Quote# 52524

Some insights for people who think Hell is unreasonable?
Ask yourself this question. Why don't we get mad at someone who steps on an ant, but we give 5-10 years in jail for someone who kills some dirty criminal, and life-in-jail (or death sentence) to someone who kills the president?

In all three instances someone murdered. So why the different punishment.

The only thing that changed in this scenario was the worth of the person/thing the crime was committed against. Wouldn't it then follow that crimes committed against an infinitely worthy person/thing would require an infinite punishment?

Tristan, Y!A 50 Comments [11/20/2008 10:02:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Pedantic Twit

Oh, my sweet juicy Jesus. You fail at society so hard it made me kick my dog's balls.

11/20/2008 10:10:26 PM


Eternal torment in Hell is too extreme even for the worst of criminals, but according to you fundies, people burn in Hell for every little sin, whether it's murder, or telling a fib. I don't think someone deserves to be tortured for eternity just because they lied about how delicious that awful meatloaf their mother made for dinner was.

11/20/2008 10:14:32 PM

Tristan, are you saying that you believe it's a "crime" to disbelieve in an entity whose existence is supported by no evidence whatsoever? Then why don't you believe in giant pink elephants?

11/20/2008 10:18:26 PM


Only the second two are murder; an ant is in no way a person.

11/20/2008 10:18:45 PM


Did you just calculated people's apsolute values? Did you just put a price tag on someone's life? It certainly looks like it...
Note to yourself: please tell Clown how to choose whose life is more valuable: life of a newborn child or the life of country's president. (any country's.)

11/20/2008 10:23:09 PM

Mister Spak

1. Killing an ant is not murder.
2. Killing a person may be murder.
3. The president inspires nuts of every description to come out of the woodwork to kill him. A worse sentence may deter some of them.
4. Your invisible man isn't real therefore no offense can be committed against him.

You fail.

11/20/2008 10:24:40 PM


What if that person was innocnet?

Is it okay to kill an innocent person just because they were accoused of a crime?

11/20/2008 10:25:13 PM

a mind far far away

That's pretty good. However, you must first proove that that 'infinitely worthy person/thing' actually exists. Then you run into a whole host of other problems. Like, if that being is all-loving, then why does he judge his own creation for doing something the way he made them do it? Is he self-loathing? Does he have Munschausen? If that being is all-loving, then an eternal punishment seems to go against that nature. You'd have to argue from one of two points: 1. that being is not all-loving, or 2. an eternal punishment does not exist. If that being is not all-loving, then devoting oneself to it would be based on if he loves you or not. Ergo, it's not worth the time to worship. If an eternal punishment doesn't exist, then it does not really matter what we do, because he'll forgive us anyway. So you're idea of god is fraught with philosophical problems. Plato would have a field day with this.

11/20/2008 10:27:08 PM


It's still a finite "crime", commited over a finite time period. It is impossible to rationally justify punishing people for eternity for "crimes" commited over a finite lifespan.

Even leaving aside that most of the things fundies think you will go to hell for are tiny little things that don't offend anybody except the fundies themselves.

11/20/2008 10:30:18 PM

Blue J

Um, see, if you commit 1st degree murder against a criminal, you can still potentially get a life sentence or the death penalty.

11/20/2008 10:33:35 PM

The L

...How the hell can you commit a criminal act against an all-powerful being who has no body to harm and doesn't own property to steal or vandalize?

Oh wait, this is Yahoo! Answers. For a minute there, I thought this person was trying to actually prove something.

11/20/2008 10:44:30 PM

Doctor Whom

If the magic sky daddy is infinitely worthy, how can anything we do upset him in the least? Let's run with your ant analogy. If a person hits me, that person can face both civil and criminal action for assault and battery, but if one of those tiny, non-stinging ants that we have here bites me, I don't even feel it, so who cares? It's the same way with your God: A sin by a finite being against an infinite God should merit an infinitesimal punishment.

11/20/2008 10:45:24 PM


Actually, if we're outside and someone deliberately steps on an ant I do get pretty mad. That's just needless assholery.

