Hell Despite Vagueness: A Response to Sider
Ted Sider argues that a binary afterlife is inconsistent with a proportionally just God because no just criterion for placing persons in such an afterlife exists. I provide a possible account whereby God can remain proportionally just and allow a binary afterlife. On my account, there is some maximu...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Опубликовано: |
2011
|
| В: |
Sophia
Год: 2011, Том: 50, Выпуск: 1, Страницы: 221-232 |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Justice
B Heaven B Vagueness B Sider B Hell |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Итог: | Ted Sider argues that a binary afterlife is inconsistent with a proportionally just God because no just criterion for placing persons in such an afterlife exists. I provide a possible account whereby God can remain proportionally just and allow a binary afterlife. On my account, there is some maximum amount of people God can allow into Heaven without sacrificing some greater good. God gives to all people at least their due but chooses to allow some who do not deserve Heaven to enter out of grace. Although this model implies a precise cutoff between those who enter Heaven and those who do not, I have argued that there is a precise point where God best serves justice and some greater good. Although God’s actions may appear arbitrary and ‘whimsically generous,’ it is merely because we are ignorant of the precise cutoff point that best serves his purposes. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1873-930X |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-009-0115-6 |
