2-Your eternal salvation or damnation depends on your religious beliefs. — Empedocles

That doesn't sound right to me. The way I heard it your salvation depends on not sinning. Justice is served when the guilty are damned, and that's everyone. It is not a matter of justice that anyone is saved, but of mercy, which one may ask for, but cannot demand as a right, even if it is afforded to another. Unfortunately, lacking belief, one does not ask. But perhaps it is afforded some without asking, I don't know - the pope seems to think so.

I think you're right that the cause of damnation is sin, not unbelief. But if, like you imply, no one asks for mercy if they don't believe, it seems like belief is a prerequisite to repentance, so the problem is still one's beliefs. But maybe I'm not understanding correctly?

But if, like you imply, no one asks for mercy if they don't believe, it seems like belief is a prerequisite to repentance, so the problem is still one's beliefs. But maybe I'm not understanding correctly? — Empedocles

Yes, that is the problem, but it is not a matter of justice. You are justly condemned. Yet it seems to me that one can repent with or without belief. Not being a christian myself, I defer to the pope on this:-

I’ve been thinking there’s a problem with Christianity’s doctrine of salvation (soteriology). — Empedocles

I think a good first step would be to determine exactly what is meant by salvation in Christian doctrine or perhaps religious doctrine in general.

Saved from what?

Therefore, this soteriological system is unjust — Empedocles

You could widen the argument:

- You could argue that people’s propensity to sin is determined by their nature and nuture
- neither of which they can do anything about
- so it’s unjust to punish people in this world or the next (unless it’s ‘corrective punishment’).

It might be more accurate to preface #1 and #3 with "A popular theological doctrine holds that..."

So #4 would be dependent on the truth of that particular theological doctrine and on the truth of our moral judgement expressed in #2. It doesn't necessarily hold for any and all conceptions of God.

But yeah, assuming the initial assumptions #1 through #3, I agree that your conclusion does seem to follow.

I guess I disagree, it doesn't seem just to me since, like I said, most beliefs of most people are beyond their control (they inherited them, never questioned them, etc...). And it seems odd to me that people would repent if they don't believe in a god

I was going with what I take to be the commonly held Christian idea of salvation from eternal torment in hell

I think that works too, but to my knowledge the problem isn't one's propensity to sin since everyone sins? And it's more about whether you believe in Jesus and repent

Agreed, that's what I tried to capture with the last sentence of my introduction. I think I'm most interested not in people's individual and unique conceptions of God and salvation that can avoid this problem, but in mainstream christians defending their position as I've tried to lay it out

Just curious... are you concerned with your own salvation and damnation, or is this a logic problem for you?

I don't like stingy salvation and generous damnation schemes either, the "You must believe in Jesus or Allah or Marx or Neoliberalism... or you will surely die as unpleasant death as we can arrange for you and dying will last forever..." sort of thing.

My way around all this is to make God bigger, concerned with the whole cosmos (including us, of course, but not as the Crown of Creation). Bigger, cooler, farther away, embodying the universe. Did that God inspire the Bible? Send an angel to impregnate Mary? Raise his alleged child from the dead? No. We did all that on our own. Our god is too small.

I figure that when I die that will pretty much be it. No pits of fire, no pearly gates, no trumpets, no pitchforks, no wings, no horns. And that's fine with me, because life is good, and sometime it will be over. That's enough and we should be grateful.

Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, etc. have been busy trying to explain/defend/make sense of their religions for a long time.

Man is the author of the Gods. Our Gods generally demand a great deal more of humans than we feel like delivering on most days, so we disappoint our gods. We have to find a way to get around the problem of disappointing, angering, and enraging our various gods, less they smite us. How can our created gods harm us? Of course they can't, but bad things are always happening -- fire, wind, earthquakes, boils, itchy skin, tumors, stinging wasps, snakes, poisonous algae, ponzi schemers, lions, communists, radiation leaks, rats... there are a lot of things out there waiting to get at us, and periodically succeed. We can charge all these bad things to our Gods' accounts.

I found it liberating to just stop thinking about it from the POV that I was liable to eternal damnation--or heaven, either.

BTW, I think creating gods was a major (the major?) cultural achievement of either the very early modern period or the very late stone age period -- around 20,000-30,000 years ago, give or take 15 minutes.

Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, etc. have been busy trying to explain/defend/make sense of their religions for a long time.

Man is the author of the Gods. Our Gods generally demand a great deal more of humans than we feel like delivering on most days, so we disappoint our gods. We have to find a way to get around the problem of disappointing, angering, and enraging our various gods, less they smite us. How can our created gods harm us? Of course they can't, but bad things are always happening -- fire, wind, earthquakes, boils, itchy skin, tumors, stinging wasps, snakes, poisonous algae, ponzi schemers, lions, communists, radiation leaks, rats... there are a lot of things out there waiting to get at us, and periodically succeed. We can charge all these bad things to our Gods' accounts.

