Regarding my own beliefs about hell, I've never been an adherent of universalism (universal reconciliation). The prospect of eternal life without the prospect of eternal consequences of putting oneself first undermines the principle of fairness. I'm less decided about the nature of these consequences - whether they involve separation, punishment, suffering, etc, or even whether we need to define them in any detail.
Principle of fairness to me is one reason eternal hell cannot exist. What we do wrong in a finite lifespan cannot merit a negative consequence that lasts for eternity.
I don't believe God gives a flying fuck about fairness, in the sense of restricting rewards to those who have earned them - cf. the parable, and indeed paradox, of the labourers in the vineyard. He cares about love, and that requires universalism. Unless horrific, infinite sadism is a feature of love.
Well, that's how I see it. I'm giving @KarlLB 's claim that fairness requires universalism some thought, as it may be weightier than my contention.
The 'principle of fairness' is not as simple as it sounds. I am thinking of the parable of the vineyard owner who paid his employees the same whether they signed on at the beginning or the end of the day. …
Yup - that parable does draw attention the issue of proportionality from a time-bound human perspective. In the vineyard, whether the workers work one hour or a whole day, they are paid the same.
As far as I'm aware, most conceptualisations of universalism agree that if there is a hell, it involves punishment that is corrective or remedial and that, significantly, does not last forever. However, in the economy of eternity, a period of ten thousand years doesn't even make a dent.
If the consequences are finite, then any wrongdoing, no matter how great or small, whether it lasted a single hour or a whole lifetime, receives a punishment that is over in the blink of an eye (which is kind of comparable to the workers in the vineyard). However, compared to the prospect of enjoying the eternity of life that follows, the prospect of facing any finite period of punishment seems inconsequential.
And if it's inconsequential, then hell does not act as a deterrent, and doesn't appear to serve any significant purpose as far as our finite lives on earth are concerned.
Doesn't seem in the slightest inconsequential to me.
Besides - it seems to me that "fairness", if we consider it near synonymous with "justice", can be subverted in one of two ways - over-severity or mercy. We generally consider the former bad but the latter to be a virtue - and one which Christianity has lauded and considered one of the qualities of God. If absolutely proportional justice is not possible, then mercy would seem to be the direction in which God would be expected to lean.
Doesn't seem in the slightest inconsequential to me.
Besides - it seems to me that "fairness", if we consider it near synonymous with "justice", can be subverted in one of two ways - over-severity or mercy. We generally consider the former bad but the latter to be a virtue - and one which Christianity has lauded and considered one of the qualities of God. If absolutely proportional justice is not possible, then mercy would seem to be the direction in which God would be expected to lean.
Amen. In the story about the workers at the 11th hour getting paid as much as the people who came early in the morning, it’s not like the earlier people’s wage is being cut to match a low wage for the workers at the 11th hour.
"Punishment" is a word that deserves some examination.
There's a video I saw once in which a medievalist made the argument that medieval societies engaged in extremely violent punishments because they were incompetent at catching criminals and they knew it. So these cruel and unusual "punishments" were not intended for the criminal themself, they were intended to turn that criminal into an object to scare anyone else in the community into proper behavior. This is to try to reduce the crime rate through sheer terror, concealing their abysmal failures to control the real crime rate.
Extreme suffering isn't about changing the soul, it's about scaring away other people, which is kind of the point of hell, I think. Hell isn't there to reform. The point of hell is to say that there is a place beyond reform. People in hell aren't there to be changed, helped, or offered sympathy. They're examples, objects for study, which is somewhat how Dante treats them. Inferno is basically a morality play, a series of historical grotesques providing a lesson in "don't be like these guys." Ironically I do think that was the purpose of Jesus' "hellfire and brimstone" talk. It wasn't punitive, it was exemplary. "Just don't go there. I warned you. It's destruction."
Just because something is not provable or falsifiable doesn’t mean it’s not true or false.
But then why would you believe it?
Similarly there are a lot of things we believe are true on the basis of the most limited data, although it is true that few of them are “life or death” issues.
Exactly. There's believing my dog will greet me at the door, then there's believing St. Peter will meet me at the gate. They seem to require a different level of "data."
I don't believe God gives a flying fuck about fairness, in the sense of restricting rewards to those who have earned them - cf. the parable, and indeed paradox, of the labourers in the vineyard. He cares about love, and that requires universalism. Unless horrific, infinite sadism is a feature of love.
Well, that's how I see it. I'm giving @KarlLB 's claim that fairness requires universalism some thought, as it may be weightier than my contention.
…
Besides - it seems to me that "fairness", if we consider it near synonymous with "justice", can be subverted in one of two ways - over-severity or mercy. We generally consider the former bad but the latter to be a virtue - and one which Christianity has lauded and considered one of the qualities of God. If absolutely proportional justice is not possible, then mercy would seem to be the direction in which God would be expected to lean.
I don't see fairness as being synonymous with justice any more that grace is synonymous with mercy.
And who knows about God, but quite a lot of people care about fairness, and care even more about unfairness. The unfairness of people being born into poverty, living with abuse or dying from pollution hangs heavy on many of us.
How does the prospect of universal reconciliation in the future help to change the unfairness and injustice happening now? Why would anyone profiting from exploitation now be motivated to change their behaviour based on the prospect of a future, time-limited, judgment mercifully tipped in their favour?
I don't believe God gives a flying fuck about fairness, in the sense of restricting rewards to those who have earned them - cf. the parable, and indeed paradox, of the labourers in the vineyard. He cares about love, and that requires universalism. Unless horrific, infinite sadism is a feature of love.
