Christians lie that ultimate justice is not served or is a fiction if there is no eternal punishment. That is an interesting argument. It denies that Hell is merely what happens if you keep out of Heaven. It really is a punishment like somebody being sent to prison. The doctrine goes too far in accusing those who think there is no Hell of being the enemies of justice. It may be unfair that ultimate justice is not possible but that does not mean there is no justice as in a principle that needs to be served if possible. You are basically saying that justice is rubbish if it cannot be administered! Thus ultimate justice does not imply there is a Hell.

Clearly if God does punish forever and God makes sure that it will be administered and there will be no "Johnny should be punished but owing to the circumstances he cannot be" then if God is good then the ultimate justice argument is being presupposed.  God must arrange it that he will deliver the punishment.

Many Christians have a more emotional take on the Hell idea. They don’t want to feel that some mass murdering tyrant can end up as well off as say a totally dedicated humanitarian. They say that is not justice having the final say.  At least they admit how spiteful they are.  They might say they don't want Hitler in Heaven.  These are the people that say if he repented he should be in Heaven!

It is clearly hate to want somebody unhappy and punished forever when who care if they are happy as long as they cannot hurt anybody any more?

To tell us we are evil and not on the side of the oppressed if we deny Hell for we should seek ultimate justice is simply using the suffering of the oppressed to blackmail us.  Ultimate justice should not need eternal punishment.  We wouldn't put a murderer away forever in jail.  For life maybe but not forever if we could.

Some people want final justice.  But if people are punished and rehabilitated in an eternal cycle then so what?  This is still ultimate justice. It is not final justice but who cares?  Better to have people being good, bad, reforming instead of giving up on them.

The ultimate justice bait is ironic when religion cannot identify good properly or consequently evil properly.

Philosophy of Religion by Muhammad Haron, "How can a theist talk about God in a significant manner when he/she states that God is different from everyone and everything else? When a theist expresses that God is good and in the same breath exclaims that the ruler of his/her time is good, does he/she not face a dilemma in attributing the same character trait to a Being who is beyond description and a human being who can be easily described? For Davies, this is a predicament that needs to be resolved by the theist before being able to advance the arguments regarding God’s existence."

For religion, God is praised for making bad viruses while we are slammed for doing it.  This at best shows that evil cannot be clearly defined and each person is projecting what they want evil to be on how they define evil.

If there is no clear good there is no God as in one whose goodness is clear for us and who is worthy of worship for that reason. If there is no clear good there is no clear evil either.  Jack the Ripper might have been doing what was morally neutral!  Religion says that evil is a defect on God's good creation and God does not make the defect and it happens.  This is supposed to avoid blaming God for evil.  It does no such thing.  It is pure trickery with words.  You cannot call evil a defect or lack when you are too vague on where the defect is or what it is.  Religion says that there is no evil as in power or force or thing but it cannot say that either when it cannot recognise evil right.


No Copyright