/lit/ - Literature

>>21624282
>Wrong. It's everywhere.
You are conflating passages that describe eschatological judgement with a specific justification for that judgement that was anachronistically imposed on the text by later interpreters in the Middle Ages and early modern period. It is actually far from clear in the original text of the New Testament that the punishment is "eternal" as we would understand the term today (i.e. endless duration); you merely have to look at contemporary texts of the era that the NT was written in in order to realize that the term "aionios" is frequently used to refer to limited dispensations of time.

>Death, which is so terrible in this life, is desired in hell by the damned; but they never shall find it.
>They would wish, as a remedy for their eternal ruin, to be exterminated and destroyed. But "there is no poison of destruction in them.”
I shouldn't have to point out that this is an extremely sadistic point of view that seems tremendously alien to a benevolent disposition. Can a satisfactory justification be given for God to sustain these perpetually miserable beings in existence in constant agony as opposed to simply annihilating them and being done with it? Is God's vindictiveness truly so boundless that he must seethe with rage for all eternity over being slighted by what are - in comparison to him, metaphysically - nullities, nothings, mere shadows entirely dependent on him for their existences?

>Which is why offenses against him are infinite and merit infinite chastisement.
I feel that you have refused to engage with any of my arguments and have merely bluntly reasserted your point without proper justification. I will press you: in what manner, exactly, are they infinite? Do they inflict any degree of harm on God himself? No. Are the agents themselves that commit the offenses infinite? No. Is the knowledge of the offense inexhaustible and omniscient? No. Are the effects of the offense infinite? Obviously this would imply that a finite cause is responsible for an infinite effect, which is impossible, so no, this cannot be.

So in what manner is the offense infinite, that can make logical sense? I feel that those who use this argument are merely using the word "infinite" repeatedly without actually examining what the word means and what it's being applied to.