What Happens after Death? (Video)

What happens to people when they die?

Comments

[Malebranche]

Am I correct in thinking that it's around 3 in the morning over in California? When do you folks over there sleep?

[Galileo Unchained]

It's odd that Christianity is so obsessed with the physical part of the resurrection. Whatever.

I do wonder how Christians imagine that they'll enjoy the afterlife when they will be very aware (with perhaps a heightened sense of justice and mercy) of the billions of people suffering in hell. Kinda makes heaven hellish, it seems to me.

[Bennett]

"Galileo"

St. Thomas, in one of his less charitable moments, said that one of the *joys* of heaven would be looking down at the wicked burning in hell. After all, God wouldn't put anyone in there who didn't deserve it, n'est ce pas?

Of course, I don't hold to that kind of vengeance, but I'm not a Universalist either.

That you see Heaven as hellish would suggest a severe lack of understanding with regards to the respective natures of God, heaven, salvation, justice, and theology in regards to the afterlife. Just a few of the finer points in Christian thought that you may want to brush up on before affectedly scratching your head and professing bafflement.

[WisdomLover]

GU-

I do wonder how you can enjoy your normal life knowing that there are people raving and gibbering in the asylum. Kinda makes sanity insane, it seems to me.

[Amy]

I do wonder how Christians imagine that they'll enjoy the afterlife when they will be very aware (with perhaps a heightened sense of justice and mercy) of the billions of people suffering in hell.

I posted on that here. The key is precisely that we will have a more accurate, heightened sense of justice and mercy.

[Bennett]

WL,

That's a good general point, but you may want to tweak the analogy. Insanity is, generally speaking, not the fault of the afflicted. I'd ask something more to the effect of "How do you enjoy your freedom, knowing that there are murderers and rapists in prison?" or "How do you enjoy living under Rule of Law, when Muammar Gaddhafi is shot and mutilated by an angry mob?"

I enjoy it very much, thanks!

[ToNy]

>> "I do wonder how Christians imagine that they'll enjoy the afterlife when they will be very aware...of the billions of people suffering in hell. "

why does this question always come up?

Even mentioned in Strobel's stupid book...

I had a great time at Disneyland -- though I knew people were starving to death in Africa.

NMP

Not My Problem

[Carolyn]

Is it not said that there will be no tears, no sorrow in heaven? Seems like continually being in the presence of God and witnessing His glory will fully occupy our minds and hearts.

[Trent]

And many Americans are shocked to hear that they aren't universally loved?

Hundreds of thousands dying due to genocide and not white? Not my problem.

Financial Aid withheld unless abortion laws loosened? Not my problem.

Accidentally drop bombs on NATO allies? Not my problem.

In theory, the process of sanctification will make us a bit less self absorbed.

[Trent]

Note: I am not saying all Americans are like that, but such statements don't help the stereotype.

[Malebranche]

[B]ecause God is a Being of infinite worth, to whom we owe an infinite obligation, sin against God is an infinite evil requiring an infinite punishment.

That's a remark from Amy's other post. You'll run across this one quite often, since the apologist wants to first convince you that it is just of God to torment a person for all eternity for their sins. "All eternity!?" one wonders. "Ahh," says the apologist, "I thought your fundamental sense of respect and morality would recoil at my view. That happens quite often, but fortunately for us we have spent a lot of time coming up with ways to deal with your moral horror. Lets see what we can do to change your mind. Notice that all sins offend God, who has infinite dignity. Sinning against anything with infinite dignity is infinitely evil, so any sin you please is infinitely evil. Since all sins are infinitely evil, and justice is punishing the crime in accordance with its wickedness, you can see why it is ok to torment folks for all eternity for any sin you please. Isn't that neat?"

Well suppose the apologist's interlocutor responds as follows. "Whether or not your response is neat, I do not know. But I fail to see how you, who follow Christ, can say that all sins are infinitely evil, since Christ himself says that some sins are more heinous than others. Can you explain to me how sins can differ in degree of their wickedness, as Christ teaches, if we measure the wickedness of any sin as directly proportional to the dignity of the God to whom it offends? Besides, is it not evident to reason that stealing a pencil is nowhere nearly as wicked as stealing a baby? What could be more patently ridiculous than to think that stealing a pencil and a baby are wholly on a par with respect to their wickedness? So, I see neither how your view accords with reason or accords with Christ. Could you clearly explain to me how, if the wickedness of all sin is infinite, that some sins are more wicked than others?"

And the apologist responds, well, how exactly?

[Amy]

Malebranche, do you really have to be so snarky? Just ask me the question, and I'll answer.

