My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...

[Sagasa]

God has told us what sin is and the punishment it deserves, if you want to argue this you need to get outside and shout to heaven your complaint, no matter what I say or you say to me, we can not change what God deems just.

I don't understand how turning a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking back when their home was being destroyed could ever be considered "Just".

It might be just from God's point of view, but it doesn't change my perception of how abhorrent it is and how it further reinforces my conviction of wanting to have nothing to do with such a callous being, much less worship Him.

[Godscreated]

God has told us what sin is and the punishment it deserves, if you want to argue this you need to get outside and shout to heaven your complaint, no matter what I say or you say to me, we can not change what God deems just.

I don't understand how turning a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking back when their home was being destroyed could ever be considered "Just".

It might be just from God's point of view, but it doesn't change my perception of how abhorrent it is and how it further reinforces my conviction of wanting to have nothing to do with such a callous being, much less worship Him.

They were told not to turn and look at the destruction of the cities, she disobeyed God's command, thus sin and that particular sin carried a particular punishment. God spared all their lives by letting them leave the city and asked one thing from them, not to look back, when she did, she showed her loyalty to the sin filled city even after God had spared her life, if her heart had been with God she would have lived on. There was nothing unjust in God's action, He showed mercy on her and she rejected it, for a look at what God had already condemned.

[Darwinian]

They were told not to turn and look at the destruction of the cities, she disobeyed God's command, thus sin and that particular sin carried a particular punishment. God spared all their lives by letting them leave the city and asked one thing from them, not to look back, when she did, she showed her loyalty to the sin filled city even after God had spared her life, if her heart had been with God she would have lived on. There was nothing unjust in God's action, He showed mercy on her and she rejected it, for a look at what God had already condemned.

[reality-check]

IT NEVER HAPPENED!

[/reality-check]

[jstrodel]

There is no rigorous way to relate quantity of punishment to objective experience. People just make something up. Punishment does not exist inside of actions, it is exists inside of the people who punish it.

So when people say things like "eternal punishment is unjust" like they are talking about a mathematical relationship, it isn't like this at all.

Why should anyone believe that eternal punishment is unjust? Why should repayment of sin follow one curve of judgement than another curve?

There is no way to prove that punishment of an action should be lesser or greater. I challenge anyone here to "prove" that a burglar "deserves" 2-5 years of punishment as opposed to 25-50. Where does the word "deserve" find its reference? To the person making the claim. It is made up.

People have a sense that there must be punishment for crimes, this is from God, but that sense doesn't tell us exactly how it should be done. People also have a sense that there must be mercy and impartiality applied, and this also comes from God. But there is absolutely no way to mathmatize this, no way to prove that people deserve one punishment about another.

There is nothing "scientific" or "logical" about saying that eternal punishment is necessarily an unjust punishment, because there no scientific or logical relationship between actions and the punishments they deserve. It is more like there are different circumstances, repeat offenders deserve worst circumstances, motives, culture, level of knowledge about what was happening and many other things color the nature of what happened.

That all said, I am not sure that the Bible necessarily teaches that people will always receive eternal punishment, without exception or any chance of being accepted. When you look at what Jesus says to the thief on the cross, who repents of his sins, he says "today you will be with me in paradise". He didn't require the thief to meet a faith test (other than humbling himself) or to have a sanctified life and he didn't reject the thief even though he was a condemned criminal.

I am not sure that it is not possible for God to accept people into heaven under these same circumstances, as they are dying like the thief, right after they die, or at some other time.

But there is no reason that eternal punishment is necessarily unjust. No one will ever prove that in any rigorous terms, they will just use psuedo-logical terminology to make points that seem like common sense, really they are just people arguing their pressupositions that punishment should follow the form that is acceptable to them or their culture.

[Ryantology]

Can you prove that eternal punishment is just in rigorous terms?

[Tex]

Eternal punishment is just so long as the crime is equally eternal.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which no crime would be, assuming some christian fantasy land in the hereafter. End of.

[Godscreated]

They were told not to turn and look at the destruction of the cities, she disobeyed God's command, thus sin and that particular sin carried a particular punishment. God spared all their lives by letting them leave the city and asked one thing from them, not to look back, when she did, she showed her loyalty to the sin filled city even after God had spared her life, if her heart had been with God she would have lived on. There was nothing unjust in God's action, He showed mercy on her and she rejected it, for a look at what God had already condemned.

[reality-check]

IT NEVER HAPPENED!

[/reality-check]

Still setting on the side lines I see.

[Tex]

"Which no crime would be, assuming some christian fantasy land in the hereafter. End of."

The really bad Christian answer for this situation is, "The rejection of the Grace of the Most Heavenly Awesome Mighty SuperDuper Jesus". However, technically, its right. The good Christian answer for this situation is this:

Lets say I own a farm and you're a hired hand. You're also a douche. You continue being a douche for a long time, both to me and the other hired hands. Finally, I kick you off the property. I say you're allowed to come back when you quit being a douche for good. You never do. Am I unjust for not allowing you onto the property? You never met the menial goal of "stop being a douche". However, I'm not the only farm owner, and all the other farm owners kicked off their douches too. Now there's only one place you can go, and its called "Mt. FuckItSucks", and on Mt. FuckItSucks you have to live with a whole bunch of other douchers just like you. Now we have to rename the place "Mt. FuckItReallySucks". Has there been any crime of any farm owner or hired hand? Nope.

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends, is the end of the property a cliff? Did you just put the boot to my ass and the fall? You can be an asshole and still be "in the right"(insofar as one might argue it)...I hope this dawned on you while drawing your pathetic analogy.....
(speaking of analogies, I wonder how many believers have realized that the reason that they only have analogies is that they have no experience of "the real deal"?)

Are there, Tex, other farm owners?