Explain the justice of hell.

[steve_b]

If a child is* banished* from his father’s home, might the child consider the father benevolent if he should allow the child to return 50 years later?

Isn’t that change the definition of a person doing something good?
J:

Was not Jesus’ conception equally immaculate?

Sure, but that was never the issue. To say Mary was immaculately conceived, THAT is the issue and the reason for the doctrine of the IC.
J:

Was it not your position that the Jews might be considered blameworthy for failing to note the messiah in their midst given his provision of signs and wonders? Would not these same Jews have then been potentially blameworthy for failing to heed the signs of Simon Magus?

Winning has no value if one can’t lose. Getting something right, is no big deal if there is nothing wrong. It gets back to that passage I quoted previously about life and death blessings and curses. We have choices and there are consequences to those choices.
J:

If one were to place a nutritious snack next to a poisoned chocolate cake and then turn to a child and admonish him not to eat of the cake prior to leaving the room, would the community extoll the virtues of the one by proclaiming the benefits he awarded to their children? Would the community mourn any less for the child who might have chosen poorly?

I wish you gave a better example, of contrasting disobedience and obedience?
J:

To clarify, in order to be termed benevolent would one not have to provide only what is good, rather than good and evil in equal portions?

Benevolence is marked by, or disposed to, doing good. God certainly desires good for everyone. But what about an individual’s disposition? God presents the choice between good and bad, blessings and curses. He says, “choose good and blessings”. But the operative word is “choose”. A person strange as it seems, might choose evil and curses. God however doesn’t force. Or there is no free will. No free will, no consequences. He does, however, lay out the consequences for choices. Because we have free will.
J:

No, but would not your demeanor necessarily be suspect in having me brought to a cliff edge in order to peer at a very clear danger?

My guess is, It would only be suspect if you thought my intentions were evil.
J:

However, is this description properly analogous to God’s activity? Consider, who, in one’s group of acquaintances, might so desire to hurl themselves from a cliff edge that the dangers must be explained in order to restrain them?

Maybe that wasn’t a good example. Let’s look back to other examples I gave. Take one issue. No fornicator will inherit heaven…i.e. they go to hell if they die in that sin. Sound too harsh? Is that sufficient enough warning and consequence, to motivate a person to avoid that sin at all cost? A person might think, they won’t go to hell the minute they commit that sin. And they might be right. But the guilt of serious sin to one’s soul is immediate, even if the consequences are postponed. For example, If one gets in a fatal crash on the freeway on the way home 30 minutes after serious sin, and they aren’t properly sorry for that sin with a firm desire not to commit it again, THEN the dire consequences for their soul occured immediately at their death.
J:

Is God’s role not more difficult in that he presents to mankind a series of activities in which many actually wish to engage only to promise them a reward of Hell for the partaking?

God attaches hell as a consequence for some actions. Does He not have the right to do that, and require us to obey?

Isn’t that a similar proposition God made with Adam and Eve?
J:

Is God’s role not more akin to stating to one’s child, “You may continue to freely play video games, but if you do not stop and proclaim your love for me by sundown I will throw you from the house”?

Have you bugged my house? kidding aside, disobedience has consequences. If that child is 46 years old, yeah, he’s outta there okay, okay, this time all kidding aside. I think a better example is in order. Do you have another example?
J:

But is it not necessarily the case that it must be God’s will that his will might be denied?

He desires obedience. He doesn’t desire disobedience. Simple example. God says jump. My response is, okay, or how high?.

The wrong answers are

• why
• what for
• you’re not the boss of me
• I’ll take it under advisement
• No
• I don’t think so
• etc etc

you get the drift.
J:

Seemingly Pharaoh’s heart became increasingly hardened prior to each plague.

okay
J:

What benign being might use torment as a means of achieving obedience?

Surely you’re not thinking God is benign?
J:

Perhaps it may be true that “No matter how hard one tries, some people just won’t cooperate,” but what of almighty God? Is it true that no matter how hard he tries, some will not cooperate?

The question to ask is, why doesn’t He force someone to obey Him? Could He force them? Sure. Why doesn’t He do that?
J:

It might be boastful to claim so, but terms observed elsewhere appear to be more suitable, yes.

