Possible answer to humans in Hell vs. God's justice

[jogger08152]

In another thread, I asked:
[ QUOTE ]
Humans in Hell vs. The perfect justice of God

The question here is, if God is just, for what offense might I wind up in Hell, where Hell is a place of "infinite" suffering that lasts forever? It seems impossible for the punishment to fit any crime.

Specifically, suppose I steal a pair of blue jeans from Sears. I've committed a crime with a finite cost. (It might be difficult to measure: perhaps the manager gets fired because he failed to prevent shoplifting, and as a result his kid doesn't get to go to college, or whatnot. But whatever the cost is, it can be measured, so no matter how high the direct and indirect costs can be, they are finite and measurable, if you have God's sin-o-meter.) Given that I am completely culpable for my finite crime, even for obscure indirect consequences I could not have foreseen (and which, had I forseen them, I might not have been willing to commit the theft in the first place), can it be possible that I would be sentenced to infinite suffering by a just God?

Suppose the answer is no: shoplifting is small potatoes. But what if I murder someone? I think that my sin, though much more serious, is still finite: I have deprived an individual of some number of years of life (perhaps measurable with God's technology, perhaps not, but most certainly the number is < 200), I have caused the economic and emotional damage to his friends and family that accompany his death, etc. But the cost of this is all measurable, in that 20,000 years from now, the effects of my act will "almost" certainly not be felt by humanity, assuming humanity itself still exists at that future date. (There is of course the chance that this is incorrect: if I hadn't killed him, either my victim might have personally cured cancer, say, or maybe one of the descendants he would have fathered would have accomplished something similarly important. But for most murders, this will not be the case.)

I have also, of course, hastened his journey into the afterlife, so there is the chance that, if he is an unrepentant sinner who would have later repented, I have deprived him of a chance of attaining heaven and have consigned him to Hell instead - except that I can't see any way he winds up in Hell either, if God is just. (What did he do, after all? Steal some blue jeans?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the best answer I've heard to this so far (not perfect, but best):

Suppose a criminal beat the living crap out of somebody. Which would be worse: if the victim was Ken Lay, former chairman of Enron (ignoring, for the sake of discussion, the fact that Mr. Lay is no longer with us), or an elderly widow who leads a quiet, decent life (whatever you may think that means), volunteers at her local soup kitchen, gives some of her scanty fixed income to the poor, always has a kind word for everyone, etc?

I think most people who believe one beating is worse than the other would argue that the beating of Ken Lay was "less bad" than the beating of the elderly widow. The reason for this (assume equally severe beatings) is the quality of the victims.

In the case of sin, the transgression is against God (even though there may also be a human victim, as in the case of such sins as theft, murder, etc), who is eternal and infinitely good. Thus, even though the sinner is finite, the victim is not and therefore the crime is not. Which in turn makes it seem possible that the sinner could justly suffer an eternal punishment.

Best regards,
Jogger

PS - I'm still looking for an answer to the "humans in Hell vs. the perfect love of God" conundrum. Anybody got anything?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of sin, the transgression is against God (even though there may also be a human victim, as in the case of such sins as theft, murder, etc), who is eternal and infinitely good. Thus, even though the sinner is finite, the victim is not and therefore the crime is not. Which in turn makes it seem possible that the sinner could justly suffer an eternal punishment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but as soon as I read this, I damn near puked. Everything is a bloody sin to this God, such as, If we even think bad thoughts ( such as thoughts of adultery ) we are sentenced to hell.

The logic of the above quote doesn’t make sense. So a dude is immortal. How does it follow that a minor transgression against him should be punished forever? And how is it again, if we steal from our neighbor, that we are transgressing against this completly good being? What's his problem?

[ChrisV]

Cmon this is not philosophy. This is just smoke and mirrors.

If you really want a refutation, you can't assume in your argument that God is infinitely good. If you do that, you don't need the rest of the argument. You just say God is infinitely good, therefore sending people to hell must by definition be good.

If, on the other hand, you are not a psychopath and believe that sending people to hell is not good, then God either doesn't do it or is not infinitely good.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon this is not philosophy. This is just smoke and mirrors.

If you really want a refutation, you can't assume in your argument that God is infinitely good. If you do that, you don't need the rest of the argument. You just say God is infinitely good, therefore sending people to hell must by definition be good.

If, on the other hand, you are not a psychopath and believe that sending people to hell is not good, then God either doesn't do it or is not infinitely good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your comment, "you can't assume the infinite goodness of God" sidesteps the issue. If the Christians are right and God is infinitely good, and infinitely just, can he send people to Hell for eternity as a punishment for sins commited during their (finite) lifespans, or would this automatically be an injustice? In other words, is there a necessary logical conflict between God's justice and people being sent to Hell?

