Infinite punishment for finite sins

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:20 pm

Q: is it just that God supposedly punishes anyone by torturing them in hell for eternity? Infiinite punishment for finite sins?

A: Sins are finite. We can see this from small crimes if you steal a cow then you pay back a cow. For larger crimes the only punishment is death. It is often not fair. A mass murderer dying once does not pay for their multiple victims. That is not a problem of justice but about our rational limits on applying justice.

So if you are a good person all your life but not asking for God's mercy why are you going to hell?

Because the punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the crime but in proportion to the victim.

Two examples.

1) if you punch an adult there is a reasonable chance of no punishment or a fine. If you punch a baby there is a reasonable chance of a large punishment. Same punch, same force different punishment.

2) if you crash into another car, just a dingle, depending on the other car they may do nothing, they may ask for a few dollars or if it is an expensive car you might have to sell your home to pay for it.

With that understanding we can see that our small finite crimes are against an infinite God.

There's no means of paying that fine, there's no means of getting out of jail. But this is good news.

If God doesn't accept even the smallest of sins then how amazing must God and Heaven be? (It's the tuna that John West rejects that makes it the best. Groucho Marx said he wouldn't want to belong to a club that would let him in.)

Is hell eternal punishment? If God is good and you choose to not live with God then where ever you go will not have God there. It will not be good. And with the absence of good being in hell it will be as bad as it gets.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:52 am

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 39 by Justin108]

Yes but considering damage is immoral.

So if you break something I own, me asking you to pay me for it is immoral...?

Wootah wrote: Do you think failed murder is less than successful murder?

"Less than" in what sense? I would of course be relieved that the murder failed, but the attempted murderer is in my opinion just as guilty as the successful murderer as he has expressed a desire and willingness to harm others. As said before, it is not only damages that matter but also actions and intentions. He might not have done any damage by killing anyone, but he has acted in an immoral way and he had the intention of doing harm.