Then one accepts God on their terms not on God’s terms. Loosly that’s idolotry. btw, only God’s terms work anyway.

[snip] due to space

 

[jmvizanko]

Why would I? I have already examined the evidence and made a choice to believe it. Notice, I wrote “made a choice”. I was not forced to accept it. There was plenty of contrary evidence available. Likewise, you made a choice based on your analysis of the evidence.

Except the contrary evidence you had did not convince you. You didn’t choose to ignore it because you didn’t like it or you just wanted to believe. You were not forced by an outside force to accept it, but that doesn’t mean you had a choice whether or not to be uncontrollably attracted personally by whatever logic ran through your head to one or the other side.

My claim is that your analysis was faulty.

How so?

Your point is moot as shown above. In addition, you have not provided me with any additional evidence that would call into question my choice to believe.

You have never explained why it was a choice.

So, to connect this back to the OP. We are all given sufficient information on which to determine whether we choose to love and serve God or not. For those who choose not to, they will be granted their wish to not be by Him.

Except that nobody chooses to either not believe in any god or believe in a different god than yours… And for that, your god decides to blame them eternally…

 

[davidv]

Except the contrary evidence you had did not convince you. You didn’t choose to ignore it because you didn’t like it or you just wanted to believe. You were not forced by an outside force to accept it, but that doesn’t mean you had a choice whether or not to be uncontrollably attracted personally by whatever logic ran through your head to one or the other side.

How so?

You have never explained why it was a choice.

Your own words say the you made a choice.

jmvizanko:

I left Catholicism because it stopped making sense to me.

To determine if something makes sense or nonsense require analysis. Analysis doesn’t happen on its own. You must choose to weigh the evidence. Then depending on a lot factors, include biases, you decide which it is.

Except that nobody chooses to either not believe in any god or believe in a different god than yours… And for that, your god decides to blame them eternally…

So you say. My experience says you are wrong.

There is only one God. He created you and I in his image. He gave us free will so we can love, where love = sacrificial self donation for the good of another. It is only this kind of love that will truely make us happy. Hell is the natural consequence of choosing not to love.

 

[minkymurph]

If one is a Catholic, the terms appear clear enough.
If one is a Baptist, the terms appear clear.
If one is a Muslim, the terms appear clear.
If one is a Hindu, the terms appear clear.

That the terms do not agree one with the other, however, is somewhat troubling.

There is no doubt the variety market of religion is troubling for a seeker of truth. However, while there are different concepts of salvation in different religions, in terms of avoiding Hell there are beliefs that are universal. Regarding religion, we have a tendency to focus on difference rather than sameness because our religion is ‘right.’ A sincere seeker of truth is not concerned with personally ‘being right.’ In fact, I would go as far as to say that in seeking truth, more often one discovers one is wrong rather than right.

to illustrate one universal belief, all Christian religions believe in baptism. They have contrasting views on the meaning of baptism, but they all believe it to be necessary in the path of salvation. Judaism has a belief in water ablutions, as do Muslims and Hindus believe the Ganges is sacred and bath in it. Therefore, the seeker to truth can conclude that while they may not know exactly what, there is something highly significant about water in the path of salvation.

Is not following the teachings of the Catholic Church a form of staking one’s soul on a given interpretation of God’s will? Might it be understood why it may not be particularly helpful to consider the Bible a living text if many exist who might offer to interpret its details differently?

One stakes one’s soul on what one believes to be true. I wouldn’t stake my soul on a teaching I didn’t believe to true. God’s will is that all men and women share his eternal life. That’s east enough. Certainly, there are contrasting views on how this may be attained and yes, it is confusing. The Bible is a living text in that one comes to know the truth contained in scripture not by merely reading it, but by living it. If we find our interpretation wanting in the process of living out the message of the bible, chances are that interpretation is flawed.

Who might be found to prefer a regime that might offer only torment as payment? What gentle and kind king might exile troublemakers to such a place? How is it possible to imagine anyone who might purposefully choose a domain that might be symbolized as a lake of fire full of endless torment?

I don’t know who may be found. Admittedly, it seems unbelievable any individual would choose this rather than share the eternal life of God. However, we know people turn down the opportunity to enter into a relationship with God throughout their lives.

