@RandalRauserChristians sometimes defend the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious torment by saying that hell is self-imposed (rather than divinely-imposed) torment. But it is doubtful that this qualification helps much.
It's true that that in itself is an insufficient justification. The criterion of self-affliction is too facile to stand on its own, although it can be a morally relevant factor.
If a person was engaging in egregious self-harm, wouldn't you restrain them, forcibly if necessary? Hell on this view is surely the ultimate form of self-harm. And we are to suppose nobody intervenes for eternity?
The problem here is that Rauser is recasting the issue as if we were dealing with innocent victims of mental illness. People who engage in self-harm through no fault of their own. He uses the morally neutral language of "person" rather than the "wicked". Rauser's outlook is amoral.
If, however, a terrorist was about to accidentally step on a cobra or a serial killer was about to accidentally step into quick sand, I wouldn't intervene to save them from self-inflicted harm. Hell is about retributive punishment, not misfortune.
If we are all just living out a script written for us, why create the characters as being “wicked” or a “serial killers” from the start? Wouldn't the script start with innocent people who are written to become “wicked” or “serial killers”? If that is the case, isn’t God writing the script to make innocent people “wicked” or “serial killers” rather than writing a script that intervenes for their well-being?
ReplyDeletei) As far as movie analogies go, many cinematic plots have a character who's already a villain. There was never a time in the movie when he wasn't rotten to the core.
Deleteii) Other movies have the tragic corruption of decent man or woman.
iii) Intervention is good, but retributive justice is another kind of good.
What script has been written for humanity? Does the script start with each of us as villains or is it written to have each of us become tragically corrupted?
ReplyDeleteI'm just playing along with your analogy. There's a script for the elect and a script for the reprobate. Within the limitations of the illustration, one could say the elect are the heroes and the reprobate are the villains. But the illustration oversimplifies their character. The elect can start out as villains who undergo spiritual renewal while the reprobate can start out as decent people, some of whom become corrupt.
Delete