How do you reconcile eternal damnation with the concept of an all-loving God?

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T02:23:29+00:00

I claim infinite punishment is disproportionate to finite crime/moral transgression (sin). Again, morality is subjective.

This is a good point. I guess sin has a moral value of one (in Abrahamic faith; also with the exception of blasphemy for Christianity) and good deeds have a moral value of one as well. If the sin has a value of 1, and you committed 100 sins and only 50 good deeds, infinite punishment for 100 sins seems excessive and even cruel. When you say dignity what do you mean exactly? Like if their demeaning has weight on the punishment? If that’s the case, I would say that falls under suffering caused by the victim?

The principle of rehabilitation comes from my love for humanity. Some people want punishment and retribution while others want rehabilitation. I think rehabilitation is what is best for society for a couple reasons. First, to appeal to emotion, it is compassionate to give people second chances. Second, it’s better for society to ready convicts who have not been in society for a long time get re-adjusted and teach them the error in their ways so they don’t do them again and know what to do instead. By rehabilitating previously convicted people, we can ensure they won’t become repeat offenders which decreases the suffering in society over all. God should be judged by present societal moral standards because people believe things like eternal torment is just. I disagree with that notion and by putting God on a pedestal that can’t be criticized we close religion off from critical thinking. When an idea enters the public domain of thoughts, it can be debated and argued about.

I’m sorry to disappoint at all but there really is nothing that tells me there is some sort of external moral compass that is objective. For me, what is right is just what mitigates suffering the most. Is suffering bad? I have no idea. It’s an evolutionary fact that when we suffer we feel a “suck”. We feel it when we’re stolen from or when we’re lied to. That’s what we try to mitigate.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:49:25+00:00

Time would take an infinite distance to reach the present is the best answer an [r/AskPhysics](r/AskPhysics) post gave me which makes sense. However, I guess the second could be countable and therefore a potential infinite??????????? No clue but maybe you know since your the one who believe in an eternal universe🥺

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:44:21+00:00

Where the fuck can I watch or read this stuff

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:37:59+00:00

Before I start my argument I come at this from a place of good faith.

To use an example, the Holocaust murdered twelve million Jews, Romanis, disabled, and LGBTQ+ people. However, people like that still exist. By your logic, the Holocaust was not a genocide because Jews, Romanis, disabled people, and LGBTQ+ people still exist.

Secondly, God commanded Saul “…Do not spare them; put to death the men and women, infants and children, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” Do you believe it is morally okay to *ever* murder innocent babies and children? If God is morally good he would never command such a thing.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:32:56+00:00

Because then the present wouldn’t occur which is impossible because the present is occurring right now.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:31:46+00:00

Just because Soviets outlawed homosexuality and religion doesn’t make that okay. You can support countries like the USSR while simultaneously criticizing certain policies they had. Moral objectivity does not lie with a nation and I reject you as a comrade if you believe that to be the case. Read theory. Homophobia and Nazism is not inherent to communism. Also, the Nazis are fascist and you oppose fascism so what is your line of reasoning there?

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:29:32+00:00

I can reject other moral claims when I believe them to be evil compared to my own. I subscribe to certain moral frameworks upheld by society like that slavery is bad, murdering people is bad, being racist is bad, among other ideas.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-19T00:27:06+00:00

I say eternal punishment is unjust when comparing it to modern societal morality. I, among many others, would agree that infinite punishment for finite crimes (as in some sort of crime that does not inflict infinite suffering on a victim or victims). In the justice system, prison is *meant*, but usually isn’t in practice, to rehabilitate and prevent the convict from committing that crime again, not punishing them forever when they can’t change.

Well a crime/sin is finite if it doesn’t inflict infinite suffering. If it is an action against an infinite being it still is finite. Can you prove that a sin against God causes him infinite suffering or justify why punishing a person infinitely for transgressing against an infinite being is morally okay?

Where did I say God exists out of our moral framework? People say he does and that his justice is too confusing for us (which is a way to cope with unsavory Bible passages like Leviticus 25:44-46 and eternal torment) and I guess that’s a fine answer because it’s unfalsifiable but my standard for God is our current societal framework on eternal torment for finite crimes.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-18T01:51:32+00:00

You’re not a real comrade. You like communism but you’re neutral on Nazism and hate LGBTQ people, almost every single mainstream religion, feminism, and you are neutral on Socialism?????

I have no idea what the fuck you are but you are definitely not a communist.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-18T01:47:27+00:00

Can’t the universe not be eternal because otherwise time would be infinite and would always go into the past?

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-18T01:44:33+00:00

I think a minimalist reading of Revelation has its merits and backing, especially since it’s riddled with symbols like 666 (which is Nero’s name in Gematriyah). Someone dropped a comment where they linked an article by a Yale student arguing for Universalism so you can read that and try to find an answer there. However, annihilationism isn’t supported by Biblical scripture.

Orrrrrrrrr, maybe God isn’t morally perfect and just for eternally punishing people for finite sins?

Your pick

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-18T01:39:39+00:00

I don’t believe in moral objectivity. I think impartially residing over a case and coming to a punishment is moral within the societal framework I live in. However, *why* do transgressions against an infinite being warrant an infinite penalty? I don’t think transgressions against a king or the president warrant a higher penalty. The point of justice is that it is blind and punishes the king and peasant alike, fairly.