The ‘torment’ is an eternal existence in the absence of God. Those in Hell have no desire to change that aspect. Perhaps one is one’s own ‘tormentor.’ I did say the image of God OT authors held were influenced by the culture of the time. In which case, it’s fair to say the same NT authors. Hell is a NT concept, not an OT one. Some do believe Hell is a literal fire. Personally, and I stress this is a personal opinion, concepts of the physical state Hell were influenced by Greek philosophy/mythology. Well, that’s what images of little demons with tails, cloven hooves and horns poking people with pitchforks would suggest to me.

A gentle and kind king may banish troublemakers to protect others.

 

[minkymurph]

If Hell exists as a realm of eternal punishment is it not necessary that either God is required to be a tyrant to send any there or else individuals who might willingly so choose it must clearly be possessed of an intellect clearly below par?

It’s a fair point that God has to be willing to give individuals what they want in spite of the fact it’s not in their best interests. The truth is there’s no satisfactory answer to this one. the human race has grappled with the existence of evil and eternal punishment as a consequence from it’s beginnings and still does. Certainly, there are various schools of thought on the topic. But no explanation is totally satisfactory. My view is it is something we will never fully understand in this life. We will in the next. What I do know is I want to share the eternal life of God - now. I don’t just want to avoid Hell in the next life.

An honest desire for truth has led here, but has equally led elsewhere.

I once asked a priest how long it took for us to work out what God’s will is for us. His answer was, ‘a lifetime.’ I have a theory the search for truth never ends in this life.

Thus far it appears to be a message apparently lacking concern over its overall consistency. God the tyrant may have become God the gentle, but perhaps not. Perhaps he is neither…or both?

I go for ‘neither,’ because God is not human. We humanize God and attach human characteristics to Him in an attempt to explain Him. I’m doing it now by referring to God as ‘Him,’ when in fact God is neither male or female. When we describe human characteristics,. we speak of people as being loving or just, or they are loving or just. Not hat there’s anything wrong with describing God in human language. We are, after all, human. However, we must also bear in mind God is not human. When God revealed Himself to Moses, he called Himself ‘I AM.’ Therefore, God is among other things, love, and justice What does it mean to actually be love, and be justice? We don’t really know and can’t really describe it.

In relation to your question, God being a tyrant would require more than carrying out an act that could be interpreted as tyrannical. It would have to be what he actually is. As I said, the central teaching of the Catholic faith is the Incarnation. If Jesus was not a tyrant, then neither is God.

This is a fair point. As a pilgrim on this life’s journey, one may find the malleability of scripture to be of some advantage; as a seeker of eternal truth one might find same to be problematic.

The reality is finding truth is problematic and fraught with difficulty. The more we mature the more difficult it becomes. I believe we had a discussion about a ‘child’ state in terms of spirituality? Truth is easy for children. In terms of spirituality, some people never move beyond that ‘child’ state. I’m not saying that as a criticism, nor using the term ‘child’ in an insulting way, and it has nothing to do with biological age. I’m saying it in order to illustrate looking at faith from someone else’s perspective. If someone is in a ‘child’ state, that’s who they are and where they are at. So, the search for truth comes easily to them. It doesn’t follow for all of us. Your in the ‘critic’ stage, where you question everything and belief doesn’t come readily. If that’s where your at, that’s where you’re at, and your search will be a difficult one. Accept that, but keep looking.

 

[chypmonk]

I am not finding this conversation difficult. The reason you think I am is because you think that man should be blamed for being man when I think god should be blamed for holding man accountable for being man. If god created us to be with him, then he would make sure we were all with him. Instead he doesn’t give most of humanity enough reason to even think he (or at least your version of him) even exists.

I read through a lot of the thread and it seems like whatever is offered by reason you seem to doubt for whatever reason.

Let me offer you and experiment. I have never met an atheist who has done it yet, so you may be the first.

If God is who we says He is and Jesus is who we say he is then why don’t you try this asking Him:
Since you are an ex-Catholic–Make the sign of the cross saying: “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Jesus if you exist come into my life and lead me to true belief in You–Amen”

That’s all.

He will eventually reveal himself to you.

Will you do it? As i said I haven’t met an atheist who has.

