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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 295 by shnarkle]




[center]Some people claim to read minds[/center]

You should ask them if they are choosing or not.

It's rarely necessary as they are more than willing to provide this information.

I hear people quite routinely say things like: "They; he, she, that, etc. makes me so mad, sad, angry, etc." They are literally telling me that these people have control over their emotions, and how they feel.

Of course, that's just sloppy language on their part.
Or maybe you DO know a lot of mind slaves who have no control over themselves.

But in any case, if they TELL you, that's right.. you don't have to ask them for the information. But if you are telling ME what I'm thinking, you are most probably going to be WRONG.

You are welcome to guess.
I read Tarot cards, so I know many tricks of the trade.
Some people even believe that I can tell the future.

Whataryagonnado?

They will say, "I can't help it", or "There's nothing I can do about it", or "Why does this happen to me"? They are completely lost to the whim of the fates.

WOW....

That doesn't sound like a very healthy environment you live in.

They have no control whatsoever.

Mind slaves.
Zombies.
Robots.

Out of control despots running amok.

Have you considered moving?

Then there are those who want to know what they're fate is. They consult mediums. They read books on the subject to see what is in store for them. Here again, they aren't really taking charge for their own life, but just simply wanting to find out what their fate is going to be.

And apparently, you want us to believe that you can read minds.
You know what people want when they go to a Tarot card reader.

All of them.
Each and everyone of them.

Impressive knowledge you have there.

In my 40+ years of reading cards, people have told me a lot about why they consult. Surprising as it may seem to you, people don't all think the same.

You should ask.

The mistake you are making is called "hasty generalization".
You can look it up if you like.

Some might try to influence their fate, but here again, they're attempting to influence something that is outside of them rather than their own feelings, emotions, actions directly. They seriously believe that others have more control over them than they do themselves.

Do they all tend to congregate around you?

I will trust what they have to say about themselves, and not someone else.

This doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Wrong.

Sorry, but that IS very much the case.
I just told you what I will trust. I'm talking about myself.

That's the case, shnarkle.
It might NOT be the case for you.

I've lived all over the world, and I run into this all the time so I seriously doubt that this could be something you've never heard people say. The only reason I can think of would be that of someone who just doesn't pay attention to what people are saying.

I pay attention to what a lot of people say.
That doesn't mean that they are making much sense all the time.

I don't expect them to.
Some do, some don't.

I'm paying attention to you, by the way.
That's no guarantee that you're making sense.

People will say all kinds of things.
Whataryagonna do?


If we want to KNOW what they think, we should ASK them what they think, and not TELL them what they think

True, that's why I pointed out these are their words. These are their judgements. I don't keep track of these things, but it is not uncommon for me to hear people say things like, "I just want to die", or "That just kills me", or "My life is hopeless".

Some people are rational, and some people are not rational.
IF we want to know what they think about something, we should do more than just guess.

We should ask.

They've given up on life, and have chosen to be miserable by their own admission. When I try to encourage them to persevere, they say, "What's the point"?, or "You're wasting your time".

You seem to know a lot of extremely depressed people.
But if we want to know their inner mental state, we should ask.

Guessing IS wasting our time.

We can do much much better than guessing what people think.
We can ask people what they think, instead.

I know one person in particular that really enjoys his misery. He complains constantly, and genuinely enjoys complaining. He's very good at it. He's been doing it his whole life.

And you know this because he told you this. All his life he has told you that.
You didn't have to pretend to read his mind.

[center]We don't have to ASK if someone TELLS US. [/center]

If they TELL US how they think and feel, we know how they think and feel.
Guessing and presuming isn't knowing.

It's a waste of your time.
Pretending isn't going to get you facts.

I'm just pointing out some very real observations that pretty much anyone who has a television set and cable or satellite service can watch on any of those sleezy talk shows where people confess to their spouse that they've been cheating on them for years, they're pregnant with someone else's child etc. These people are quite obviously miserable.

That's a quite miserable form of entertainment.
You still can't read minds.

You can guess all you like.
But that's in YOU... that's in YOUR MIND.. not outside.

You are mistaking what you can imagine with what is actually happening.
If you want to know what someone is thinking, and they don't tell you, ask.

But don't pretend to speak for everyone.
That would be another thinking mistake.

Yeah, there are people who don't think very well.
If that's your point, I have to agree.

My point is that you can't read minds, so stop pretending.
Don't presume to talk for everyone else.

That "THEY" you are talking about is imaginary.
You have SOME data, but you want us to believe that you have ALL THE DATA.

That's not the same.
You're confused.

