Eternity hellfire clarification

[جوري]

Well, I've addressed your point about contracts and explained why I don't think it's just. If you're not interested in addressing my criticism other than with bald assertions, then I agree that there's little to engage with there.

And I have asserted that your explanation is based on an apriori judgment and can be therefore dismissed as nothing more than a hysterical emotion.

You've totally missed the point, again. You think people shouldn't argue against things they don't believe in, yet I've made it very clear, using a simple example, that this is usually a reasonable position to take. Your attitude that nothing should be addressed by anyone who doesn't believe it would wipe out all debate and critical discussion across every subject.

I think what you call a 'critical discussion' is nothing more than vain discourse, and again, you should define for yourself what you seek for a conclusion so as to not waste your time and that of others!

But you said previously that a proportionate punishment is only forthcoming dependent on the crime committed. Some crimes receive a disproportionate punishment. So, how is this difference justified? I believe your answer will be something along the lines that we can't understand the 'justness' of the eternal punishment of some crimes because that is something only God knows - i.e. non-physical-justice.

Again, by whose standard do we measure this incongruity between crime vs. punishment?

Also, simply saying a 'just God' allows you to equivocate - you think there is justice as relates to the physical and justice as relates to the non-physical. So you should more accurately state it to be a 'non-physically-just' God.

No, what's not taking us anywhere is your inability to address the points made against your position. Saying that we are eternal beings and thus are deserving of eternal punishment means that you are making justice subject to the qualities of the being that is to be punished, rather than the significance of the crime committed. I see this as a poor reason to break the principle of proportionate punishment, but again, your reason to break that principle is because there is non-physical-justice that we are ignorant of.

Again, your desire for a different set of responses doesn't negate the points made, nor does it render one unable to clarify them. It is nothing more than cognitive conservatism on your end.. and ultimately questions this visceral in nature should be answered by the punish-er!
Personally I can't fathom anything worse than a kaffir, and certainly kuffr is a gateway for all sorts of other lowly crimes

As far as I understand it, Islam asserts that God is absolutely (and therefore objectively) just. Is this incorrect, in your view?

I have said so much and repeatedly!

In post #95 you clearly state, "We are speaking of a sin against God..." A sin is another word for a crime and if you commit a crime against someone you wrong them. Perhaps the term 'sin' means something completely different from 'crime' to you.

No a sin and a crime are two separate entities else they would not be two separate words
This is your own ailing definition in an attempt to steer the topic to your level of word play!
a sin= a transgression against the will of God.. a crime is simply breaking the law of your state.. look them both up in the dictionary!

And you still haven't explained how this can be grounds for punishing someone at all, let alone for eternity. You cannot be both victim and perpetrator of a crime, as I've previously pointed out. If you abuse yourself then, across the world, you're generally treated as having a psychological disorder rather than as a criminal.

Actually that isn't true, and in England up to very recently last century an attempt at suicide was ironically enough punishable by death... until such a time you can create (not procreate) ex nihilo as I understand you have difficulty with certain definitions --can you then come and speak to me of the concept of victim rather than a perpetrator.. be that as it may and I have no desire for more byways, if someone were truly psychologically inept and non calculating then they are exempt from punishment.. We are speaking of rational, thinking adults (of age) who knowingly, consciously and freely of their own volition deny the existence of their creator and his endless blessings upon them, thereby breaking the oath they have taken to worship God alone!

Complete rubbish. The principle of proportionate punishment is implicitly included in every moral and legal system I've come across, except in the case of certain religions - and then only in the case of certain alleged crimes. Crimes are always scaled according to their perceived severity and punishment administered in proportion.