 

[jmvizanko]

Your own words say the you made a choice. To determine if something makes sense or nonsense require analysis. Analysis doesn’t happen on its own. You must choose to weigh the evidence. Then depending on a lot factors, include biases, you decide which it is.

But you can’t control your biases or the mental software that is running the analysis. Unless of course somewhere in there you say to yourself that you just don’t like or want to believe this or that part. But once again, that’s lying to yourself about what you actually think is true. Youd don’t choose to weight the evidence, the evidence weighs what it does based on how you perceive and process it.

So you say. My experience says you are wrong.

Fair enough, and we seem to just butt heads on this in the end.

There is only one God. He created you and I in his image. He gave us free will so we can love, where love = sacrificial self donation for the good of another. It is only this kind of love that will truely make us happy. Hell is the natural consequence of choosing not to love.

Yet plenty of people that don’t even think there is a god do have this type of love. I give to charity and I try to be as nice and helpful of a person as I can be. Hell is not the natural consequence of choosing not to love, its just a consequence of a being sending you there for ridiculous reasons.

 

[jmvizanko]

He will eventually reveal himself to you.

If that is the case, why did he unreveal himself in the first place? Even though I used to be a believing Catholic, I never experienced anything that gave me any direct reason to think Jesus still exists and could communicate with me or alter the universe. I just took the faith on faith. When I realized my faith was arbitrary and never justified to begin with, it was pretty easy to think back and realize there was really never anything there.

 

[davidv]

But you can’t control your biases

Really? Is you intellect so powerless that you cannot recognize and compensate for your biases?

or the mental software that is running the analysis.

Who downloaded the software in my head? Who designed that software?

Unless of course somewhere in there you say to yourself that you just don’t like or want to believe this or that part. But once again, that’s lying to yourself about what you actually think is true. Youd don’t choose to weight the evidence, the evidence weighs what it does based on how you perceive and process it.

I don’t understand what the above means.

Fair enough, and we seem to just butt heads on this in the end.

Or we can explore the differences? But only in this thread if it relates to the title topic.

Yet plenty of people that don’t even think there is a god do have this type of love. I give to charity and I try to be as nice and helpful of a person as I can be.

Whether they believe or not, the law of love has been placed in their hearts.

Hell is not the natural consequence of choosing not to love, its just a consequence of a being sending you there for ridiculous reasons.

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of this claim.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Catholics believe in Purgatory, so they believe their is repentance after death. Therefore, someone who would repent after death would be in Purgatory, not Hell.

Is not Purgatory reserved for those who repent prior to death?

OK. Let’s get something straight here. kpeople:
I am not God. I don’t know how God ‘thinks’ and ‘feels.’ Why don’t you ask Him?

Apparently he will not speak with me. Seemingly he told me to ask you.

He doesn’t express emotion in a human way because He is not human, he is God. God expresses ‘emotion’ in a divine sense which is above human. We can meaningfully connect with him because we are created in His image, meaning we share the nature of God, and because God (Jesus, 2nd person of the Trinity) became human.

Would this not possibly mean that he might equally not express justice in a human way? Nor compassion?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Let me give you an example of all the people who qualify. Do you see a theme here?

• Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

How many people do you know are involved in fornication or adultery or various forms of immorality? Think it’s a small number who do this? Think only the mentally retarded or insane, engage in these acts that will send them to hell if they die in these sins? The warnings are there. The consequence is real. Look how many people on this planet ignore the warnings. BTW, any sin that can send one to hell, is a mortal sin.

People in these sins as scripture warns, are one heartbeat away from hell.

Is Hell not equally promised to the unbeliever?

Further, even if it might be agreed that the above list of activities might be considered less than desirable, which of these might be considered vile enough to warrant an eternity of torture?

Finally, if God were to command you to stoke the fires of Hell for a season, might you do so willingly?

The time to change is before one dies NOT after. By the time one dies, the die is cast. No second chances.

Would this not then suggest that few might actually willingly descend into Hell in the conventional understanding of the word, but that they might be surprised at having earned such a punishment? For if an unbeliever might die, would not the realization of God’s existence normally be an opportunity for a change of heart? Yet if the die might already be cast, would not such a soul descend to eternal fire harboring an expression of eternal surprise?

