I'm going to begin by listing some assumptions that I am making for this post. This post is concerned with the Christian biblical explanation of Hell, and sin, etc. as it has been explained to me throughout my life. The short version: 100% of humans are born destined for Hell as we are sinful by nature. We will all commit sins in our lifetimes, any single one of which is sufficient to compromise our afterlife in heaven with God. Any and all sins are forgiven if we ask God, due to the sacrifice of Jesus. By accepting the gift of His grace, and repenting from our nature, we are granted eternity in Heaven. No amount of action on our part (besides the above) can possibly be sufficient to earn this forgiveness. It is and must be given freely. The lack of God's grace and forgiveness sentences a person to eternity in Hell, apart from God. Okay, I think that fairly sums it up.
The argument that I intend to make here is this: Eternal damnation is inconsistent with the nature of God as He is described, and so if we don't wish to scrap the whole religion, we must find a different explanation for the nature of Hell.
Eternal Damnation is Inconsistent with the nature of God as He is described
This seems to me to be a relatively simple argument to follow. Here 'goes.Premises:
A) God created man
B) God knew every man's fate before creation (omniscience)
C) God is love (I admit that this one is a bit ambiguous but, hey, I didn't come up with it)
D) Hell is suffering
E) A soul condemned to hell spends eternity in hell (This I mean to disprove)
Now, if we take A and B together, then it follows that God created Adam and Eve with the foreknowledge that they would sin. This means that He knew countless souls would be sentenced to Hell.
Call this A + B => F
F) God created man knowing that many would die and go to Hell
Then E + D => G
G) Hell is infinite and suffering, hence it is infinite suffering
F + G => H
H) God created humankind with the knowledge that He was creating infinite suffering
I propose that creating a system with the foreknowledge that it will cause infinite suffering is inconsistent with the idea that the creator is possessed of "perfect love". in other words, C and H are incompatible.
Now in my experience, Christians get really defensive here. I don't know why. Their own behavior is in accordance with my assertion here: if a person fervently believes in premises E and G, that is a person lacking salvation is destined for infinite suffering, then it seems to me that such a person has a moral obligation to devote their life to helping others attain salvation. The idea that another person, whether evil, a stranger, an acquaintance, or a loved one, is going to suffer infinitely would, in my mind, bother me so deeply that I wouldn't be able to ignore or accept it. And yet a statistically insignificant percentage of Christians live a life devoted to "saving" others. And most don't even make a halfhearted effort.
Consider this: Humanity is not likely to exist in its mortal form forever. Even if we don't kill ourselves or fall prey to a hostile force or cosmic disaster, the last source of energy in the universe will one day decay, making life impossible. So barring any divine intervention that would "rewind" the entropy of the universe, there will be an end to humanity. Now however long our run may be, all of the suffering experienced by the human race for any finite amount of time is a finite amount. So one single soul condemned to eternity in hell suffers more than the sum total of the human race. Not only does this seem an odd tenet of a religion, but it also precludes the argument that, even after death, a person's evil influence will continue to propagate and cause more suffering, thereby warranting additional penance.
So in conclusion, unless I've missed something, it seems that we have to decide that one of the premises I've given is false. Either Hell isn't suffering, or it isn't eternal, or God isn't love, or He didn't know that mankind would sin, or He isn't omnipotent. Anybody object?
No comments:
Post a Comment