If you are talking about SOME people, then that's fine.
If you are talking about some of the people you have met, that's fine too.

I don't think you have ONLY met depressed, irrational people.. have you?
I can assure you that there ARE happy rational people out there, because I have MET some of them.

THESE "THEY" also exist.
You seem to have forgotten.

And maybe, just maybe they are happier and more rational than you are, my friend. Is that even a POSSIBILITY?

However, even when some people do consider their options, they rarely choose to be happy.

Some people are depressed, and some people aren't good at logic.
Some people have mental illnesses that prevents them from thinking well.

It seems that you have decided that unhappy people MUST be choosing unhappiness. My friend, you can't read their minds.

But it seems that you think you must be able to do that.
You KNOW how they think better than they do?

You don't have to ASK them?
I think that you do, my friend.

Your opinions are NOT FACTS, they are your opinions.
And to this cat, they are based on sloppy reasoning.

If only someone could reach out to everyone to tell them they are wrong.
They are so, so wrong.

It wouldn't make any difference.

You seem to be saying that:

"There's nothing I can do about it"

One need only point out that some people have choices, or choose to make different choices, but even this doesn't usually work because they don't see themselves as those types of people.

I would say that everyone has at least SOME choices. There are very few people with no choice AT ALL.

I would also say that some people choose what's behind door one, door two, or no door at all.

But it seems that you are saying you know what choice they are going to make before they make it.


____________

Question:

• 
  
  Can you read minds?
  
  

____________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 296 by Monta]

Yes. Punishment does not work. Prison just makes people worse. We need to explore other alternatives.

Also, you were the one who brought up the idea. Are you now changing your mind?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 284 by amortalman]

Then they are mistaken because that is not what the Bible says. I suspect they stop short of Revelation 20 and 21.

No, I'm pretty sure they read 20 and 21. It's just that they came to a different conclusion than the one you came to.

That's one reason I don't believe the Bible is inspired (literally God-breathed).

There are just too many interpretations of what is written there. How are we to know which one is the correct one?

You are obviously convinced that your interpretation is the right one. The evangelicals are sure they are right. Catholics would disagree with both, and on and on until you've named every denomination and sub-denomination that exists or has existed in the past. They all claim their interpretation alone is authoritative.

When you've finished with Christianity you can start delving into the beliefs of other biblical based religions.
The point is, there are literally thousands of interpretations of the Bible. If God can't make his word clear to all, how can he expect us to know what to believe?

In light of this, no one should claim definitively that their interpretation is the correct one. The only legitimate claim is that IN THEIR OPINION theirs is the correct one. See what I mean?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 292 by ttruscott]

No, that does not amuse me at all. It's just another interpretation from an unreliable source among thousands of interpretations from the same unreliable source.

[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.

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.

I was commenting on the fact that YOU are passing judgement on a fictional character as if this god had some sort of influence over nature in the real world. You gave the example of Atticus Finch, and using your example it would be no different than if you concluded that more people should use Atticus Finch to represent him since he's such a good lawyer. I would then point out once again that Atticus Finch is a fictional character, and not going to be representing anyone in the real world.

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?

Nothing, except when you start blaming natural disasters on fictional characters.

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.

Not necessarily. You have rejected a doctrine loosely based on scripture, but more accurately based on ignorance. Based upon this, you have rejected not just the false doctrine, but the text from which it is based, even though it is an interpretation that is blatantly false. You yourself see it as making no sense, but even though I've explained why this interpretation is false, you still prefer to just look at the false interpretation.

It isn't diametrically opposed for the same reason that believers can have vastly divergent positions on numerous subjects. You're taking just one of those positions which is just as false for me. I just come to a different conclusion than you did. We can both agree that their interpretation makes no sense. However, I can answer your question by pointing out that even if God does what seems extraordinarily wicked, this is of no consequence to someone who is significantly inferior to an omniscient, omnipotent and all wise deity. To think that you or I can make better decisions than this kind of deity is ridiculous. The fact that this deity is fictional is really irrelevant. It's a given that this deity is righteous, and wise. Given that he is also transcendent makes it doubly ridiculous to suppose that our morality could ever be superior. What is even more insane is to then suppose that there is a standard of morality in the first place.

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

[ quote]Do ALL Christians have to believe it in order to ask the question of those who do? Of course not. [/quote]

Huh? The Christians that don't are going to be the one's asking the question of those who do, not the one's who agree with them.

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?

I'm not questioning your right to ask the question regardless of how many believe or don't believe.

In case you may have missed it, I answered your question from not only their perspective (which I don't even agree with in the first place). I also answered it from your perspective (as a work of fiction). In either case, I don't really think you can refute my position.

