Quote:
Originally Posted by nohands
Let's say hypothetically that you believed in God and everything about Him, same as Christians. What do you think would be just for deliberate disobedience against Him?
I see no reason why divine justice shouldn't work like the best systems of human justice. And in those systems, it depends on (1) the severity of the offense and the harm that it causes, (2) the moral culpability of the offender, (3) the validity of any justification of excuse for the conduct, and (4) the degree to which the person accepts responsibility.
Now I admit some of these concepts are present in Christian doctrine, but they aren't present in very morally satisfying ways. For instance, some Christian sects have a distinction between venal and mortal sins, addressing (1). However there are only two gradations, and the notion that any "mortal" sin will get the maximum punishment is a moral abomination. It would be the equivalent of a justice system with only two sentences available: (a) a parking fine, and (b) painful execution. Nothing in between.
Now I get that holy books aren't going to read like criminal codes with all the punishments spelled out in detail. But that doesn't mean they can't say something like "God will decide a just punishment, which could be any of a range of different outcomes". Instead of "sin and you get tortured in hell for eternity".
Similarly, you can argue that (3) is somewhat addressed at least in Catholicism, which does recognize some justification defenses. For instance, waging war is generally a mortal sin, but waging a just war might not be. The problem is even in Catholicism, the justification defenses are way too narrow.
For instance, until very recently, the Church actually taught Africans that if their husbands had the HIV virus, the only moral options were to have unprotected sex and take the risk, or to be abstinent (and perhaps get raped by their husbands). This is the sort of situation you get in when you aren't liberal enough with justification defenses. I mean, it's perfectly clear that even if one assumes that using a condom is ordinarily sinful, the use of a condom with an HIV infected husband is justified. There are many examples of where justification defenses ought to be more widely available (e.g., abortion in the case of a threat to maternal health, for one example).
And you can argue that (4) is addressed by repentance. Again, though, Christian repentance is all or nothing. You either repent, and the sin gets washed away, or you don't, and you face the full punishment.
Anyone who has worked in the criminal justice system can tell you there are degrees of acceptance of responsibility. Everything from the minimal acceptance that comes when a person sees they are about to get caught anyway and turns himself in, all the way to a person who has guilt pangs long before she is ever suspected, and goes to great lengths not only to confess to the police but also to take major steps to apologize and make amends for what she did and to restore what was lost, turn in all of her co-conspirators and provide the state with evidence for their prosecutions, and beg for forgiveness.
In the human justice system, these different degrees of acceptance will result in different levels of lenience. The guy about to get caught might get a little time shaved off the prison sentence, because he at least saved the state the burden of apprehending him. The woman who took all those steps to repent will likely get a substantial break and might even see no prison time at all.
A truly good God would do something similar. Heartfelt repentance coupled with a true acceptance of responsibility and attempts to make amends might get you forgiven, whereas phony, go through the motions, yeah I sinned talk might not get you much at all.
And, of course, I don't think (2) is addressed at all in Christian theology. What if a person is insane, and knows not what he does, or simply lacks the volitional control to conform his conduct to God's law? What if he acts consistent with delusions? What if he makes a completely honest mistake?
And, of course, finally, the sentence of eternal torture is simply too harsh for any crime. There's a reason why there are international conventions against torture. Even a mass murderer is not tortured in a justice system run by benevolent actors.
But the notion of eternal torture for the list of Christian "sins" is ridiculous. I think it's wrong, but I at least understand if you want to eternally torture Genghis Khan. But eternally torturing a man for having a homosexual tryst? Eternally torturing someone for saying God's name in vain?
And, of course, the worst of them all. Eternally torturing someone for not believing? Especially since, if there is a personal God, She has made her presence extremely mysterious, appearing but once in thousands of years, in some obscure settlements in the Levant, and concealing any active role that She has in the world behind rules of causation and fossil records that would indicate that She is not present?
Basically, She has presented to us a world in which it is entirely rational and consistent with the evidence to conclude that She doesn't exist. And then She tortures us, eternally, for following the evidence She left?
That is pure evil and unworthy of worship.