I mean, who cares about the anything outside of the Bible in this regard? Jesus states as reported in the Gospels of Matthew: that even those who don't uphold God's laws will be least IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.  17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.  19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew Chapter 5

[20] "The scribes and Pharisees": The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. — Notes on 20

We can see in John precisely this connection to the law Moses brought...

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. — John, Chapter 1

So breaking any of the laws of the Old Testament, commiting Sin, doesn't matter, you'll still be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven just for believing in the equation of Jesus Christ.

11 Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.  12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?  13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.  14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up:  15 That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

 16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.  17For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.  18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. — John, Chapter 3

Thus every Law of Moses, every Sin, can be forgone, cause Jesus doesn't give a damn whether you sin or not.

Just do as Jesus does: transvaluate values, live to your own equation, and bridge distances.

The beatitudes of Jesus Christ show its pretty easy to be blessed:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. 5 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. 10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. — Matthew, Chapter 5

And as Clément Rosset points out in Joyful Cruelty pg 26:

If and only if a concept is answerable to an absolute beatitude can it be recognized as specifically Nietzschean.

Which as I've already claimed numerous times before reading Rosset's book, Nietzsche vibes with Jesus in this exact manner: absolute beatitude.

Each of these attitudes offers counter-cultural and counter-intuitive ways of coming to see and endure the world. John Paul II teaches that “the beatitudes are a self-portrait of Jesus Christ” (Veritatis Splendor). If the Beatitudes are Jesus helping us see his character and disposition, his way of being truly happy and blessed in this life and in the next, then it is worth our time to attend to these eight steps of courage. — POPE John Paul II

I'm literally over here telling it like the fuckin Pope, without even knowing it, because that's how fucking legit my interpretation is... Pope John Paul II, has my back. :strong:

And I'm an atheist...

It may make sense to think of everyone as "God's property" though a more sensible description is that of father to son or daughter. If someone physically harms another, they would be physically harming a son or daughter of a father, where such father will surely be offended. So it is with God. That is not to mention that, according to my understanding, Jesus suffers the weight of all sin at the cost of death, so any sin even if it is against another other than Jesus, still directly offends Jesus, who is therefore the one with the authority to forgive.

Perhaps one way to think of it is that to sin is to value some temporal good above God; that is, to worship an idol; that is to prioritize something over God; and that is to will the sacrifice of God for the sake of some temporal good. Hence sinning contributes to the sacrifice of Christ.

One response that I am aware of is the Thomistic response, which essentially claims that the sin is in part evaluated relative to the dignity of the being offended; and since sinning is against God and God is infinitely good, it follows that any sin carries with it infinite demerit. Therefore, although the sin itself was inflicted upon something finite by something finite the sin was, at least in part, against God and so something with infinite merit must be given to suffice justice (and that's why Jesus dying saves us from our sins since Jesus is God: the one thing that has infinite merit)

FYI, I am pretty sure this line, at least in its widely accepted Western form, comes in good deal earlier, through St. Anselm of Canterbury (although I've found many ideas in theology, like philosophy, are never truly new). And in Saint Anselm a "penal substitution" theory of salvation is dominant. Whereas in the East a doctrine of "Original Sin" never took root (at least not Augustinian Original Sin, the Orthodox often call it "Ancestral Sin" to differentiate), and, while the language of sacrifice remains, the language of "healing" (Christ the Physician of Souls) and transfiguration often plays a larger role. You can see this in the relative stress put on key events. The Crucifixion plays a larger role in the West, particularly in some Protestant denominations. Whereas the Incarnation and Resurrection are given greater focus elsewhere, and in the East the Transfiguration is often raised to a level with these other events (if still being the least of them).

You can even see this in church decoration, with the most obvious single item in most Western churches being a crucifix right at the center of the church where all can see, whereas the images that dominate Eastern churches will be Christ Pantocrator (Christ Almighty, Ruler of All) on the central dome of the church (surrounded by icons of the prophets and saints), and at the center of the iconostasis the image of Mary the Theotokos (the Incarnation) and Christ as man (or the "Royal Doors" will also have the Annunciation, Gaberiel announcing the Incarnation to the Blessed Virgin). By contrast, May will be off to the side in a Western Rite Roman Church and generally wholly removed (along with any imagery except for the crucifixion) from most Protestant churches.