Just to recap, this fictional deity is presented as omniscient, omnipotent, all wise, and transcendent. He is basically above reproach for whatever he chooses to do, or whatever he causes to happen. Given that he is a fictional character, there really is no standard for right and wrong anyways, but within the context of this story there is. It is rather ironic to pass judgement on a fictional deity who gives the ultimate standard of righteousness, and objective morality, and then to turn right around and think that you can come up with a better one while admitting that there is no such thing as God in the first place. There is no standard of morality, so there is no standard by which to judge anyone especially fictional characters. The authors set their own rules so if you're going to comment on the morality of these fictional characters, the least you could do is to acknowledge the system by which the author's cosmology operates.

You're free to disagree with it, but as I already pointed out what we're really dealing with is legalities; private property rights which most people don't have a problem with in their own lives, so what possible problem could one have with how a deity deals with his private property?

The problem arises when people start to confuse fiction with reality. To confuse a world that cannot admit to an ultimate standard of morality with one that has one is even more confusing to say the least. How one can think to impose a standard of morality that doesn't even exist onto a system that presents one makes no sense whatsoever.

[shnarkle]

I think that at least SOME people have no problem with the morality commanded in the Bible. Apparently, in some circles, even SLAVERY seems to be a good thing.

Especially today with this modern, secular morality.

You must be imagining that slavery has gone UP since the advent of secular morality.

There is no doubt that I have quite a healthy imagination, but my imagination has no influence over the fact is that one of the main components to slavery is being forced to work against one's own will. This is a major component to modern day secular slavery. What makes secular slavery particularly evil and disgusting in its depravity and insulting degradation is it's insistence on forcing this on people in the name of equality, or egalitarianism. Secular slavery is taking slavery to a new low. Imagine a freed slave being told that he must now work for someone because they are more equal than he is. He must work against his will because someone else has been granted a privilege that he doesn't have yet. What good is freeing a slave only to force them to work against their will? The secular world is turning the clock back and making us all equally slaves, except of course for those who are more equal than others; the privileged class gets a pass. After all, someone has to give the orders, right?

You do know that in those biblical narratives a society, tribe, or culture that was overpowered by their neighbors had practically no chance of survival on their own, right? Do you really think that for them to be forced to work against their will was immoral?

You just defended the practice of slavery.

You just pretended to understand my argument. I'm not just defending slavery. I'm showing that most people are hung up on some baggage that comes along with a word they really don't understand in the first place. Why is slavery wrong? Because it is wrong to own someone else. Why is it wrong to own someone else? Because that's slavery. Circular reasoning doesn't allow for much in the say of explanatory power. These terms really don't mean much of anything when one considers the specifics of each situation on their own merits.

I gave an example of a tribe, or society that is in conflict with one of their neighbors. They will necessarily come into conflict and to the victor goes the spoils. They're free to walk away and leave the losers to die, or they can take them in and educate them in how to live a better life. In some cultures they would call those who are being taught an apprentice. Some would refer to them as public servants while others would refer to them as slaves.

Instead of looking at the word, and coming to the conclusion that this is just pure evil, or immoral, look at how they are being treated. Cities can treat their public servants like dirt while a slave owner can treat his slaves like one of the family, even give them responsibilities that they wouldn't give their own family members in some cases.

So I definitely don't have a problem with someone saving someone else's life in order to give them a better life, regardless of what label you choose to use. However, when someone is forced to work against their will for no reason other than that some imbecile with an inferiority complex has decided to vent their hatred of anyone who isn't prepared to acknowledge their newfound privileged legal status then evil has hit a new sick and twisted low. Anyone who defends this nonsense has completely lost their moral compass.

[shnarkle]

I'm quite happy that you at least know SOME atheists.

I don't just know some atheists. I have good friends that happen to be atheists. They have even suggested that I'm more of an atheist than I choose to admit.

I am speaking for the group of atheists who DO agree with my position.

Oh, I didn't realize that there was a group that had organized and elected you to represent them as their spokesperson.

There are more than one.

Yes, plural verbs do indicate more than one.

They don't characterize other people's ideas as "ROT", either.

Given that it was what I posted, I would think it was pretty clear that what was being characterized as "rot" was my opinion. I'm not representing some organized judgmental society of atheists. I was merely characterizing it as the same rot I see from all organized religions. So how big is this flock you've been elected to pastor?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 295 by shnarkle]




[center]Some people claim to read minds[/center]

You should ask them if they are choosing or not.

It's rarely necessary as they are more than willing to provide this information.

