Hell

[Grayson]

It has been said to me that God gives people faith to believe in Him.

Fine.

But if that is the case, how can one justify God sending people to Hell for not believing in Him if He only gives certain people the faith to believe in Him? Because it is His will? Then why Create people in the first place if only to send them to Hell?

Anyone?

[achilles12604]

Welcome, achilles12604.

So, to maintain freedom of choice, hell is for those that do not choose God in the afterlife. So what information about God and the afterlife do you think is made available by God (or other beings in the afterlife) before a person makes this choice? Do you get a brochure at the pearly gates? Does there have to be only two choices?

I think we are on two slightly different pages. I agree with

So, to maintain freedom of choice, hell is for those that do not choose God

. But when you added "in the afterlife", we parted company. The choice is made while alive here on Earth. This is our timeframe. Your personal "choice clock" is up the second you die. Once dead, you have made your choice.

As for what information is made available by God about your choice concerning the after life I would say read the bible. For those of you who are about to jump up and say, "What about all the other religions?", let me cut you off and explain.

I would state that each person is responsible for gathering information concerning each religion. Which ever religion presents the best evidence and has the most solid base (ie archeology, science, theology, history, etc.) should be the logical choice. After having researched Christianity along with 13 other religions (so far) not one of the other religions can even come close to the Christian base of litterature, archeology, science and history. This is why I say look to the bible rather than to the Quran or shilo or whatever else.

As for does there only have to be two choices, . . .I am thinking you mean heaven or hell. For an answer to this please see my reply to the previous post. While ther choices (like blinking out of existence) may be possible, they may not be plausible.

[McCulloch]

I would state that each person is responsible for gathering information concerning each religion. Which ever religion presents the best evidence and has the most solid base (ie archeology, science, theology, history, etc.) should be the logical choice. After having researched Christianity along with 13 other religions (so far) not one of the other religions can even come close to the Christian base of litterature, archeology, science and history. This is why I say look to the bible rather than to the Quran or shilo or whatever else.

That is a glib easy answer for someone in the rich western civilization where information and education is easily and universally available and you have the freedom to gather such information.

As for does there only have to be two choices, . . .I am thinking you mean heaven or hell. For an answer to this please see my reply to the previous post. While other choices (like blinking out of existence) may be possible, they may not be plausible.

Why not? Even from the theist position, annihilation or universalism seems not only plausible but probable. They both remove from God the accusation that he is a sadistic torturer.

[McCulloch]

Why I think humans will continue to exist after death encompasses a few different areas, some of which can be examined and some can not. For the areas that can be examined, I turn to the bible and its teachings. The bible speaks many times of "eternal life" or life after death.

Why is the Bible right on this point?

This would necessitate humans or at least a conscious part of our being (our soul if you will) continuing to exist. Near death experiences of individuals is another area which can be examined to some extent although it is possible that they are all totally lying in which case it can not be examined at all. But, giving the masses that have expierienced such an event the benifit of the doubt in so much as honesty is concerned, we can examine their statements concerning what happened to them for the short time that they were clinically dead.

The common set of hallucinations of those who's brain has been re-started is not conclusive. However, even if you could show that human consciousness can exist for a short time after clinical death, that is far short of showing that a human soul is indestructable and eternal.

Now, if someone dies and he or she does not wish for God to be part of their existence, then they can not go to heaven. In point of fact they probably would not want to go to heaven.

Because God is there?

Your question open up a whole separate can of worms which is applicable to the general forum topic but is not applicable to the topic of Hell. Therefore, I will save the existence of God for another time and place.

No, I was not at this point bringing up the debate about the existence of God. I was challenging your assertion that the souls of those who disbelieve in God would rather spend an eternity without God after they die and find out that they were wrong. On the surface, that is absurd.

Because god is totally holy and jealous and nothing that is not subject to him can be in his presence, a human or soul that does not wish to be subject to him CAN not be in his presence.

Can you provide evidence to this assertion? I can site a number of passages of Scripture which show that God was in the presence of those in rebellion to His will.

I am very interested about your passages of scripture. I have found that the vast majority of the time when an athiest quotes scripture, they either take a small section of out context or else quote the passage incorrectly. I can also quote a few scriptures that speaks of the jealousy of God and hs total purity and the requirement of those around him to be pure. Paul speaks on this subject a lot as does John in his revelation. Old testament attastation on the subject can be found in a few different books including Psalms.

