The Problem of Hell

Thanks to Gileandos for the debate. Unfortunately, I do not think he as resolved the problem of hell (as traditionalists conceive it) for Christianity. 1) Turn About Is Fair Play?Here my opponent tries a little turn about is fair play by saying my own preferred view of hell (annihilationism) is subject to the same criticisms as his own preferred view of hell. This theme runs throughout most of his reply. The quick and dirty rebuttal would be that the resolution is about the problem of hell as traditionalists conceive it and it's compatibility with the Christian God. Annihilationism is really a side issue in this debate - not the main attraction (as my opponent even admitted to in the comments). I merely brought it up to challenge the idea that the Bible explicitly teaches what the traditionalist takes it to teach. For all we know, both me and my opponent could be wrong and universalism be true. [1] All of that, strictly speaking, is at best tangential to the problem of hell for the traditionalist here. It is fundamentally a moral problem (except for, perhaps, the reconciliation objection).However, I will quickly indulge:1a) An annihilationist isn't committed the claim that the damned will undergo a "torturous burning death".1b) Sure, it seems conceivable that the save are eternally blissful knowing that some are not there with them because they know they (the damned) are not suffering. Capital punishment is still a fairly controversial moral issue but the use of torture for, and only for, punishment isn't. That is just out of the question.1c) Con cites Rev 14:9-11 which is supposedly one the strongest verses for the traditionalist. Unfortunately for the traditionalist, when you take a look at the source of where the language is drawn from we see that it actually does not support the traditionalist. The language comes from the Old Testament:Isaiah 34:9-10"And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; no one shall pass through it forever and ever."Surprisingly, no traditionalist ever argues that Edom is undergoing the process of eternal torture even to this day. The smoke is suppose to signify the finality and totality of the destruction of Edom.Regarding the use of Matt 25:46 - it simply begs the question to assume that eternal punishment means eternal torture. If you automatically assume that eternal punishment just means eternal torture and then use that verse in order to prove that eternal punishment is eternal torture you have just reasoned in circle.In fact, Con seems to play on a little bit of equivocation as well here. He seems to assume with his use of Matt 25:46 that eternal punishment = eternal torture (otherwise his argument wouldn't work). But, hold on! Later Con says, "Whether this is through eternal torment or eternal destruction. 'Perfectly loving' to the traditional view of Christianity is not that the guilty do not get punished.[ibid] Eternal sin begets eternal punishment." Huh? Con seems to accept that annihilation can also be conceived of as an eternal punishment - i.e. a punishment with eternal consequences. Which one is it then? If both annihilationism and the traditionalism are compatible with the concept of "eternal punishment" than how does citing Matt 25:46 help his case? Notice that this equivocation happens several times throughout the round. Like here: "A)I am glad that my opponent concedes that sins can be eternal and the punishment can be eternal as well. God is well within his rights to punish eternally. I fail to see why my opponent continues to assert that NOT punishing someone but allowing the guilty evil people to run around heaven is MORE morally justified than punishing them." Note the problem. It isn't punishment (eternal or otherwise) per se that is the problem - it's particular kind of punishment that is being called into question here - i.e. that of the traditionalist....and didn't Con JUST concede that annihilation could be punishment as well in any case?2) ConceptNo sane person would deny that evil people deserve at least some kind of punishment. Con continually tries to set up an answer to the problem of hell by contrasting no punishment with punishment. Again, the problem is the kind of morally problematic punishment that Con posits. One of eternal torture for no other reason than because they supposedly deserve it. I don't think anybody can deserve eternal torture and the retributivist theory of justice that underlies most of the defenses for the traditionalist absolutely crumbles if we accept that punishments can out proportion the deeds that cause the punishment. That is not justice in any normal sense of the word. It's like me going to shoot someone in the face because they said something vulgar about my mother over the Internet except an infinity of orders of magnitude worse.3) ResultThe problem is not even close to being negated. The problem of hell just notes a perceived tension between the traditionalist concept of hell as conscious, eternal torment and the Christian God. The first two objections were moral problems and the last objection is more of an issue of reconciling several verses about God with hell. Con's only defense has been a dubious appeal some verses and tradition that supposedly support Con's conception of hell and assertions that it can be just to torture someone forever without any explanation.4) JusticeA) Again, Con seems to accept that eternal punishment can also be annihilation. If that's the case, then it seems he is equivocating when he presents the dichotomy of God either punishing, or, pun intended, all hell breaking loose with deviants running around heaven and whereabouts.And yet again, I say it's NOT punishment per se is the problem - it's the kind of punishment Con holds to that is! It's one thing to not allow "guilty evil people" into heaven - it's quite another to say that their punishment is that they have to suffer torture forever. No amount of finite sins/wrongdoing seem to add up to infinite punishment.B) Again, I'm not claiming that eternal punishment simpliciter is something immoral. I'm claiming the eternal punishment as eternal torture is immoral. Con says causing pain is only morally wrong when it involves self-interest or gain. What, then, would God's reasons be for the eternal torture? It's wildly out of whack with the notion of justice (on the retributivist theory) for out of proportion punishment; it's not for any reforming purpose. What is it for?C) It certainly seems sadistic to cause pain for no discernible reason.E) It's a difference that makes no difference. Even if we always choose to abide by a perfect moral framework in heaven then what reason would we need to see the damned being tortured since we are choosing to abide by a framework in which we wouldn't need that kind of encouragement.5) Eternal BlissEternal bliss would just mean the best kind of happiness that is unmarred by any kind dissatisfaction. The problem again comes up with with how finite beings can cause "eternal" pain that merits infinite punishment.6) ReconciliationThis response just isn't answering the objection - it'd be ridiculous to suggest that just because all can mean different things in different contexts that it can mean "not all" in this context. Con's argument backfires anyway. He points to Rev 13:16 and says "all" means, as we see in later context, 144,000 people. Yet, we see, in context, those verses that "all" means everything in creation! They don't say "everything...but those pesky eternally tortured evil souls." What con is really doing here is assuming that the traditionalist conception here is right and then just assuming that, therefore, "all" must not include the damned.Sources[1] http://www.theopedia.com...