I direct you to the second half of the quote by Clotfelter you cited:

And since the punishments of hell cannot be infinite in intensity, as that would violate the principle that the lost are punished according to their deeds, it must be the case that hell is infinite in duration.

I am undecided about whether this is the more likely answer or simply it's the case that the rebellion will continue forever and therefore continue to be punished. It may be the case that both are true. But here's Clotfelter's answer: Though it's the case that you could never payback what you owe for rebelling against God and breaking the infinite obligation you had to Him, because we know that crimes are of greater or lesser degree, we know there will be greater and lesser intensity of punishment. In neither case will the payment ever be completed.

Of course all crimes do not equally offend God, but that doesn't lessen our infinite obligation to Him to be without sin at all. So in the end, the punishments will continue forever, but at varying degrees.

I say this without emotion only for the sake of clarity. It is by nothing but the grace of God that I escaped this, and I'm aware of that.

[Brad B]

Well Malebranche, the point you seem to be avoiding in your mock interlocutor's response is that once the pencil stealer has marred his person and has no cover, he's eternally marred. No amount of punishment is able to restore his purity, so without an infinite atonement, he's without hope. The resultant separation/alienation is impossibly infinite to a mere man.

I myself dont know that the orthodox Christian position is arguing that hell is to be a demonstration of retributive justice, I suspect not though. It seems to be based on the idea that God's purity will not tolerate imperfection so eternal punishment/separation coincides with imperfection that is eternal. The level of wrath exposure may well be commensurate with the degree of wickedness.

[Malebranche]

Amy,

Thanks for the reply.

You write,

I am undecided about whether this is the more likely answer or simply it's the case that the rebellion will continue forever and therefore continue to be punished.

That’s helpful, since as I posted my comment, I wondered to myself, “Why don’t these folks just say what Leibniz said, namely that while no sin is infinitely wicked, the sins are infinite in number, since the wicked continue to sin in hell.” It looks like you might think this is the better reply. Is that right?

So what do you think of the following argument:

(1) Any sin you please is a sin against God.
(2) If any sin you please is a sin against God, then any sin you please is a sin against a being of infinite worth to whom we have infinite obligation.
(3) If any sin you please is a sin against a being of infinite worth to whom we have infinite obligation, then any sin you please is infinitely wicked.
(4) Therefore, any sin you please is infinitely wicked. (from 1 through 4)
(5) If any sin you please is infinitely wicked, then for any pair of sins you please, they are equally wicked.
(6) Therefore, for any pair of sins you please, they are equally wicked. (from 4, 5).

The argument is valid and you seem to reject step (6). So which premise do you think is false? Premise (5) seems pretty plausible. If two sins are both infinitely wicked, in what clear sense could one be more wicked than the other? Clearly you endorse premise (2). That leaves premise (1) and premise (3). If you reject premise (3), then you reject Clotfelter’s claim contained in the passage I originally quoted. Any thoughts about this?

[SteveK]

Some prefer to argue against eternal separation from God from the position that it makes them uncomfortable or that it seems unfair or unjust in their eyes.

Would it not make more sense to argue against this teaching by citing what Scripture says about it? I mean, original sin seems unfair if you want to ask me. The cross seems unjust - why must Christ pay for MY sins? But this is what Christianity teaches.

Why don't these people argue from Scripture rather than from emotion?

[ToNy]

>> "Note: I am not saying all Americans are like that, but such statements don't help the stereotype."

Out of sight, out of mind, is quite universal.

[Malebranche]

Oops. I should have written "from 1 through 3" above.

[Malebranche]

Amy,

I just re-read my last sentence, which reads, "And the apologist responds, well, how exactly?" I hope that you don't think I was directing that at you personally. I intentionally did not direct any of that at you personally because I thought that would be way too personally confrontational. So I was just using the term "apologist" as a general description, not as a way of referring to you in particular. Anyway, I can see how it could look like that last question was directed at you personally, but I assure you that was not my intent. So, though I remain interested in your thoughts on this topic, I was not trying to single you out at all. When I have had particular individuals in mind (e.g., Koukl's history of informing his audience of hell's most recent guests), I've used the name explicitly.

[Brad B]

“Why don’t these folks just say what Leibniz said, namely that while no sin is infinitely wicked, the sins are infinite in number, since the wicked continue to sin in hell.”

Malebranche, even if the rebellion is for but a moment, the damage is done--eternally.

As far as your syllogism goes, it is polluted with presumption and equivocation [beginning at 3].

