The Problem of Hell Redux (2)

I thank Con for his response. However, I find it to be deeply problematic.Unfortunately, I don't have the space to show some of the main problems with Con's exegesis of scripture. I will just say that none of the quoted verses Con brings forth do not do much to support the traditional understanding of hell. They are entirely compatible with annihilationist and universalist readings of the texts (both of which affirm the existence of post-mortem punishment - they just don't hold that it is eternal).I will attempt to lay out some of Con's main contentions (I don't mean to present these as simplistic strawmen, but space is limited):1) "God cannot stand sin, ergo hell." This answer creates more problems than the problem it allegedly is supposed to answer. Following Eric Reitan we'll call this the "Problem of Damned Sinners". [1] Con has it that sin is intolerable to God. So far so good. Here's where it goes off the rails, though: as Con knows, central to Christianity is the claim that sinners can only be redeemed from their sins through God's grace. Con also has it that hell is a state wherein sinners are separated from God and His grace. So, in essence, Con has it that God basically ensures that "intolerable" sin will be tolerated by God forever. That's about as logically contradictory and paradoxical as one can get. As Reitan quips: "What you’re doing is so inconceivably unacceptable that I am going to make absolutely sure that there is no way for you to ever stop doing it!" [2]This ushers in such a deep incoherence into Con's theology that one seems to be left with no choice but to reject it as even a pseudo-answer to the problem of hell.2) "God is Justice, ergo hell."i) Con contends that I begged the question with respect to God's justice not requiring him to damn some. But I really didn't. I provided some considerations such as to why God's just would require him to damn some to eternal perdition, such as the central Christian claim of the atonement wherein Jesus settled the score, so to speak, and made it so that all of us may be forgiven. If that's the case - that God's nature as justice itself was satisfied with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross - then it's clear that God would not be "obligated" by his nature as justice itself to damn some to torment for all eternity.ii) Con contends that I misunderstand/underestimate the heinousness of sin. I don't think that is the case but I do think it is is the case that Con has overlooked the implications of his own position. Con's doctrine of hell is based on retributivism wherein the main motivation for that theory is that the punishment fit the crime and the offender get what they deserve. Con's doctrine has it to where every sin receives the same type of punishment (torment in hell forever). Following Con's implications if I steal a pencil that sin is just as deserving of hell as serial raping and murdering young girls is. The entire point of retributivism is that punishment is proportioned to the crime, but Con's doctrine undermines that very notion. Not promising.Now we come the much propounded free will defense for hell which is probably the most common answer to the problem of hell. I will show why it's no good.3) "Free will, ergo hell."There are numerous problems (and I really do mean numerous) with the free will defense but I will highlight just 2. Thomas Talbott highlights these problems beautifully. [3]i) The very notion of choosing to "freely reject" God is nonsense and lapses into incoherency. Talbott asks us to imagine a normal boy who, inexplicably and randomly, thrusts his hand into a fire while screaming in pain. Nonetheless, he does it even though he has strong motive not to do it and the absence of any motive to do it. Could we coherently say this boy had made a free choice to stick his hand into the fire or that he could be held morally responsible for his actions? It doesn't seem so. So, as we can see a minimal degree of rationality is required for an agent to make a free choice. But, then, we have to ask ourselves what kind of rational person would choose to be separated from God and suffer eternal torment? Remember, on Christianity, God is the source of all goodness and happiness and fundamentally wants what's in our best interests and he wants what we would want for ourselves and others if we were thinking clearly. What rational person would "freely choose" and actively subvert against their best interests? This raises a dilemma. Perhaps, one can allude, like Con, to C.S. Lewis when he writes about those in hell trapped in self-delusion (and/or ignorance/misunderstandings); perhaps that sort of person would "freely choose" to reject God. But then they wouldn't really be rejecting the real and true God, now would they? They'd be rejecting a God of their own construction and delusions - an infantile caricature of the true God. Perhaps they are like some vehement anti-theists today and believe God is morally bankrupt (see: Dawkins). One could hardly say they are "freely choosing" to reject God on that horn. But, on the other hand, if the person is removed of all delusions, ignorance, and misunderstandings about God they'd immediately recognize that it'd be positively absurd to "freely choose" to reject God. On either hand, the notion of "freely choosing" to reject God is simply incoherent.ii) Why if free will supposedly so sacrosanct wherein it is elevated to something so absolutely inviolable by God? Why could God not simply just override a persons' choices at least some of the time...? Remember, hell is an irreparable harm and anyone who had an adequate conception of hell would not want to go there. So the only the way they could choose to go there is only through irrationally choosing to go there (and so it wouldn't be a free choice; more like a random event). If I were to irrationally (maybe due to a mental illness) choose to jump off the empire state building without a parachute for no particular reason I would hope someone I know would stop me and my 'free will' be damned. I would not want them to sit back and say, "Oh, well, you know, that's his choice and I'm going to respect that. Even though in a sane and rational state of mind he would never choose to do that and he has no reason to do it now, I'm going to just sit back and watch it play out." A good friend wouldn't do that. A good God wouldn't just sit back and watch as his creatures freely choose to do irreparable harms to themselves. Why is the value of free will so elevated in the face of unrelenting torment?4) The Bliss of the Savedi) One of Con's objections can be dismissing summarily: Con says that since God is perfectly happy in heaven while there are those suffering for all eternity, mutatis mudandis, the saved in heaven can be perfectly happy in heaven knowing that some of their former relatives, perhaps, are suffering for all eternity. But, of course, the entire debate is about whether or not such a hell exists in the first place. In fact, I'd say, contra Con, that God wouldn't be perfectly happy with some suffering for all eternity. [4]ii) Con here appeals to a quote for a Christian theologian but it doesn't seem to help. Because it seems that the saved can still regret the bad choices of loved ones (even if they deserve the consequences) and that would undermine the bliss of the saved.Sources[1] http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com...[2] ibid[3] Talbott, Thomas. The Inescapable Love of God. 1st ed. Universal Publishers, 1999. 181-195. Print.[4] Ezekiel 18:23: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? "