The Problem of Hell

Thanks to Gileandos for his round. For one, I'm not in any way convinced that the traditional conception of hell makes the best sense of the biblical data. In fact, I think the case from the bible for the traditional conception of hell is incredibly weak. I think annihilationism [1] makes far better sense of the biblical data. For instance, the most dominant language by far when speaking of hell in the bible is the language of destruction.Matt. 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."The Bible is absolutely saturated with language like this. (See: Ps 37:2,9,20,38; Mal 4:1; Matt 3:10,12; Matt 5:30; Matt 13:30; 42, 49, 50; 2 Thes. 1:9; 1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28; Phil. 3:19; 2 Pet. 3:7; Heb. 10:39; 2 Pet. 2:1, 3; etc.) You get the picture. Salvation (life) is constantly contrasted with death or destruction and like terms:John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."Matt 7:13-14: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Rom. 6:23: "or the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. "And multitudes of other verses back this up (2 Cor. 2:15-16, Matt. 10:39, 1 Tim. 1:10, etc). All of the verses would go past my character count limit.If the early church fathers were interpreting the bible wrong (which they were, imo) then their clout on this issue is, to say the least, considerably weakened.The Justice ArgumentA) Con says that some sins' implications are eternal and I absolutely agree! As an annihilationist I think these sins merit annihilation...not eternal, conscious torment. The annihilation will have eternal consequences in that they will not be around anymore for the rest of eternity. If the biblical reasons and the moral reasons do not back up the traditional conception of hell what are we left with? Which eternal set of consequences do we choose from? Con must make that argument instead of assuming it. Con has done nothing to solve the moral problem of the eternal consequences of sin and how they square God with hell traditionally conceived. It still seems morally unjust.B) Unfortunately, I do see a conflict. I agree that God is the one who enacts retribution, but like the just judge that he is, he wouldn't engage in arbitrarily or cruelly which is what the traditionalist hell seems to be.Con's argument here actually raises more problems than it allegedly answers. If God can do categorically evil things (like torture endlessly) and then somehow make them "good" then this makes ascribing terms to him like "perfect moral agent" absolute nonsense. J.S. Mill get this exactly right (one of the few things he did get right): "To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good? To assert in words what we do not think in meaning, is as suitable a definition as can be given of a moral falsehood. Besides, suppose that certain unknown attributes are ascribed to the Deity in a religion the external evidences of which are so conclusive to my mind, as effectually to convince me that it comes from God. Unless I believe God to possess the same moral attributes which I find, in however inferior a degree, in a good man, what ground of assurance have I of God's veracity?" [2]C) Contrary to what Con claims, if God and the traditionalist conception of hell are put together, I do think it makes God look like a sadistic being and that is one the many reasons why it should be rejected. The math just doesn't add up. D) I don't think that hell-bound people actually reform in hell because I believe they are annihilated so much of this point is irrelevant.E) Serving as examples for what? Those in heaven already redeemed. Con actually seems to tie himself into knots unknowingly. He says, "For those who are not morally perfect, they will spend time in place of purification called Abraham's bosom/purgatory." This implies that those in heaven are morally perfect. If they are morally perfect then why would they need people being tortured forever as examples of what will happen to them if they stray? They wouldn't have thoughts of straying if they were morally perfect now would they? The Eternal Bliss ObjectionCon seems to agree with me that, necessarily, those in heaven will be in a state of unimaginable happiness and bliss or it wouldn't be heaven. Unfortunately, Con's rebuttal here does nothing to alleviate the moral problem and apparent inconsistency. Con says he has no problem with evil murderers going through unimaginable suffering - that may very well be the case - but, simply put, when you factor in torment beyond any earthly thing we can even dream of that goes on forever and ever this line of thought seems strained. No amount of finite transgressions against God and others can plausibly add up to infinite, ongoing punishment. This entirely undermines the retributive theory of justice that underlies Con's entire argument! Punishment is supposed to be proportionate on that theory - not grossly over-applied. In fact, it would be morally wrong to do so.Would not people in heaven, if they were aware of the suffering going on hell, have something like Paul's thoughts? "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race." (Rom 9:3) This shows a remarkable sense of empathy and one could only imagine how redeemed in heaven are supposed to feel about the sufferings of others - even those that are damned. Now, how does that square with the thought brought out in revelation where there will be no more tears? This is a difficult moral problem for the traditionalist in where we consider how one could be happy - unimaginably happy - knowing that others are horribly suffering forever. If the saved become more God-like then it's hard to see how the saved, or God, can abide by this.The Reconciliation ObjectionCon's rebuttal here simply misses the point. Scripture clearly says that God will reconcile all things to himself and he will be sovereign over all during the new heavens and earth. This is really not up for legitimate contention amongst Christians.Eph 1:1 : "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:"1 Cor 15:28: "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. "Acts 3:21: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."Clearly, having people who haven't been reconciled to God (Con even admits people in hell haven't been reconciled) is not reconciling all things to God! It's as simple as that. Con's rebuttal stands in contradiction to what the Bible says.There can be no people "rejecting" God's reconciliation, redemption and sovereignty over all things forever because, then, God's plans have essentially been thwarted by his own creations on the traditional view of hell. That's quite the bullet to bite if I do say so myself. And it seems utterly incompatible with the Christian God. Con's attempted rebuttal has gained no purchase because it completely misses the mark.Sources[1] http://www.theopedia.com...[2] http://www.colorado.edu...