Eternal Hell

[amortalman]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

1) If your brand of religion teaches that unbelievers will be judged by God and cast into Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity to suffer there with no possibility of death or escape, is this action by God a just punishment, and why?

2) The second question is purely hypothetical and reaches way out there. If your God gave you permission to do as you please concerning eternal Hell, to keep it, or to abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation, would you keep it or do away with it?

NOTE: In regards to question number one I'm thinking about the story told by Jesus of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke chapter 16. The Lake of Fire is mentioned in Revelation 20:10-15 and 21:8.

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever. During my years as a Christian in an evangelical church, I've heard many preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches. I was once a part of a Biblical teaching program for children 2nd through 6th grade. I can only imagine the nightmares some of them had after being told that without Jesus they would go to Hell forever. Someone might argue that it's better that than to go to Hell. But does the fear tactic really work, and if it does, is that the best way, to scare the hell out of them?

In my understanding of the Bible, and what is being taught to millions of people in evangelical churches around the world, there are two kinds of people who will be cast into Hell. Those who have never heard the gospel and those how have rejected the gospel after having heard it. According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now because they never had an opportunity to hear about Christ. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands that are dying every day and going to Hell for lack of an opportunity to decide. Is that just?

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

What say you?

[shnarkle]

You do realize that you're passing judgement on a fictional character, don't you? You can't pass judgment on fictional characters; they're not real in the first place.

Whoever said this has forgotten they are in the Theology forum where Biblical things are taken to be true not fiction.

I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. He is the one who is working under the impression that the biblical God is fictional. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in his thinking. He pointed out that he was once a believer, but left and now believes that the bible is a work of fiction. He's asking a question of believers, but also pointing out that he no longer takes this as factual or real. I'm not going to pretend that he is still a believer when he isn't. I can still have a discussion with someone who no longer believes the bible is true. He has also brought up the fact that believers have vastly divergent interpretations for passages of scripture. So even though people may believe it is true, they can still disagree on what it is that is true, or which interpretation is true. Just because someone doesn't believe the bible is true, isn't really all that different from those who believe, especially in the case of this OP. He's presenting an interpretation that many Christians don't believe in the first place.

[ttruscott]

You do realize that you're passing judgement on a fictional character, don't you? You can't pass judgment on fictional characters; they're not real in the first place.

Whoever said this has forgotten they are in the Theology forum where Biblical things are taken to be true not fiction.

I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. He is the one who is working under the impression that the biblical God is fictional. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in his thinking. He pointed out that he was once a believer, but left and now believes that the bible is a work of fiction. He's asking a question of believers, but also pointing out that he no longer takes this as factual or real. I'm not going to pretend that he is still a believer when he isn't. I can still have a discussion with someone who no longer believes the bible is true. He has also brought up the fact that believers have vastly divergent interpretations for passages of scripture. So even though people may believe it is true, they can still disagree on what it is that is true, or which interpretation is true. Just because someone doesn't believe the bible is true, isn't really all that different from those who believe, especially in the case of this OP. He's presenting an interpretation that many Christians don't believe in the first place.

Your name is on this only because I got this from a post of yours but the quoting was so messed up (seems like two people said it) I could not tell who said it so I said: whoever said this...

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

"Thanks, that does clarify why you made made that choice, and also why it puzzled me.

You see, the original thread asked for an answer based on alternate possible solutions, but you have simply taken it as just the way things will be, with hell "a dwelling place" where those "who chose evil" are "going to go".

Does your answer remain the same after giving consideration to possible alternatives?"

Definitely.

It has never ceased to amaze me that Christians can knowingly categorise God as being a tormenting-for-ever fire, when He has told us in word and action that He is a consuming fire.

[amortalman]

You do realize that you're passing judgement on a fictional character, don't you? You can't pass judgment on fictional characters; they're not real in the first place.

Whoever said this has forgotten they are in the Theology forum where Biblical things are taken to be true not fiction.

I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. He is the one who is working under the impression that the biblical God is fictional. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in his thinking.

There is no inconsistency in my thinking. Frankly, I don't understand why you think so. The fact that I was a former Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked of certain Christians.

He pointed out that he was once a believer, but left and now believes that the bible is a work of fiction. He's asking a question of believers, but also pointing out that he no longer takes this as factual or real.