[Brad B]

Whoops, should've said "beginning at 2"

[Malebranche]

Roll tide!

[WisdomLover]

Bennett-

I'd actually considered comparing Hell to prison. You're right that those in Hell are fully responsible for being there. It's what you get when you reject God. So it's more like prison in that sense.

On the other hand, it's not so much God's vengeance that's being meted out. It's just the natural consequence of unrestrained sin. It's what we would have gotten if God had let us continue to eat from the tree of life after we'd eaten from the other tree.

And there's no question of taking unrepentant sinners into heaven. Isaiah told us what it was like for a man of unclean lips to be in the presence of God. If you despise the cleansing coals you get at the Lord's Table, you can't stand to be in heaven.

So in that way, condemning souls into Hell is more like locking lunatics into an asylum.

Either way, though, the idea that the rest of the universe's happiness should be held hostage so that some individuals can continue their vain and absurd enmity with God doesn't bear much consideration. It's not that it's not my problem. It's a question of who gets to rule: the God who deserves rule, or the lost who hate Him.

[Trent]

>> "Note: I am not saying all Americans are like that, but such statements don't help the stereotype."

Out of sight, out of mind, is quite universal.

----------

Shrugging off such things is also seen as stereotypically American. In your face when they want stuff, no where to be found when stuff starts going bad, and treating non-americans like quaint storybook characters.

If one truly follows Christ, such blinkered self interest is supposed to go away.

[WisdomLover]

Trent I don't really want to make this a political discussion. It's supposed to be about life after death. But this made me laugh:

In your face when they want stuff, no where to be found when stuff starts going bad

Had you said that America is a nation of meddling, do-gooder busy-bodies, you'd be far closer to the mark.

[Jim]

I'm an atheist but have strived to be a good person throughout my life. It seems a bit unfair that I will burn in eternal agony in the lake of fire just the same as a child murderer or rapist. Is there anything in the bible about lower temperatures or shorter agony sentences for 'good' non believers as opposed to 'bad' non believers ?
I'd settle for total death and total burning of my body to ash with just nothingness if that's possible ?

[Amy]

Thanks for your response and clarification, Malebranche. That's what I like about you--you're always willing to tone it down a notch when you're asked to. I respect that.

Now, to your question. Regarding #3, I guess I would say it's infinitely wicked in that it breaks our infinite obligation to God. But though every sin breaks this infinite obligation, that doesn't mean that every sin is equally offensive in itself. In other words, as I said:

Of course all crimes do not equally offend God, but that doesn't lessen our infinite obligation to Him to be without sin at all. So in the end, the punishments will continue forever, but at varying degrees.

And in no case will it be completely repaid.

You also asked, "It looks like you might think this is the better reply. Is that right?"

No, I'm undecided at this point. As I said, I think both might be the case. But then again, judgment in the Bible seems to be a final act, and adding new punishments would require ongoing judgments. I'm not sure that's warranted by the text.

[Bennett]

WL,

Good point, about the analogy. In particular, I'd say the bottom line remains the same--why should I be miserable because someone else chose to be? The Devil is the ultimate case of "Misery loves company", n'est ce pas?

[Bennett]

Jim,

The idea you're inquiring about is usually called "Annihilationism". There are some believers and theologians who'd tell you it's possible. There's also more than a couple of Universalists, like Rob Bell, who believe that everyone will sooner or later get into Heaven. So either of those views would keep you covered, even if you were the worst person on earth, atheist or not.

However, I might give you a little nudge. Neither of those views is well-founded in anything but the imagination of their proponents. True enough, "With God, anything is possible," but some things are very, very unlikely.

If you're sufficiently concerned about God's justice to have reservations about your disposition under his judgement, that would suggest that you're at least giving some game consideration to the possibility of his existence. It also somewhat suggests that you acknowledge his authority and justice.

Are you here because you're rethinking your atheism (that's part of what brought me here, many moons ago)? Or are you only hoping for the atheistic version of Pascal's Wager (which unfortunately tends to amount to one of the above two--largely discredited--theological points) to get you off the hook?

[Trent]

Wisdom Lover,

I agree if there is something they want. I think a few years ago in South Korea it was found people were polled and they said that they though that the US was a bigger risk than North Korea, with whom they are still at war. Didn't see much in Rwanda or the Sudan, because the US didn't see anything they wanted, I guess.

I dont consider this a description of an average American, but as a non-American I have to say some comments do explain why the stereotype isn't going away.

Anyway, back to my point that the process of sacntification should make one more loving of one's neighbours and even enemies.