I found it liberating to just stop thinking about it from the POV that I was liable to eternal damnation--or heaven, either.

BTW, I think creating gods was a major (the major?) cultural achievement of either the very early modern period or the very late stone age period -- around 20,000-30,000 years ago, give or take 15 minutes. — Bitter Crank

You find it liberating? That doesn't verify the truthfulness of a proposition.

I see conclusions in the post but I don't see solid premises leading to them- merely assertions without backing.

That doesn't verify the truthfulness of a proposition. — Ram

That's alright. I don't care.

1- God created people in such a way that they would sin, and he created a system of salvation wherein sinners are damned (and the sacrifice of Jesus saves only a fraction of them).
2- If God created people and his system of salvation in this way, then he is unjust
3- God did create people and His salvation system in this way
4- Therefore, He is unjust (1,2 MP) — Empedocles

I'm way out of my element when it comes to these sorts of theological disputes, but I was under the assumption that even the 'saved' remained sinners. And shouldn't some sense of freedom be included here? Seems an essential aspect in determining whether God is theoretically just or not. God gave humans free will to resist the temptation to sin, or at least to ask for forgiveness for inevitable moral transgressions, etc.

As mentioned though, I'm largely ignorant of these squabbles. I do however think it's a good idea to make the strongest possible case for an opponent's position before attacking it. I think the most charitable interpretation of this issue would involve some notion that the fall into sin was/is a necessary precondition for redemption. I know it sounds harsh, but there's something paradoxically inhuman about a world of perfect happiness and contentment, devoid of all pain and suffering. Sickness makes health sweet sort of thing (Heraclitus).

One could surely argue that it's the egregious level of pain and suffering in this world that makes God unjust, and I'd find that a pretty compelling position which would be hard to counter.

To make it easier to respond, I have listed the two conditions you listed in premise one of your argument as two separate premises:

1a. God created people in such a way that they would sin.
1b. God created a system of salvation wherein sinners are damned, and the sacrifice of Jesus saves only a fraction of them.

If both premises are true, then it seems like this argument is logically sound. However, I do think there are issues with premise 1a and 1b, which cause this argument to be unsuccessful.

First of all, premise 1a assumes that “God created people in such a way that they would sin.” This is indicating that God has created human beings who are prone to sin rather than not to sin. It is assuming that sinning is a behavior that God has programmed into every human at the time of creation; since it is forced onto human beings, sinning is not a choice but an inevitable consequence of God’s creation of the humankind. If someone were to ask: why do human beings sin, the answer in such context would be: because God made them to. This seems wrong to the mainstream Christian beliefs. God created human beings with free will, so that they are free to make choices of their own behaviors. To sin or not to sin are two choices with an equal chance of being selected by each individual before temptations. Either sinning is a choice by each human being, or God did not create human with free will. In the Christian belief, God has created human beings with free will, thus sinning is a choice out of free will rather than a behavior God has programmed into every human.

Premise 1b indicates that the sacrifice of Jesus can only saves a fraction of the humankind. This is also a problematic assumption. Sacrifice of Jesus serves as the redemption of all sinners which makes salvation available for every human being. It is upon each individual’s free will to choose whether to accept this salvation or not. If it is a choice out of free will, then each individual is responsible for the consequence of their choices, which either leads to being saved or being damned. Again, either accepting salvation is choice by each human being or God did not create human with free will. In the Christian belief, God has created human beings with free will, thus accepting salvation is a choice by each human being, and he or she is responsible for any potential consequences out of this choice.

For the reasons above, I don’t think the assumption that God created people and his salvation system in the way described in premise one of your argument is true to the Christian belief; which makes premise three of your argument false.

First of all, premise 1a assumes that “God created people in such a way that they would sin.” This is indicating that God has created human beings who are prone to sin rather than not to sin. It is assuming that sinning is a behavior that God has programmed into every human at the time of creation; since it is forced onto human beings, sinning is not a choice but an inevitable consequence of God’s creation of the humankind. If someone were to ask: why do human beings sin, the answer in such context would be: because God made them to. This seems wrong to the mainstream Christian beliefs. God created human beings with free will, so that they are free to make choices of their own behaviors. To sin or not to sin are two choices with an equal chance of being selected by each individual before temptations. Either sinning is a choice by each human being, or God did not create human with free will. In the Christian belief, God has created human beings with free will, thus sinning is a choice out of free will rather than a behavior God has programmed into every human. — CYU-5

The following is what I see as the real problem. First, God knew that he was creating beings with a free will. Second, he knew that people would use that free will to reject him. Third, he knew that most people would reject him, or at least a billions would reject him. It would also seem to follow from this, that if God knew, for example, that creating Hitler would result in the murder of millions of people, then God is responsible for that evil. He is just as guilty as if he did it himself. For example, if I create a robot with a free will, knowing that that robot would murder people, then you would be within your right to charge me with murder. So either something is wrong with the doctrine you are proposing, or something is wrong with the concepts, or it's just incoherent. It's probably all three.

