I think there is a contradiction between claiming to love everyone and doing some people infinite harm.
I don't think you can just say the two things are contradictory. You're starting with an emotion (love), and ending with an action (harm). I think it is necessary to say how the two are related (emotions and actions) before claiming an emotion and an action are contradictory.
As [info]robhu points out, the parallel with limited amounts of harm
As I've pointed out in another reply my aim was not to suggest parrallel or anology, but to query some of your original statements, which I felt were key to your reasoning. (no love with violence. actions assessed apart from motivations)
Either God is not universally loving or he does not send people to Hell: Christians have chosen variations on those themes at various times, I think.
Christians have throughout history affirmed both of those truths.
Christians seem cast in the role of the beaten wife who makes excuses for her husband ("he loves me really; he's done so much for me; I deserve it").
Such parallels completely ignore God's right to judge his creatures.
In conclusion then, the standard evangelical doctrine of Hell contradicts the idea that God is universally loving, and portrays God as abusive and unjust.
Would you consider a non-infinite Hell to contradict the idea that God is universally loving? And be abusive and unjust?
(I haven't tried this line of reasoning, so be prepared for me to back-track quickly. But the prescence of the word infinite does make my inner-mathmo think an analysis style of arguement might be valid.)
I do wonder whether there is anything which God could to which you would see as wrong, or whether anything he does is correct by definition.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
I don't think you can just say the two things are contradictory. You're starting with an emotion (love), and ending with an action (harm). I think it is necessary to say how the two are related (emotions and actions) before claiming an emotion and an action are contradictory.
As [info]robhu points out, the parallel with limited amounts of harm
As I've pointed out in another reply my aim was not to suggest parrallel or anology, but to query some of your original statements, which I felt were key to your reasoning. (no love with violence. actions assessed apart from motivations)
Either God is not universally loving or he does not send people to Hell: Christians have chosen variations on those themes at various times, I think.
Christians have throughout history affirmed both of those truths.
Christians seem cast in the role of the beaten wife who makes excuses for her husband ("he loves me really; he's done so much for me; I deserve it").
Such parallels completely ignore God's right to judge his creatures.
In conclusion then, the standard evangelical doctrine of Hell contradicts the idea that God is universally loving, and portrays God as abusive and unjust.
Would you consider a non-infinite Hell to contradict the idea that God is universally loving? And be abusive and unjust?
(I haven't tried this line of reasoning, so be prepared for me to back-track quickly. But the prescence of the word infinite does make my inner-mathmo think an analysis style of arguement might be valid.)
I do wonder whether there is anything which God could to which you would see as wrong, or whether anything he does is correct by definition.
Correct by definition.