I think someone one said the door to Hell is locked from the inside. Didn't C.S. Lewis have a story about a bus trip fro Hell to Heavan?

[Jim]

Hi Bennett

Thanks for your reply. I was asking about the variations in the forms of torture in hell because it didn't seem right that people like Hitler or Pol Pot would suffer the same fate as me. If a murderer apologised for all of his sins and declared his belief in God would he get reprieved from Hell and go to Heaven ? I know Islam allows people to repent all of their sins to Allah and start afresh. As many times as they want actually. With a trip to Mecca boosting their goodness.
As I get nearer death I might get baptised and cover all of my options just in case there is a God. Would I be found out though ?
Would it be possible to wing it with a few trips to the church etc ?

[Bennett]

Jim,

Imagine a woman who asks you "What's the least amount of fidelity I can get by with, and you'll still marry me?" Or a thief who walks into your house and says "How much of your stuff can I take, before you want me arrested?" Or a thug who comes up and asks "How many times may I stab you before you report an assault?"

Don't even worry about what Islam does. If you're trying to get right with the Christian God, Islamic law won't carry you far.

There is some speculation that there are levels of reward in heaven, but that we will all be equally fulfilled. For example, if I'm a gourmand, heaven may involve filet mignon and crepes. If not, maybe I can just have all the White Castle I want, and not suffer ill effects (these are fanciful examples, not to be taken literally). Either way, there will be a compatability between my self and my reward.

From that logic, it is not unreasonable to believe that Hell may also be multifaceted. Of course, there are some theologians who, with tongue only slightly in cheek (and some with deadly earnestness) posit that there is a special, nasty level of Hell for those who only gave lip service to salvation, for fear of Hell. In other words, if you try to abuse God's goodwill to avoid his justice, it just digs the hole deeper.

If you're convinced 100% that your atheism is true, then live it consistently. If you're not convinced, then give some serious thought to the alternative. Investigate other religions and see if they make sense. Pray sincerely for wisdom and discernment. Read the Bible with an open heart. Go to a local church pastor or parish priest, someone who makes sense to you, and admit your concerns frankly.

In Revelations, the ones who offend God the most are those who are "neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm." It actually implies that God would prefer your hatred over wishy-washiness. Better atheism that apatheism. "Oh how I wish that you were either hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm I spit you out."

Trying to play both ends against the middle simply does not fly in any camp. You can't "hedge your bets." Otherwise when you get baptised on your deathbed, you aren't making a real confession of repentance; you're just making noise with your mouth.

[Bennett]

Jim,

My first response got lost, so my apologies if you get two.

The short answer is to your question is no.

The more nuanced one is that you've got an essential misunderstanding here. What you describe is giving a little bit of lip service to God, as if you can trick him. Like there's a loophole, allowing you to do as you please, and then he's obligated to let you into Heaven because you performed the right ritual. That is a very, pardon me for saying it, pagan view of our relationship with God.

Ask yourself how you'd respond to a parent who wanted to know how much they could abuse their child and get away with it, or a wife who wanted to know the least amount of fidelity she'd have to offer before you'd marry her. What about a renter who skips out on paying their lease, but leaves a quarter on the filthy kitchen counter "just in case" that's enough?

I would encourage you to learn more about God before you start trying to make deals with him. What you just described was not anything like a true conversion--if anything, it's an insult to him. There's grounds to speculate that there may be a special hell for those who falsely profess belief with a mercenary or pagan attitude, trying to manipulate God.

The other problem with your attitude is that it's all results-oriented, and has no thought for the process. Doing what you describe would imply that you don't think God could or would improve your life now. That, for some odd reason, following God in this life would be equal to or worse than atheism, but being right with him in the next life would be greater than whatever you'd get otherwise.

You may have been influenced in this idea by notions about Christianity being a moralizing or dour faith, or all that 'blessed are the poor', and 'blessed are you when they persecute you' talk that makes it sound like Christianity is a drag.

However, I think if you talk to sincere, committed Christians, you'll find that most find this life to be much improved by their relationship with God. Not necessarily in a "Prosperity Gospel" way, but in a much more real one (not that there's any data to show that being wealthy makes you happy--almost every study reveals that happiness is a free willed choice, not something determined by our material circumstances).

When you were in school, did you only worry about making good enough grades to get by? How did that make you view your studies? Did you enjoy reading and learning more, or less, if your only goal was to get a C and escape that scholarly Bastille? In other words, did focusing on getting by with the least possible work to attain a passable result improve your subjective experience of the day to day, one foot in front of the other, type of work that you had to put in no matter what? And further, did it make it easier or harder to get good grades? Did the people who enjoyed school for itself get better marks? Were they happier in general? Did school seem less like a prison for them? Did you ever envy or resent people who liked to read just for fun, rather than obligation?

