A suicidal person might not care if their sin of suicide was to seal their future damnation to soul oblivion—I am not saying that this must be the outcome of committing suicide, as I am focusing on a logical truth about their potential motivation. Someone who hates the misery of their life so much that they prefer cessation of mental existence to living out the rest of their natural lifespan could find the idea of annihilation after resurrection and cosmic judgment relieving. Even if they have to suffer a finite amount of time to reach the final state, they would still eventually be purged from existence, unable at that point to even ponder or regret the choice that led them to true and lasting destruction. This is precisely what they longed for enough to find suicide appealing.
Alternatively, a wicked person bent on pursuing whatever subjectively pleasurable thing calls to them in the moment might be apathetic towards the final destiny of annihilation as long as the pleasure of their preference is accessible now. To commit suicide is at least in most cases sinful, but a desperately suicidal person craves nonexistence for the sake of relief while the hedonist or malicious person who wants to do as they like wants nonexistence to escape accountability. If the latter could know in advance with absolute certainty that annihilation awaits them if they do not repent before their soul is killed, as with the sufficiently suicidal person, their personal attitude could be one of relief and contentment. The irony is that they could experience none of that contentment once death has arrived.
For someone still living, true death can seem like a greater state by far in itself or by comparison to any other possibility. That it is Biblically reserved for the unrepentantly wicked would probably not dissuade either kind of person described even if there is evidence that the Bible is true. Why should they seek eternal life regardless, and why would it be in their best interests? Now, if something is morally obligatory, by nature it is what you should do even if you despise it. If something truly is evil, it should not be done. If morality exists, whether or not in the form it has on Christianity, there is no legitimacy in doing whatever you wish because you will not have to suffer without an end in some sort of afterlife.
It would not matter if someone does not care that they will be annihilated forever if they do not repent of their sins, as they should avoid evil by nature of it being evil and not strictly to avoid punishment. However, the kind of suicidal person and egoistic sinner described above at least do not consistently care about pure logic and do not care about upholding righteousness more than gratifying their own subjective whims, as different as they might be. Necessitated by justice is the fact that any punitive suffering is not eternal, and, again, some people might crave the oblivion that follows any torment in the Biblical hell.
Would you personally want to do what you should and shun what should not be done, when logic and morality themselves require that there could not be morally legitimate torture without end as punishment for evil? Even if someone was irrational enough to care more about their own preferences than what is true and what is morally correct (if there is morality) for their own sake, on the Biblical worldview, there are still pragmatic benefits to seeking eternal life, the gift to the righteous. Whoever receives eternal life does not merely exist forever unlike the wicked who perish. Each individual with eternal life is free to do whatever they would like as long as they do not sin—and those boundaries are much less confining than many people inside and outside of the church assume.
Morality should be lived out no matter the consequences or lack of them. When the enduring consequence is death of the soul, total extinction of consciousness and thus the very capacity for sadness or pain, this might seem trivial to someone intent on living as they please no matter what because they still can do as they wish in the present. It is absolutely not trivial. The eternal deprivation of the ability to experience pleasure in all its nonsinful forms—such as savoring logical necessities, engaging in empowering introspection, knowing God, and enjoying deep friendships—would be a terrible thing. On the level of sheer personal benefit, eternal life free of pain coupled with existential fulfillment and pleasure always outweighs the unconciousness of eternal death.
With all of this in mind, aside from whether Christianity is actually true, would you really want to cease to exist as opposed to enjoying the multitude of good or permissible pleasures without boredom, pain, or an end? Independent of preference, one should do and intend to do whatever is good because one should do it, but there are incentives according to Biblical philosophy that objectively would be better on a pragmatic and personal level than simply seizing what is comparatively like a few brief moments of pleasure in this life mingled with the opportunity for unwanted pain, and then dying forever. The process of dying in hell might be very painful although logic and Christian morality require a maximum severity to justice (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Luke 12:47-48). This potential for pain is part of the deterrence.
Nonetheless, the lasting part of the punishment of hell is being eternally denied the capacity for joy and pleasure. You no longer exist to regret or repent or find any sort of fulfillment and happiness. Eternal life alone is not a positive thing whatsoever [1]; Biblically, whoever receives eternal life will be the endless subject of a perfect life with all that human perfection really permits and entails, very much unlike what many conceive of living in heaven being like.
No comments:
Post a Comment