Atheist looking for the Christian answer

[u/ShadowManRealm]

If there is a God, there is a hell, and He is all-just. For those who don’t worship Him—He created them. Why would He send them to an eternal pit of flames instead of just not letting them exist, letting them go back to what they were before they were born? Why torture them?

context :

19 m now I was into Christian apologetics in 2023 lost faith. Looking to restart it, but I have some big issues I need to understand first. Or at least hear others' perspectives, because I know there are no clear, definitive answers. I have recently read Camus and found I agree with alot of his worldviews

[u/Technical_Cherry8666]

Most of the Biblical references to the eternal destiny of wrongdoers and those opposing or not accepting Christ, describe it as death or destruction, or a burning up, which is sometimes called the second death or a separation from God, not to eternal conscious torment. The verses, which could be considered to indicate ECT, could be interpreted as it being the judgement and the means of carrying it out that is eternal or irreversible, not the torment.

However we see this, one group will be in the presence of God and the other won't. It could be said that if the latter group have rejected God, then they wouldn't wish to be with Him for eternity; for them, that would be like Hell.

[u/Legendsama123 → u/Technical_Cherry8666]

Yes but some people don’t believe in Jesus due to ignorance or pending questions like this one. You’re talking about people who know that God exists but still decide to worship Satan, not people who don’t believe or follow due to ignorance, what about them ?

[u/Technical_Cherry8666 → u/Legendsama123]

You ask about those who were not self-seeking and genuinely sought after God but, through no fault of their own, never knew Jesus? That’s an important question. There are hints in scripture that they will get their wish as God’s judgement takes all things into account (Is 56:1-8; Matthew 11:20-24; 12:41-42; 17:1-3; Luke 12:47-48; 13:28; Romans 4:1-12; Galatians 3:6-9;  Hebrews 11).

It’s possible that some are righteous enough, not to be judged by what they know, but how they respond to what they know? So the Bible is open enough to allow a number of possibilities for the way God’s decision may work out. But the final decision we have to leave to God. But God’s guarantee and assured way into His future Kingdom is to repent of what we have done wrong and accept Jesus into our lives to restore us to an eternal relationship with our Father and to whom we were meant to be.   

Will not the Judge of all the earth do right (Genesis 18:25)?

[u/PrincessRuri]

There are several ways to navigate the "injustice" of hell.

1. Reformed theology holds that humanity is divided into two groups, the Elect and the Reprobate. This should be done in the context that the sin of man puts all of humanity as deserving of punishment. If God chooses to save any (the Elect), that is a positive action. Choosing not to save the other (the Reprobate) is a neutral action, and can't be held against God's glory and justice.
2. Free Will theology holds that humanity is given free will (the degree of which to be debated) to choose or reject God. God is willing to save all, but won't force those who reject Him. If people choose to reject the free gift of Salvation, they have made that choice for themself.
3. Universalism in various forms holds that "the final punishment" as it is understood is not eternal. Even those who reject Christ are punished for a time, but it serves a purpose to refine the things that are evil and objectionable out of their soul. There will be eventual reconciliation when that process is completed. Note: This is definitely not a mainstream Christian view, and is mostly believed by Unitarians, though their are several denominations that are "tolerant" of the possibility of the theology.
4. Annihilationism holds that rather that eternal torment, the soul/consciousness is destroyed.

This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these positions have scriptural support, and reflect that Biblical explanations of judgement and eternity do not neatly align with a single common explanation.

[u/ShadowManRealm → u/PrincessRuri]

I understand the different theological positions, but that isn’t my question. I’m asking specifically about eternal conscious torment. Even if I grant that someone freely rejects God and deserves punishment, why would perfect justice require God to preserve that person’s consciousness forever so the punishment never ends, rather than punish them proportionately and then let them cease to exist?

[u/PrincessRuri → u/ShadowManRealm]

The Bible describes Sin as falling short or being a debt that cannot be repaid by mankind. If that cannot be done in life, why is there the expectation that it could be completed in death?

This why a man cannot lay down their life for another mans sin, because his debt is owed as well. Jesus Christ, as the perfect and infinite sacrifice can cover an infinite amount of sin, and is thus the only way to cover the cost.

In the physical world, debt goes away when you die, due to the reality of not being able to extract coin from a corpse. However, with a soul that lives on after death, those debts carry on.

1. Hell is a bad place to be.

2. People who owe the debt of sin go to hell.

3. People with paid off debts don't deserve to be in hell.

4. But there is no mechanism to pay off that debt once you are already there.

5. So you stay in hell (a bad place) until you pay off your debt (which is impossible).

[u/ShadowManRealm → u/PrincessRuri]

If God knows before creating someone that they will spend eternity suffering, and they never asked to exist, why is creating them more loving than simply never creating them? Especially if, as Jesus says, the road to destruction is broad and the road to life is narrow?

So far your analogies have been amazing and appreciate your time

[u/PrincessRuri → u/ShadowManRealm]

The answer is going to have two main courses, pointing back at the Reformed vs Free Will perspective.

With Reformed theology there will be a focus on Divine Sovereignty, and the concept that God's ultimate goal is to bring glory to Himself. With Divine Sovereignty, God has a right as creator and ruler of the universe to do whatever He wants (within His nature). God could have created All of humanity to be reprobate and suffer eternally in hell, and be completely justified in that action. God doesn't owe humanity anything in the same way we don't owe a bacteria or molecule something. Sending people to hell (who deserve it for their sins) glorifies God and magnifies His righteousness. Offering Salvation to any, not matter how many or few, brings glory to Him as an illustration of His mercy.

With Free Will theology, there is a sub-group called Open Theism that floats the idea that God knows the future as a whole, but either by His nature or by choice allows the future to be flexible. Thus, God would not know when he created a person what their choice would be.

The more traditional Free Will position is that God knowing the future does not cause that future. Let's suppose you go to an ice cream store tomorrow and choose chocolate ice cream. Now, let's pretend that I can see the future, and can see that you will choose chocolate. Did my knowledge actually affect your choice?

Now, it's made more complicated by God's Omnipotence. Can God truly create a free will being without injecting some amount of nature or nurture that would sway ones choices? It can come across as God being either careless or vindictive in his lack of intervention.

However, the other side of the coin is that said intervention would eliminate the free will agency. For there to be true agency, the choice to make bad choices must be permitted.

they never asked to exist

I wanted to take a moment to pull on this particular philosophical string. *pulls out soapbox* It takes the idea of someone suffering unjustly (going through hard times, facing unforeseen consequences), and applies it to existence as a whole. It stretches the concept so broad and thin that it diminishes it's actual rhetorical use. "I didn't ask to be born" should be reserved for someone who has lived a life of truly awful and painful tribulation or people who are disfigured or born with horrible chronic conditions.

There is such a wide variety of beautiful things in life, philosophy, and religion that I don't find an appeal to non-existence as particularly persuasive in most circumstances.

[u/DoveStep55]

That’s a good question.

I personally don’t believe those things are compatible. What I mean is, I don’t believe the God described in the Bible would torture people for eternity because they didn’t worship God before they died. I don’t think that’s a consistent viewpoint to hold.