11/20/2008 10:45:45 PM



11/20/2008 10:49:31 PM

Old Viking

This pukey thing again. Tristan's idea of morality says it's completely relative, and both guilt and punishment are determined by the status of the entity transgressed against.

11/20/2008 11:11:59 PM


Sorry, but I will take a spider out of the sink/tub before turning the water on, I take all bees/wasps outside rather than kill them. I have saved a mouse from my cat more than once.

Not everyone thinks like you and I don't know what it really has to do with Hell. Is this all you have to try to prove it's exsistence?

11/20/2008 11:14:48 PM


I like that. That's the best excuse for an angry, vindictive jerk of a God I've heard yet.

11/20/2008 11:18:56 PM

Reverend Jeremiah

So you think its okay that someone who steals a paper clip be tortured for all of eternity just because some all powerful being got offended?

11/20/2008 11:23:42 PM


Perhaps, but I'm not killing, raping, stalking, trespassing on, assaulting, or otherwise harming God.

How can I commit a crime against an infinitely powerful being anyway? HE'S INFINITELY POWERFUL. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO TO EVEN BOTHER HIM.

Plus I didn't murder God, I just left him alone, that's totally not even a crime at all.

11/20/2008 11:43:12 PM


You do realise that every one is going to hell? It is impossible to repent of all your supposed sins.

11/20/2008 11:59:44 PM

"Tristan, are you saying that you believe it's a "crime" to disbelieve in an entity whose existence is supported by no evidence whatsoever? "

No, of course not. Its a crime to not nelieve in HIS entity whose existence is supported by no evidence whatsoever

11/21/2008 12:04:26 AM


I thought this god person was infinitely big. Any crime perpetuated against them by a finite being would be infinitely small and likewise justify only a infinitely small punishment.

Of course, the infinitely big ego this dude seems to have may be the cause of these problems.

11/21/2008 12:05:27 AM


I didn't kill god. I just don't believe in him or worship him

11/21/2008 12:06:44 AM


Crimes aren't punished on the basis of the worth of the victim, they're based on the cruelty of the act. Furthermore, even if we don't factor in God's reality, he's not comparable because none of these crimes are MURDER ATTEMPTS on God. No crimes are actually being committed against him.

11/21/2008 12:09:55 AM


There are degrees of murder depending upon both the evidence availible and the severity of the crime. As for your examples...

1. Ants are not humans, therefor human law cannot be applied.

2. It depends on the circumstance in which the criminal in question was killed. Was it self defense or defense of others? Was the criminal killed by the person whom he was robbing? Was he killed as a result of his criminal activities or by a premeditated act? Is there evidence that it was a premeditated act?

3. The murder of a president or any other head of state is almost always a premeditated act. The sheer amount of protection details that surround a head of state make an event like the accidental death or killing in self defense of a president statictically unlikely. Also most assassins or would be assassins are killed on the spot because the secret service is trained to shoot to kill.

The point is that the sentence is not determined by the "worth" of the person murdered but rather the circumstances surrounding the murder, the evidence pointing to the suspect, the suspects state of mind, and numerous other variables that you did not even consider.

Infinite punishment for finite crimes is inherently immoral. Case in point, there are still a few native tribes in remote areas that have never been in contact with christian missionaries, or anyone else for that matter, do those people deserve infinite punishment for their ignorance? Infinite punishment for no other reason than that your "god" chose not to reveal hinself to them?

Here are some other examples to put things in perspective.

Is simply not beliving something that you cannot be convinced of worthy of infinite punishment?

Your religion also demands infinite punishment for crimes far less severe than murder, is picking up sticks on the sabbath worthy of infinite punishment?

What about not hating your family, which is what jesus said was required to truly love him?

What about all of the other relatively minor offenses that your religion demands infinite punishment for?

What about a little girl who doesn't respect the father who raped and beat her, does she deserve infinite punishment too?

Can you see the flaw in your thinking now? Can you see that infinite punishment for any finite crime is immoral. Period.

11/21/2008 12:10:10 AM

1 2 | top: comments page