Crime + punishment

[afleitch]

In the Christian conception, the reason sin merits eternal punishment is because it is a crime against an infinitely good God first and foremost even when the offense is against other people, as we see in Psalm 51:4.  A materialist worldview lacks this kind of grounding of sin being an offense against an all-good being because none could exist, and I think this, more than the lack of immortality, is the ultimate moral challenge for a naturalistic worldview.

That's a moral contradiction with much more troubling ethical problems than that of a naturalistic worldview.

[afleitch]

In the Christian conception, the reason sin merits eternal punishment is because it is a crime against an infinitely good God first and foremost even when the offense is against other people, as we see in Psalm 51:4.  A materialist worldview lacks this kind of grounding of sin being an offense against an all-good being because none could exist, and I think this, more than the lack of immortality, is the ultimate moral challenge for a naturalistic worldview.

That's a moral contradiction with much more troubling ethical problems than that of a naturalistic worldview.

     There is no real contradiction as long as you don't attempt to bind God to the subjective preferences of modern liberalism.

If an infinitely 'good' entity edicts eternal punishment, what actions would an infinitely 'bad' entity edict and how could you tell them apart?

[afleitch]

In the Christian conception, the reason sin merits eternal punishment is because it is a crime against an infinitely good God first and foremost even when the offense is against other people, as we see in Psalm 51:4.  A materialist worldview lacks this kind of grounding of sin being an offense against an all-good being because none could exist, and I think this, more than the lack of immortality, is the ultimate moral challenge for a naturalistic worldview.

That's a moral contradiction with much more troubling ethical problems than that of a naturalistic worldview.

     There is no real contradiction as long as you don't attempt to bind God to the subjective preferences of modern liberalism.

If an infinitely 'good' entity edicts eternal punishment, what actions would an infinitely 'bad' entity edict and how could you tell them apart?

     The question would be whether the edict is just or unjust. As Rfayette articulated above, sin is an offense against God, who rightfully possesses the authority to define moral law. As God is infinitely greater than us, an offense against His majesty merits an infinite punishment. That God is willing to forgive us for our sins at all is a powerful proof of His love and mercy.

That's a sidestep. If eternal punishment, something we as humans cannot levy comes from a 'good' infinite being, what discerns a good infinite being from a bad one? What would a bad entity do, as the worst form of punishment?

You ask about what is 'just'. The whole point of justice is to make 'whole' the victim, whether the justice is punitive or mild, whether the person is alive or dead. That is what justice means. A God can never be less than 'whole'. A crime against them cannot matter never mind merit any punishment. A finite being such as ourselves cannot inflict harm on an infinite being.

[afleitch]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

[afleitch]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

Why would it for us though?

Though related to your point it would make even less sense for god to punish with eternal pain when he experienced physical and psychological pain for a few days and it broke him.

[afleitch]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

Why would it for us though?

Though related to your point it would make even less sense for god to punish with eternal pain when he experienced physical and psychological pain for a few days and it broke him.

Why would it not for us, when Christ's resurrection, as the Firstborn from the Dead, is what accomplishes our own?

Christ was broken and died, and then restored, as the promise is that we may be as well.  The tradition of felix culpa within Christianity emphasizes that what is broken and then healed is in some sense more whole and blessed than had nothing been broken.  It is what allows us to know grace.

That doesn't answer my question. You've just pointed to two examples of knowing joy from pain or in the case of felix culpa, gain from loss.

If you feel joy for infinity, into which the finite time of feeling pain  isn't divisible, it's not joy. It's a new neutral equilibrium.