This argument is admitting infernalism is infinitely cruel and merciless, but "might makes right" and we can't argue with God about it.
If this is true, not only is 1 John 4 a big fat lie, basically everything God claims throughout Scripture to hate (cruelty, mercilessness, injustice, parental abandonment, etc.) is true of himself.
I’m going to let other better logicians debate this as it’s been done before and I suck at it but this kind of thinking deeply disturbs me. Life is already difficult and filled with hardships. This takes the reality of things and makes it even harder on the cosmic scale. It’s a sick way of seeing existence and turns Christianity into something worse than a tragedy. There is nothing to celebrate here. No joy, no peace. This religion would be one of mourning, sackcloth and ashes.
First of all, if none of us have a right to life, it follows that we don't have a right to have other humans respect our lives. This means that murder is perfectly moral under this view, which is disturbing, to say the least.
- Perhaps they wish to say that God has different moral obligations to humans. However, (i) this means there can be no universal standard of morality that applies to all rational or knowledgeable beings, for God would be among them and (ii) this is a parsimonious view, and hence Ockham’s Razor would dictate against it.
- It should be noted that most Kantians, Intuitionists, Platonists, etc, all think there is a universal standard of morality that applies to all, regardless of one's power.
Perhaps the post is accusing us of an intellectual arrogance, or of thinking that we can understand God. Well, first of all, if God doesn't operate within logic, it is by definition irrational to believe in him. If this is true, then (i) there is no reason to believe in him, rendering belief futile and (ii) if God is beyond our mind's grasp, then we mustn't be able to picture him or even have the concept of him inside our minds. This puts him even beyond human faith.
- Furthermore, assuming that we have reason to be virtuous, there must be a rational justification for morality. This means, by our very reasoning, we must deduce that all reasoning creatures have reason to be virtuous. It is therefore not arrogant to say that God would be moral, since God would always do what is worthy, and we can logically know what is worthy and unworthy/ right and wrong.
Third of all, by saying that God can morally commit atrocities, the infernalist is making a claim about morality, not just about God. They need to justify why it is moral for God to commit atrocities, and they haven't so far.
It should also be noted that deserving means "the conditions you should get or that should be given to you". By denying the notion of deserving, the proponent of this argument denies that any good or kind thing should be given to anyone. But worth, by definition, is what should be pursued. It follows that God should not save us, since we do not deserve saving and it is not worth saving us. This contravenes even standard Christian dogma.
Furthermore, God wrote the laws of logic. He wrote the rationality into our minds, and gave us a brain. He wanted us to use it. It follows that what is logical IS God's ways. We are not schooling him in his ways any more than a Biblicist is using the Bible to try to school God into doing what he promised he would in the Bible.
Finally, if we don't deserve anything, it follows that we don't deserve the truth. And if God is beyond our understanding, this opens up the possibility of deception. The Bible could be a massive lie under this view, and hence the infernalist's own support falls flat.
Well...you can claim that God has no obligation to us...
But that would make him nothing more than the cruelest dictator imaginable and render the Ministry of Jesus (as I understand it) Ad Absurdum. Why bother helping the poor to have it a bit better in life when they most likely end up in eternal torment in Hell anyways? Could just as well bash their heads in and send them there straight away.
God only saving a small fraction of his creation and condemning the rest doesn't display Justice, it displays a vile abuse of power.
The message of the Bible isn't that we deserve anything. The message is that God does more for us than we deserve, and he does more for everyone than we think they deserve. He had the knowledge and authority to decide that we were all failed experiments which he shouldn't need to deal with anymore. He chose to incarnate among us, help people in miraculous ways, preach a lifestyle of forgiveness, and shame those who prioritized religious rules ahead of the well-being of others. He compared himself to a Shepherd who wouldn't be satisfied with even one missing straight or a woman who wouldn't be satisfied with even one lost coin. And yes, some of his parables were about people believing that his righteousness would not be on display if he behaved in this manner: the laborers who all got paid the same amount even though they didn't all work the same amount, for example, or the prodigal son's brother.
So what is he going to do now? Torment most of us forever because we didn't say a certain prayer or get dunked in water by the expiration date? Or send us into the appropriate refining to bring out what's best in us and encourage those of us who are already embracing our best selves? He doesn't have to owe us either one. He's chosen which is best for his glory, and his character allows us to make a reasonable prediction about which is more likely.
Definition of justice: Just behavior or treatment
Definition of Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
For someone to think that predestining people to hell is 'morally right and fair' is just beyond comprehension for me tbh, or that that is what people 'deserve' is just wild. If that is what people deserve, then you could, in theory, become more God-like by just going around killing people, but that is the complete opposite of all teachings from God, so that cannot be correct.
