Argument Against Christian Moral Ambiguity and the Idea of Eternal Hell

This is an expanded and refined version of my previous post.

First, lets define ordinary ethical sense of goodness: In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgment, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences.

Call this Good-A

Good-A should not be dismissed as mere subjectivism. It may very well point metaphysically toward an objective form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.

Second, some Christians define goodness in relation to God. On this view, "good" means whatever conforms to God's nature or will.

Call this Good-B

The problem arises when these two meanings are treated as interchangeable.

For example, a Christian may argue:

God is good. -> Therefore, whatever God does is ultimately good for us.

But this can involve a shift in meaning.

If "God is good" means only that God conforms to God's own nature, then the statement is true by definition. It means something like:

God is as God is.

But that does not automatically show that God is good in the ordinary ethical sense of being loving, healing, peaceful, compassionate, or opposed to needless suffering.

To move from Good-B to Good-A, a further premise is needed:

God's nature or will reliably correspond to Good-A.

This is because, Good-A and the christian Good-B can be in conflict (see the "Accept Jesus or suffer forever" part below). If someone proposes that Good-A is just a conflictory subset of Good-B then we cannot say that the design of reality is in proper alignment with Good-A, and therefore not good in the ordinary ethical sense.

Without that bridge premise, the argument risks equivocation. One cannot define goodness as conformity to God and then quietly import the ordinary ethical meaning of goodness when defending God's actions or the structure of reality.

The term "good" does not have a universally recognised (useful in ethical discussion) meaning apart from either usefulness for some purpose or the Good-A ethical meaning. Refraining from those in an **ethical discussion** renders the word empty from its normal ethical content.

This matters especially when evaluating doctrines such as:

Accept Jesus or suffer forever.

That claim depends on a particular design of reality. It is not enough to say that such a system is good simply because God made it or permits it. That would only establish Good-B. It would not yet establish that the system is good in the ordinary ethical sense.

Using the ordinary ethical sense of goodness, we can infer:

In a reality fully aligned with A-sense framework of goodness, ultimate fundamental reality including all souls, should inherently reflect those qualities.

This does not mean that freedom disappears. Freedom does not require access to every conceivable outcome, including eternal self-destruction. Meaningful agency always exists within life. A person naturally returning to their deeper spiritual nature in heaven would not lose agency, it would be the exact opposite, like awakening from a dream into a fuller expression of what one truly is. We make different kinds of choices under different levels of awareness and constraint.

In order for a souls nature or capacity for freedom to not be arbitrary or non-meaningful, it must be founded on that which is meaningful.

I think most of us view free will as inherently valuable, I think it is an important part of creation, but creation and the conditions within it are never arbitrary in a truly good universe.

My worldview: We see corruption on earth, that doesnt't mean we can apply locally learned earth based assumptions up the ladder onto the divine. You cant separate yourself from the foundation, because you are fundamentally of it, on earth we learn ideas of separation, contrast and distortion, but it does not apply to higher reality, "evil" choices are a highly specific set of earth based distorted state choices we might temporarily engage.

We do value choosing opposing values to "evil" even if subconsciously because they reflect our true nature within the foundation of being. I do think there are divine laws in place that resolve and balance out all darkness, but it has nothing to do with punishment or eternal alienation.

Why are we on earth in the first place is another topic. Put shortly, it is for spiritual evolution within a non-native set of constraints.