Whether you did or you did not, perhaps you can see the analogy I'm drawing here. I realize it doesn't necessarily offer evidence of the propositional truth of God's existence, but it does present part of a reasonable case, I think, for why it would be both immediately and ultimately beneficial for you to form a relationship with him, on the assumption that he does exist and desires a relationship with you.

[Jim]

Bennett.
I quite enjoyed school and love reading. Nothing very high brow. Lee Child, John Grishmam type stuff.
I'm a sponge for current affairs and follow US / UK / World Politics etc
The problem I have with religion is that hundreds of religious groups have hundreds of different ways of interpreting the bible.
The earth is 6,000 yrs old or the earth is billions of years old. Or the old testament is the only true word of God ( Jewish take on things). Or both old and new testament is the word of God.
If all of these folk who have studied the bible for years have come to their conclusion then what chance do I have of reaching a conclusion ? Talking to you I would get your take on things but going to my local church I'd get another. Basically I'll end up following the thinking of whoever I latched onto. All the other groupings will be convinced of their path to heaven. Including the gay and lesbian ministers.
So surely God must have rules for people in my predicament ? People who can't decide which group to believe seeing as thousands of various groups have thousands of different interpretations.
Getting baptised will at least show willing until I can get into the waiting room to hear the full story from the horses mouth so to speak.

[ToNy]

Trent,

I'm an atheist.
Have been to 28 countries.
And have spent several years living abroad in various places.

And, as London-born actor Hugh Grant said when asked about Chechnya, "Oh Jones I don't give a fart."

[Bennett]

Jim,

Man, this thing loves to eat my posts.

Anyway.

Now you're cutting closer to the bone.

You are quite correct that there are different interpretations. In fact, the question of how to interact with religious pluralism is a pressing one in modern Christianity. If I may, I would suggest that you try Tim Keller's "The King's Cross," and giving a listen to some of the audio lectures he has available -- http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/intermediate/absolutism-dont-we-all-have-to-find-truth-for.htm is a good one to start, and you can find more there. He talks to folks with concerns much like yours.

The trick is not to throw up your hands in the face of conflicting information, and conclude that there is no way to know truth. If six people in the room lie to you, and the seventh tells the truth, that doesn't eliminate the truth.

You sound as if you're being very honest right now, and one of your worries--if I may speculate and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that you would rather not err by worshipping incorrectly. Thus you choose, out of conscience, not to worship yet. However, if you did know God, then you would not protest at doing his will?

In that case, you may qualify as what some folks would call a seeker. It's not quite the same as simply being agnostic, although you seem to be that as well, rather than actually a staunch atheist. It means you're looking for truth, but haven't found it.

The key is to keep seeking. Don't give up. If the answers are worthwhile, then they're worth doing some brainsweat.

Some people argue over the age of the earth, but are their arguments equally credible? Does the preponderance of physical evidence favor one side over the other? Does one side's reading of scripture seem to be too narrow or simplistic?

Jews and Muslims and Christians argue over interpretation of the Bible, yes. Are they all equally right? Is the Muslim view of Christianity (including a Trinity which supposedly includes Mary, God, and Jesus) accurate? Might there be reasons (including cultural factors) that Jews reject the Messiah?

You address the issue of gay and lesbian preachers. That one is creating schisms all across Christianity, and frankly is more heat than light right now. It certainly, however, is not a central doctrine of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or any other religion outside Westboro) that Thou Shalt Not Be Gay. So don't let that one be a stumbling block.

I can't speak for God. The Archangel Gabriel doesn't give me weekly memoranda on gold leaf. But I can, in good faith, encourage you to try to find him. If every answer seems to have the same validity, that is suggestive of shallow thinking.

Just because The Real Housewives, The Jersey Shore, and Columbo are on in the same time slot, and all have fans, doesn't mean I can't make some reasonable decision as to which is more worth watching. My reasons may not be so airtight that they'd compel everyone to agree, but they can have merit, and it's absurd to say that I should just choose one arbitrarily, or else throw my TV out the window (not that I'm never tempted by that recourse.)

You could be excused, I believe, if one particular doctrine was correct and you didn't believe it. For example, some people believe in the real presence in the eucharist, and others don't even know what that means. Some people hold to believers' baptism, others to infant baptism. Now, chances are good that someone's 'right' and someone isn't, but those aren't central issues. Don't let them be a smokescreen.