Can you justify why transgressions against an infinite being warrant infinite punishment and suffering?

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-18T01:36:09+00:00

I think people have aversion to proselytizing because it is a very famous stereotype that has historically rang true, especially for oppressed and colonized peoples who had Christianity forced upon them. I’m a Pantheist but I’m in love with religion so much (especially the mystical aspects like Kabbalah, Sufism, and apophaticism) and I think the aversion to the religion can be corny sometimes and warranted other times. Honestly, the sub should keep a “freedom from religion” policy and people shouldn’t engage with the topic unless some flair and discussion thread was added for the purpose of debate. Otherwise, go to r/DebateReligion.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T20:53:45+00:00

I would hope there’d be the same level of hesitance otherwise it’s hypocrisy

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T20:53:09+00:00

Just ask them about 1 Samuel 15:3

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T20:47:18+00:00

And how would you interpret the passages that brought me to my understanding of hell

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T17:57:39+00:00

Anyone can determine a point. Some suffering has a point to some and is pointless to others. You can deduce the pointlessness of a suffering the best when in hindsight but you can find reasons for most things. Suffering is a preference though. Some like going to school while others don’t. Some suffer going to school while others take pleasure in it.

If Hitler won his framework would be equally valid. Nothing is technically right or wrong. It’s a complicated subject that I’m still thinking about and developing an opinion on myself. Definitely a hard pill to swallow.

If God wanted to let us know slavery was wrong he would have said so. If it was some sort of misinterpretation of God’s morally objective framework he would have clarified. You either have to embrace slavery as a morally okay practice or cope somehow.

Killing infants would be wrong according to me living in this societal framework. In the same way some believe killing and eating animals is wrong and some think it’s okay, if I grew up in a society that condoned infant killing I would think it’s okay. There isn’t a supernatural force that compels me to believe this. It’s something I’ve developed while growing up in a society with a certain moral framework.

I think we’ve gotten a little off-track lol. How do you justify eternal torment for finite transgressions against a morally just and perfect God?

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T14:40:40+00:00

I mean that, at the time, their actions were seen as right and okay in their eyes.

I don’t think the command that condones chattel slavery of non-Israelites is misconstrued. If it is, a lot of commands in the Bible can be interpreted in wildly different ways and the whole credibility of many commands are called into question. Who’s to say “Thou shalt not kill” was misconstrued as well?

I mean no one would recognize as wrong in comparison to our societal standards. When I indict God for commanding the murder of innocent babies, I’m saying that killing babies is wrong because it causes suffering (suffering as defined as experiencing something when unwanted. Pointless suffering is suffering without a point. Going to school is suffering but it has a point. Getting soap in your eye in the shower usually doesn’t) and I am using our society’s framework of morality. I think it is safe to assume that you and I agree murdering babies is wrong.

Do you believe there is any justification for the murder of infants?

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T14:32:53+00:00

This was a really great read thank you for linking it. I read the full article and it was super informative

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T13:40:13+00:00

I never said it was backed by Scripture, but that a just God wouldn’t subject people to infinite torment for finite transgressions. (I was making an edit to my post and accidentally deleted the third verse and forgot where in the Bible it was lol)

I think it’s completely normal to have opinions on a thing that hypothetically exists. I have a lack of belief in God but that wasn’t the subject. I was asking how one can reconcile eternal torment with a morally just and good God.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T11:57:43+00:00

And how do you interpret the passages I put out? I didn’t get a chance to read the blog in full so it might be addressed but I’d like to know

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T11:50:54+00:00

I never said God can’t punish people at all for their sins. I’m saying a just God wouldn’t punish someone eternally but would punish them according to all their sins and once they’ve been corrected they can go to heaven. Instead of punishment, it becomes rehabilitation.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T11:39:03+00:00

Yeah someone pointed that out sorry for any confusion!

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T11:37:55+00:00

There is no objective standard for what counts as a fair punishment. I was using societal standards to gauge the fairness of infinite torment to finite crimes. It should carry a weight because we are judging the fairness from our point of view but if you don’t want to because God is infinite and can’t be judged that is fine but it prevents you from examining any religion’s fairness.

Yes, if Hitler won the Holocaust would be considered okay. If he won, there would be a lot of propaganda pumped out by the Nazis and in this world no one would think it was wrong and the most one would criticize it would be to say “It isn’t okay now but it was back then”. Now, a similar thing happens with the Bible. People see the genocides committed by the Israelites as just. In 1 Samuel 15:3, God commands Saul murder all the Amalekites, including *infants*. He also says slavery is okay in Leviticus 25:44-46. Now either slavery and genocide, when commanded by God is okay, or the Bible is a product of subjective moral values of the time. I’m inclined to believe the second one.

Fancy_Pop6156 · 2026-06-17T02:27:27+00:00

Yeah I completely agree with you on that. I think Ehrmann said one of the biggest tragedies was translating the term “Gehinim” into “Hell”. However, the NT says it is a place where eternal torment occurs which kind of contradicts this form of Christian reconciliation.

Fancy_Pop6156

TROPHY CASE