Memory, intellect, and will, are fully functional in the next life. For heaven it’s great beyond belief. For hell, Imagine your worst day. Now imagine that day getting worse and worse because it’s never ending. No letting up. No break. Torment Forever.

 

[steve_b]

Is Hell not equally promised to the unbeliever?

Yes.
J:

Further, even if it might be agreed that the above list of activities might be considered less than desirable, which of these might be considered vile enough to warrant an eternity of torture?

all of them. That’s the point. We wouldn’t know any of this if it weren’t for revelation (scripture) and apostolic Tradition telling us what the consequences are for certain sins. For that matter, heaven and hell, without revelation telling us they are real, would just be no better than one’s imagination or speculation. That’s why I paraphrased St Paul in an earlier post by saying something to the effect, If Jesus isn’t who he says he is, and he is still in the ground over in Jerusalem, then we are to be the most pittied of all, for our faith is nonsense, so eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. [1 Cor 15:12…] I stress, very loosly paraphrased
J:

Finally, if God were to command you to stoke the fires of Hell for a season, might you do so willingly?

I’m not sure what you mean
J:

Would this not then suggest that few might actually willingly descend into Hell in the conventional understanding of the word, but that they might be surprised at having earned such a punishment?

I’m sure that’s true. Although, at judgement, I’m sure that one’s illumination of their life is sooooo clear, one doesn’t argue about the sentence. No one goes to hell by accident nor heaven either.
J:

For if an unbeliever might die, would not the realization of God’s existence normally be an opportunity for a change of heart? Yet if the die might already be cast,* would not such a soul descend to eternal fire harboring an expression of eternal surprise*?

That would suggest to me one in that situation goes to hell by accident. I don’t believe that happens. Although scripture does describe ones being judged who are seemingly suprised about the sentence they’re given (sheep and goats parable Mt 25). But the judgement was also explained to them, so they are no longer suprised at the judgement. iow they know exactly without any doubt why they deserve their sentence. The illumination at judgement, for the individual, is soooo clear, that all doubt is removed completely in how God views them, both about their life, and their sentence.

 

[minkymurph]

Is not Purgatory reserved for those who repent prior to death?

Yes, someone else picked me up on that. However, few fully repent of every single sin they have committed, and I have a theory this is something that happens in Purgatory.

Apparently he will not speak with me. Seemingly he told me to ask you.

Then God has a sense of humour.

Would this not possibly mean that he might equally not express justice in a human way? Nor compassion?

Yes, it does. God is justice and compassion in a divine, not human, sense.

 

[jmvizanko]

Really? Is you intellect so powerless that you cannot recognize and compensate for your biases?

If you recognize that they are biases that you have a choice to ignore or contradict. But biases, just like what you think are true, are inherited, not chosen.

Who downloaded the software in my head? Who designed that software?

The software is partly due to your genetics and the brain that has crafted, and the experiences and things you have learned that have shaped it. Nothing, once again, that you really “chose.”

Or we can explore the differences? But only in this thread if it relates to the title topic.

Well the differences in this case are completely relevant to the topic. Hell is not just if belief is not a choice, and we contend differently as to whether or not it is a choice.

Whether they believe or not, the law of love has been placed in their hearts.

OK, but it still doesn’t matter if they are an atheist, because god doesn’t care about the love they have in them.

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of this claim.

Once again, hell is not just if belief is not a choice, and belief is what sends you there.

 

[davidv]

If you recognize that they are biases that you have a choice to ignore or contradict. But biases, just like what you think are true, are inherited, not chosen.

The software is partly due to your genetics and the brain that has crafted, and the experiences and things you have learned that have shaped it. Nothing, once again, that you really “chose.”

Well the differences in this case are completely relevant to the topic. Hell is not just if belief is not a choice, and we contend differently as to whether or not it is a choice.

OK, but it still doesn’t matter if they are an atheist, because god doesn’t care about the love they have in them.

Really? Based on what?

Once again, hell is not just if belief is not a choice, and belief is what sends you there.

That is a bare assertion. I asked for a demonstration, preferably a valid logical argument.

 

[jmvizanko]

Really? Based on what?

Based on what I said? What is so hard to understand? I explained why I thought that what someone perceives and concludes is largely if not entirely unchosen and you just threw up your arms and said “based on what” as if that invalidates my points.