Odd thing. I often find that believers have a tendency to misquote scripture or quote out of context.

I am very interested in any verses which point to God the father being in the presence of evil in his heavenly realm. Please feel free to present these pieces.

I just felt the goalposts move.

Because god is totally holy and jealous and nothing that is not subject to him can be in his presence, a human or soul that does not wish to be subject to him CAN not be in his presence.

I am very interested in any verses which point to God the father being in the presence of evil in his heavenly realm.

So you have now limited yourself to only one of your three gods and only to his heavenly realm. God can be in the presence of evil on earth but not in his heavenly realm. Why? God the Father cannot be in the presence of evil but God the Son can? Which God was it who spoke to the serpent in the garden of Eden?

God can limit himself in any way and at any time he wishes. Therefore, God can remove his grace, and his presence from Hell if he wishes. This has no effect on his omnipotence because he can still be aware of the individuals in hell without extending his presence to them as well.

So God can be present somewhere without extending his presence into that place. Sounds like theological double talk.

As I explain in the next section, fire and brimstone are in no way needed for hell to be a place that individuals should wish to avoid. The simple lack of God's presence will be so unimaginably horrible that by itself, it will be more than punishment enough. To be in an area without his purity and love and constant closeness, will cause much unhappiness. For an example (which falls far short) this would be like a man being put into total solitary confinement, in total blackness, forever. And my example does not even include the feelings that a soul will have without God's presence. This is what I think hell will be.

How is this eternal torment any better that the fire and brimstone one?

I would be curious what other options you are suggesting. Perhaps you are thinking that blinking the sinner out of existence is an option. Well perhaps it is an option. But then God would be destroying something which he created and which he loves and which was "good" at one time. This may be something God is not willing to do. Also, blinking the sinner out of existence would indirectly contradict free will.

There are three other options which have been proposed:

1. Annihilation who would deny that the end of existence is preferable to an eternal existence of torment?
2. Reincarnation Why not allow the soul to progress towards enlightenment if he does not quite come to a proper understanding the first time?
3. Universalism Is God's atonement limited? Why cannot God accept and forgive everyone "just as I am" ?

Does your question imply that defying God should not bring about unpleasant results? If God wished for fire and brimstone to be the punishment for defiance, then what could we say about it? What would you say to the person who was complaining that he was sentenced to 15 years in jail for raping and beating a 6 year old girl? He thinks his punishment is "cruel". What would you tell him? Really let me know what you would tell him because he is sitting right in front of me talking with some other guys about his new sentence. Working in a jail I am aware of conversations most people do not hear. Let me know what to tell him.

I would have thought that of all people, Christians would have gotten over the thought that the penal system should be about retribution. That man is in jail for fifteen years because he is a sick bastard that society needs to be protected from.

[1John2_26]

Weeping and gnashing of teeth is a very appropriate mental picture to draw about being "away" from God. Hell is a reality for so many human beings, that they feel inescapably convinced that they have enetered "it" while still being alive.

The aging process and inevitable death of human beings has seen humans throughout history, in civilization after civilization, concern themselves with the after life.

This knowledge seems to be in us from birth.

The God gene?

The New Testament seems to indicate that reality.

[Cathar1950]

This knowledge seems to be in us from birth.

Knowledge from birth?

The God gene?

Have you even read the book?

The New Testament seems to indicate that reality.

Did you read this book(s)? Did you understand anything?

[achilles12604]

I would state that each person is responsible for gathering information concerning each religion. Which ever religion presents the best evidence and has the most solid base (ie archeology, science, theology, history, etc.) should be the logical choice. After having researched Christianity along with 13 other religions (so far) not one of the other religions can even come close to the Christian base of litterature, archeology, science and history. This is why I say look to the bible rather than to the Quran or shilo or whatever else.

That is a glib easy answer for someone in the rich western civilization where information and education is easily and universally available and you have the freedom to gather such information.

As for does there only have to be two choices, . . .I am thinking you mean heaven or hell. For an answer to this please see my reply to the previous post. While other choices (like blinking out of existence) may be possible, they may not be plausible.

Why not? Even from the theist position, annihilation or universalism seems not only plausible but probable. They both remove from God the accusation that he is a sadistic torturer.