In the example I gave, is the beating of the widow worse than the beating of Ken Lay? If so, is the "beating" of (sin against) God even worse still, assuming He is "gooder" than the widow? If both of these answers are yes, to what extent is the sin against God worse than the sin against the widow? Would it not necessarily depend directly on the extent of the goodness of God? And if God's "goodness quotient" is infinite, how severe is the crime, and how should it be punished?

Best regards,
Jogger

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of sin, the transgression is against God (even though there may also be a human victim, as in the case of such sins as theft, murder, etc), who is eternal and infinitely good. Thus, even though the sinner is finite, the victim is not and therefore the crime is not. Which in turn makes it seem possible that the sinner could justly suffer an eternal punishment.


[/ QUOTE ]

The logic of the above quote doesn’t make sense. So a dude is immortal. How does it follow that a minor transgression against him should be punished forever?

[/ QUOTE ]
Immortality isn't the issue. He is also (per Christianity) infinitely good.

[ QUOTE ]
And how is it again, if we steal from our neighbor, that we are transgressing against this completly good being? What's his problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
You might as well ask how it's the state's problem when you go to trial for boosting whatever it is you boosted from your neighbor. (As in, why does the bailiff announce that procedings are about to begin in "The People of Nevada vs. yukoncpa" rather than "yukoncpa's neighbor vs. yukoncpa".) Certainly it's no stretch to acknowledge that crimes often affect individuals other than the intended victim, both directly and indirectly.

Actually as I think about this, I suspect there are probably a number of better answers some of the articulate Christians on here could give. I'll leave it to them to elaborate, if they care to.

-J

[tisthefire]

wouldn't a transgression against god be infintismelly less severe specifically because of his unlimited exsistence? take the example of beating up the widow, that is a percentage of her life for which you have personally caused to be spent in serious pain, whereas a similar offense against god(if one is even possible) essentially boils down to 0% of his existence therefore a much smaller deal to him due to his massive existence

[chezlaw]

Even assuming this was on the right lines (which I dont think it is) you have the problem that the its the product of the value of the person being sinned against and the magnitude of how much harm you do them.

So taunting the dear elderly women a bit would be less than severly beating Ken.

and, of course I can't harm god at all, so the product is 0.

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The logic of the above quote doesn’t make sense. So a dude is immortal. How does it follow that a minor transgression against him should be punished forever?


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Immortality isn't the issue. He is also (per Christianity) infinitely good.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fine, If I’m an infinitely good person, and some fellow steals from one of my kids, should I punish that guy to an eternity of hell? Really, what kind of God is this?

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
And how is it again, if we steal from our neighbor, that we are transgressing against this completely good being? What's his problem?


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
You might as well ask how it's the state's problem when you go to trial for boosting whatever it is you boosted from your neighbor. (As in, why does the bailiff announce that proceedings are about to begin in "The People of Nevada vs. yukoncpa" rather than "yukoncpa's neighbor vs. yukoncpa".) Certainly it's no stretch to acknowledge that crimes often affect individuals other than the intended victim, both directly and indirectly.



[/ QUOTE ]

No. The State is supposedly representative of the people and administers justice according to laws proscribed by people. If God wishes to make himself known and come down and administer justice then fine. Otherwise he is an outsider, and has no reason whatsoever to condemn any of us to hell. What’s his reason? Certainly not justice.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't a transgression against god be infintismelly less severe specifically because of his unlimited exsistence? take the example of beating up the widow, that is a percentage of her life for which you have personally caused to be spent in serious pain, whereas a similar offense against god(if one is even possible) essentially boils down to 0% of his existence therefore a much smaller deal to him due to his massive existence

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if "harm inflicted" is the barometer for determining the magnitude of the sin. In the example, I don't think this is the case.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Even assuming this was on the right lines (which I dont think it is) you have the problem that the its the product of the value of the person being sinned against and the magnitude of how much harm you do them. [emphasis mine -Jogger]

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe this is true either in Christian theology or in human law. I wish it were in the latter.

[ QUOTE ]
So taunting the dear elderly women a bit would be less than severly beating Ken.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is, comparing Ken Lay (us, a bunch of sinning poker players) to God (the kindly widow) doesn't demonstrate the gap adequately. Substitute Adolph Hitler for Ken Lay (us) and Mother Theresa for the widow (God). Is the beating still worse than the taunting?