The art is a nice way to see theological emphasis, and attempted explanations of salvation tend to work within this framework of emphasis.

There are three broad paradigms I think one can identify here: infernalism (Hell as temporally unending punishment), annihilationism (the eventual destruction of unrepentant souls, also an "eternal punishment" in that it never ends), and universalism (the eventual reconciliation of all and total destruction of all sin) All seem to be very old and each have been advocated for by some of the universal Fathers and Doctors of the Church (the more influential saints). Notably, most ancient universalists, unlike modern ones, still think people go to Hell, just not forever. Indeed, they tend to think virtually everyone goes to Hell for purgation for some time, Mary and Christ might be the only sure exceptions (and Christ still goes for the Harrowing). And they tend to think salvation and deification come exclusively through Christ (so they would be exclusivists in modern terms).

I would agree that infernalism has a number of extremely difficult logical challenges. Probably the biggest is that no one ever knowingly chooses the worse over the better but for weakness of will, which implies that all evil involves less than perfect freedom and so less than perfect culpability. I think it easily has the least support from Scripture of the three views, although all three could find support.

I've talked to @boundless about this at length, but I am pretty sure we share an opinion on this. David Bentley Hart's "That All Shall Be Saved," and Talbot's "The Inescapable Love of God," are pretty good on this topic. I thought the latter made the case a bit better, although Hart's take has more philosophical depth and some good explanations of the classical tradition. Talbot's work can be found on Google for free easily, but it is the first edition and he says he added a lot for the second. They also come from distinct traditions, Hart Orthodox, Talbot American Evangelicalism.

This thread is an attempt at exploring, with the community, whether it is just for God to punish such sins eternally or not. — Bob Ross

Of course it isn't. Very little of the bible has even a remote connection to justice as we perceive it.
God's original sin was inventing the very concept of sin. Eve's sin - the original sin - was wanting to know the difference between good and evil. Before they ate of the apple, Adam and Eve were ignorant and amoral, unaware that there is a distinction between right and wrong. So how could they sin?
They were punished simply for disobedience and we all are punished for the curiosity with which our species was imbued by its maker - that is, for being the creature God created. (And we, in our various religious zealotries, have continued to punsh memebrs of our species for being as our God made them).
So, how does one escape the tremendous burden of sin one has not actually committed? By murdering a man who did nobody any harm, because he was brought into existence for the purpose of being the only sacrifice God considered worthy to mollify Himself. Then the people who carried out the necessary ritual killing are punished by other God-fearing people for that God-demanded act.
Does any of that sound as if the author were interested in what's fair and proportionate?
It's not about right and wrong; it's about power.
It's more important to be a rule-enforcing, righteous, God-fearing man than a humble follower of Christ, loving his neighbour.

None of this even attempted to answer the OP: what we are exploring here is whether or not it is just for an unrepentant sinner to be eternally punished for their finite sins.

Yeah, I just don't find that plausible. Just because God creates us, it does not follow that God can do whatever He wants with us (so we can't just be His private property).

You are correct that God is offended as a 3rd party in the interaction of sin (for a sin is to will against God's plan: against infinite goodness); however, this doesn't seem to make it true that God being offended in this way should be treated like the offended party (relative to their dignity). For example, if a judge orders you not to murder and you go murder anyways, then the judge is one of the parties offended; however, they are not offended in the same way as the victim. It seems plausible to me that the murder is evaluated in terms of the dignity of the victim in conjunction with the severity of the act itself; but this doesn't seem to extend to 3rd parties who are offended but not the victim. Disobeying the judge may carry with it more punishment, but it doesn't really make the crime itself any worse. In the case of killing an innocent rabbit vs. a human, it seems plausible that the object in the act does make a substantial impact of how immoral the act is.

To make Acquinas' argument hold, to me, we would have to posit someone making God the victim; and that is impossible since God is immutable.

Yes, sinning is to will against God--infinite goodness--but why would this entail infinite demerit for that sin?

This was a wonderful summary: thank you!

However, how would you propose a sin carries infinite demerit? Do you agree that it doesn't?

I completely agree that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, does not depict God accurately nor justice; but I am wondering what reasons one may have for accepting that God does justly, eternally punish unrepentant sinners. I simply don't see how that would make sense, since a sin could never have as the object of its act God and so would never have infinite demerit.