What's wrong with that?

I'm not going to pretend that he is still a believer when he isn't.

Thankyou.

I can still have a discussion with someone who no longer believes the bible is true.

True.

He has also brought up the fact that believers have vastly divergent interpretations for passages of scripture. So even though people may believe it is true, they can still disagree on what it is that is true, or which interpretation is true.

I agree.

Just because someone doesn't believe the bible is true, isn't really all that different from those who believe,

Of course, they are! They have diametrically opposed beliefs.

especially in the case of this OP. He's presenting an interpretation that many Christians don't believe in the first place.

Do ALL Christians have to believe it in order to ask the question of those who do? Of course not. The fact is a great many do believe it. Southern Baptists (of which I was a member) are the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. A. with a membership of over 15 million although it is declining. Reference AP article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1afa237 ... ip-decline

But what if there were only 100 Christians who believe that way? Wouldn't I still have the right to ask those 100 the question I posed?

[ttruscott]

It has never ceased to amaze me that Christians can knowingly categorise God as being a tormenting-for-ever fire, when He has told us in word and action that He is a consuming fire.

Perhaps:
never ending - their evil is eternal so their banishment outside of our reality must be eternal

all consuming- all their lives in our reality and all evil are burnt away from our reality, consumed by HIS burning holiness

The two phrases don't have to be about the same thing...

[Checkpoint]

It has never ceased to amaze me that Christians can knowingly categorise God as being a tormenting-for-ever fire, when He has told us in word and action that He is a consuming fire.

Perhaps:
never ending - their evil is eternal so their banishment outside of our reality must be eternal

all consuming- all their lives in our reality and all evil are burnt away from our reality, consumed by HIS burning holiness

The two phrases don't have to be about the same thing...

Perhaps not.

Maybe the reality is that we are not eternal beings, that death is an enemy, and that God's punishment of the second death is literal and eternal.

It just could be that God gave the world an example of His eternal consuming fire in the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

1) If your brand of religion teaches that unbelievers will be judged by God and cast into Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity to suffer there with no possibility of death or escape, is this action by God a just punishment, and why?

No, it is not.

However, God is not unjust.

The actions ascribed to Him in this scenario are bad theology that comes from questionable hermeneutics.

2) The second question is purely hypothetical and reaches way out there.

If your God gave you permission to do as you please concerning eternal Hell, to keep it, or to abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation, would you keep it or do away with it?

I believe He gives us permission to dismiss inferior doctrine, which these two questions highlight.

I would, therefore, "abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation".

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever. During my years as a Christian in an evangelical church, I've heard many preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches. I was once a part of a Biblical teaching program for children 2nd through 6th grade. I can only imagine the nightmares some of them had after being told that without Jesus they would go to Hell forever. Someone might argue that it's better that than to go to Hell. But does the fear tactic really work, and if it does, is that the best way, to scare the hell out of them?

In my understanding of the Bible, and what is being taught to millions of people in evangelical churches around the world, there are two kinds of people who will be cast into Hell. Those who have never heard the gospel and those how have rejected the gospel after having heard it. According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now because they never had an opportunity to hear about Christ. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands that are dying every day and going to Hell for lack of an opportunity to decide. Is that just?

Me too. Your first sentence puts it well.

This is also very apt:

preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches.

According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now

Thankfully, that's not what the Bible teaches.

It's only what so many believe the Bible teaches. Big difference, sadly.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

I suggest neither of those two extremes apply, because the doctrine as tradionaly taught does not apply.

[amortalman]

I seem to have run into your problem now as well. The quotes seem screwed up for some reason.

Quote:
It may not make sense that people would want to suffer forever, but I've covered that aspect already. My bad, I didn't cover that with you. People do insane things all the time. They want to do these things, and if they do these things their entire lives then why would they all of a sudden change their minds and do what makes perfect sense? They wouldn't if they could so there's no reason to suppose that when they die they will all of a sudden want to avoid being miserable for eternity. They wanted to be miserable for their entire earthly life so it stands to reason that this is what they will want to do for eternity. I used to know a lot of people that were like that. They enjoyed being miserable. It was what they were accustomed to. It was what was familiar to them. They weren't interested in learning to behave in totally unfamiliar and uncomfortable ways.