That is a bare assertion. I asked for a demonstration, preferably a valid logical argument.

Maybe if I number it it will make more sense to you.

1. Hell is a punishment.
2. Just punishments are proportional penalties for a wrongdoing.
3. Belief is not a wrongdoing since it is not a choice.
4. God punishes people with hell for something that is not a wrongdoing.
5. Hell and god are not just.

Obviously you disagree with point 3. But is there another point you disagree with?

 

[davidv]

Based on what I said? What is so hard to understand? I explained why I thought that what someone perceives and concludes is largely if not entirely unchosen and you just threw up your arms and said “based on what” as if that invalidates my points.

Why do you think it is problem with my understanding? I disagree with your assertion because I don’t believe it is true, and the only thing you offered as evidence to convince me otherwise was your opinion.

Maybe if I number it it will make more sense to you.

1. Hell is a punishment.
2. Just punishments are proportional penalties for a wrongdoing.
3. Belief is not a wrongdoing since it is not a choice.
4. God punishes people with hell for something that is not a wrongdoing.
5. Hell and god are not just.

Obviously you disagree with point 3. But is there another point you disagree with?

Thank you for putting in a logical form.

I also disagree with 1. It is incomplete. Hell is also the logical consequence of deliberate acts.
#2 does not take into account the consequential nature of 1.
#3 - obvious I believe ths to be a false statement, but even if is was true belief isn’t the basis for hell, sin is.
#4 is obviously false since God is perfectly just and any punishment received is what is owed. For justice = getting what one deserves.
#5 - Given all of the errors in 1-4, #5 does not follow and your argument is not valid.

 

[jmvizanko]

Why do you think it is problem with my understanding? I disagree with your assertion because I don’t believe it is true, and the only thing you offered as evidence to convince me otherwise was your opinion.

Well it wasn’t just opinion. But we can really simplify this down if we want to. You think you can choose what you think about what is true and I don’t. I don’t feel like you have put forth a compelling argument why your side wins, and you think the same for me.

I also disagree with 1. It is incomplete. Hell is also the logical consequence of deliberate acts.

Its something bad that happens to somebody because of something they did. That’s a punishment. End of story.

#2 does not take into account the consequential nature of 1.

Sure it does. If somebody deserves a punishment, they deserve it. What we disagree with is why somebody does or does not deserve hell.

#3 - obvious I believe ths to be a false statement, but even if is was true belief isn’t the basis for hell, sin is.

But if belief is what either sends you to hell or heaven, since every person has sinned, then sin is not what sends you to hell, unbelief does.

#4 is obviously false since God is perfectly just and any punishment received is what is owed. For justice = getting what one deserves.

I don’t grant god the liberty of being unquestionable. If there is a god, and he sends people to hell for reasons they have no control over, then he is not just, period.

#5 - Given all of the errors in 1-4, #5 does not follow and your argument is not valid.

According to you.

 

[davidv]

Well it wasn’t just opinion. But we can really simplify this down if we want to. You think you can choose what you think about what is true and I don’t. I don’t feel like you have put forth a compelling argument why your side wins, and you think the same for me.

Its something bad that happens to somebody because of something they did. That’s a punishment. End of story.

Sure it does. If somebody deserves a punishment, they deserve it. What we disagree with is why somebody does or does not deserve hell.

But if belief is what either sends you to hell or heaven, since every person has sinned, then sin is not what sends you to hell, unbelief does.

I don’t grant god the liberty of being unquestionable. If there is a god, and he sends people to hell for reasons they have no control over, then he is not just, period.

According to you.

If you say so?

 

[Lochias]

Its something bad that happens to somebody because of something they did. That’s a punishment. End of story.

No, sorry. A grown person who puts his hand on a hot stove, knowing that he will be burned because it is in the nature of a hot stove to burn a bare hand, and does it anyway, is not being “punished”. He is being foolish. Similarly, the stove did not “punish” the man, because the stove does what the stove does. It gets hot.

So…foolish man + hot stove that burns things = choice. Similarly, foolish man who KNOWS what sin is and what it does + sin that cuts one off from the grace of God = choice.

In both cases, you get burned.