The following is what I see as the real problem. First, God knew that he was creating beings with a free will. Second, he knew that people would use that free will to reject him. Third, he knew that most people would reject him, or at least a billions would reject him. It would also seem to follow from this, that if God knew, for example, that creating Hitler would result in the murder of millions of people, then God is responsible for that evil. He is just as guilty as if he did it himself. For example, if I create a robot with a free will, knowing that that robot would murder people, then you would be within your right to charge me with murder. So either something is wrong with the doctrine you are proposing, or something is wrong with the concepts, or it's just incoherent. It's probably all three. — Sam26

Basically just another restatement of the argument from evil. The theist response is compensating goods. A moral God can allow evil if there is a compensating good. A compensating good must be much better than the evil, and the compensating good can not be possible without the evil. A theist would claim that our free will is such a compensating good.

Basically just another restatement of the argument from evil. The theist response is compensating goods. A moral God can allow evil if there is a compensating good. A compensating good must be much better than the evil, and the compensating good can not be possible without the evil. A theist would claim that our free will is such a compensating good. — Rank Amateur

I find this reprehensible. It's worse than the previous posts. You can justify just about anything under this idea. In fact, you have justified some of the most hideous evils under this idea.

There’s no need to bring the problem of evil into this discussion. We can just look at what is assumed as God’s responsibility and whether He is responsible for it or not. It seems like your argument is in the following form:

1. When God created human, he knew that:
a. He was creating beings with free will.
b. Beings with free will would use that free will to sin and/or to reject Him.
c. Most beings with free will would in fact use that free will to sin and/or to reject Him.
2. If God knew 1a, 1b, 1c, and still created human beings; then God is responsible for human’s behavior out of their free will, such as to sin or to reject Him.
3. God created human beings.
4. Therefore, God is responsible for consequences of human beings’ behaviors out of their free will, such as to sin or to reject Him.

Again, premise 1 seems to indicate that human beings are prone to sin or to reject God. For similar reason as I mentioned in the previous comment, such presumption is not true given that human beings were created with free will. Even if premise 1c were to be true, that most beings with free will would in fact use that free will to sin and/or to reject God, it does not attribute the cause nor the reason of sinning or rejecting God to God Himself. The ability to choose is given to human beings upon their creation, and the consequences of their choices were available for them to know; then it follows that human beings are aware of the consequences of their choices when choosing to behave in a certain way out of their free will. If this is true, (to put your robot example into the same argument form as your argument of God being responsible for human being’s rejection of Him), it follows that:

1. When your robot was choosing whether to murder people or not, he knew that:
a. He was made with free will.
b. He can choose to murder people, which will cause evil.
c. He can choose to not murder people, which will not cause evil.
2. If your robot knew 1a, 1b, 1c when he was choosing whether to murder people or not, and he still murdered people, then he would be responsible for the behavior out of his own free will, such as murdering people.
3. He still murdered people.
4. Your robot is responsible for the behavior out of his own free will, such as murdering people.

If human beings knew the consequences of their choices and then choose to behave in a certain way, then God, as the creator who has given human free will to choose, who is not the cause nor the reason for human to choose in a certain way, is not responsible for human beings’ behaviors out of their free will.

First of all, premise 1a assumes that “God created people in such a way that they would sin.” This is indicating that God has created human beings who are prone to sin rather than not to sin. It is assuming that sinning is a behavior that God has programmed into every human at the time of creation; since it is forced onto human beings, sinning is not a choice but an inevitable consequence of God’s creation of the humankind. If someone were to ask: why do human beings sin, the answer in such context would be: because God made them to. This seems wrong to the mainstream Christian beliefs. God created human beings with free will, so that they are free to make choices of their own behaviors. To sin or not to sin are two choices with an equal chance of being selected by each individual before temptations. Either sinning is a choice by each human being, or God did not create human with free will. In the Christian belief, God has created human beings with free will, thus sinning is a choice out of free will rather than a behavior God has programmed into every human.

Here's my response to your objection toward my premise 1a-
I might be missing something, but it does seem to me that, although God didn't force us to sin, he made us inevitably prone to sin. I understand that He created us with free will, so maybe what I'm arguing is that He doesn't force our hand to sin directly, but the system He set up when He created the universe leads us inevitably to sin. Were sin reasonably avoidable, lots of people would go through their lives never sinning, right? But since we encounter temptation countless times in our lives, the probability of us never sinning is infinitesimal, right? Because of this, I still see God as being responsible for our sinning and subsequent damnation.

