44 The Question of an Eternal Hell
we were not so stupefied by the hoary and venerable myth
that eternal damnation is an essential element of the original
Christian message (which, not to spoil later plot developments
here, it is not), we would not even waste our time on so prepos-
terous a conjunction. From the perspective of Christian belief,
the very notion of a punishment that is not intended ultimately
to be remedial is morally dubious ( and, I submit, anyone who
doubts this has never understood Christian teaching at all);
but, even if one believes that Christianity makes room for
the condign imposition of purely retributive punishments,
it remains the case that a retribution consisting in unending
suffering, imposed as recompense for the actions of a finite
intellect and will, must be by any sound definition dispropor-
tionate, unjust, and at the last nothing more than an expres-
sion of sheer pointless cruelty. Again, it should be enough to
make ourselves reflect seriously upon what the word "eternity"
actually means. Moreover, given that- as I have just argued-
no rejection of God on the part of the rational soul is possible
apart from some quantum of ignorance and misapprehension
and personal damage, we would certainly expect divine justice
to express itself in a punishment that is properly educative,
and therefore conducive of moral reform. A number of Chris-
tian thinkers down the centuries have been sufficiently aware
of this, and of the impossibility of striking a plausible balance
between finite sin and infinite misery (since the imbalance is,
after all, soberly calculated, an infinite one), that they have felt
moved to explain the problem away by any number of cunning
or desperate devices. The most august of these is the claim that
the guilt for any crime must be measured not by the intention
of the criminal, but solely by the dignity of the one offended
against; and this supposedly explains things adequately, be-
cause God is infinite, and infinitely good, and infinitely worthy