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...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2011
|
| En: |
Sophia
Año: 2011, Volumen: 50, Número: 1, Páginas: 221-232 |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
Justice
B Heaven B Vagueness B Sider B Hell |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Sumario: | 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 |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-009-0115-6 |