M
MannyO
Guest
Have any of you heard of Cliff Knechtle? He's an apologetic pastor who visits college campuses, discussing theological issues with students. I agree with much of what he says - such as his arguments for the existence of God, and his arguments against moral relativism. Though much of what he teaches is intellectually sound, there's also much falseness that he espouses, such as the 'acceptance' of Jesus Christ, and everlasting Hell.
I was watching one of his videos the other day. In the video a person asks him about Hell and he responds with an analogy. Through the analogy Cliffe attempts to explain why unending Hell, is a just, valid and deserving punishment. His reasoning is that offences committed against higher authority figures deserve more severe punishments. Thus an offence committed against God - the highest authority - demands the most severe punishment.
Here is the video that contains Cliffe's analogy. It starts from 16.05, ending at 19:13:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlgI6oh7oM
Let me ask the following question, in response to Cliffe's analogy:
Why is that crimes comitted against higher authorities (e.g. police officer, president) should be deserving of harsher penalties or punishments?
Is it because society says so? If so, what makes society right?
I believe that Cliffe's analogy is faulty and incorrect. He seems to imply that the more authority a person has, the more valuable or worthy he or she is. But don't we, as humans, all have the same level of value? What is it about authority that gives a person more (perceived) value?
Isn't it unfair to say that the penalty for hitting the president should be greater than hitting a teacher? If I hit the president, why should the value of my penalty go up dramatically just because he has more authority? I believe that the penalty for hitting the president or hitting the chief of police or hitting a teacher, should be the same. All are humans and therefore have the same value. So the value of the punishment should be the same. It should unaffected by status, titles, authority, age, race, or any other such external factor. Our legal system(s) should be objective.
If a civilian who abuses an authority figure should receive a more severe punishment; should those in authority who commit an abusive crime also receive a more severe punishment? If the president hits a common civilian, should he be dealt with more severely, because of the authority he possesses?
Now, we know that the highest authority is God. When we 'slap God in the face' (as Cliffe puts it), offending Him, by breaking His Law, His solution is of course to punish us. This is so that we might learn from punishment. But if a person is forever being punished - via eternal hell - how will they ever reach the end goal, for which that punishment was intended? Even human authority figures grasp the concept of remedial punishment. How much more does God? In dealing with a rebellious child a parent might turn the child over, give a few slaps, and that's it. They don't perpetually slap their child. If wicked human beings (Matthew 7:11) don't even go to such torturous lengths, what makes Cliffe think that the good God (Luke 18:19) would perpetually punish His own creations? And not even just continuously punish them, but punish them in the most wicked of ways - roasting and burning in inextinguishable fire! The doctrine of Hell is not even punishment, it's abuse. Far be it for the loving God, who is Love, to abuse anyone. And to do so would essentially mean He'd be abusing Himself, because we are all, to some extent, extensions of Him.
I was watching one of his videos the other day. In the video a person asks him about Hell and he responds with an analogy. Through the analogy Cliffe attempts to explain why unending Hell, is a just, valid and deserving punishment. His reasoning is that offences committed against higher authority figures deserve more severe punishments. Thus an offence committed against God - the highest authority - demands the most severe punishment.
Here is the video that contains Cliffe's analogy. It starts from 16.05, ending at 19:13:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlgI6oh7oM
Let me ask the following question, in response to Cliffe's analogy:
Why is that crimes comitted against higher authorities (e.g. police officer, president) should be deserving of harsher penalties or punishments?
Is it because society says so? If so, what makes society right?
I believe that Cliffe's analogy is faulty and incorrect. He seems to imply that the more authority a person has, the more valuable or worthy he or she is. But don't we, as humans, all have the same level of value? What is it about authority that gives a person more (perceived) value?
Isn't it unfair to say that the penalty for hitting the president should be greater than hitting a teacher? If I hit the president, why should the value of my penalty go up dramatically just because he has more authority? I believe that the penalty for hitting the president or hitting the chief of police or hitting a teacher, should be the same. All are humans and therefore have the same value. So the value of the punishment should be the same. It should unaffected by status, titles, authority, age, race, or any other such external factor. Our legal system(s) should be objective.
If a civilian who abuses an authority figure should receive a more severe punishment; should those in authority who commit an abusive crime also receive a more severe punishment? If the president hits a common civilian, should he be dealt with more severely, because of the authority he possesses?
Now, we know that the highest authority is God. When we 'slap God in the face' (as Cliffe puts it), offending Him, by breaking His Law, His solution is of course to punish us. This is so that we might learn from punishment. But if a person is forever being punished - via eternal hell - how will they ever reach the end goal, for which that punishment was intended? Even human authority figures grasp the concept of remedial punishment. How much more does God? In dealing with a rebellious child a parent might turn the child over, give a few slaps, and that's it. They don't perpetually slap their child. If wicked human beings (Matthew 7:11) don't even go to such torturous lengths, what makes Cliffe think that the good God (Luke 18:19) would perpetually punish His own creations? And not even just continuously punish them, but punish them in the most wicked of ways - roasting and burning in inextinguishable fire! The doctrine of Hell is not even punishment, it's abuse. Far be it for the loving God, who is Love, to abuse anyone. And to do so would essentially mean He'd be abusing Himself, because we are all, to some extent, extensions of Him.