Me:
From the perspective of my original post, my comments on hell, the kind of place I and the Christians I posed the questions to believe it is, do you still say that some people would willingly choose to go to THAT kind of hell over going to heaven? You say they enjoyed being miserable all their lives. Do you really think anyone but a raving lunatic who really didn't know what he was getting into would choose to burn alive forever? Sure, people do crazy things all the time, but that? Do you think anyone who knows exactly what they're doing would choose to go to a place of suffering, with no chance of escape, forever even it didn't consist of actual fire.

I think the thing you're forgetting is that they aren't going to like the alternative any better. They may even find the alternative to be worse. People who spend their lives engaging in immoral depraved behavior aren't going to then want to spend time with God. They don't want anything to do with God in the first place, at least that's how Paul describes them.

TEST FOR DRAFT RECOVERY

Jesus says the same thing. He tells the story of the man preparing the feast and inviting all of his friends, but they all decline his invitation. He then tells his servents to invite perfect strangers off the street in, and some of them can't even be bothered to get dressed up for the occasion. Nobody has a clue what's going on. We're all raving lunatics. We don't have enough sense to take off the grubby dirty clothes we've been working all day mucking out the horse manure, get a shower, and get dressed up for a feast.


Quote:
The story isn't meant to be read as if this rich man actually was in some place of torment; it's meant to be seen as a story to convict the Pharisees of their squandering their opportunity to share the oracles of God; or rather coveting and hoarding the oracles of God for themselves. In other words, what some interpret to be pointing to what happens when people die, is really about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Me:
Well, that's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But, anyone's interpretations of scripture could be wrong.

Including yours; perhaps especially yours. Of course you're also entitled to your own private interpretation.

My point is that we should refrain from making dogmatic statements as if it is the final truth of the matter.

I'm not making dogmatic statements. My statements are based on historical fact. These ideas were brought with them from the Babylonian captivity. They believed that when someone died, they went to one of three places: 1. Abraham's bosom; 2. under the throne of glory; or 3. Eden, Gk. "Paradise". When someone would die they would say, "today he sits in Abraham's bosom". This is why some scholars think Jesus was a Pharisee. He wasn't teaching anything anyone hadn't heard already. The fact that the Pharisees were getting really ticked off should be your first clue that this isn't about where people go when they die, but where they're going (on a superficial level). Really, it's about how they hoarded the blessings of God for themselves. This is a recurring theme with Jesus and the Pharisees and elders, e.g. the parable of the good Samaritan, the fit in the temple with the money changers, the " brood of vipers" comment; pointing out that they would see sinners going into heaven while they stood and watched; they kept people out of the kingdom, and wouldn't go in themselves, etc.

Me:
Not at all. According to what I (and millions of others) have learned and been taught the rich man and all the other wicked dead will be removed from the temporary hell at the final judgment. There they will actually face God to give an account of their lives. In a sense, they were judged at their death and found themselves in the temporary hell awaiting the final judgment. If may not make sense to you, but to many Bible scholars and students it does

Well, for anyone in temporary hell, a reprieve to go and stand before God would be a blessing. I would think they would bow before God and gratefully thank him for letting them out of their temporary hell for a while to be judged. If they are allowed to give an account for their lives, I would think they would have spent all their time in temporary hell thinking of all the things they would say to forestall the inevitable. There's a similar idea around about doing the same thing when the grim reaper comes to take your soul to the underworld. You stall him long enough for him to run past his allotted time to take you, so he has to come back later when he's gotten caught up.

Again, I think it is important to note that you are referring to a text that explicitly indicates that all of these people are jumping into the lake of fire, and the last to jump into it are death and the grave. They die. The text doesn't say that they jump into eternal life, but that death is swallowed up. If death were swallowed up first, then perhaps we could conclude that anyone that jumped in afterwards would perhaps be tortured forever since death was dead and gone. It doesn't make sense to call something "death" or "the second death" if they're going to be alive forever.

Then there's things like the title, "son of perdition" which means liable to die. Then there's the description of the devil being turned to ashes from within. Ashes are a description of complete annihilation. I'm just saying that you can't really torture someone who is completely burned to ash. The description Jesus gives also indicates that the fire burns forever, not those who are burned by it necessarily.