Taking your first post, this is why Christ told his disciples to spread his word. It is our job to let people know the facts of his life. I will admit that the current church is not doing as well as they should. Once again, I have fairly unique feelings about the church from a Christian point of view. Also, for individuals who died without ever having the choice to follow or reject God, I think God probably has a plan for those individuals. What it is, I do not know. But that is why I am not God. Good thing too.

As for the second post, you failed to answer my question. What you are asking in effect is why does God chose to honor those who follow him and punish those who do not rather than being "humane" and just non-existing them. However, as I said you have not answered my question about the man who was sitting in front of me. If God just does the infinate merciful thing and basically lets whoever defies him get away with it, why should we humans send a child raper to prison? What is the purpose of punishment after all?

You act like people who do things that are morally, ethically, physically and spiritually wrong should not be punished. Is this really what you think? You would prefer a universe without justice?

[achilles12604]

Why I think humans will continue to exist after death encompasses a few different areas, some of which can be examined and some can not. For the areas that can be examined, I turn to the bible and its teachings. The bible speaks many times of "eternal life" or life after death.

Why is the Bible right on this point?

I think the Bible is right about that because I think the Bible is right period. I have studied and read the bible, and I have no trouble believing what it says. If you would like to debate wether or not the Bible is a credible source of information we can but that might take a while. It may be simpler if I simply sent you copies of my other debates on this subject. I have debated this subject on two other forums both of which are atheist held and I have discovered that when it all gets boiled down, my arguments consist of evidence and science and the atheist argument consists of "That is not good enough. I will never be convinced unless you can absolutely prove 150% that you are right." Well even if God himself appeared and declared himself, atheists would explain it away as some strange phenonminon and go on with their lives. Why do I say that? Because it happened and that is exactly what has transpired since.

Therefore, I state that the Bible can be believed on this because it can be believed in general. I am sure of that and so far no one has been able to even dent my opinion. On the contrary, every time I debate this subject I find new evidence that supports my thinking. The atheists in general simply resort to denial of evidence. Nothing "proves it 100%" in their minds. That is not because of lack of evidence. It is a choice on their part not to be convinced. A CHOICE, on their part.

This would necessitate humans or at least a conscious part of our being (our soul if you will) continuing to exist. Near death experiences of individuals is another area which can be examined to some extent although it is possible that they are all totally lying in which case it can not be examined at all. But, giving the masses that have expierienced such an event the benifit of the doubt in so much as honesty is concerned, we can examine their statements concerning what happened to them for the short time that they were clinically dead.

The common set of hallucinations of those who's brain has been re-started is not conclusive. However, even if you could show that human consciousness can exist for a short time after clinical death, that is far short of showing that a human soul is indestructible and eternal.

Granted. However, I find it interesting that hallucinations are by definition singular or personal events, yet the vast majority of the near death "hallucinations" are exactly the same. This seems to point toward the experiences being more than simple hallucinations.

Now, if someone dies and he or she does not wish for God to be part of their existence, then they can not go to heaven. In point of fact they probably would not want to go to heaven.

Because God is there?

Your question open up a whole separate can of worms which is applicable to the general forum topic but is not applicable to the topic of Hell. Therefore, I will save the existence of God for another time and place.

No, I was not at this point bringing up the debate about the existence of God. I was challenging your assertion that the souls of those who disbelieve in God would rather spend an eternity without God after they die and find out that they were wrong. On the surface, that is absurd.

Ah I see what you are saying now. Ok well in that case yes that is exactly what I meant. An analogy would be for a person who is always the center of attention going to a party and finding there an individual that so captivated the attention of everyone that this person who thrived on attention and admiration would be totally ignored and therefore they would become jealous and angry and probably want to leave. This is a small example of what would logically take place.

If someone who for their whole lives, wanted nothing more that to run their lives and be "God" of themselves went to heaven, they would then become totally and completely subject to the power and will of God himself. They would probably hate that. Satan did and look what happened. That is why pride is the original sin like I said in my first post. The desire to be God and thinking that we can be, is pride.

Someone like that would hate heaven anyway. And this is besides not accepting God as his God and therefore, defying God and therefore, not being welcome into heaven. After all why should a king invite a traitor into his hall for dinner just because?

Because god is totally holy and jealous and nothing that is not subject to him can be in his presence, a human or soul that does not wish to be subject to him CAN not be in his presence.