Again, this goes back to definitions of sins vs. crimes.. society now rewards homosexuals of sorts, you may not see it as a crime, just two fools getting bent and teaching 5 year olds about all sorts of love in 'with tango make three' but that is in fact a sin against God.. if you desire to live a life outside of the religious moral code, you are certainly free to do so, but don't come complaining or arguing against your perceived unfairness in all of this..
someone may have studied 'very hard' for a test and ends up with a 79% which is a failing a grade (if we take 80% to be passing), while someone else may have studied 'equally hard' and gotten a 98%.. now you may believe that this is unfair but if you are given an advance warning, material to study and you signed up for the course, don't go around asking everyone on your perceived unfairness, or how 79% percent is close to 80% can't lower the cutoff point to meet with your expectations with whatever outcome might ensue from such a failure-- Luckily actually God is more forgiving than my example here.. but I am hoping this is down to a level that you can understand!

The part I'm trying to engage with concerns the justification for breaking the principle of proportionate punishment as in the case of eternal punishment. You haven't mentioned a system of jurisprudence that covers that - merely said that it's beyond our understanding and must thus be part of non-physical-justice. What is there to guage?

See previous detailed responses!

. Thankyou very much for the discussion, though, it's been interesting to a certain extent.

Take care.

all the best

 

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

And I have asserted that your explanation is based on an apriori judgment and can be therefore dismissed as nothing more than a hysterical emotion.

Oh dear, this is wrong on so many levels.

1. Just because something is a priori does not mean it is 'nothing more than a hysterical emotion'. If you're going to ask me to look up dictionary definitions, kindly follow your own advice.
2. You can assert that my explanation is a priori as much as you want, but that won't make it true. My explanation is a posteriori based on my experiences and knowledge gathered of moral and ethical systems.
3. For someone like yourself, that requires a number of a priori bald assertions to even start saying what is and is not just, to complain that a priori statements are hysterically emotional is laughable. Once again, you clearly demonstrate that you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself.

I think what you call a 'critical discussion' is nothing more than vain discourse, and again, you should define for yourself what you seek for a conclusion so as to not waste your time and that of others!

As you failed to address my point I can only conclude that you accept that you can still argue against something that you don't believe in.

But no thanks, defining the conclusion before entering a discussion is the ideologue's method. I'm not interested in a priori concluding what the outcome is and then twisting all evidence to match that - that would be irrational and destroy any chance of learning something new.

Again, by whose standard do we measure this incongruity between crime vs. punishment?

It's not an incongruity between crime and punishment - it's an incongruity between finite punishment and infinite punishment. The standard I'm measuring against is the principle of proportionate punishment, for the umpteenth time...

You also here repeat one of my paragraphs without using the quote function - did you forget to write a comment in?

Again, your desire for a different set of responses doesn't negate the points made, nor does it render one unable to clarify them. It is nothing more than cognitive conservatism on your end.. and ultimately questions this visceral in nature should be answered by the punish-er!

If you're able to clarify your points, that would be greatly appreciated. As for accusing others of cognitive conservatism when, in the same sentence, you then retreat to your stance of ignorance and claim that justification can only come from God ... well, double-standards again.

I have said so much and repeatedly!

Ok, I'm really doubting that it's possible to have a sane dialogue here. You said in post #99 that, "I have neither addressed the objectivity nor the subjectivity of it [non-physical justice - i.e. the justice of God]." Yet here you are claiming that you've repeatedly pointed out that God is objectively just - which obviously implies an objective justness.

You have clearly admitted that you hold to an illogical position, repeatedly held others to standards you don't apply to yourself and now appear to be vacillating between positions from one post to the next.

No a sin and a crime are two separate entities else they would not be two separate words ... a sin= a transgression against the will of God.. a crime is simply breaking the law of your state.

A stone and a rock. Go look up the word 'synonym'.

Well, firstly I don't see how it's possible to transgress against the will of God. Is it not a principle in Islam that everything occurs by the will of God? But regardless, it is contradictory to claim that the will of an omnipotent being can be transgressed. Whatever such a being wills must come to pass by virtue of the quality of omnipotence. So, that appears to be an illogical definition that you're using.

Furthermore, crimes are judged as such based on the suffering/death/loss incurred by the victim. If you're honestly saying that a sin is different from a crime, then on what basis are certain actions judged to be sins? We've established that God cannot suffer/die/lose anything, so that's obviously not the basis on which something is defined as a sin. Plus the above paragraph makes it clear that it's impossible to transgress the will of an omnipotent being, so that can't be the basis. So what is this basis? Or are you ignorant of the basis and this is just another a priori (aka emotionally hysterical, allegedly) concept that your ideology simply has to assert?