Quote:
The Jewish mind didn't see death as some place one went to await judgment. The person just died and that was it; they're dead. Then on Judgement day they're resurrected and face their Maker.

Me:
That's right. But according to other beliefs, Jesus brought more revelation about the afterlife. Take the repentant thief on the cross, for example. Jesus said to him that on this day he would be with him in paradise. That's certainly not the grave.
Paradise is believed to be the place the repentant and righteous go to be comforted and wait for the eternal heaven just as the wicked (not because he was rich) rich man went to a temporary hell to be punished and await the final judgment and the Lake of Fire. In light of these beliefs, it makes sense.

The problem with this theory is that the thief asked Jesus a very direct question. He asked him to remember him when he entered into his kingdom. The kingdom of messiah is referred to numerous times in scripture; it is a Paradise on earth. The prophets speak of it in glowing terms. How anyone could miss this doesn't make much sense at all. This "believed to be...etc" place is simply just some fabricated idea. If you think it makes sense, then why do you ask that others think about it?

Quote:
... but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here.

No, God would never do that! I didn't say he would. It is a hypothetical question. It may be fascinating, ridiculous, "way out there" as I said, but it is NOT an invalid question. Is there such a thing as an invalid question? Might be a subject for debate.

I'm not suggesting that the question is invalid. I'm simply pointing out some of the ramifications of this question that you may not have considered.

The question was meant to try to get those Christians to THINK about what they're believing instead of sweeping the troubling issue of hell aside and hide their heads in the sand. Every believer I've ever known has had loved ones and friends who they deemed "lost" and headed for hell. IF given the chance would they abolish hell and save their loved ones and friends? I think many would start to do it and then realize that it's going to make them appear more merciful than God. So why doesn't God just annihilate all those sinners instead of torturing them forever in fire? Good question I think.

I'm not saying it isn't a bad question. I'm simply pointing out that we're dealing with a capricious god. A god that provides a place for these people to go, and then, on a whim; let's someone decide if they want to get rid of hell.

Do you suppose maybe this picture of hell was man made instead of God made?

I thought you said it was a hypothetical question; I assumed it had to be human imagination.

But then one might ask, why would God write such a book that the concept of an eternal, blazing hell could be formed? That would be cruel.

I doubt it, especially when there are so many people who would rather be miserable their whole lives than do anything to rectify the situation.

People throughout history have agonized over going to hell and lived austere lives to try to please God and keep from going there.

Yet, another good example. There are countless others such as those who hate pretty much anyone who is better than them. Those who are incapable of taking responsibility for their own mistakes, are always blaming others for their own blunders. They will never be able to get honest with themselves, and grow into maturity so they will never be able to handle an eternity of bliss with God in heaven. They would much rather blame god for their misfortunes for eternity.

Quote:
It (the story of the rich man) can't be about what happens after one dies. There was no question what happens after one dies. Jesus would have looked like some sort of lunatic teaching what happens after someone dies.

Me:
Jesus would, of course, teach about what happens after someone dies if the teaching was new revelation, wouldn't he?

Perhaps, but there's really no reason to make this assumption in the first place. Where the dead go, and the resurrection were all well known ideas. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection while the Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife.

Why wasn't it taught by Moses or the prophets?

It was taught by the prophets, and others in scripture.

You got me. There's a lot of pieces of the Bible that just don't fit.

Especially if you're missing pieces.

Quote:
This would be like him teaching an adult how to tie sandals, or how to draw water from a well. The Pharisees are the authorities on morality and ethical behavior.

Me:
Wasn't that a huge point of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees? They THOUGHT they were the authorities on morality and behavior. Jesus pointed out that his Father was the authority.

Jesus didn't have a problem with what they were teaching when they were "sitting in the seat of Moses"; i.e. when they were teaching from the Torah, and the Prophets. He only had a problem with their behavior and their funny ideas about adding to their own self importance.

Quote:
They, as well as everyone else in that society; knew what happened when someone died.

Me:
No, they thought they knew.

The point is that Jesus doesn't teach anything new about death and the afterlife except as it relates to the gospel message, and this doesn't contribute to the gospel except insofar as it shows how not to live; i.e. being a miser with the gifts God gives.