According to Jesus in Matthew 25, we have a choice. When we see the hungry, imprisoned, thirsty, naked, and so on, we can either choose to do something about it, or we can ignore it.

25:34... "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Because, Jesus explains, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"
The folks on the left side kept on walking when they saw hungry, naked, thirsty people. They, to put it in modern parlance, are totally screwed--by their own inaction.

(see also Isaiah, "“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?")

If you want to be "liberated", then perform justice, Isaiah says.

So that, according to Jesus, is how we avoid hell: we perform the corporal works of mercy. We take care of those in need.

Is "social work" all that is required? Well... not exactly. Jesus commands that these things be done, but also that we love Him and keep his commandments. "The "social work" of Matthew 25 must be infused with love. Love of God first, then for each other. Self love, third.

If we have no love, we probably won't bother taking care of other people, unless we are getting paid to do it which, of course, doesn't then cost for much.

My argument is as follows:
1. The Christian God is maximally good and loving.
2. If God’s salvation exists, either humans have a degree of choice in their salvation or their eternity has been predestined by God
3. If eternity is predetermined by God, some people have been damned to Hell irrespective of their lives and choices on Earth
4. Damning people to Hell (such that they could not have avoided it) is evil
5. Therefore, predestination is evil.
6. Therefore, either salvation is evil, or humans have a degree of choice in their salvation. — tenderfoot

I've never understood the logic of predestination.

If Heaven is a paradise free from suffering and humans have free will in Heaven, then free will on Earth and the possibility of causing suffering and sin and being damned is completely unnecessary. Either humans do not have free will in Heaven, or God is not maximally good and loving by creating the possibility of damnation as a consequence of free will.

I would love to hear some thoughts on the necessity of obtaining salvation after death for the compatibility of Hell with a maximally good God and human free will! — tenderfoot

This is a philosophy forum. I suggest you find a Christian forum - there are many - and pose your question there.

(Ths discussion was accidentally deleted and has been restored (I hope fully). If anyone has a comment missing, please PM me.)

More on salvation from @tenderfoot, merging from 'Possibility of Obtaining Salvation after Death'

I would love to hear some thoughts on the necessity of obtaining salvation after death for the compatibility of Hell with a maximally good God and human free will!
Continuing off the arguments of previous posts that salvation, based on reformed, double predestination doctrine presents a view of Hell that is incompatible with a good, loving God,

My argument is as follows:
1. The Christian God is maximally good and loving.
2. If God’s salvation exists, either humans have a degree of choice in their salvation or their eternity has been predestined by God
3. If eternity is predetermined by God, some people have been damned to Hell irrespective of their lives and choices on Earth
4. Damning people to Hell (such that they could not have avoided it) is evil
5. Therefore, predestination is evil.
6. Therefore, either salvation is evil, or humans have a degree of choice in their salvation.

To protect salvation and maintain an all-good God who has created salvation for all who may accept it, it seems necessary that all human beings have a real chance to know of God’s existence and choose God. As the nature of our world is, there are certainly people who never learn about the Christian God or doctrine of salvation before their death (see comment https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/217169)

I would like to argue for the existence of some “step” after one’s life on Earth and before Heaven/ Hell in which all human beings have the opportunity to choose Jesus as their Lord. If there is a chance to choose God after death, then salvation is not evil and God in fact it is maximally good, just, and merciful (because eternal communion with God is offered to all who may choose it!) This maintains human free will and the choice to love God (it is not compulsory) while still allowing those who seek goodness in this world to find the omnibenevolent God, regardless of their knowledge of Him in the physical, temporal world. Without this step, I don’t see a way to reconcile the unequal access to God on this Earth with eternal damnation. If that were the case, it seems that salvation is tinged with evil in a way humans cannot defend without appealing to “God’s plan being too wonderful to understand.”

I would love to hear some feedback on this! :)

It just doesn’t seem morally permissible for God to base someone’s eternal destiny on whether they believe in Jesus and accept His sacrifice for them — Empedocles

It was a mistake for Christianity to adopt the 'believe in Jesus else eternal damnation!' message. Not well thought through; they have left 2000 years of theologians wriggling uncomfortably around the defence of the indefensible: eternal damnation for ignorance.

I agree with your approach of modifying Christian belief rather than trying to wriggle out of an impossible logical hole. I wish more theists would take this approach; the holy scriptures of the various religions are percolated with factual and logical errors. Some theists seem to have this strange compunction to regard old information as more worthy of consideration that new information. Surely exactly the wrong way around?

It was a mistake for Christianity to adopt the 'believe in Jesus else eternal damnation!' message. Not well thought through; they have left 2000 years of theologians wriggling uncomfortably around the defence of the indefensible: eternal damnation for ignorance. — Devans99

Again, an aside, FYI that is not Catholic doctrine.

I stand corrected, I should of said 'believe in Jesus else no salvation'?