Actually that isn't true, and in England up to very recently last century an attempt at suicide was ironically enough punishable by death...

Yes, I'm well aware of that and the repeal of that law serves to make my point. After all, it was only because of the prior religious ideology that the law existed in the first place. That law could not justify why a person could be both victim and perpetrator of a crime, and neither can you thus far.

We are speaking of rational, thinking adults (of age) who knowingly, consciously and freely of their own volition deny the existence of their creator and his endless blessings upon them, thereby breaking the oath they have taken to worship God alone!

So it comes down to being punished eternally for holding an opinion. An opinion that doesn't transgress God's will because, if God willed it, the opinion would change. What is the basis for punishing this opinion, let alone for eternity? Same question as above, in effect. Even admitting this 'oath' has taken place - it's part of physical justice to punish oath-breakers. Why are you now taking part of physical justice and applying it to non-physical justice, contrary to your earlier point to me that I couldn't judge the unjustness of eternal punishment based on physical justice? Once again, you appear to be changing the rules on how you evaluate this whole issue.

Again, this goes back to definitions of sins vs. crimes ...

No it doesn't. You've gone off on an irrelevant tangent in this whole section. The point that you previously made was that my 'opinion' of justice was only shared by 10% of the population and it was moot to argue with someone holding that position. However, as I've explained that the principle of proportionate punishment is inherent in almost all legal and moral systems, it is obvious that your claim was in error.

See previous detailed responses!

Why? Which previous 'detailed response' even mentions this system of jurisprudence relating to eternal punishment that you've spoken of?

 

[جوري]

Oh dear, this is wrong on so many levels.

Wow you really need a hobby!

1. Just because something is a priori does not mean it is 'nothing more than a hysterical emotion'. If you're going to ask me to look up dictionary definitions, kindly follow your own advice.

In which way exactly?

2. You can assert that my explanation is a priori as much as you want, but that won't make it true. My explanation is a posteriori based on my experiences and knowledge gathered of moral and ethical systems.

Does 'post priori' make what you say more factual in your opinion?

3. For someone like yourself, that requires a number of a priori bald assertions to even start saying what is and is not just, to complain that a priori statements are hysterically emotional is laughable. Once again, you clearly demonstrate that you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself.

I don't see it as laughable at all. I have never shoved in your face that these are absolute truths without you having to subscribe first to a belief. If you subscribe to set belief by whatever method, then that comes with a set of principles and tenets are derived that aren't subjects to your addendums!

As you failed to address my point I can only conclude that you accept that you can still argue against something that you don't believe in.

More drivel!

But no thanks, defining the conclusion before entering a discussion is the ideologue's method. I'm not interested in a priori concluding what the outcome is and then twisting all evidence to match that - that would be irrational and destroy any chance of learning something new.

That is exactly what you do. You twist the written words to match your desired conclusions, it is a wonder at all the sort of intellectual bankruptcy that must plague you to project your ills on those who choose to reply to you!

It's not an incongruity between crime and punishment - it's an incongruity between finite punishment and infinite punishment. The standard I'm measuring against is the principle of proportionate punishment, for the umpteenth time...

Your standards are non-standards by theological count 'for the umpteenth time'

You also here repeat one of my paragraphs without using the quote function - did you forget to write a comment in?

probably but it must not have been worth a reply to begin with!

If you're able to clarify your points, that would be greatly appreciated. As for accusing others of cognitive conservatism when, in the same sentence, you then retreat to your stance of ignorance and claim that justification can only come from God ... well, double-standards again.

'for the umpteenth time' the position has been clarified, you seem to have a sort of mental veil with certain concepts, I can't somehow abridge the physical/time continuum to put these in terms that are more suited for your personal taste!