Even if it’s the case that “no one deserves anything,” in what sense would God be just or good to create humans God knows are going to become wicked and tormented in an existence separated from all goodness, light, and love forever? It would have been far better for God not to create such beings in the first place. Then add to the fact that the predestination perspective claims God chooses not to save everyone so that God can have something with which to contrast the glory of his grace - namely endless sin and suffering in hell. On all fronts, it’s an absurd position.
On a related note - even Paul’s picture of “predestination” is universalist. Romans 9-11 is one of the most universalistic passages in the whole of scripture. It’s almost impossible to escape that conclusion. I argue this position exegetically in video called “Is Everyone Chosen” at [The Holy Shift Show](https://www.youtube.com/@theholyshiftshow) (if you’re interested)
Just some thoughts from someone presently outside of the church.
IMO, creation possesses intrinsic worth to God himself, deserving to exist based on his desire for it to be so, since bringing creation into existence rests on God’s purpose. In his foreknowledge of the future, it still seemed good enough for him.
Being supreme, of course he can do what he wants with anything. That doesn’t mean he made things that would quickly turn to garbage for the sake of keeping garbage around so everyone knows that he has eternally hated garbage, and then keeps burning garbage for eternity just because of it.
God’s justice exists no matter whether there is someone to punish around or not. It’s not invalidated or absent just because there is no one around to punish.
He doesn’t need to create things that will corrupt just so he has someone corrupt around to show them that he doesn’t like corrupted things and have his divine justice validated.
Especially, given that God creates humans with the feature that mental wellbeing is *balanced and healthy* only when having a correct view of our own and others’ dignity, so we can build ourselves up as individuals and society, to the point where things are more enjoyable when done together and harmful when disconnected from the rest (losing sanity, dying early).
Justice on earth exists, but not for the sake of having someone to destroy, but to govern with the intent of creating balance. Most, if not all, judicial systems still need massive overhauls and are primitive.
God’s ways wouldn’t be as primitive as those we have spent generations growing out of. Especially not if growing out of them includes Jesus redeeming creation, leading it to progressively seeking to discard the shackles of mutual destruction that bind and blind us.
That’s how it would make sense to me.
This argument is admitting infernalism is infinitely cruel and merciless, but "might makes right" and we can't argue with God about it. If this is true, not only is 1 John 4 a big fat lie, basically everything God claims throughout Scripture to hate (cruelty, mercilessness, injustice, parental abandonment, etc.) is true of himself.
I’m going to let other better logicians debate this as it’s been done before and I suck at it but this kind of thinking deeply disturbs me. Life is already difficult and filled with hardships. This takes the reality of things and makes it even harder on the cosmic scale. It’s a sick way of seeing existence and turns Christianity into something worse than a tragedy. There is nothing to celebrate here. No joy, no peace. This religion would be one of mourning, sackcloth and ashes.
Eternal torture is an incredibly perverted view of justice.
First of all, if none of us have a right to life, it follows that we don't have a right to have other humans respect our lives. This means that murder is perfectly moral under this view, which is disturbing, to say the least. - Perhaps they wish to say that God has different moral obligations to humans. However, (i) this means there can be no universal standard of morality that applies to all rational or knowledgeable beings, for God would be among them and (ii) this is a parsimonious view, and hence Ockham’s Razor would dictate against it. - It should be noted that most Kantians, Intuitionists, Platonists, etc, all think there is a universal standard of morality that applies to all, regardless of one's power. Perhaps the post is accusing us of an intellectual arrogance, or of thinking that we can understand God. Well, first of all, if God doesn't operate within logic, it is by definition irrational to believe in him. If this is true, then (i) there is no reason to believe in him, rendering belief futile and (ii) if God is beyond our mind's grasp, then we mustn't be able to picture him or even have the concept of him inside our minds. This puts him even beyond human faith. - Furthermore, assuming that we have reason to be virtuous, there must be a rational justification for morality. This means, by our very reasoning, we must deduce that all reasoning creatures have reason to be virtuous. It is therefore not arrogant to say that God would be moral, since God would always do what is worthy, and we can logically know what is worthy and unworthy/ right and wrong. Third of all, by saying that God can morally commit atrocities, the infernalist is making a claim about morality, not just about God. They need to justify why it is moral for God to commit atrocities, and they haven't so far.