Well, that's how I see it. I'm giving @KarlLB 's claim that fairness requires universalism some thought, as it may be weightier than my contention.
…
Besides - it seems to me that "fairness", if we consider it near synonymous with "justice", can be subverted in one of two ways - over-severity or mercy. We generally consider the former bad but the latter to be a virtue - and one which Christianity has lauded and considered one of the qualities of God. If absolutely proportional justice is not possible, then mercy would seem to be the direction in which God would be expected to lean.
I don't see fairness as being synonymous with justice any more that grace is synonymous with mercy.
And who knows about God, but quite a lot of people care about fairness, and care even more about unfairness. The unfairness of people being born into poverty, living with abuse or dying from pollution hangs heavy on many of us.
How does the prospect of universal reconciliation in the future help to change the unfairness and injustice happening now? Why would anyone profiting from exploitation now be motivated to change their behaviour based on the prospect of a future, time-limited, judgment mercifully tipped in their favour?
Who pays the price for this act of mercy?
If hell is eternal, those there are paying a far higher price than anyone could to "pay for this act of mercy".
My understanding is that those who believe do right things because the Holy Spirit changes them and inspires them so to do - not through fear of Hell. After all, they're assured of forgiveness through Christ anyway. It strikes me that your objection to Universalism applies to Christianity in virtually any form.
If the consequences are finite, then any wrongdoing, no matter how great or small, whether it lasted a single hour or a whole lifetime, receives a punishment that is over in the blink of an eye (which is kind of comparable to the workers in the vineyard). However, compared to the prospect of enjoying the eternity of life that follows, the prospect of facing any finite period of punishment seems inconsequential.
And if it's inconsequential, then hell does not act as a deterrent, and doesn't appear to serve any significant purpose as far as our finite lives on earth are concerned.
But then from that perspective any wrongdoing on earth is equally inconsequential, - and therefore isn't worth deterring, and doesn't merit an infinite period of punishment.
For that matter, the reward of earthly wrongdoing is equally finite and someone who is inclined to discount finite rewards and penalties as you imagine them doing is going to discount the finite rewards of earthly wrongdoing anyway.
Comments
Principle of fairness to me is one reason eternal hell cannot exist. What we do wrong in a finite lifespan cannot merit a negative consequence that lasts for eternity.
Well, that's how I see it. I'm giving @KarlLB 's claim that fairness requires universalism some thought, as it may be weightier than my contention.
As far as I'm aware, most conceptualisations of universalism agree that if there is a hell, it involves punishment that is corrective or remedial and that, significantly, does not last forever. However, in the economy of eternity, a period of ten thousand years doesn't even make a dent.
If the consequences are finite, then any wrongdoing, no matter how great or small, whether it lasted a single hour or a whole lifetime, receives a punishment that is over in the blink of an eye (which is kind of comparable to the workers in the vineyard). However, compared to the prospect of enjoying the eternity of life that follows, the prospect of facing any finite period of punishment seems inconsequential.
And if it's inconsequential, then hell does not act as a deterrent, and doesn't appear to serve any significant purpose as far as our finite lives on earth are concerned.
Besides - it seems to me that "fairness", if we consider it near synonymous with "justice", can be subverted in one of two ways - over-severity or mercy. We generally consider the former bad but the latter to be a virtue - and one which Christianity has lauded and considered one of the qualities of God. If absolutely proportional justice is not possible, then mercy would seem to be the direction in which God would be expected to lean.
Amen. In the story about the workers at the 11th hour getting paid as much as the people who came early in the morning, it’s not like the earlier people’s wage is being cut to match a low wage for the workers at the 11th hour.
There's a video I saw once in which a medievalist made the argument that medieval societies engaged in extremely violent punishments because they were incompetent at catching criminals and they knew it. So these cruel and unusual "punishments" were not intended for the criminal themself, they were intended to turn that criminal into an object to scare anyone else in the community into proper behavior. This is to try to reduce the crime rate through sheer terror, concealing their abysmal failures to control the real crime rate.
Extreme suffering isn't about changing the soul, it's about scaring away other people, which is kind of the point of hell, I think. Hell isn't there to reform. The point of hell is to say that there is a place beyond reform. People in hell aren't there to be changed, helped, or offered sympathy. They're examples, objects for study, which is somewhat how Dante treats them. Inferno is basically a morality play, a series of historical grotesques providing a lesson in "don't be like these guys." Ironically I do think that was the purpose of Jesus' "hellfire and brimstone" talk. It wasn't punitive, it was exemplary. "Just don't go there. I warned you. It's destruction."
But then why would you believe it?
Exactly. There's believing my dog will greet me at the door, then there's believing St. Peter will meet me at the gate. They seem to require a different level of "data."
And who knows about God, but quite a lot of people care about fairness, and care even more about unfairness. The unfairness of people being born into poverty, living with abuse or dying from pollution hangs heavy on many of us.
How does the prospect of universal reconciliation in the future help to change the unfairness and injustice happening now? Why would anyone profiting from exploitation now be motivated to change their behaviour based on the prospect of a future, time-limited, judgment mercifully tipped in their favour?
Who pays the price for this act of mercy?
If hell is eternal, those there are paying a far higher price than anyone could to "pay for this act of mercy".
My understanding is that those who believe do right things because the Holy Spirit changes them and inspires them so to do - not through fear of Hell. After all, they're assured of forgiveness through Christ anyway. It strikes me that your objection to Universalism applies to Christianity in virtually any form.
For that matter, the reward of earthly wrongdoing is equally finite and someone who is inclined to discount finite rewards and penalties as you imagine them doing is going to discount the finite rewards of earthly wrongdoing anyway.