If you think that's an "appeal to common sense" then, well, perhaps it is but I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with that. I think I explained that here (http://pw201.livejournal.com/91140.html?thread=473604#t473604), and you said you were wary of 'obvious' things too.
1. (For utilitarians.) Eternal torment provides its victim with a huge (perhaps infinite) dollop of negative utility But I'm not a utilitarian.
2. (For Christians.) According to the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly told his followers to forgive others any wrongs done to them, and to repay evil with good, and this appears to be intended as a moral imperative. The NT also claims in multiple places that goodness consists of emulating God. But God does continue to dole out goodness on those who are his enemies, He 'causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:45%20&version=31). He sent his son to die for us, He has already done enormously more than we could ever reasonably expect.
emulating Jesus, who reveals the character of God Exactly, and the supreme way Jesus revealed the character of God was by dying on the cross so that the punishment we deserve could be avoided.
3. (For anyone.) Punishment, according to every legal or moral system I've ever heard of, is required to be proportionate to the offence. Eternal torment is by definition not proportionate to finite offences. I agree it's hard to understand from our perspective. Like I said, I think our perspective is so far removed that we can't work it all out logically.
(1) that if our nature (as humans) is really such that in practice none of us, even with intentions as good as humans are capable of without divine intervention, will behave in a particular way, then it is not reasonable to punish not-behaving-in-that-way; When you use say 'in practice' you're removing our responsibility, which I just can't accept because I know that when I do bad things it is because I choose to do so. I've said this a lot in these threads and you've come back with arguments about how it's statistically improbable that anyone would not sin and so on - I agree, but that's not because they have to but because they choose to. Our choices will have consequences (as they should), and "Well everyone else did it too so it's not my fault" is not going to wash I don't think.
For example, if there was a town where everyone stole things, we'd rightly wonder why everyone in the town stole things, but we'd consider that they had done it of their own free will and so deserved to be punished - even if everyone in that town chose to steal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-05-31 11:31 am (UTC)I think I explained that here (http://pw201.livejournal.com/91140.html?thread=473604#t473604), and you said you were wary of 'obvious' things too.
1. (For utilitarians.) Eternal torment provides its victim with a huge (perhaps infinite) dollop of negative utility
But I'm not a utilitarian.
2. (For Christians.) According to the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly told his followers to forgive others any wrongs done to them, and to repay evil with good, and this appears to be intended as a moral imperative. The NT also claims in multiple places that goodness consists of emulating God.
But God does continue to dole out goodness on those who are his enemies, He 'causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:45%20&version=31). He sent his son to die for us, He has already done enormously more than we could ever reasonably expect.
emulating Jesus, who reveals the character of God
Exactly, and the supreme way Jesus revealed the character of God was by dying on the cross so that the punishment we deserve could be avoided.
3. (For anyone.) Punishment, according to every legal or moral system I've ever heard of, is required to be proportionate to the offence. Eternal torment is by definition not proportionate to finite offences.
I agree it's hard to understand from our perspective. Like I said, I think our perspective is so far removed that we can't work it all out logically.
(1) that if our nature (as humans) is really such that in practice none of us, even with intentions as good as humans are capable of without divine intervention, will behave in a particular way, then it is not reasonable to punish not-behaving-in-that-way;
When you use say 'in practice' you're removing our responsibility, which I just can't accept because I know that when I do bad things it is because I choose to do so. I've said this a lot in these threads and you've come back with arguments about how it's statistically improbable that anyone would not sin and so on - I agree, but that's not because they have to but because they choose to. Our choices will have consequences (as they should), and "Well everyone else did it too so it's not my fault" is not going to wash I don't think.
For example, if there was a town where everyone stole things, we'd rightly wonder why everyone in the town stole things, but we'd consider that they had done it of their own free will and so deserved to be punished - even if everyone in that town chose to steal.