Quote:
Their body went into the ground and the spirit that gave that body life went straight back to their God. That soul that died ceased to know anything from that point on.

Me:
Even the wicked people and all those who rejected God went straight back to God?

Yep, Ecclesiastes states: "7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The spirit is the Hebrew word "ruach" and is translated as "the breath of life". It's what gives life or animates all life. When God breathed the breath of life into the dirt he had formed into Adam's body, the text says that Adam became "a living soul". When the spirit leaves the dirt, the soul ceases to exist. This idea is found in numerous places in scripture.

In that case, no one goes to hell, everyone goes to heaven unless you believe that the evil spirits in heaven were going to be thrown out of heaven at the end of the end of time. No wonder Jesus had to straighten them out on this!

Jesus isn't straightening anyone out on this. He's getting the Pharisees so ticked off they're just going to kill him. No one goes anywhere when they die. Their body goes into the ground and "knows nothing". The spirt that animated their bodies goes back to God. Their spirit is not their soul. The soul is the combination of the spirit and the body. When the spirit leaves the body, the soul cease to exist. The body returns to dirt.

Quote:
This was not something that Jesus would be teaching about in the first place. His concern was with what happened AT the judgement; not what happened between death and the judgement. He's not teaching the Pharisees what happens after they die, he's teaching them that they are hypocrites.

Me:
No, many believe he's teaching them what happens to wicked, greedy people (like the rich man) when they die. And again, you can't just set yourself as the final authority on what Jesus was teaching. Other sincere, intelligent students of the Bible interpret scripture differently.

I'm not presenting myself as an authority. I'm simply pointing out a few facts from the text as well as the historical and cultural context in which this all occurred.

Quote:
There is nothing in the definition or usage of the figure Parable that requires names be used or excluded from the figure. This is a non sequitur.

Me:
An equal argument can be made that your position is a non sequitur.

I doubt it, not without redefining the definition of the figure, or making up some arbitrary rule like "no names can be used in the figure Parable".

If you care to check it out you can go to got?questions.org and read about legitimate other views.

Sorry, but the definition and usage of the figure is the only legitimate view. What people invent to support their fabricated theology isn't legitimate.

A lifetime of suffering on earth is completely logical if you believe what science has shown, that life came about by natural selection and gene mutation. Suffering is then understood to be the natural consequences of living on this planet among often hostile inhabitants of all kinds, including viruses and germs, not to mention violent weather, earthquakes, etc.

A natural consequence of idiots, and the feeble minded. The ironic thing is that this work of fiction deals with your viruses and germs quite effectively. The text even suggests that you perform a scientific experiment to see for yourself. Science took a few thousand years to figure it out for itself because it wasn't into looking at mythologies, regardless of whether they contained easily reproducible results. Science has shown that it is now attempting to become the new and improved religion on the block complete with high priests, and a laity exercising blind faith in all their orthodox pronouncements. Believers from all denominations are easily deceived.

But if one believes that God created us (making him responsible for us) and loves us and is full of compassion and kindness, then the terrible suffering of people including children and animals becomes a huge issue to try to justify.

They don't seem to be lacking any defenders for their faith.

Quote:
I find this a bit biased to say the least. When there is no god to create everything, it's suddenly perfectly acceptable and reasonable that suffering exist, but if there is a god, then he must be a monster? If suffering makes sense without a god, why must a god do anything any different?

Me:
Because the Bible portrays God as merciful and compassionate. By definition God is love. "God loves the little children of the world." Yet, throughout history...

Wait. You said this was fiction, right? Since when does fiction depict historical events?

If evolution created...

You're conflating your terms. Creation is what a Creator creates. Evolution doesn't create anything. There is no creation in evolution. Evolution cannot create anything.

Quote:
What's so different about natural selection and gene mutation and a god that "elects" those who he decides are more suitable for life? Perhaps he uses the exact same mechanism to decide which would make your accusations seem a bit unwarranted.

Me:
Why do you propose that God used evolution to create us?

Not necessarily. I'm just pointing out that the texts are similar in their framework.

That's not what Genesis teaches, in my opinion and that of most Christendom.

Well, we're dealing with apples and oranges. Creation deals with the origin of the universe, life etc. whereas Evolution deals with a process, a "mechanism" of evolution. Even though Darwin titles his book, "The Origin of Species", he doesn't find or deal with the origin of anything whatsoever.

