Hell is love

[Wootah]

The existence of hell is one of the best indications that God is loving.

His willingness to love his children by keeping them separate from the Devil's children demonstrates that love.

The eternity of hell is explained to my mind by the fact God is a God of life. We were created to live forever. Many other religions believe their God has the right to destroy even his children. But what security is there in that?

We all practise hell all the time. Aren't there people that you don't like or don't want to associate with? Don't we all cast people out of our lives?

Would you ever let a paedophile near your child? If yes then you don't love your child. If no then you are loving and you practise hell.

A Christian or any person arguing against hell is no different to a criminal arguing against prison.

Rebuttals?

[Tcg]

If God could make rocks into children for Abraham then he could make someone from nothing.

That's a big IF.

The whole of creation is basically something from nothing.

Now all you need to do is provide verifiable evidence that this is a valid claim. What have you?


Tcg

[Tcg]

We all practise hell all the time.

This is yet another universal claim that can be shown false with only one example that contradicts it. Here it is. I don't practise hell at any time much less at all times.


Tcg

[Wootah]

We all practise hell all the time.

This is yet another universal claim that can be shown false with only one example that contradicts it. Here it is. I don't practise hell at any time much less at all times.


Tcg

That's not an example TCG. Here let me write an example for you.

Statement: TCG would allow paedophiles near children.

Now If you want to own this odious statement then this means you don't practice hell.

If you do not want to own this odious statement then you do practice hell. You as a loving person would always attempt to create a separation between the children and the paedophile.

But if you really want to argue against this universal then you may wish to own the statement and it would indicate you don't love children, but love paedophiles.

Let me know which way you go on this hypothetical and if you want that statement to be about you.

side note discovery: This really made me think about how we are considered children of God or children of Satan by the bible. In a sense, letting paedophiles near children is loving the paedophiles and that is what Satan would want for his children.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Wootah in post #64]

Statement: God allows pedophiles near children.

What is your considered response to that?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Now If you want to own this odious statement then this means you don't practice hell.

If you do not want to own this odious statement then you do practice hell. You as a loving person would always attempt to create a separation between the children and the paedophile.

But if you really want to argue against this universal then you may wish to own the statement and it would indicate you don't love children, but love paedophiles.

Let me know which way you go on this hypothetical and if you want that statement to be about you.

side note discovery: This really made me think about how we are considered children of God or children of Satan by the bible. In a sense, letting paedophiles near children is loving the paedophiles and that is what Satan would want for his children.

There's real and lasting damage inflicted on innocent children every day by pedophiles - often pedophiles who hold leadership posotions in the very houses of worship they use to find their victims.

Here now we have a religious promoter using those innocents pain and suffering in a patthetic attempt to show Hell exists.

I'd be ashamed of myself.


The claimant has been repeatedly shown to be incapable of showing this "God" exists, repeatedly shown incapable of showing this "Satan" exists, but has the unmitigated gall to parade children's suffering across these pages, as if his repeatedly being shown inapable of showing he speaks truth doesn't matter.

This disgusting display should tell us all we need to know about the depths of depravity this claimant will mine in order to avoid the one simple truth we can conclude from all of this, namely...


The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.



That no other Christian has stepped up to say this tactic of relying on the pain and suffering of children in order to try to win at an otherwise meaningless debate should further indicate that truth and honor are sorely lacking among the Christians that may have seen this thread, but kept quite in the face of "one of their own" doing his dead level best to embarrass em all.


Shame on you, claimant. Shame on you Christians.


This whole "pedophiles are hell" argument is nothing more'n the Christian trying to play on our emotions, cause, especially with this claimant here, they've been repeatedly shown to be incapable of showing they speak truth, time after time after time.

It's an absolutely disgusting display. We're all lesser humans for having to know this wretched attempt at emotional manipulation even exists.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #66]

The tragedy is that if I was writing 20, 50 or 100 years ago I would not have to use such an example to make my point. So much sin is normalised in our society that finding common ground gets harder. I am thankful that we share this common ground today. But fear not Joey, many people are pushing that child love is normal. I have no idea what Christians on debating forums will use to get through to the consciousness of atheists in 50 years from now.

[tam]

Peace to you, dear Joey,

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #66]

That no other Christian has stepped up to say this tactic of relying on the pain and suffering of children in order to try to win at an otherwise meaningless debate should further indicate that truth and honor are sorely lacking among the Christians that may have seen this thread, but kept quite in the face of "one of their own" doing his dead level best to embarrass em all.

I am sorry this upset you. This is not new to me though. Non-theists have also used the suffering of others - including and perhaps even especially children - to try and argue that God does not exist (that is actually one of the 'big' arguments, isn't it?) One time I got upset about an anti-theist (self professed) using some kind of disaster that harmed people - and I said something to that person about it. Perhaps it bothered me mainly because that person was acting as if they were taking the 'high moral road' being an anti-theist, but at the same time they were willing to 'use' others' suffering to make their points.


I also understand that the question (of suffering) is a genuine concern that some other people have, and that should be addressed.


So for the most part, I prefer to just tackle the argument and ignore the attempt at shock value or manipulation (including immature attempts), rather than allow myself to be sidetracked or emotionally manipulated. That way I can just deal with the argument and any facts/ideas/evidence presented.


I understand your reaction and am glad you spoke your mind because it is a valid point... and sometimes something should be said.

I think I have a right to my reaction though too. I don't think I should have to be ashamed of that. I say that with respect and as a friend, and no hard feelings either way, even if you disagree.




Peace again to you,
your friend, and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

We all practise hell all the time.

This is yet another universal claim that can be shown false with only one example that contradicts it. Here it is. I don't practise hell at any time much less at all times.


Tcg

That's not an example TCG. Here let me write an example for you.

Statement: TCG would allow paedophiles near children.

Now If you want to own this odious statement then this means you don't practice hell.



Peace again to you and to you all.

If you do not want to own this odious statement then you do practice hell. You as a loving person would always attempt to create a separation between the children and the paedophile.

But that is not what hell means, so tcg doesn't have to own any statement just because he says that he doesn't practice hell.

Hell is a place (the world of the dead). It is not a practice.




**

But to bring your point back toward the OP.... as far as I know, no one is arguing against the idea of God keeping those who would do harm away from those who would be harmed (by those who would do them harm).

Instead, your OP claims that hell - as a place of eternal torment (physical or emotional) - is love, but annihilation is not love and is instead unjust because the punishment is not enough. Yet annihilation would keep the theoretical 'harmer' away from the 'harmee'... even more certainly than some 'eternal existence in hell', because an annihilated person is just gone - completely gone.




Peace again to you all.

[tam]

[Replying to tam in post #69]

(Just as a quick addendum to the previous post, please note that I am not saying anyone (regardless of their sin/crime) will and/or should be annihilated or 'cast into hell'. I am not judging, I do not have that right or even that desire.)

[Wootah]

[Replying to tam in post #69]

Just focus on yourself Tam. Answer the question for yourself.

Are you a good and loving person that creates hell (as best as we practically can) for those that would hurt your children or not?

Or type words that actually debate the topic, please. Or repent (which only means acknowledge your error and change and is a fundamentally healthy activity).