I hear people quite routinely say things like: "They; he, she, that, etc. makes me so mad, sad, angry, etc." They are literally telling me that these people have control over their emotions, and how they feel.

Of course, that's just sloppy language on their part.
Or maybe you DO know a lot of mind slaves who have no control over themselves.

But in any case, if they TELL you, that's right.. you don't have to ask them for the information. But if you are telling ME what I'm thinking, you are most probably going to be WRONG.

You are welcome to guess.
I read Tarot cards, so I know many tricks of the trade.
Some people even believe that I can tell the future.

Whataryagonnado?

They will say, "I can't help it", or "There's nothing I can do about it", or "Why does this happen to me"? They are completely lost to the whim of the fates.

WOW....

That doesn't sound like a very healthy environment you live in.

They have no control whatsoever.

Mind slaves.
Zombies.
Robots.

Out of control despots running amok.

Have you considered moving?

Then there are those who want to know what they're fate is. They consult mediums. They read books on the subject to see what is in store for them. Here again, they aren't really taking charge for their own life, but just simply wanting to find out what their fate is going to be.

And apparently, you want us to believe that you can read minds.
You know what people want when they go to a Tarot card reader.

All of them.
Each and everyone of them.

Impressive knowledge you have there.

In my 40+ years of reading cards, people have told me a lot about why they consult. Surprising as it may seem to you, people don't all think the same.

You should ask.

The mistake you are making is called "hasty generalization".
You can look it up if you like.

Some might try to influence their fate, but here again, they're attempting to influence something that is outside of them rather than their own feelings, emotions, actions directly. They seriously believe that others have more control over them than they do themselves.

Do they all tend to congregate around you?

I will trust what they have to say about themselves, and not someone else.

This doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Wrong.

Sorry, but that IS very much the case.
I just told you what I will trust. I'm talking about myself.

That's the case, shnarkle.
It might NOT be the case for you.

I've lived all over the world, and I run into this all the time so I seriously doubt that this could be something you've never heard people say. The only reason I can think of would be that of someone who just doesn't pay attention to what people are saying.

I pay attention to what a lot of people say.
That doesn't mean that they are making much sense all the time.

I don't expect them to.
Some do, some don't.

I'm paying attention to you, by the way.
That's no guarantee that you're making sense.

People will say all kinds of things.
Whataryagonna do?


If we want to KNOW what they think, we should ASK them what they think, and not TELL them what they think

True, that's why I pointed out these are their words. These are their judgements. I don't keep track of these things, but it is not uncommon for me to hear people say things like, "I just want to die", or "That just kills me", or "My life is hopeless".

Some people are rational, and some people are not rational.
IF we want to know what they think about something, we should do more than just guess.

We should ask.

They've given up on life, and have chosen to be miserable by their own admission. When I try to encourage them to persevere, they say, "What's the point"?, or "You're wasting your time".

You seem to know a lot of extremely depressed people.
But if we want to know their inner mental state, we should ask.

Guessing IS wasting our time.

We can do much much better than guessing what people think.
We can ask people what they think, instead.

I know one person in particular that really enjoys his misery. He complains constantly, and genuinely enjoys complaining. He's very good at it. He's been doing it his whole life.

And you know this because he told you this. All his life he has told you that.
You didn't have to pretend to read his mind.

[center]We don't have to ASK if someone TELLS US. [/center]

If they TELL US how they think and feel, we know how they think and feel.
Guessing and presuming isn't knowing.

It's a waste of your time.
Pretending isn't going to get you facts.

I'm just pointing out some very real observations that pretty much anyone who has a television set and cable or satellite service can watch on any of those sleezy talk shows where people confess to their spouse that they've been cheating on them for years, they're pregnant with someone else's child etc. These people are quite obviously miserable.

That's a quite miserable form of entertainment.
You still can't read minds.

You can guess all you like.
But that's in YOU... that's in YOUR MIND.. not outside.

You are mistaking what you can imagine with what is actually happening.
If you want to know what someone is thinking, and they don't tell you, ask.

But don't pretend to speak for everyone.
That would be another thinking mistake.

Yeah, there are people who don't think very well.
If that's your point, I have to agree.

My point is that you can't read minds, so stop pretending.
Don't presume to talk for everyone else.

That "THEY" you are talking about is imaginary.
You have SOME data, but you want us to believe that you have ALL THE DATA.

That's not the same.
You're confused.

If you are talking about SOME people, then that's fine.
If you are talking about some of the people you have met, that's fine too.

I don't think you have ONLY met depressed, irrational people.. have you?
I can assure you that there ARE happy rational people out there, because I have MET some of them.