There are three broad paradigms I think one can identify here: infernalism (Hell as temporally unending punishment), annihilationism (the eventual destruction of unrepentant souls, also an "eternal punishment" in that it never ends), and universalism (the eventual reconciliation of all and total destruction of all sin) All seem to be very old and each have been advocated for by some of the universal Fathers and Doctors of the Church (the more influential saints). Notably, most ancient universalists, unlike modern ones, still think people go to Hell, just not forever. Indeed, they tend to think virtually everyone goes to Hell for purgation for some time, Mary and Christ might be the only sure exceptions (and Christ still goes for the Harrowing). And they tend to think salvation and deification come exclusively through Christ (so they would be exclusivists in modern terms). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Infernalism is absent in Jewish tradition. As I understand it, the souls of the truly wicked will be annihilated (those whose souls are beyond purification), while the run-of-the-mill sinners will undergo purification in Gehenna and then reunite with God. The truly righteous spend no time in Gehenna.

Then there's the resurrection, which is Jewish dogma according to Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith. I've heard several versions of this, depending on the text. In some, only the righteous are risen. In others, the righteous are risen to reward, while the unrighteous are risen to punishment.

The scariest accounts in the Jewish tradition enlarge the number of the unrighteous and make them non-existent. As it says in Malachi on the day of judgment:

"Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act"

I sometimes wonder what nothingness entails. All I can figure is that being is good according to the creation account.

None of this even attempted to answer the OP: what we are exploring here is whether or not it is just for an unrepentant sinner to be eternally punished for their finite sins. — Bob Ross

In eternal pain? No. In their souls being annihilated? That may very well be just. I don't see non-existence as necessarily being a punishment.

The problem I see here is demanding sense or reason from religion.

Interesting account: I am not familiar with Judaism.

In eternal pain? No. In their souls being annihilated? That may very well be just. I don't see non-existence as necessarily being a punishment. — BitconnectCarlos

The issue I see here is alluded to in your last sentence here: is it really punishment to just, e.g., kill off Hitler? I don't think so; and this would be unjust, then, for God to do so but just in the opposite kind of way than the idea of eternal punishment. It seems like, by my lights, a just God would have to punish people finitely and proportionately for their sins; then perhaps annihilate or reunite them.

I think you're not very good at connecting dots then. There is no tradition of repentance and atonement with Jesus Christ, it, like sin is abolished by Jesus Christ's equation of being the ultimate example of God's grace. One merely has to follow any of the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ to make it into the Kingdom of Heaven, which more or less, every human falls under these Beatitudes.

Firstly, that doesn't matter: the OP is about if it would be just for God to eternally punish sinners.

Secondly, Christianity crucially advocates for repentance: one has to repent and give themselves to Jesus as their Lord and Savior to be saved. That is a core and central aspect of Christianity.

I am not talking about religion per se: I am talking about theology. It may be the case that no religion has good reasons to believe in eternal punishment; however, I am interested in if there are any good reasons whatsoever.

No, Judaism does. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus require any of that. Nor can you produce a pasaage that shows it. Everything else in the bible other than the Gospels, are the DISCIPLES take on Christianity. Where as the Gospels discusses Jesus's life and actions. And as we can see by Pope John Paul II teachings: that equation of Jesus Christ.

God punishing sinners, God's Angry Judgements, are brought to man under the law of which Moses portrays. And ANYONE BREAKING THOSE COMMANDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

John 1

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 5: 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  

Breaking any of the 10 Commandments of sinning and guess what you're still IN the Kingdom of Heaven.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ.

It seems like, by my lights, a just God would have to punish people finitely and proportionately for their sins; then perhaps annihilate or reunite them. — Bob Ross

This is the common Jewish view. Some souls are beyond repair; others can be purified and brought into the divine presence. The truly wicked will face justice and then go to oblivion.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ. — DifferentiatingEgg

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Luke 5:32

I am interested in if there are any good reasons whatsoever. — Bob Ross

None.
Theology is a systemmization and apologetics for religion. Some theologian always finds an excuse for whatever injustices and cruelties his religion espouses, from slavery to ritual slaughter.
God gave Job the most succinct answer: "Because I can."

