sins" are really just one sin.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Which is unpardonable.

And as you are an eternal being, you need somewhere to go. As you declared you want nothing to do with God, you will have a place to suit you.

That's what Satan told Eve.

Didn't turn out well for us.

Not him, but belief in some sort of existence in an afterlife does not equate with the belief of eternal reward or punishment in seperately defined areas.

Plus, Jews have a plethora of different beliefs as to what happens to you after you die, there's no unified belief that holds throughout all of Judaism, or even all of Orthodox Judaism.

It's a phrase, everything in theology is in 'the language of 'virtue'', but the content talked of is 'sin'. So, 'it appears an infinte punishment from the point of view of piety', is the translation. Also, You bore me.

Jews are so powerful their opinions can literally dictate what the afterlife is?

Wow!

this is probably what /pol/ actually believs

it dosent

thats why you shouldnt sin

Jews have a special ghetto in Hell.

God being nice is a myth.

>God is supposed to be the personification of justice yet infinite punishment for finite crime is unjust
And putting someone in heaven and forcing them to do what they don't desire is more just? In what world?
>God is supposed to be all loving but he can stand to see his loved ones suffer for all eternity.
A parent loves a child, but they'll still punish them. God gives plenty of warnings and even allows people who don't know something is a mortal sin a free pass. And God can't stand it, absolutely nothing says He wants people to go to hell. But if He was to free them of the anguish of seperation, He would damn them to an eternity of a life they did not choose. Either way they suffer.
>God is supposed to respect free will, but then acts like people sin not because of an immediate desire, but because they deliberately choose to go to hell.
WRONG. Forgiveness and confession is a thing. If you are truly repentent, God forgives you. Even the most horrid murder, even the cruelest dictator, even the most slutty whore, all will be forgiven if they seek it. If you truly wish to be with God and are truly sorry for your sins, then you are forgiven. The only reason for someone to not be forgiven is if they aren't repentent, at which point it's not about acting on impulses, it's your own fault for not later seeking forgiveness.

And you didn't answer my question: is it better to damn a man to live an eternity in heaven, forced to act in a way he didn't choose? Is that better?
Not an argument.