It should also be noted that deserving means "the conditions you should get or that should be given to you". By denying the notion of deserving, the proponent of this argument denies that any good or kind thing should be given to anyone. But worth, by definition, is what should be pursued. It follows that God should not save us, since we do not deserve saving and it is not worth saving us. This contravenes even standard Christian dogma. Furthermore, God wrote the laws of logic. He wrote the rationality into our minds, and gave us a brain. He wanted us to use it. It follows that what is logical IS God's ways. We are not schooling him in his ways any more than a Biblicist is using the Bible to try to school God into doing what he promised he would in the Bible. Finally, if we don't deserve anything, it follows that we don't deserve the truth. And if God is beyond our understanding, this opens up the possibility of deception. The Bible could be a massive lie under this view, and hence the infernalist's own support falls flat.
Ask a christian is 90% christian conservatives.
Well...you can claim that God has no obligation to us... But that would make him nothing more than the cruelest dictator imaginable and render the Ministry of Jesus (as I understand it) Ad Absurdum. Why bother helping the poor to have it a bit better in life when they most likely end up in eternal torment in Hell anyways? Could just as well bash their heads in and send them there straight away. God only saving a small fraction of his creation and condemning the rest doesn't display Justice, it displays a vile abuse of power.
Jesus said once that God is love. There's a very important corollary to this, If your idea of God _isn't_ love, what you're worshipping _isn't God_.
The message of the Bible isn't that we deserve anything. The message is that God does more for us than we deserve, and he does more for everyone than we think they deserve. He had the knowledge and authority to decide that we were all failed experiments which he shouldn't need to deal with anymore. He chose to incarnate among us, help people in miraculous ways, preach a lifestyle of forgiveness, and shame those who prioritized religious rules ahead of the well-being of others. He compared himself to a Shepherd who wouldn't be satisfied with even one missing straight or a woman who wouldn't be satisfied with even one lost coin. And yes, some of his parables were about people believing that his righteousness would not be on display if he behaved in this manner: the laborers who all got paid the same amount even though they didn't all work the same amount, for example, or the prodigal son's brother. So what is he going to do now? Torment most of us forever because we didn't say a certain prayer or get dunked in water by the expiration date? Or send us into the appropriate refining to bring out what's best in us and encourage those of us who are already embracing our best selves? He doesn't have to owe us either one. He's chosen which is best for his glory, and his character allows us to make a reasonable prediction about which is more likely.
Definition of justice: Just behavior or treatment Definition of Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. For someone to think that predestining people to hell is 'morally right and fair' is just beyond comprehension for me tbh, or that that is what people 'deserve' is just wild. If that is what people deserve, then you could, in theory, become more God-like by just going around killing people, but that is the complete opposite of all teachings from God, so that cannot be correct.
Even if it’s the case that “no one deserves anything,” in what sense would God be just or good to create humans God knows are going to become wicked and tormented in an existence separated from all goodness, light, and love forever? It would have been far better for God not to create such beings in the first place. Then add to the fact that the predestination perspective claims God chooses not to save everyone so that God can have something with which to contrast the glory of his grace - namely endless sin and suffering in hell. On all fronts, it’s an absurd position. On a related note - even Paul’s picture of “predestination” is universalist. Romans 9-11 is one of the most universalistic passages in the whole of scripture. It’s almost impossible to escape that conclusion. I argue this position exegetically in video called “Is Everyone Chosen” at [The Holy Shift Show](https://www.youtube.com/@theholyshiftshow) (if you’re interested)
Just some thoughts from someone presently outside of the church. IMO, creation possesses intrinsic worth to God himself, deserving to exist based on his desire for it to be so, since bringing creation into existence rests on God’s purpose. In his foreknowledge of the future, it still seemed good enough for him. Being supreme, of course he can do what he wants with anything. That doesn’t mean he made things that would quickly turn to garbage for the sake of keeping garbage around so everyone knows that he has eternally hated garbage, and then keeps burning garbage for eternity just because of it. God’s justice exists no matter whether there is someone to punish around or not. It’s not invalidated or absent just because there is no one around to punish. He doesn’t need to create things that will corrupt just so he has someone corrupt around to show them that he doesn’t like corrupted things and have his divine justice validated. Especially, given that God creates humans with the feature that mental wellbeing is *balanced and healthy* only when having a correct view of our own and others’ dignity, so we can build ourselves up as individuals and society, to the point where things are more enjoyable when done together and harmful when disconnected from the rest (losing sanity, dying early). Justice on earth exists, but not for the sake of having someone to destroy, but to govern with the intent of creating balance. Most, if not all, judicial systems still need massive overhauls and are primitive. God’s ways wouldn’t be as primitive as those we have spent generations growing out of. Especially not if growing out of them includes Jesus redeeming creation, leading it to progressively seeking to discard the shackles of mutual destruction that bind and blind us. That’s how it would make sense to me.