The Problem of Hell Redux (2)

I have two general objections to the traditional doctrine of hell. The Proportionality ObjectionObviously, this view of hell is heavily based upon the retributive theory of punishment in moral philosophy. [1] Hell, after all, on this view, is not for redeeming the damned nor is it for deterring other bad actions. It's for retribution; it's because they deserve to be punished. In fact, this is where the doctrine gets most of it's legs or intuitional support from. The basic idea is that God is a just (among other attributes like holy, good, loving, and the like) God and therefore has to punish sinners in hell for their unethical actions here on earth in the after life. Before even getting into proportionality objection there seems to a deep, fundamental problem - even incoherence - with saying (as many do) that a loving, merciful God 's sense of justice requires him to damn some eternally as philosophers Eric Reitan and John Kronnen have pointed out. [2] Christian theology has always maintained that every single of one us deserves hell because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Now, why isn't it the case that all of us will go to hell? Because it is said that God will take mercy and show grace to at least some of us and that is because Christ took on our punishments for sins and this was accomplished through the atonement. But, then, how is it supposed to be the case that God's justice requires him to damn some. Obviously it doesn't - so why would God's justice get in the way of showing mercy and love to all of his people and not sending them to a place to be eternally in torment? Obviously this would undermine the "anti-universalism thesis", giving us reason not to assent to that that thesis. That worry aside, the very theory of punishment the doctrine draws upon actually gives us strong reason to reject the existence of hell when placed alongside the Christian God. One can easily see how wholly disproportionate this whole scenario is. On retributivism the punishment is supposed the match the nature of the crime. If the punishment is too harsh it is unethical. Likewise, if the punishment is too lenient it is also unethical. Now, how could a finite person ever do something to warrant an infinite punishment? This seems to be a case of being far, far, far too harsh. The math does not not add up. Finite person + finite crime = infinite punishment? Even using paradigm cases of the worst that humanity has ever had to offer - say, Hitler - what he did can't ever merit an infinite, eternal punishment. Even if he gets tortured 4 quadrillion years for every person his genocidial policies affected how does that merit an infinite punishment? At some point this just punishment turns into cruelty and torture and something akin to a twisted sense of sadism. Punishing for no reason is not just. Thus, this argument seems to show that very foundation that the doctrine of hell is built upon is very shaky indeed; it even seems to refute it. So this undermines the "retribution thesis". The Bliss of the Saved ObjectionOn any remotely orthodox Christian understanding of heaven it is said to be a place of unimaginable bliss and joy and happiness. This process is viewed as the pinnacle of sanctification - in other words - since our goal in this life (and maybe some more in the next) is to be Jesus-like or God-like. In heaven, people are sin-less, and thus more like God. Now, one of THE defining elements of God is love in Christianity. [3] One could easily surmise that in heaven the saved would have a God-like all abiding love for everyone as God seems to have. If that is the case, the presence of people being in a state of eternal torment seems fundamentally incompatible with the redeemed in heaven being in a state of unimaginable bliss. If we look at the concept of love we can see how just by it's very nature it is an inter-dependent thing. When one loves another that means, among other things, that one cares about what is in the others' best interests or their overall well-being. With that in mind what loving person can truly be happy while their loved ones are suffering much less suffering forever in unimaginable pain and anguish? In fact, Paul himself seems to lend credence to this argument. [4] If Paul was that anguished over just considering the fate of his people, how much more would the saved and redeemed and sanctified be anguishing over actually knowing that all of their loved ones are burning in hell? It's often noted then when two people love each other anything that happens to one automatically effects the other. If one is suffering the other suffers too because they hate to see their loved one suffering. Or vice versa. Consider the old adage, "It makes me happy just to see you happy". Jesus and Paul illustrate this principle well. [5][6] If that is just earthly love, it should be infinitely greater in heaven. With this in mind seems that one has to give way. The saved could not be in the ultimate state of blissfulness and happiness all the while knowing that those loved ones are suffering eternally. This presents another strong reason to reject the traditional doctrine of hell that is conceived of as eternal, conscious torment. If hell as conceived exists, then heaven as conceived does not. Or, conversely, if heaven as conceived exists, then hell as conceived does not exist. I think the latter proposition has stronger warrant. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.public.asu.edu...[3] 1 John 4:8: " Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. " [4] Rom 9:2-3: "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people. "[5] Matt 25: 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. ’ . .. .45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. ’[6] Phil 2:27: "He was indeed so ill that he nearly died. But God had mercy upon him, and not only on him but on me also, so that I would not have one sorrow after another