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Luke 5:32 — BitconnectCarlos

It's actually penance... not repentance.

Quite a difference. We can see in 30 Jesus is more just than the Pharisees and Scribes as the Beatitude dictates by still dining with publicans and sinners. He doesn't exclude them.

30 But the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying to his disciples: Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? — Luke 5

Penance is a duty, an action in Christianity that's like prayer, alms giving, or as we can see in the very next few lines... Fasting.

Repentance is a change of heart and mind, a feeling of sorrow for your actions.

 

31 And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick.  32 I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance. — Luke 5

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is the most accurate to the Latin Bible.

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is the most accurate to the Latin Bible. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok. So you're going Greek -> Latin -> English. Why not just do Greek -> English like most translations? The Greek is there.

The earliest Greek transcripts (150-200 CE) show this:

ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν

Metanoia is the word in question here, which is repentance. Virtually all the Christian Bibles (NKJV, ESV, RSV, etc.) agree on this —at least the ones that translate from Greek.

I was reading Martin Buber's "Two Types of Faith" today, and he just happened to note in the chapter that I was reading that the Hebrew teshuva (repentance) is rendered metanoia by the Greek translator.

Okay, fair, and a good catch, but my biggest problem with that is repentance Etymology doesn't come from Greek, but from Latin. Re (very much) poenitire (make sorry). Which is still different than To change one's mind towards the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ. Here's why that matters imo.

As Clément Rosset discusses in his book Joyful Cruelty on Joyous and Melancholy thinkers.

Generally the interpretation goes like this: the melancholy ruminant does not have access to bliss because he is the prisoner of a thought devoted to misfortune; the joyous ruminant (those of Beatitude) accedes to bliss because he has surmounted the thought of misfortune and succeeds in disgesting it. — Joyful Cruelty, pg 30

Jesus the Glad Tidings, and Beatitudes describes the latter. This is why Jesus seeks to change their mind. Not so that they can express melancholy through sorrow and regret, because that defeats the purpose.

Repentance is the Latin translation of metanoia.

But let us look at the difference between Meta and Para in Greek, which are closely related, but Meta connotes: after, beyond, with, and among something, where as para connotes: beside, alongside, beyond, against.

The latin translation of metanoia (one towards the light) into repentance (very much sorrow) is more akin to the Greek paranoid (the mind turned against itself).

Furthermore:

Just as the joyful person is incapable of expressing the reason for his joy and the nature of what overwhelms him [because it is with/among him], so also the melancholy person does not know how to identify the reason for his sadness or the nature of what he is lacking. — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty pg 5

Thus we can see metanoia is a change of the mind towards Joy because metanoia is a change with something, not towards regret and sorrow (a change against the mind from lacking) and again considering the Beatitudes (Joy) is what makes one blessed under Jesus' Equation then I can't accept the Latin Repentance for Metanoia. It's the same way the Latin mistranslated "Public" for "Social."

Jesus isn't there to judge and make people feel bad... he's there to wake them up, to see the light of his beatitudes, his mental architecture.

Within mainstream Abrahamic religions, it is a common belief that God will punish unrepentant sins committed against finite beings with eternal punishments and this is prima facie objectionable. — Bob Ross

Jewish hell is no longer than 12 months and it exists only to purify you of your sin, not to punish. So I'd change your "mainstream Abrhamic religions" to be "Christianity."

This is the common Jewish view. Some souls are beyond repair; others can be purified and brought into the divine presence. The truly wicked will face justice and then go to oblivion. — BitconnectCarlos

I think that's right, but that number would probably be around a dozen or so for all time and it doesn't play much a role in Jewish theology.

Actually hell plays such a limited role, it's not uncommon that Jews don't really know what the theology is around it. They'd understand Yom Kippur and repentance, but not so much eternal damnation and rewards.

Also, consistent with the issues raised in the OP is Judaism's (an Abrahamic religion) acceptance that there is a difference between a sin against God and a sin against person, requiring that forgiveness of a transgression against a person be asked of the person offended, and not just of God. That is, God can't forgive me for lying to you. I have to ask you for that forgiveness.

And I have to ask three times, and then if you still don't forgive me, I'm forgiven, and now you're the dick, not me.

Eternal punishment is also promised in Islam as well.