Can you provide evidence to this assertion? I can site a number of passages of Scripture which show that God was in the presence of those in rebellion to His will.

I am very interested about your passages of scripture. I have found that the vast majority of the time when an athiest quotes scripture, they either take a small section of out context or else quote the passage incorrectly. I can also quote a few scriptures that speaks of the jealousy of God and hs total purity and the requirement of those around him to be pure. Paul speaks on this subject a lot as does John in his revelation. Old testament attastation on the subject can be found in a few different books including Psalms.

Odd thing. I often find that believers have a tendency to misquote scripture or quote out of context.

I am very interested in any verses which point to God the father being in the presence of evil in his heavenly realm. Please feel free to present these pieces.

I just felt the goalposts move.

Because god is totally holy and jealous and nothing that is not subject to him can be in his presence, a human or soul that does not wish to be subject to him CAN not be in his presence.

I am very interested in any verses which point to God the father being in the presence of evil in his heavenly realm.

So you have now limited yourself to only one of your three gods and only to his heavenly realm. God can be in the presence of evil on earth but not in his heavenly realm. Why? God the Father cannot be in the presence of evil but God the Son can? Which God was it who spoke to the serpent in the garden of Eden?

God in his Heavenly kingdom will not tolerate evil in his presence. Earth is not his kingdom right now. Hence since this is Satan's kingdom and we are all here, God had to be near evil in order to destroy evil. You can't wash a dog without getting wet right?

Perhaps you do have a point however. I said nothing evil can be in his presence. Perhaps what I should have said is nothing evil can be in his presence without him allowing it to be. God will not tolerate evil being in his Kingdom. He will throw evil out into the darkness. That is probably more accurate. Sorry.


[

quote="achilles12604"]God can limit himself in any way and at any time he wishes. Therefore, God can remove his grace, and his presence from Hell if he wishes. This has no effect on his omnipotence because he can still be aware of the individuals in hell without extending his presence to them as well.

So God can be present somewhere without extending his presence into that place. Sounds like theological double talk.

No. You did not read carefully. I made a distinction between omnipotence and omnipresent. He still has power and is still aware of places which he has not placed his presence. I made that distinction very clear above.

As I explain in the next section, fire and brimstone are in no way needed for hell to be a place that individuals should wish to avoid. The simple lack of God's presence will be so unimaginably horrible that by itself, it will be more than punishment enough. To be in an area without his purity and love and constant closeness, will cause much unhappiness. For an example (which falls far short) this would be like a man being put into total solitary confinement, in total blackness, forever. And my example does not even include the feelings that a soul will have without God's presence. This is what I think hell will be.

How is this eternal torment any better that the fire and brimstone one?

I would be curious what other options you are suggesting. Perhaps you are thinking that blinking the sinner out of existence is an option. Well perhaps it is an option. But then God would be destroying something which he created and which he loves and which was "good" at one time. This may be something God is not willing to do. Also, blinking the sinner out of existence would indirectly contradict free will.

There are three other options which have been proposed:

1. Annihilation who would deny that the end of existence is preferable to an eternal existence of torment?
2. 
   For that individual yes. However, this would thwart justice. Once again would you like to like in a universe where anyone got away with anything they wanted without any repercussions?
   
   Reincarnation Why not allow the soul to progress towards enlightenment if he does not quite come to a proper understanding the first time?
3. 
   Probably because if someone rejects God with both their heart and mind, that soul will do so forever without change. So why bother making them decide over and over. That would be like making a kid in school take the same test over and over until they got it all correct. What would the point in the test be then? Why not just give the kid all the points from the start? Of course this would violate free will totally and completely wouldn't it. Hence another problem.
   
   
   Universalism Is God's atonement limited? Why cannot God accept and forgive everyone "just as I am" ?

Once again this would be creating a universe without any justice at all. You seem to be anxious that everyone who does something wrong should never be punished. If God simply turned a blind eye to open defiance and rejection, what kind of justice would there be? Why should I worship a God who would allow Stalin into his presence while Stalin was still committing atrocities and defying God himself? The God you suggest would be a weakling in my eyes. I will never follow a God who sets rules, and then just ignores those rules and didn't have the spine to do what he said he would do. I admire my Father in part because when I did wrong, he was big enough and strong enough to punish me and he did. This told me on a subconcious level, that if Dad was strong enough physically and willfully to dicipline me, then he would also protect me. Psychologists run into this a lot with the "I'm 16 I hate my father" syndrom. I talked to a counsiler who told me the greatest problem with the majority of his patients both male and female was absence of a strong male influence. I'm not making this up either. The counsiler's name is Charles O' Leary and his practice is in Arvada Colorado.