Ok, I'm really doubting that it's possible to have a sane dialogue here. You said in post #99 that, "I have neither addressed the objectivity nor the subjectivity of it [non-physical justice - i.e. the justice of God]." Yet here you are claiming that you've repeatedly pointed out that God is objectively just - which obviously implies an objective justness.

I wish you'd have come to that conclusion sooner indeed, as to why is beyond me, also why you choose to add words to push this charade in the direction of your choosing is equally a conundrum!
I haven't claimed that God is 'objectively' just. I have asserted that God is 'just' period!

You have clearly admitted that you hold to an illogical position, repeatedly held others to standards you don't apply to yourself and now appear to be vacillating between positions from one post to the next.

How would you personally apply logic here? if I said I have a very painful migraine caused by engaging you, how would you logically prove that to be so? further from there how would you prove that the migraine is indeed caused by you and not TTP or giant cell arteritis or a simply the idopathic sort?
Two things you should learn from this hopefully.
1- There is no headacheometer
2- in order for you to establish the truth of a headache and its etiology you have to have some baseline understanding of medicine
if you don't have the instrumentation, nor do you have the fund of empirical knowledge to apply here, then what the hell are you doing wasting your time and worse yet mine?



I think beyond this is a clear waste, and I am actually sorry that I have been baited by a gadfly all together!

all the best

 

[DuncG]

Thε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

I'll be away for the next few days so will get back to you at the beginning of next week. Have a good weekend!

 

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

In which way exactly?

Ok, here's the dictionary definition for you, from the World English Dictionary:

a priori
1. logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to the expected facts or effects
2. logic known to be true independently of or in advance of experience of the subject matter; requiring no evidence for its validation or support

Does 'post priori' make what you say more factual in your opinion?

Where does the phrase 'post priori' come from? An a posteriori judgement has to be based on facts, by definition.

I have never shoved in your face that these are absolute truths without you having to subscribe first to a belief. If you subscribe to set belief by whatever method, then that comes with a set of principles and tenets are derived that aren't subjects to your addendums!

How can something be 'absolutely true' yet also entail someone engaging their subjective 'belief' in it? If it's absolutely true, then it's true whether or not it's believed. I am well aware that tenets can be derived from a set of beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is that those beliefs are accepted a priori, which, by your definition, would make that an 'emotionally hysterical' descision. This is why it is laughable for you to describe a priori statements like this - you entertain them just as much as anyone else.

That is exactly what you do. You twist the written words to match your desired conclusions ...

Not at all, as demonstrated above in our discussion about crime vs. sin. Of course, at the beginning of any discussion with someone, I'm bound to use the definition of a word that I commonly use until someone else describes how they use the term. How could it be otherwise? But then, as with your definition of sin, I'm happy to engage using the term as you've defined it and I asked further questions regarding your ideology using that definition. I'm well aware that we both take up contrary positions prior to starting a discussion, but that's actually one of the best ways to fully explore a topic.

Your standards are non-standards by theological count 'for the umpteenth time'

Yet you do not know the standards of theological count. Again, you are retreating to the position that eternal punishment cannot be justified.

I haven't claimed that God is 'objectively' just. I have asserted that God is 'just' period!

Well, I asked you if you thought God is absolutely (and therefore objectively just) and you said that you've said "so much and repeatedly!" Clear as crystal, above. What you really mean, according to your previous complaint about me referring to physical 'laws and punishments', is that God is just in a non-physical manner of which we have no comprehension. This is thus an a priori belief of yours that is not open to any examination, physical, reasonable or otherwise. If you agree that this is the case, then fair enough.

How would you personally apply logic here?

Well, very simply. If you take the position that both a statement and its inverse is true you need to realise that this is illogical. You then need to resolve this paradox yourself and decide one way or another.

The paradox you have claimed (post #95) to adopt is that infinite punishment can both be justified and not be justified. So, are you going to be logical and come down on one side or the other, or are you going to continue to hold this paradoxical position?

I think beyond this is a clear waste ...

Why, because you can't answer my questions that point out further paradoxes in your position?