The problem with this, by my lights, is that the God was not the one offended. It makes sense to say that, e.g., torturing a rabbit is lesser of an offense than torturing a human (even if it be in the same manners) by appeal to the dignity difference between them relative to their natures respectively; however, it doesn't make sense to me to say that, e.g., torturing the rabbit is a lesser offense if a judge ordered one not to do it prior to doing it than if they had done it without such an order. A third party, who may have the authority to dictate right and wrong action, is not the offended party nor the party that commits the offense; so, to me, the dignity being offended by a finite being when committed on a finite being must be finitely demeritorious: God is a third party, of which is the source of goodness, which was and cannot be the offended nor offender. — Bob Ross

Hi,

I believe here you are neglecting the fact that, in theistic religions, it is assumed that the sinner has a personal relationship with God, who is assumed to actively love the sinner. 'Sin' is seen as any action that weakens or even breaks that relationship, which is assumed to be the Highest Good for every human being. Also, in said religions it is explicitly assumed that in our ethical behavior, the way we engage with others etc, are an expression of how we relate also to God.

To use an analogy, in a family, if one of the child mistreats one of his sibling, he is also affecting his relationship with my parents (who love all siblings). Or another: if I hurt a person, I also affect, in some ways, my relationship with all people who love that person.

One response that I am aware of is the Thomistic response, which essentially claims that the sin is in part evaluated relative to the dignity of the being offended; and since sinning is against God and God is infinitely good, it follows that any sin carries with it infinite demerit. — Bob Ross

I believe that the problem of this kind of argument is that even it is 'objectively' true, one still has to evaluate the 'subjective' component of the sinful act.

By this I mean that it seems reasonable to say that, in order to evaluate the 'degree of culpability', one should take into account both the seriousness of the crime (the 'objective' component) and the degree of awareness and consent that one has in commiting the crime (the 'subjective' component). For instance, one can be found to be "not guilty by reason of insanity" after having commited a crime.

So even if 'objectively' an act against God is 'infinitely bad', it is reasonable to think that there can be mitigating factors in the associated degree of culpability associated with that action - for instance, a lack of maturity, being subject to external influences beyond one's ability to resist, some kind of weakness of will or awareness and so on.

Given that human beings are, of course, finite beings and considering the finiteness of our lives, the ambiguities present in it, the uncertainty of the time of death etc the question becomes: can a human being reach a level of culpability that deserves a punishment of unending pain (of some sort)?
Personally, I lean to answer 'no' to this question even if the 'sin' is 'objectively infinitely bad'.

Note that the current 'official' Catholic teaching is that only unrepented mortal sins deserve an infinite punishment and these sins require, other than the 'grave matter' (the act itself), two other factors: 'full knowledge' and 'deliberate consent' (see the section on the Gravity of sin, in the Catholic Catechism.). I bet that a supporter of this kind of view would say that a human being can have the sufficient degree of knowledge of consent to deserve the infinite punishment. I honestly can't see how that is possible, considering the finitiness and ambiguities in our life, but that's another story*.

Note also that nowadays some theologians seem to say that 'eternal hell' is a choice, that is the damned choose their destiny and God merely allows them to experience what they asked for. A great problem of this kind of view is that it is also claimed that somehow the damned just can't change their minds and repent after death. Such an inflexibility is said to occur only after death, and one is left to ask why it is so. IMO, if we consider that during life one is said to be able to repent until the last moment, it seems that this inflexibility is actually a form of punishment (at least in the form of 'abandonment'). Hence, even in these 'free will models of (eternal) hell', it seems to me that the same question about how can deserve a punishment of unenending suffering, even if such a suffering is due to the perpetual refusal of the damned to repent.

But IMO all 'infernalist' models at the end of the day assume that 'eternal suffering' is an adequate punishment. Hence, all infernalist models IMO are subject to such an objection, even if one grants that, indeed, offences against God, which is assumed to be the Highest Good for us, are infinitely grave.

(Thanks @Count Timothy von Icarus for the mention BTW)

* Edit: This of course doesn't mean that we cannot have a very high degree of responsibility and culpability. But perfect/infinite culpability seems to me out of reach for human beings.