On a side note, and I do not mean any offense at all so if I offend you please forgive me, do you support the ACLU by any chance? They have that same thought process. No one should be punished for anything, ever. All child rapers and murderers and thieves and dead beat dad should not be punished for what they do, is what the ACLU stands for. Personally I like a system of justice over total chaos and disorder. Judging from your next response I think you probably like order and justice too. You say that society needs to be protected and defended from scumbags. Those who do not follow the rules are a danger to the welfare of those around them.

Does your question imply that defying God should not bring about unpleasant results? If God wished for fire and brimstone to be the punishment for defiance, then what could we say about it? What would you say to the person who was complaining that he was sentenced to 15 years in jail for raping and beating a 6 year old girl? He thinks his punishment is "cruel". What would you tell him? Really let me know what you would tell him because he is sitting right in front of me talking with some other guys about his new sentence. Working in a jail I am aware of conversations most people do not hear. Let me know what to tell him.

I would have thought that of all people, Christians would have gotten over the thought that the penal system should be about retribution. That man is in jail for fifteen years because he is a sick bastard that society needs to be protected from.[/quote]

True. However, this man does not think he did anything wrong. He told the other guy (sorry, I can't remember the exact words so I will paraphrase) "The way she was dressed and by the way she came on to me she wanted it. I was come on to by her. If it is anyone's fault is is her's. Not mine. But noooo. I am sitting here and she is happily playing at home probably." (I deleted the less intelligent words which I am sure you can imagine.)

Now in as far as the spiritual realm goes, many people are saying kind of the same thing. "I am a good person. I do not deserve to be punished. I never raped or murdered or stole anything. I am good. Why can't God make things obvious? If people go to hell it is obviously God's fault, not mine. He should have told made things more obvious." Yet those people, (most of them at least) not only know what the bible says but openly reject it. They reject spiritual law as stupid and inappropriate just like the man who was sitting in front of me rejects societies laws. God made thing obvious because he came here himself and told us what is what. Remember what I said about God appearing himself. Atheists ask "why can't God just do a huge miracle or appear. Then I would believe him." But if you check your Bible, this is exactly what happened. The Pharasee's saw huge miracles and they saw God appear and teach and even claim who he was directly. But insead of believing like they said they would, they attacked him. Some people just do not want to go with rules or powers they have to answer to. So they turn away or fight against it instead.

[McCulloch]

I think the Bible is right about that because I think the Bible is right period. I have studied and read the bible, and I have no trouble believing what it says. If you would like to debate wether or not the Bible is a credible source of information we can but that might take a while. It may be simpler if I simply sent you copies of my other debates on this subject.

You could provide links. However, since your argument about hell starts with "because the Bible tells me so", I fear that we cannot make much progress until we settle that admittedly larger issue.

After I die, if I find myself still conscious and in the presence of Almighty God and He is even more wonderful than even the Christians have imagined, I would not seek to be by myself in eternal torment and isolation. Honest.

Perhaps you do have a point however. I said nothing evil can be in his presence. Perhaps what I should have said is nothing evil can be in his presence without him allowing it to be. God will not tolerate evil being in his Kingdom. He will throw evil out into the darkness. That is probably more accurate. Sorry.

That's alright. Through my testing and challenge, you have come to a more accurate statement of your belief. One of the many benefits of debate.

God can limit himself in any way and at any time he wishes. Therefore, God can remove his grace, and his presence from Hell if he wishes. This has no effect on his omnipotence because he can still be aware of the individuals in hell without extending his presence to them as well.

So God can be present somewhere without extending his presence into that place. Sounds like theological double talk.

No. You did not read carefully. I made a distinction between omnipotence and omnipresent. He still has power and is still aware of places which he has not placed his presence. I made that distinction very clear above.

My mistake. So you do not believe in God's omnipresence?

[regarding annihilation] For that individual yes. However, this would thwart justice. Once again would you like to like in a universe where anyone got away with anything they wanted without any repercussions?