 

[جوري]

Ok, here's the dictionary definition for you, from the World English Dictionary:

a priori
1. logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to the expected facts or effects
2. logic known to be true independently of or in advance of experience of the subject matter; requiring no evidence for its validation or support

Indeed, and your point being? I used the term to define exactly that, or did you want to see it splayed out in full?

Where does the phrase 'post priori' come from? An a posteriori judgement has to be based on facts, by definition.

and what in your thought process here is exactly based on facts? you are building a subjective opinion based on something that is essentially based on tenets of faith!

How can something be 'absolutely true' yet also entail someone engaging their subjective 'belief' in it? If it's absolutely true, then it's true whether or not it's believed. I am well aware that tenets can be derived from a set of beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is that those beliefs are accepted a priori, which, by your definition, would make that an 'emotionally hysterical' descision. This is why it is laughable for you to describe a priori statements like this - you entertain them just as much as anyone else.

Some beliefs are indeed hysterical and perpetuate mass hysteria (I won't get into that on the account I am fasting and after a long day of work am in no mood for you) but what I do find most hysterical is an ignoramus gauging a topic completely outside his sphere of expertise!
unwilling to accept certain tenets which are visceral in nature, yet argues against them with equally emotive and illogical beliefs!

Not at all, as demonstrated above in our discussion about crime vs. sin. Of course, at the beginning of any discussion with someone, I'm bound to use the definition of a word that I commonly use until someone else describes how they use the term. How could it be otherwise? But then, as with your definition of sin, I'm happy to engage using the term as you've defined it and I asked further questions regarding your ideology using that definition. I'm well aware that we both take up contrary positions prior to starting a discussion, but that's actually one of the best ways to fully explore a topic.

You explore the topic with someone who is interested in you or your nonsense. I have in fact given you the dictionary definition and not 'lily's definition' of sins vs. crimes.. if you desire to make them synonymous then like that of your grievances against eternal punishment, should be taken up by the folks at meriam webster!

Yet you do not know the standards of theological count. Again, you are retreating to the position that eternal punishment cannot be justified.

Indeed, no one can claim to speak for the divine. I have already explained in totality that the soul is not ephemeral and a sin against your soul is the equivalent of an estrangement from God, inasmuch as your soul is eternal so is your oath to fulfill your duties toward your creator in this brief life, whatever other concoctions of your mind you create surrounding that, is your own problem, this is the stand point from a theological point of view!

Well, very simply. If you take the position that both a statement and its inverse is true you need to realise that this is illogical. You then need to resolve this paradox yourself and decide one way or another.

I have no idea what this drivel denotes and don't care for you to elucidate your points further!

The paradox you have claimed (post #95) to adopt is that infinite punishment can both be justified and not be justified. So, are you going to be logical and come down on one side or the other, or are you going to continue to hold this paradoxical position?

why not quote me in lieu of telling me what you have deduced, since your judgment isn't the most sound encountered!

Why, because you can't answer my questions that point out further paradoxes in your position?

Yeah, that must be it, you found me out oh astute atheist!

all the best

 

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

Indeed, and your point being?

The point being that something that is a priori is not necessarily 'hysterically emotional', as you previously made out.

and what in your thought process here is exactly based on facts? you are building a subjective opinion based on something that is essentially based on tenets of faith!

Well, the fact that the principle of proportionate punishment is implicit in every moral system developed and used by humans is evidence for its soundness as a principle of justice. Sure, everyone could be wrong on this point, but I've seen no argument in this thread against the principle. Indeed, the whole point of this thread rests on that principle.

unwilling to accept certain tenets which are visceral in nature, yet argues against them with equally emotive and illogical beliefs!

Well, being visceral is hardly reasonable grounds for accepting the tenets you propose. But I'm not even sure that most of the assertions you've put forward even warrant the term visceral - they're part of your doctrine and as such are only 'felt' after they've been taught. But please expand on why you think the principle of proportionate punishment is 'emotive' and 'illogical'. I haven't read anywhere why you think this to be the case - it does appear to be one of your visceral reactions that you haven't explained yet.

...if you desire to make them synonymous...