You can even see this in church decoration, with the most obvious single item in most Western churches being a crucifix right at the center of the church where all can see, whereas the images that dominate Eastern churches will be Christ Pantocrator (Christ Almighty, Ruler of All) on the central dome of the church (surrounded by icons of the prophets and saints), and at the center of the iconostasis the image of Mary the Theotokos (the Incarnation) and Christ as man (or the "Royal Doors" will also have the Annunciation, Gaberiel announcing the Incarnation to the Blessed Virgin). By contrast, May will be off to the side in a Western Rite Roman Church and generally wholly removed (along with any imagery except for the crucifixion) from most Protestant churches. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me one very interesting semi-exception to this is Michelangelo’s depiction of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel – this being an aspect of the west rather than the east. It has symbolism galore (including that of the entry into Hell being placed right behind the space where the Pope is meant to stand – maybe as a reminder of why the Pope ought to be and remain someone of virtue and not succumb to corruption) but, maybe most pertinent: if one focuses on the empty spaces of blue rather than on the details of individuals one will make out the outline of a skull – hence of death, or more spiritually appropriate, of the death of ego (this in its dualistic sense wherein there is distinction between self and other - without which there can be no existent corporeal life). God, the Highest Good, being often enough deemed to be egoless awareness of infinite being and understanding which grounds all that exists.

There are three broad paradigms I think one can identify here: infernalism (Hell as temporally unending punishment), annihilationism (the eventual destruction of unrepentant souls, also an "eternal punishment" in that it never ends), and universalism (the eventual reconciliation of all and total destruction of all sin) All seem to be very old and each have been advocated for by some of the universal Fathers and Doctors of the Church (the more influential saints). Notably, most ancient universalists, unlike modern ones, still think people go to Hell, just not forever. Indeed, they tend to think virtually everyone goes to Hell for purgation for some time, Mary and Christ might be the only sure exceptions (and Christ still goes for the Harrowing). And they tend to think salvation and deification come exclusively through Christ (so they would be exclusivists in modern terms). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I won’t here comment much on infernalism – although it can be noted that even certain Buddhist schools of thought share the same roundabout notion of temporary Hell(s) that can occur for some (just as they share the idea of Heaven(s)) – but as to annihilationism and universalism, I’ll present the following hypothesis:

Iff God is the Highest Good as infinite intellect devoid of ego and also ultimate end/telos of all that exists, then the closer the cosmos at large approaches God:

a) The more the identity (here in part defined by the intentions of the individual) of “sinners” (e.g., he who willfully and gleefully commits crime(s) again humanity or it’s parts: as a sub-example, a guy who robs a liquor store at gunpoint simply for the thrill of getting away with it, thereby committing a crime against his fellow men) will by entailment vanish from the cosmos – thereby speaking for annihilationism – for the closer the cosmos at large approaches God’s being the less willful deviation from God’s being of the part of individuals will occur, this by entailment of cosmic proximity to God.

b) The more those who have been and remain relatively aligned with the Highest Good will become increasingly selfless, hence non-egoistic, hence egoless, this until that very ultimate point is reached wherein all perfectly unify with the Highest Good in so becoming perfectly selfless, resulting in a final state of divinely simple, all-encompassing, completely unified, and infinite intellect-endowed-awareness that is utterly devoid of (dualistic) ego. Here, while the identity of sinners irrespective of their degree in so being will all vanish – to include their tendencies of intention (and I presume we can all acknowledge ourselves to be less than completely and perfectly good, hence to engage in some measure of "sin" at least at times), the very essence of their/our being, the very core of who we are so to speak, shall nevertheless persist in living in perfect and complete unity with God. Thereby speaking of universalism.

To be clear, this can only logically apply when assuming the premises of non-physicalism and of the reality of God as the ultimate telos of the Highest Good and the ground of all being as pure, divinely simple, egoless essence of infinite intellect.

But, given these two premises, then annihilationism and universalism seem to me to both be equally entailed in the process of a closer cosmic approach, and hence proximity, to God. And ultimately, likewise, in a complete and perfect unification with God. Within this context of presumptions, there will be a cosmic death of all empirical egos bar none which, in turn, will give birth (so to speak) to the utterly blissful and timeless life of an infinite and divinely simple pure/transcendental ego whose understanding of being (of its own nature) becomes absolute/complete. (Maybe needless to add, at this juncture, then, all forms of infernalism that might have previously taken place for some can only then cease to occur.)