Yet the substitutionary sacrifice also thwarts justice. If God were only a just God then he would not sacrifice His own Son (if only for less than three days).

[regarding reincarnation] Probably because if someone rejects God with both their heart and mind, that soul will do so forever without change. So why bother making them decide over and over. That would be like making a kid in school take the same test over and over until they got it all correct. What would the point in the test be then? Why not just give the kid all the points from the start? Of course this would violate free will totally and completely wouldn't it. Hence another problem.

And would it not violate free will to say, "times up! you lose." Those who believe in reincarnation reject your hypothesis that the soul cannot change.

[regarding universalism] Once again this would be creating a universe without any justice at all. You seem to be anxious that everyone who does something wrong should never be punished. If God simply turned a blind eye to open defiance and rejection, what kind of justice would there be? Why should I worship a God who would allow Stalin into his presence while Stalin was still committing atrocities and defying God himself?

And yet you do. If someone like Stalin came to repentance and accepted God's forgiveness and sacrifice before he died, your God would accept him.

The God you suggest would be a weakling in my eyes. I will never follow a God who sets rules, and then just ignores those rules and didn't have the spine to do what he said he would do. I admire my Father in part because when I did wrong, he was big enough and strong enough to punish me and he did. This told me on a subconcious level, that if Dad was strong enough physically and willfully to dicipline me, then he would also protect me.

Jesus' teachings about God also seems to be a weakling in your eyes. He set the rules and rather than having the spine to do what he said he would do, he pays the price himself for your sin.

On a side note, and I do not mean any offense at all so if I offend you please forgive me, do you support the ACLU by any chance?

ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union. I am Canadian. It does not operate in my country. However, we have a similar set of constitutional rights and I believe that they should be upheld. Don't you?

They have that same thought process. No one should be punished for anything, ever.

I cannot find any positive social value in retribution.

All child rapers and murderers and thieves and dead beat dad should not be punished for what they do, is what the ACLU stands for.

Really? Can you quote sources? I thought that the ACLU stood for the protection of American constitutional rights. I guess I am just a dumb foreigner.

Personally I like a system of justice over total chaos and disorder. Judging from your next response I think you probably like order and justice too.

Yes, Canadian Law, Order and Governance over American Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness any day.

You say that society needs to be protected and defended from scumbags. Those who do not follow the rules are a danger to the welfare of those around them.

Yes. The penal system in my view, should not be there to provide retribution against lawbreakers. That achieves nothing. Do I advocate the repeal of the penal system? No. Do I advocate that criminals be allowed to commit whatever crimes they wish and not be stopped? No. The penal system serves a number of useful purposes. By restricting the movement of convicted criminals, it prevents them, for a time, from harming others. By providing a negative consequence to criminal behaviours, it provides a deterrent to first-time and repeat offenders.

True. However, this man does not think he did anything wrong. He told the other guy, "The way she was dressed and by the way she came on to me she wanted it. I was come on to by her. If it is anyone's fault is is her's. Not mine. But noooo. I am sitting here and she is happily playing at home probably."

In my view, this guy is mentally ill. Now, I don't say that to excuse him. He has an illness that we do not understand fully and that we cannot treat and that makes him a danger to society. It may shock you, but I feel that until we make a great deal of progress in the sciences relating to this man's condition, that the best way to deal with him it to execute him. We cannot really help him. We cannot with any clear conscience allow him to freely inhabit society. It is cruel and unusual to incarcerate him for the rest of his life with no hope for escape.

Now in as far as the spiritual realm goes, many people are saying kind of the same thing. "I am a good person. I do not deserve to be punished. I never raped or murdered or stole anything. I am good. Why can't God make things obvious? If people go to hell it is obviously God's fault, not mine. He should have told made things more obvious." Yet those people, (most of them at least) not only know what the bible says but openly reject it.

Or have not been given a good reason to believe it. A lot of the apologetics that I have been exposed to are quite lame.

They reject spiritual law as stupid and inappropriate just like the man who was sitting in front of me rejects societies laws. God made thing obvious because he came here himself and told us what is what. Remember what I said about God appearing himself. Atheists ask "why can't God just do a huge miracle or appear. Then I would believe him." But if you check your Bible, this is exactly what happened. The Pharasee's saw huge miracles and they saw God appear and teach and even claim who he was directly. But insead of believing like they said they would, they attacked him. Some people just do not want to go with rules or powers they have to answer to. So they turn away or fight against it instead.

