I doubt anyone would try to argue that a criminal who thought he could get away with a crime came to this conclusion because he didn’t see any compelling evidence that jail existed. If that were the case we’d question his sanity, and rightly so. The vast majority of citizens have had to deal with the criminal justice system in one way or another, even if it’s just serving jury duty or paying a traffic fine. Unlike the idea of god or hell, we don’t have to take anyone’s word on the existence of police, courts or jail.

Jim, I was thinking that the prospect of future punishment would give someone pause before sinning. I don’t think original sin changes anything here since it does not rule out salvation (nor do I subscribe to the view of the doctrine you appear to have).

Regarding the restoration of all things, I would first of all contend that it is found in the NT (e.g., Acts 3:21; Romans 5:18; Colossians 3:19-20). Pick up a literal translation of the NT (e.g., Young’s Literal Translation, Green’s Literal Translation, J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible) and you will find that the doctrine of eternal punishment cannot be found, it is age-during or age-abiding punishment. Certain ancient Jewish sources also point to a punishment of a limited time frame (I believe that there is one that says a soul will spend a maximum of 14 days in Gehenna). Universalism can also be found in Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. It is an ancient belief.

It has made a come back since the Reformation but is not an official position of any denomination I am aware of (some denominations of the 18th and 19th century were absorbed into Unitarian Universalism). Rather Christian universalists are spread throughout many/all denominations. You may want to keep an eye on the Christian Universalist Association (not a denomination) which was founded in 2007.

A deterrent to what? According to doctrine, we’re automatically guilty due to original sin. You might make the argument that the more a person sins, the more hell he gets. Of course, I was under the impression that sinful acts flow from the original sin nature. Ugh, the doctrine is all so convoluted, I guess you can read pretty much anything into it that you choose.

Your take on hell is interesting, if unusual. All in all, I’d say your view is less unjust than the eternal sufferings crowd, though I fear you’re in a tiny minority. Or are things shifting? Any major denominations or sub-groups embracing this ultimate restoration of all things idea? Especially any conservative ones? Anyhow, thanks for your input.

I’d grant that yes, in theory, punishment in the afterlife can act as a deterrent. In reality a Christian is just as likely to sin as an atheist or a member of a faith that lacks hell or an equivalent. In addition it’s still unjust as it’s trivially easy for someone considering committing a crime to verify the existence of jail, but impossible for someone considering committing a sin to verify the existence of hell (or god for that matter). I won’t get into the ridiculousness of needing a deterrent for your own creation’s actions or the inadequacy of the free will explanation.

* I did not claim that education can only come about through pain.

Jim:

* You grant that earthly punishment can act as a deterrent so you must grant that punishment in the afterlife can also act as a deterrent. It seems you’ve refuted your own assertion that hell serves no purpose.

* I never said that punishment somehow balances the crime nor did I claim pain is the only method to bring about correction.

* Yes, the Christian would have to be sanctified in some way upon death because he is not of perfect character.

Or, as someone (Bertrand Russell?) once said, “An infinite Being, possessing infinite mercy, could not logically condemn His children to an infinite punishment for finite crimes.

VD: ” Everyone makes foolish decisions that combine short-term pleasure with long-term pain, and the fact that a correct choice should be completely obvious to any rational
individual . . . ”

It’s not so much that a great many individuals choose to defy God by trading short-term pleasure for long-term torment, but rather, a matter of them NOT believing God or his eternal punishment is reality and not just a fable. Or, perhaps the Christian notion that ANYTHING can be forgiven weakens their resolve to obey their God instantly, and at all times.

It takes a known murderer off the street, thereby thwarting another such act.

It serves as a warning to others that certain behaviors are not acceptable to society at large, and will be punished-perhaps persuading some to think twice before they commit a crime.

It fulfills a need for vengeance in many people; not saying that this is necessarily the best motivating factor, but…most of us like to see people get their ‘what fors’ now and again, logically justified or not.

However, in no way does my imprisonment ever even begin to balance the books for the crime I’ve committed. It’s apples and oranges. That’s the problem with hell, temporary or eternal; it serves no purpose. One might argue differently on the weight of my third point, but I’d argue that actions initiated solely by revenge are irrational, and unjust.

As far as hell’s ‘corrective nature’ goes, this just seems to be another murky attempt at defending the indefensible. What, is some torment required to straighten out certain immoral characteristics of a person’s nature? But certainly everybody falls short of perfection, even Christians. Don’t Christians continue to sin, right up to the day they die? Will they need a little time in the purging fires as well, then? Or does having accepted Jesus somehow whitewash them in the eyes of God? Then I’d ask, why not use the same process on the others, instead of torturing them first? Is it a question of free will? But, then wouldn’t all the torturing violate that principle? And around we go.

So much for another torturously construed argument.

Regardless,

A.Who exactly decides what’s “proportional”? If I curse the name of God, do I deserve the same punishment as a serial-rapist and killer?
B.Since the Jews make less of a fuss about heaven as Christians do, this is a question I have for Christians:
I do think that if God is a father-figure, he should have some means of educating unruly Children. That said, why must he educate them in completely barbaric and violent ways? When I was unruly, all I got was a severe talking-to. I didn’t have to be burnt with burning feces (That’s Jewish tradition for ya) just so I could start acting nicely. This is an important distinction, since you said that hell is supposed to educate and not coerce, or rather “persuade” and not “coerce”. In that respect, you are completely incorrect: “to persuade” is to use reasoning and logic to create a positive outcome. To coerce is to use violence. God, then, uses violence and not logic when he tortures souls in hell. Torture is not a means for persuading people.

* If the punishments in hell are proportional to the sins of each person then they are, by definition, just.

* God’s corrective punishment and eventual restoration of all things is consistent with a God who will do all things necessary to save all of creation.

* The analogy of hurting someone until they scream “Uncle” is not an apt analogy. A better analogy is a parent punishing and educating a child to make the child a better person. Persuasion (as opposed to coercion) does not necessarily violate free will.

* The nature of atonement through the blood of Christ is hotly debated and I don’t have time to go into it. Suffice it to say that the purpose of hell is both to punish and to correct and therefore it does not directly overlap the purpose of Christ’s death that you state.

* Revelation 14:11 and 19:3 do not say the smoke will go up for an eternity, rather they say the smoke will go up “to the ages of the ages” (Young’s Literal Translation).

* Matthew 25:46 says that the damned will go away to kolasin aionion, “age-abiding correction” (J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible). This underlines the finite nature of the punishment as well as its corrective nature.

The second half of your post is not entirely accurate. The Torah does not provide details on the afterlife but it does mention Sheol (the abode of the dead) in passing. The resurrection of the dead is mentioned in Daniel 12:2. There are numerous Jewish documents from before the Christian era with details concerning the afterlife. Thus, there is no basis in asserting that hell is a foreign import into Christianity needed to explain Christ’s death since hell was well-entrenched in Judaism when Christianity arrived on the scene (though it should be pointed out our stereotypical views of hell may not match first-century Jewish/Christian views of hell).

Due to the lateness of the Zoroastrian primary sources it is difficult to reconstruct what Zoroastrians believed during the Babylonian exile. I am not aware of Mithraism containing a belief in a future bodily resurrection and judgment. The Jewish resurrection beliefs tie in with OT motifs meaning theories positing borrowing from pagans provide no explanatory power.