Your obligation to not only God, but to your own integrity as a man, is to put forth an earnest effort to sort through the available evidence as if finding the right answer mattered.

You say that you're willing to receive baptism as a show of good faith, and I applaud that. Why wait until you're dying? Saint Paul would say that you're already dead in sin, so there's no time to waste. At the very least, you have the choice to receive baptism, and spend some time studying. Read the Bible, ask questions. There's nothing wrong with spending time as what they call a non-denominational or "Bible Christian."

I very much doubt God will fault you, if you approach him in humility and admit that you're confused, that there's a lot of bad information, and that you're just one man. You can ask him to come into your life, and be in your heart. It costs you nothing. The worst that can happen is if you do it insincerely, in which case you go in a dry sinner, and come out a wet sinner. Or, if atheism's true, it just means getting a free bath. Either way, if you open up and give it a real, sincere go, it's all upside for you.

And then, no matter what you think about consubstantiation, or dispensationalism, or five-point Calvinism, you'll always know at least *one* place where God always is.

For that, I think, you have a reasonable expectation of getting the full story. A real, sincere effort, with an admission of your own fallibility and inability to know all things.

After all, getting baptised isn't the end of the journey, it's the start of a new one. Why on earth should you have all the answers before you start looking for answers?

If you'd like, I'll pray for you (if intercessory prayer works, you'll at last have that going for you), and you're welcome to stay in touch on here, or e-mail. I'd love to know how your journey leads you.

[Bennett]

Amy,

The typepad monster seems to be eating responses again.

[Bennett]

Okay, shorter ones seem to get through, so lemme try this.

Jim,

Now you're cutting closer to the bone.

You are quite correct that there are different interpretations. In fact, the question of how to interact with religious pluralism is a pressing one in modern Christianity. If I may, I would suggest that you try Tim Keller's "The King's Cross," and giving a listen to some of the audio lectures he has available -- http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/intermediate/absolutism-dont-we-all-have-to-find-truth-for.htm is a good one to start, and you can find more there. He talks to folks with concerns much like yours.

The trick is not to throw up your hands in the face of conflicting information, and conclude that there is no way to know truth. If six people in the room lie to you, and the seventh tells the truth, that doesn't eliminate the truth.

You sound as if you're being very honest right now, and one of your worries--if I may speculate and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that you would rather not err by worshipping incorrectly. Thus you choose, out of conscience, not to worship yet. However, if you did know God, then you would not protest at doing his will?

In that case, you may qualify as what some folks would call a seeker. It's not quite the same as simply being agnostic, although you seem to be that as well, rather than actually a staunch atheist. It means you're looking for truth, but haven't found it.

The key is to keep seeking. Don't give up. If the answers are worthwhile, then they're worth doing some brainsweat.

Some people argue over the age of the earth, but are their arguments equally credible? Does the preponderance of physical evidence favor one side over the other? Does one side's reading of scripture seem to be too narrow or simplistic?

Jews and Muslims and Christians argue over interpretation of the Bible, yes. Are they all equally right? Is the Muslim view of Christianity (including a Trinity which supposedly includes Mary, God, and Jesus) accurate? Might there be reasons (including cultural factors) that Jews reject the Messiah?

You address the issue of gay and lesbian preachers. That one is creating schisms all across Christianity, and frankly is more heat than light right now. It certainly, however, is not a central doctrine of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or any other religion outside Westboro) that Thou Shalt Not Be Gay. So don't let that one be a stumbling block.

I can't speak for God. The Archangel Gabriel doesn't give me weekly memoranda on gold leaf. But I can, in good faith, encourage you to try to find him. If every answer seems to have the same validity, that is suggestive of shallow thinking.

Just because The Real Housewives, The Jersey Shore, and Columbo are on in the same time slot, and all have fans, doesn't mean I can't make some reasonable decision as to which is more worth watching. My reasons may not be so airtight that they'd compel everyone to agree, but they can have merit, and it's absurd to say that I should just choose one arbitrarily, or else throw my TV out the window (not that I'm never tempted by that recourse.)

[Bennett]

(cont'd)

You could be excused, I believe, if one particular doctrine was correct and you didn't believe it. For example, some people believe in the real presence in the eucharist, and others don't even know what that means. Some people hold to believers' baptism, others to infant baptism. Now, chances are good that someone's 'right' and someone isn't, but those aren't central issues. Don't let them be a smokescreen.

Your obligation to not only God, but to your own integrity as a man, is to put forth an earnest effort to sort through the available evidence as if finding the right answer mattered.