There is no scientific evidence that God's hand was in it at all.

Why do you even bring that up in the first place? We're dealing with a work of fiction, no? Why would a work of fiction be involved in evolution? A created god wouldn't have anything to do with evolution unless the theory itself were to be found to be an invention of men. I guess, in a sense it is, in that someone came up with the theory. From that standpoint I can see what you're saying. On the other hand, if we were to be dealing with an actual god, especially a transcendent deity, then there can be no scientific evidence as transcendent deities cannot be analyzed by science. Science is impotent to deal with transcendent deities.

Quote:
Why not just say that this whole process is unjustified without some god?

Me:
Because that's not what I believe and it's not what science teaches.

So science justifies human suffering, torture, rape, genocide, wars, pestilence etc.? How is that different from what this fictional deity does?

In ancient times people didn't have the science we have today.

Sure they did, they called it religion. Science is no different. Science looks at the world around us and attempts to explain what's going on as best they can. Science creates it's own mythologies as a framework to understand the world around us. These frameworks are referred to as theories or hypotheses.

Quote:
This is interesting to me for a number of reasons, but it's really no different than the abortion issue. This isn't meant to derail your question into some tangeant, but to show that a woman has the right to abort her baby for any reason whatsoever. She doesn't need a reason to begin with. It's no different with the god of the bible. This is His world. He created it, and He's free to do with it as He likes. I'm not saying that's what he's doing though. All of the arguments that are used to justify a woman's right can be just as easily used for God and his right to justly deal with his creation as he see's fit. Given that he's a just deity, his reasons will be much better than a woman getting an abortion.

Me:
IF the God of the Bible created this world and all living things...

What are you on about? The god of the bible is a work of fiction. He is the product of a lot of different authors imaginations. He didn't actually create anything in our world. You need to keep this straight in your head. You need to keep the two separate.

then, yes, HE can do as he pleases with it and us, including allowing the unnecessary suffering of children and animals and tossing the majority his creation in the burning hell when he's through with it.
For the record, I'm totally against abortion except in certain cases. And here again, you've stated your opinion on that subject as if it was a universal truth.

I did no such thing. You've taken leave of your senses. I'm merely pointing out legal distinctions and comparing them to the text. I'm pointing out that we live in a world where we can do what we want with our private property and most people don't have a problem with that concept so I see no reason to extend that doctrine to this fictional deity as well. Moreover, given that this fictional character is all wise, and as you say all loving then there can be no unnecessary suffering. It's all completely necessary, and probably even condoned by him as well.

It is not. Did you think I would agree with you on that subject? Is that why you put it out as a given? To many millions of women and men, the life of an unborn child is precious and should be protected by a civilized society.

Why? What does that have to do with a civilized society? Are you suggesting that the society we live in is uncivilized because we abort a million babies a year? What's so uncivilized about that? Since when is an unborn child precious? To whom? You? Don't make me laugh. You're no authority on what's precious or civilized. Society decides what is precious, and civilized; the mob rules. The mob says that abortion is perfectly acceptable, even condoned for any reason.

Quote:
If we're dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here, then a perfect human being who does one thing wrong, even if it's forgetting to say 'hello' to someone in passing is practically as evil as a Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot in relation to God. In other words, you're in no position to pass judgment on a God like that. it would be like telling us that you completely understood quantum physics and string theory when you were four years old.

Me:
But we're not dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here. We're dealing with a fictional character and that gives me the right to pass judgment on him.

You do realize that you're passing judgement on a fictional character, don't you? You can't pass judgment on fictional characters; they're not real in the first place. My description of this fictional deity is accurate. It's how this fictional deity is portrayed by the author, and therefore it really doesn't matter what he does, it's condoned, just, right, correct, etc. It's really no different than mob rule, except instead of the mob, it's this one fictional deity who decides what is right and wrong. We don't live in a world of gods so there is no right or wrong anyways. Given that there can be no objective standard of right or wrong, whatever this fictional deity does makes no difference whatsoever. There can be nothing wrong with annihilating his whole creation if he wants to on a whim. You either do what he says, or get ready for some smiting. The same holds true in this world except that when you do something stupid, you get a good whupping for no apparent reason.