Is conscious eternal torment morally justified?
Framework for the Debate
This framework addresses the main presuppositions which will form the guidelines for contention - everyone must agree on them to indulge in the debate.
Given these presuppositions, both supporters and opponents alike may argue for or against the resolution (Is Eternal Torment Morally Justified?).
I will start: Eternal torment is morally justified given the above presuppositions.
Status and Morality
My first contention focuses on the severity of sin based on the status of the being it is being directed towards. This falls in line with general moral intuitions. Surely, the immorality felt by killing an ant or a fly is much different than that of another human since the status of the human is higher than that of the ant or fly. The argument doesn't require societal structures at all.
Now when we consider God, a being of infinite greatness and supremacy the level of immorality rises to infinity. Many times when committing sins, believers are encouraged to not think of the weight of the sin but the greatness of the one we are transgressing: do not look at the smallness of the sin, rather look at the greatness of the One Whom you have disobeyed. Since the more serious a crime is the more serious its punishment should be, all sin against God merits an infinite punishment.
An important consideration with this idea of the level of immorality increasing with higher status is the intentionality of the sin. For example, hitting someone with your car by accident rather than on purpose is much less immoral or even amoral rather than the latter.
Only intentional sin will be counted as was agreed upon in the framework. An intentional sin would be someone who has heard the message of God, its guidelines, and freely transgresses them. People who have never heard the message of God will not be condemned to eternal damnation for their unintentional sins.
Consequences of Sin
While my first contention argues that all sin (given people who have heard of God's message) merits an infinite punishment based on status, this contention shows that some sins based on their consequences merit an eternal punishment.
Many people who reject or who are critical of the teaching of the eternal nature of hell often say that the amount of sins are finite and thus doesn't warrant an eternity in hell. However, what they seem to focus on is the time aspect of the sin rather than their consequences. While an act of sin maybe temporal, the effects of some sins have eternal consequences.
For example, consider heinous sins such as rape or murder. The consequences on the mind/soul of those affected by murder and rape are permanent for all those who have been involved. Since these crimes are arguably are primarily on the mind, their consequences are everlasting. Considering the agreed upon framework of this debate, the soul continues to exist after death and as such the effects continue to last until God relieves them. Murder of an innocent is has an eternal and permanent result, as a terminated life cannot be brought back, ever.
Irrespective of whether the damage is repaired, the punishment should be eternal. An analogy to illustrate, suppose one who was stabbed by another person was hospitalized and brought back to good health in a reasonable span of time. Simply because the pain and damage caused has been repaired, it doesn't mean that the one who wronged doesn't pay the punishment anymore. In fact, they still would pay the same penalty regardless of whether the victim was healed or not. Similarly, because the one whom sin with eternal consequences has been inflicted upon is relieved it doesn't mean the one who has committed the sin is also relieved.
Free Will
This contention shows that Hell is ultimately a choice made by the individual and not be blamed upon God. According to God's message, this entire life is a test, it is a preparation for the next life to come. Those who are righteous and freely follow the guidelines of God's message (after hearing the message) whilst constantly repenting for their inevitable wrong doings will attain paradise and those who choose to not (after hearing the message) will reap the results of their evil deeds, eternal damnation.
There is an important distinction that needs to be made when I say that one chooses to go to hell. Many times, a person would object that it is inconceivable that one would choose to go into a burning fire eternally. However they are forgetting that hell fire is a choice not in the direct sense but in an indirect one, it is a consequence of rejecting the teachings and moral guidelines of God's message. When one chooses to freely reject God's Message, they are simultaneously choosing hell. This is what is meant, and it is in this way that hell fire is a choice made by the individual.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an eternal hell is justified because of the infinite severity of intentional sin due to the infinite status of God. Some sins are indeed infinitely severe due to their everlasting consequences on the soul of an individual and finally, hell fire is essentially an indirect choice made by an individual when they freely choose to reject the message of God. All these reasons strongly support the doctrine of an eternal hell.
Framework for the Debate
This framework addresses the main presuppositions which will form the guidelines for contention - everyone must agree on them to indulge in the debate.
- God is True. God is One; Eternal; Absolute; Infinite; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like Him.