As pointed out to you, I've addressed the point using the definitions you like to use. The dictionary definitions can both be considered 'transgressions' and thus can be interpreted as synonymous. The qualitative difference between a criminal transgression and a transgression 'against your own soul', that necessitates a different, apparently unknowable, justice, remains unexplained.

Indeed, no one can claim to speak for the divine.

But you do, as noted by the statements directly following this one! You have not 'explained' at all - making theological assertions is not 'explanation'. You accuse others of concocting, but that is all that your theology appears to do. You still haven't answered how you can transgress against yourself (or your 'soul'). Why is it the 'equivalent of an estrangement from God'? These are simple assertions that lack any rational foundation, as far as I can make out.

why not quote me in lieu of telling me what you have deduced...

Why not go back to post #95, as referenced, and check it for yourself? Or would that be too much trouble? If you're too lazy to bother, then don't bother. After all, if you're not actually willing to pay attention to the threads of this conversation then you're not really worth the time.

Yeah, that must be it, you found me out oh astute atheist!

Hiding behind sarcasm won't answer my questions or respond to the flaws in your ideology that I perceive. If you're going to answer me on a discussion board, then at least have the maturity to discuss, even if you still can't resist spattering your posts with pointless, petty insults.

 

[جوري]

The point being that something that is a priori is not necessarily 'hysterically emotional', as you previously made out.

Indeed, however, I am yet to find that applicable to you!

Well, the fact that the principle of proportionate punishment is implicit in every moral system developed and used by humans is evidence for its soundness as a principle of justice. Sure, everyone could be wrong on this point, but I've seen no argument in this thread against the principle. Indeed, the whole point of this thread rests on that principle.

again, we are not speaking of crimes we are speaking of sins against ones mortal soul.. how many times must we go over this in your opinion?

Well, being visceral is hardly reasonable grounds for accepting the tenets you propose. But I'm not even sure that most of the assertions you've put forward even warrant the term visceral - they're part of your doctrine and as such are only 'felt' after they've been taught. But please expand on why you think the principle of proportionate punishment is 'emotive' and 'illogical'. I haven't read anywhere why you think this to be the case - it does appear to be one of your visceral reactions that you haven't explained yet.

See reply number two which has been clarified multiple times prior!

As pointed out to you, I've addressed the point using the definitions you like to use. The dictionary definitions can both be considered 'transgressions' and thus can be interpreted as synonymous. The qualitative difference between a criminal transgression and a transgression 'against your own soul', that necessitates a different, apparently unknowable, justice, remains unexplained.

They are not in fact synonymous, it is the same as if you were stating that contentedness and acceptance are the same thing. Sin is an estrangement from God's when you have broken God's laws!

But you do, as noted by the statements directly following this one! You have not 'explained' at all - making theological assertions is not 'explanation'. You accuse others of concocting, but that is all that your theology appears to do. You still haven't answered how you can transgress against yourself (or your 'soul'). Why is it the 'equivalent of an estrangement from God'? These are simple assertions that lack any rational foundation, as far as I can make out.

That is in fact the dictionary's definition yet again, so this is yet another concept you must take out with the good folks at word web, after you've taken the previous up with meriam webster, if they can withstand your platitudes.. if all of that fails, might I merely suggest you enroll in some basic classes on language, etymology before you take the leap forward to religion and philosophy!

Why not go back to post #95, as referenced, and check it for yourself? Or would that be too much trouble? If you're too lazy to bother, then don't bother. After all, if you're not actually willing to pay attention to the threads of this conversation then you're not really worth the time.

Are you too lazy or do you exempt yourself from clarifying your own bromides before projecting your miserable existence and failure unto others? if you had something of substance to impart then share it, I am not here to do your homework for you or deduce as your whims dictate!

Hiding behind sarcasm won't answer my questions or respond to the flaws in your ideology that I perceive. If you're going to answer me on a discussion board, then at least have the maturity to discuss, even if you still can't resist spattering your posts with pointless, petty insults.

what petty insults are those? or do you find the term atheist offensive?