I grant this is utterly different from conceptualizations of being placed either into an Eternal Heaven or else an Eternal Hell after one’s death by an overseeing deity. Also, although it addresses the cosmos at large, there is nothing in any of this to nullify the possibility of a multitude of potentially awaiting non-eternal heavens or hells – this on the way toward the ultimate end of a perfect and complete unification with God.

I mentioned all this to provide my own outlined perspective – be it idiosyncratic or not – regarding the OP’s request for personal thoughts regarding the matter.

----

p.s. Although not customary for Abrahamic religions, there is no cogent reason for why reincarnations in the ream of corporeal being cannot also occur given the premises just addressed. And as we all might know, sometimes, for some, Heaven and Hell are different places on Earth in the here and now.

p.p.s. Forgot to mention, all such proximity to God being then contingent on the free will of individuals, both individually and collectively.

One response that I am aware of is the Thomistic response, which essentially claims that the sin is in part evaluated relative to the dignity of the being offended; and since sinning is against God and God is infinitely good, it follows that any sin carries with it infinite demerit. — Bob Ross

That sounds like Anselm, as Count pointed out.

On the issue of Hell and punishment there has been a tectonic shift since the 19th century. See for example, "Universalism: A Historical Survey," by Richard Bauckham. What this means is that the propulsion in an anti-Hell direction is more cultural than rational, and the recent works on the subject produce more heat than light.

Here is a basic Thomistic approach:

Article 3. Whether any sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment?

Objection 1. It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isaiah 27:8): "In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it." Now sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal punishment.

Objection 2. Further, "punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no medicine should be infinite, because it is directed to an end, and "what is directed to an end, is not infinite," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 6). Therefore no punishment should be infinite.

Objection 3. Further, no one does a thing always unless he delights in it for its own sake. But "God hath not pleasure in the destruction of men" [Vulgate: 'of the living']. Therefore He will not inflict eternal punishment on man.

Objection 4. Further, nothing accidental is infinite. But punishment is accidental, for it is not natural to the one who is punished. Therefore it cannot be of infinite duration.

On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 25:46): "These shall go into everlasting punishment"; and (Mark 3:29): "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man's will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment.

Reply to Objection 1. Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life—sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God's eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the "wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever."

Reply to Objection 2. Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Proverbs 19:25: "The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser." Accordingly the eternal punishments inflicted by God on the reprobate, are medicinal punishments for those who refrain from sin through the thought of those punishments, according to Psalm 59:6: "Thou hast given a warning to them that fear Thee, that they may flee from before the bow, that Thy beloved may be delivered."

Reply to Objection 3. God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.

Reply to Objection 4. Although punishment is related indirectly to nature, nevertheless it is essentially related to the disturbance of the order, and to God's justice. Wherefore, so long as the disturbance lasts, the punishment endures. — Aquinas, ST I-II.87.3

Interesting. So, in respect to the topic of the OP, this being eternal hell/damnation - rather than any transient period of hell or purgatory, irrespective of how long the latter might end up being:

If eternal hell/damnation in fact does occur, then God cannot logically be the ultimate telos/end of all that exists/occurs - for those eternally damned cannot ever, for all eternity, approach God teleologically as their ultimate end, and this irrespective to changes in their psyche’s constituency and character that might occur over the span of eternity.

Am I reading this right?

Am I reading this right? — javra

Is there a particular part of my post that your interpretation is seizing upon? I am trying to understand the connection.

Is there a particular part of my post that your interpretation is seizing upon? — Leontiskos

Yes, the main part:

On the issue of Hell and punishment there has been a tectonic shift since the 19th century. See for example, "Universalism: A Historical Survey," by Richard Bauckham. What this means is that the propulsion in an anti-Hell direction is more cultural than rational, and the recent works on the subject produce more heat than light.

Here is a basic Thomistic approach:

Article 3. Whether any sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment? — Leontiskos

... With all four objections to eternal punishment being if not refuted then denounced - with many offerings of certain portions of scripture.

This is what the "am I reading this right?" question was addressing.

--------

So again, logically, if eternal punishment does in fact occur, is God to then be understood as not being the ultimate telos/end of all that exists?