You say that you're willing to receive baptism as a show of good faith, and I applaud that. Why wait until you're dying? Saint Paul would say that you're already dead in sin, so there's no time to waste. At the very least, you have the choice to receive baptism, and spend some time studying. Read the Bible, ask questions. There's nothing wrong with spending time as what they call a non-denominational or "Bible Christian."

I very much doubt God will fault you, if you approach him in humility and admit that you're confused, that there's a lot of bad information, and that you're just one man. You can ask him to come into your life, and be in your heart. It costs you nothing. The worst that can happen is if you do it insincerely, in which case you go in a dry sinner, and come out a wet sinner. Or, if atheism's true, it just means getting a free bath. Either way, if you open up and give it a real, sincere go, it's all upside for you.

And then, no matter what you think about consubstantiation, or dispensationalism, or five-point Calvinism, you'll always know at least *one* place where God always is.

For that, I think, you have a reasonable expectation of getting the full story. A real, sincere effort, with an admission of your own fallibility and inability to know all things.

After all, getting baptised isn't the end of the journey, it's the start of a new one. Why on earth should you have all the answers before you start looking for answers?

If you'd like, I'll pray for you, and you're more than welcome to stay in touch here, or via email.

[Bennett]

You say that you're willing to receive baptism as a show of good faith, and I applaud that. Why wait until you're dying? Saint Paul would say that you're already dead in sin, so there's no time to waste. At the very least, you have the choice to receive baptism, and spend some time studying. Read the Bible, ask questions. There's nothing wrong with spending time as what they call a non-denominational or "Bible Christian."

I very much doubt God will fault you, if you approach him in humility and admit that you're confused, that there's a lot of bad information, and that you're just one man. You can ask him to come into your life, and be in your heart. It costs you nothing.

[Bennett]

And then, no matter what you think about consubstantiation, or dispensationalism, or five-point Calvinism, you'll always know at least *one* place where God always is.

For that, I think, you have a reasonable expectation of getting the full story. A real, sincere effort, with an admission of your own fallibility and inability to know all things.

After all, getting baptised isn't the end of the journey, it's the start of a new one. Why on earth should you have all the answers before you start looking for answers?

I'd welcome you to stay in touch here, or via email, by the way, and I'll pray for you with your permission.

Best regards.

[Galileo Unchained]

Bennett:

A severe lack of understanding? Sure, that’s possible. But your simply claiming that doesn’t help me understand. And, as you noted, Thomas Aquinas is on the same page, so perhaps I have good company in my state of un-understanding.

[Galileo Unchained]

Bennett:

"How do you enjoy your freedom, knowing that there are murderers and rapists in prison?"

Yes, I agree with you—Western justice does a decent job.

But we’re talking about quite a different thing when we move from prison (proportional justice) to hell (one-size-fits-all “justice,” which includes torture. Forever.).

[Galileo Unchained]

Amy:

Of course all crimes do not equally offend God, but that doesn't lessen our infinite obligation to Him to be without sin at all.

This seems just a rationalization. That is, you agree that it’s hideous to imagine even a truly bad person (Hitler, Stalin) being tortured forever, but you’re obliged to prop up your beliefs, and this is what you’ve got.

But this bypasses my original concern. Put aside the logic behind God’s “justice.” You, here on earth, are probably heartbroken thinking of the cruelty and injustice in the world today. How will you endure heaven with your magnified awareness of justice with billions being tortured forever?

[Malebranche]

Amy,

You write,

Regarding #3, I guess I would say it's infinitely wicked in that it breaks our infinite obligation to God. But though every sin breaks this infinite obligation, that doesn't mean that every sin is equally offensive in itself.

Ok, so it looks like premise (3) is the one you’re targeting. It looks like instead of outright rejecting (3) as false, you are discerning some ambiguity in (3). Premise (3), we should recall, states the following:

(3) If any sin you please is a sin against a being of infinite worth to whom we have infinite obligation, then any sin you please is infinitely wicked.

The consequent of (3) says “any sin you please is infinitely wicked.” You, however, seem to want to say something like, “This is ambiguous, since a sin can be infinitely wicked in one sense (violates an infinite obligation) but not be infinitely wicked in another (infinitely wicked in itself.).”

I confess that this subtlety escapes me, and I don’t know what difference this distinction is getting at. With this distinction in hand, it seems that one could say, “Despite the fact that actions A and B both violate infinite obligations, A is more offensive in itself than B.” That doesn’t make clear sense to me, at this point. In fact, I would have thought that the degree to which an action is objectively offensive is directly proportional to the strength of the obligation it flouts. You seem to want to say otherwise, and I’m not sure why. At this point, therefore, I don’t really understand what you think about the issue, since I don’t understand the difference this distinction is sensitive to.

