[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[The Grand Nudger]

Children refuse to take their antibiotics too. There's no pass here, anywhere, for your god.

We don't disagree on the content of what's happening, and we don't disagree on the moral import of failing to help.

You accept this demonstration of bad character, and believe that it's somehow a required part of a desirable end. I do not. Ironically, this began with you refusing to accept a demonstration of bad character, by snippet.

This is why you can be a christian, and why I cannot.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Children refuse to take their antibiotics too.  There's no pass here, anywhere, for your god.

Unless you specifically want to discuss how salvation applies to minors or individuals who are cognitively compromised, you are misrepresenting my beliefs. Emergency Medical Services do not view children refusing service as equivalent to adults refusing service, for obvious reasons.

Don't say we agree on the content of what's happening and then go to lengths to change my analogy.

[Smaug]

Here's another question: is eternal torture actually a punishment or rather an act of revenge?

Let's see. Punishment (whether it's effective or not) is something meant to correct a person's misbehaviour. With the exception of capital punishment which occurs when a society considers the offender to be too dangerous or irredeemable. The main point here is that in a healthy society a punishment is more of a pragmatic thing and not something driven by emotion.

Revenge, on the other hand, is an emotionally-driven act which is a result of a heavy loss or mental insecurity.

Abrahamic faiths claim that God is all-powerfull and he loves his creation. So what's the point of eternal torture in Hell then? If God is not so all-powerfull after all and he sees the mortal sinners as irredeemable and cannot correct them somehow then why not show some mercy and just disintegrate their souls? Why the sadistic eternal torture? It's definitely over-acting and not an act of a wise, loving creature.

Another related question: why is blasphemy a mortal sin? Does an all-powerfull, all-loving God feel insecure because of some infinitesimaly weak mortal calling him names or just disagreeing with him? Does it hurt him so badly that he finds it fitting to send such a person to eternal torture in Hell? Looks too much like an act of petty revenge of an insecure person desperate for constant positive recognition.

[The Grand Nudger]

Children refuse to take their antibiotics too.  There's no pass here, anywhere, for your god.

Unless you specifically want to discuss how salvation applies to minors or individuals who are cognitively compromised, you are misrepresenting my beliefs. Emergency Medical Services do not view children refusing service as equivalent to adults refusing service, for obvious reasons.

Don't say we agree on the content of what's happening and then go to lengths to change my analogy.

We agree on the content.  You don't believe that everyone will be saved.

You offer legal reasons as an explanation for your failure to help, I won't find such reasons credible in the case of a god nor can they answer an objection to doing a bad thing. I find the bad thing you deem acceptable - for reasons - unacceptable for the same reason that you find torture and annihilation unacceptable, and for the same reason you would find a human failure to help unacceptable. A consistent application of the comments you offered, from your cult, would deem this to be as unacceptable as the object of it's own consideration.

How repugnant, then, to those same notions of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that god fails to help the the wicked dead; that for the sins of a brief, earthly life they are to be left to die in spirit.

We can agree about the contents of a superstition - and we do, and disagree about whether or not worship is appropriate - which we do. I simply do not have to be wrong about any aspect of your faith in order to object to it, and I'm not. This is why the constant refrain from the faithful...that so and so has their beliefs all wrong, is fruitless. The underlying belief, intuitively pleasing to christians (and obviously to you) is that a non-believers objections must depend on them being wrong, or just not knowing something. That if they understood things correctly, they would not object. This is a trivially false belief. My very correct understanding that you believe god to be a savior, and that only some will be saved, is why I object.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You offer legal reasons as an explanation for your failure to help, I won't find such reasons credible in the case of a god nor can they answer an objection to doing a bad thing.

I offer legal examples that demonstrate you have in fact changed the meaning and content. Until you correct these inaccuracies, talk of badness is insignificant.

You already understood this: "My objection is wrong, you contend, because it's factually inaccurate - not because it's morally inaccurate" -The Grand Nudger

[The Grand Nudger]

Not to me, it isn't. It's obviously a significant badness if it literaly prevents me from being christian even if I assume that the christian god is real and does exactly what you say it does.

This, John, is my point.

It's not for getting your superstitions wrong that I reject them. I reject your faith assuming that -you- got it right. You understand this perfectly well when your own cult rejects some other cults superstitions for the exact reason that I reject yours. You could easily afford me the same, and will have no explanation for denying me that. That's a door you opened, and can't slam in my face for convenience sake.

You don't have to agree with me, or be stuck in the same position as I am, incapable of signing off on christ. I just want you to understand and accept that a person who objects to your religion can do so without getting your religion wrong. We look at the same item, an item that you proposed - and I have one moral assessment of it..you, another (or none, essentially, lol). I call that christian moral degeneracy. You call it faith. I see a significant badness, and, like the author of your snippet...rejecting that badness and god-ness are congruent, decide that god either does not do what you say it does..or, that if it does...as you say it does, I'm uninterested in being a party to it.

The people who believe in torture and god-annihilation, beliefs you reject, don't find them any more objectionable than you find a failure to help. You could understand my position with respect to you beliefs, by understanding your own position with respect to theirs.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I just want you to understand and accept that a person who objects to your religion can do so without getting your religion wrong.

The moment you treat an adult's consenting abilities as equivalent to a child's consenting abilities, you've not only gotten my religion wrong, you've gotten psychology, and our legal system wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you or do you not believe that some souls will be left to die, even though it is within gods power to grant them life?

I object to such a thing on moral grounds. Do you understand? If that's what happens then I can't, in good conscience, be christian.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Do you or do you not believe that some souls will be left to die, even though it is within gods power to grant them life?

No; I do not believe that.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that you're engaging in this conversation genuinely. It's okay for you to believe that there will be souls that die. You've already explained that you believe as much. There's no gotcha here.

I simply object to the death of souls for the same reason that I would object to the death of living bodies - when some moral agent who had the power to help, for -whatever reason- failed.

You can insist "but those souls objected" - fine, but that's a reason for failure - and that failure is what I object to, not some specific reason that any of you superstitious lot console yourselves with. We're looking at the same purported event or act - you don't like the way I describe it, and you don't end up with the same moral assessment - but it isn't on account of my getting the relevant facts of your beliefs wrong.

I'll wait until you can accept the possibility of some person objecting to your accurately understood beliefs, as you believe that you can object to other's accurately understood beliefs. At the end of the day, I fully expect you to disagree with me - you are a christian, after all. Which of us has the accurate moral understanding is not important to our convo here (and I assume that we both insist that ours is the accurate one), and not at all determined by us sharing our factual assessment (which, again, we do). If you can't get past the need for your opposition to be factually wrong when they make a moral objection, you'll never be able to address our concerns, and this is to the detriment of your own faith and it's command of rational discourse. You could, fully within your faith, and fully from your faith, suggest that I shouldn't do or affirm the legitimacy of anything which assaults my conscience. Gods built in canary, and being damned by our own judgements, and all.

You could have went that way. Oh well, christian degeneracy at work. Can you understand why, without falling into silly christian posturing, a person can get your faith right and object to being a member in the same way that you believe that your snippet gets other's faiths right, and objects? You're speaking to a person who holds to a moral system in which every relevant aspect of the contents of your faith is immoral. A person who could hear you tell what you believe your god is, and what your god does - and say..'yup, sounds fucking awful".