- Hell Fire is an eternal conscious torment and real.
- God both knows what will happen whilst people still having Free Will (Molinism)
- Human Beings have a Soul that exists eternally and is connected to the physical body (Dualism)
- Only intentional sin is weighed, unintentional sin is not. For example, the unlearned would not be punished because it is unintentional whereas people who know about the religion and go against guidelines would be punished.
Given these presuppositions, both supporters and opponents alike may argue for or against the resolution (Is Eternal Torment Morally Justified?).
I will start: Eternal torment is morally justified given the above presuppositions.
Status and Morality
My first contention focuses on the severity of sin based on the status of the being it is being directed towards. This falls in line with general moral intuitions. Surely, the immorality felt by killing an ant or a fly is much different than that of another human since the status of the human is higher than that of the ant or fly. The argument doesn't require societal structures at all.
Now when we consider God, a being of infinite greatness and supremacy the level of immorality rises to infinity. Many times when committing sins, believers are encouraged to not think of the weight of the sin but the greatness of the one we are transgressing: do not look at the smallness of the sin, rather look at the greatness of the One Whom you have disobeyed. Since the more serious a crime is the more serious its punishment should be, all sin against God merits an infinite punishment.
An important consideration with this idea of the level of immorality increasing with higher status is the intentionality of the sin. For example, hitting someone with your car by accident rather than on purpose is much less immoral or even amoral rather than the latter.
Only intentional sin will be counted as was agreed upon in the framework. An intentional sin would be someone who has heard the message of God, its guidelines, and freely transgresses them. People who have never heard the message of God will not be condemned to eternal damnation for their unintentional sins.
Consequences of Sin
While my first contention argues that all sin (given people who have heard of God's message) merits an infinite punishment based on status, this contention shows that some sins based on their consequences merit an eternal punishment.
Many people who reject or who are critical of the teaching of the eternal nature of hell often say that the amount of sins are finite and thus doesn't warrant an eternity in hell. However, what they seem to focus on is the time aspect of the sin rather than their consequences. While an act of sin maybe temporal, the effects of some sins have eternal consequences.
For example, consider heinous sins such as rape or murder. The consequences on the mind/soul of those affected by murder and rape are permanent for all those who have been involved. Since these crimes are arguably are primarily on the mind, their consequences are everlasting. Considering the agreed upon framework of this debate, the soul continues to exist after death and as such the effects continue to last until God relieves them. Murder of an innocent is has an eternal and permanent result, as a terminated life cannot be brought back, ever.
Irrespective of whether the damage is repaired, the punishment should be eternal. An analogy to illustrate, suppose one who was stabbed by another person was hospitalized and brought back to good health in a reasonable span of time. Simply because the pain and damage caused has been repaired, it doesn't mean that the one who wronged doesn't pay the punishment anymore. In fact, they still would pay the same penalty regardless of whether the victim was healed or not. Similarly, because the one whom sin with eternal consequences has been inflicted upon is relieved it doesn't mean the one who has committed the sin is also relieved.
Free Will
This contention shows that Hell is ultimately a choice made by the individual and not be blamed upon God. According to God's message, this entire life is a test, it is a preparation for the next life to come. Those who are righteous and freely follow the guidelines of God's message (after hearing the message) whilst constantly repenting for their inevitable wrong doings will attain paradise and those who choose to not (after hearing the message) will reap the results of their evil deeds, eternal damnation.
There is an important distinction that needs to be made when I say that one chooses to go to hell. Many times, a person would object that it is inconceivable that one would choose to go into a burning fire eternally. However they are forgetting that hell fire is a choice not in the direct sense but in an indirect one, it is a consequence of rejecting the teachings and moral guidelines of God's message. When one chooses to freely reject God's Message, they are simultaneously choosing hell. This is what is meant, and it is in this way that hell fire is a choice made by the individual.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an eternal hell is justified because of the infinite severity of intentional sin due to the infinite status of God. Some sins are indeed infinitely severe due to their everlasting consequences on the soul of an individual and finally, hell fire is essentially an indirect choice made by an individual when they freely choose to reject the message of God. All these reasons strongly support the doctrine of an eternal hell.