There’s one last thing that I find deeply puzzling about your view. In the post you linked to above, you write,

A crime against an infinitely worthy being requires a punishment that a finite person will never finish paying

I take it that here your point is this. Since there will never be a point in time at which the damned have endured an infinite duration of hell, there will never be a point in time at which they have paid their infinite debt. Ok, that I understand. But of course what this means is that, on your view, God resolves to put the damned in hell in order to satisfy justice despite the fact that he knows that at no point will their being in hell satisfy justice. There is no time at which justice is wholly satisfied on your view, since if there were, it would be pointless for the damned to remain in hell, being punished at subsequent times.

Your thoughts about this issue, therefore, are deeply perplexing to me. You seem to think that despite the fact that an action violates an infinite obligation, it may not be infinitely wicked in itself. Furthermore, despite the fact that the action is not infinitely wicked in itself, it would be just to heap an infinite punishment upon the criminal for performing the action. Moreover, despite the fact that God knows that at no point in time will the debt be paid and justice satisfied by means of the punishments of hell, God is motivated by justice to inflict the punishments of hell anyway. Finally, despite the fact that God knows that justice could be entirely satisfied by Jesus’ atonement, God does not choose to satisfy justice on behalf of everyone in that way.

[WisdomLover]

GU-

I'm sorry, how do you know that Hell is one-size-fits-all justice?

And what's the relevance of torture?

Can't torture ever be justified?

I'm pretty sure that when parents spank their children, they are involved in a form of torture. I am also pretty sure that they are not always behaving unjustly.

In fact, the very prisons you seem to be OK with are themselves, places of torture. That's what yard fights, stabbings, beatings, rapes and so on are.

[Amy]

Bennett, I'm flummoxed! I don't know why your comments weren't getting through. I published the ones that got caught (see above), and tried to avoid double posting. But let me know if I still missed one.

Malebranche, unfortunately I'm not going to be able to take the time to continue this right now, but I'll definitely be contemplating your challenges, and I'm sure we'll get back to it again. Just one quick word about the distinction I referred to. If I take a pencil, part of the harm is that I'm stealing property from someone else, and part of the harm is that I'm rebelling against God's authority who commanded me not to do it. If I kill someone, the crime is much greater against the person against whom I sinned, and yet I'm still rebelling against God's authority (treason).

It seems the second instance (murder) would incur a greater punishment, for while they both rebel against God's authority, the crime of causing harm to another human being was greater.

[Amy]

But this bypasses my original concern. Put aside the logic behind God’s “justice.” You, here on earth, are probably heartbroken thinking of the cruelty and injustice in the world today. How will you endure heaven with your magnified awareness of justice with billions being tortured forever?

It's precisely the difference between injustice and justice that makes the difference. The first (cruelty and injustice in the world) is injustice, the second (judgment by God) is justice.

It seems to me that you care about justice. Therefore, if hell is just, then you would have no problem with it (because injustice bothers you). If you thought hell was just, you wouldn't be against it.

This is why you can't put aside the issue of God's justice. If hell is just, then of course your issue is solved.

[Galileo Unchained]

WL:

how do you know that Hell is one-size-fits-all justice?

Perhaps I’m confused. I thought that everyone in hell was tortured forever. Is your point that some people in hell are tortured worse than others?

In fact, the very prisons you seem to be OK with are themselves, places of torture.

Huh? You get out of prison, eventually!

We’re talking about God here, the guy who’s a billion times more just and loving than you or I (conservatively). And God’s idea of justice is to torture someone forever?

God acts just as you’d imagine a king in an early Iron Age society would act. Y’know, if I didn’t know better, I’d say he was simply a manmade construct in the mold of the kings of the times. ;-)

[Galileo Unchained]

Amy:

The first (cruelty and injustice in the world) is injustice, the second (judgment by God) is justice.

Why? Just because you say so? Because you declare it to be justice by fiat? Infinite punishment is certainly not what any definition of justice would hold. Indeed, if you were a ruler and practiced this form of “justice,” everyone would condemn it.

if hell is just, then you would have no problem with it

Agreed. Show me that this bizarre, surreal world where discarding proportionate justice makes sense, and we’re on the same page.

[Bennett]

"Galileo"

You seem to be awfully full of answers to the questions you're purporting to ask. In fact, those answers are embedded into the questions you're asking. In logical circles, that's known as doing your logic in circles.