THESE "THEY" also exist.
You seem to have forgotten.

And maybe, just maybe they are happier and more rational than you are, my friend. Is that even a POSSIBILITY?

However, even when some people do consider their options, they rarely choose to be happy.

Some people are depressed, and some people aren't good at logic.
Some people have mental illnesses that prevents them from thinking well.

It seems that you have decided that unhappy people MUST be choosing unhappiness. My friend, you can't read their minds.

But it seems that you think you must be able to do that.
You KNOW how they think better than they do?

You don't have to ASK them?
I think that you do, my friend.

Your opinions are NOT FACTS, they are your opinions.
And to this cat, they are based on sloppy reasoning.

If only someone could reach out to everyone to tell them they are wrong.
They are so, so wrong.

It wouldn't make any difference.

You seem to be saying that:

"There's nothing I can do about it"

One need only point out that some people have choices, or choose to make different choices, but even this doesn't usually work because they don't see themselves as those types of people.

I would say that everyone has at least SOME choices. There are very few people with no choice AT ALL.

I would also say that some people choose what's behind door one, door two, or no door at all.

But it seems that you are saying you know what choice they are going to make before they make it.


____________

Question:

• 
  
  Can you read minds?
  
  

____________

I can do much better than read minds. I can read people's actions, and evidently some people have quite a bit of free time on their hands. I'm not reading minds, and this OP isn't about reading minds.

Perhaps if the comments posted were more about this topic and less about using the second person singular pronoun, this topic would be able to advance a bit farther. Using the second person singular personal pronoun is a tell tale sign of an ad hominem. Kindly refrain from using it in the future. If the topic of this discussion isn't of any interest, hijacking it isn't the answer.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 305 by shnarkle]

What's the use of pretending?

I don't just know some atheists. I have good friends that happen to be atheists. They have even suggested that I'm more of an atheist than I choose to admit.

They can suggest anything that they like.
And you might not agree with me.

I am speaking for the group of atheists who DO agree with my position.

Oh, I didn't realize that there was a group that had organized and elected you to represent them as their spokesperson.

I know many atheists, and there is more than just one of us who agree with my position, and that constitutes a GROUP.

That's the group I am speaking about.
You are free to dream up anything that you like.

There are more than one.

Yes, plural verbs do indicate more than one.

That's a group of at least two.
I'm happy to note that you understand the grammar.

Given that it was what I posted, I would think it was pretty clear that what was being characterized as "rot" was my opinion.

Yes, I understand that "rot" was your opinion.
It probably still is.

[center]
An opinion is not an argument.[/center]

I'm not representing some organized judgmental society of atheists.

I'm happy to take a note of that.
Neither am I.

So how big is this flock you've been elected to pastor?

I don't have a flock and I am no pastor.
I never even hinted that I was either.

You seem to be making that up.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 306 by shnarkle]


[center]

Opinions about people's inner thoughts and feelings[/center]

Perhaps if the comments posted were more about this topic and less about using the second person singular pronoun, this topic would be able to advance a bit farther. Using the second person singular personal pronoun is a tell tale sign of an ad hominem.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. I am talking about YOUR comments.. your ideas... your words. Not about you, this isn't about YOU, but what you wrote about people's motivations, my friend. Could you explain why addressing you personally using the second person singular pronoun is so offensive to you? ( there, I did it again, second person singular pronoun )
  
  2. Why do you assume that every time I use the word "you" that it's an ad hominem argument? I am commenting only on what you write. You write that you know people's inner motivations and feelings. I said we should ask them. Where is the ad hominen? If we pretend to read minds, how is that a good idea?
  
  3. Are your ( there, I did it again, didn't I? ) ideas about people's motivation just your OPINIONS about them, or is it the truth about them? How did you rule out your personal ERROR?
  
  4. If someone tells me that they know what people are feeling and thinking... How is that NOT pretending to read minds?
  
  5. Do you actually know what people feel and think without asking them?
  
  6. Do you know better than they do about what they feel and think?
  
  7. Are you always correct in your assessment?
  
  8. How many people are you talking about?...5, 20, 1000, 7 billion, or just yourself?
  
  9. How did you rule out projection of your own thoughts and feelings in your assessment?
  
  10. Are you the spokesperson for all of these people?
  
  11. Are you a qualified psychological practitioner, or are you giving us an amateur's opinion?
  
  12. If you are concerned about the actual topic "Eternal Hell", why are you telling us about people's motivations?
  
  13. If I ask you about that... how am I derailing the conversation. You brought up people's motivations, didn't you? I'm questioning your assertions about that.
  
  

____________