It would have been nice if there were some record of these events other than by those who were selling the Christ religion after the fact.

Taking your first post, this is why Christ told his disciples to spread his word. It is our job to let people know the facts of his life. I will admit that the current church is not doing as well as they should.

In his "great commission", why did the Creator of the Universe neglect to tell the disciples that there were three undiscovered continents with populations requiring God's salvation?

Once again, I have fairly unique feelings about the church from a Christian point of view. Also, for individuals who died without ever having the choice to follow or reject God, I think God probably has a plan for those individuals. What it is, I do not know. But that is why I am not God. Good thing too.

Yet the Bible seems to teach that salvation is only available to those who accept Christ.

What is the purpose of punishment after all?

What purpose indeed? Tell me what purpose retributive punishment serves?

You act like people who do things that are morally, ethically, physically and spiritually wrong should not be punished. Is this really what you think? You would prefer a universe without justice?

Society should be protected from those who would harm it. That has been a principle of law for human society for as long as it has existed. I have no idea what spiritually wrong is. Justice is a human construct. The universe has no inherent justice.

[achilles12604]

I think the Bible is right about that because I think the Bible is right period. I have studied and read the bible, and I have no trouble believing what it says. If you would like to debate wether or not the Bible is a credible source of information we can but that might take a while. It may be simpler if I simply sent you copies of my other debates on this subject.

You could provide links. However, since your argument about hell starts with "because the Bible tells me so", I fear that we cannot make much progress until we settle that admittedly larger issue.

After I die, if I find myself still conscious and in the presence of Almighty God and He is even more wonderful than even the Christians have imagined, I would not seek to be by myself in eternal torment and isolation. Honest.

If you would like to debate the Bibles validity then I am game. I think we should probably start a new forum for that though.

Second, I believe you about your second paragraph. And I believe you, not because of just your words or that it makes sense. I believe you also because the Bible has already mentioned that those who die still rejecting God will weep and gnash their teeth because they will realize what they have missed out on. This is Hell. Not some lake of fire. It is simply missing out on God himself.

God can limit himself in any way and at any time he wishes. Therefore, God can remove his grace, and his presence from Hell if he wishes. This has no effect on his omnipotence because he can still be aware of the individuals in hell without extending his presence to them as well.

So God can be present somewhere without extending his presence into that place. Sounds like theological double talk.

No. You did not read carefully. I made a distinction between omnipotence and omnipresent. He still has power and is still aware of places which he has not placed his presence. I made that distinction very clear above.

My mistake. So you do not believe in God's omnipresence?

I already explained this. Lets start from square one and go step by step so that we are on the same page.

1) God has the power to be omnipresent.
2) God can limit his power when ever and where ever he wants to. (Jesus emptying himself or God's turning his eyes from Jesus on the cross)
3) Therefore, God can be aware of those in Hell without ever extending his loving presence to those individuals.

Just because you can go to the market today does not mean you have to. Same thing with God. Just because he can be everywhere at once (including Hell) does not mean he has to be everywhere at once. He can chose.

[regarding annihilation] For that individual yes. However, this would thwart justice. Once again would you like to like in a universe where anyone got away with anything they wanted without any repercussions?

Yet the substitutionary sacrifice also thwarts justice. If God were only a just God then he would not sacrifice His own Son (if only for less than three days).

Good Question. I have never been asked this one before.

C. S. Lewis touched on this subject in his novel "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". Under certain circumstances you would be right. However, there is one point you are missing which answers your question.

First, (and this is not my main point but it still applies to this topic) God did not only sacrifice his "only son." Jesus was "in essence, God" according to Paul and Jesus own teachings. This is because God is infinite and can not die. So he created himself in human form to pay. So really God himself died.

Anyway, my main argument against your theory is that even if you will not accept my idea above (which some Christians even do not), there is still no problem because of WILL.

Jesus died WILLINGLY. He was not forced. He went to his death willingly and even mentioned it many times in advance to his followers. Because he did so willingly, it does not create an injustice like it would if he was forced. Therefore, this clears up your question. Justice was done on Jesus because he was sinless and went to his death willingly, thus cleansing us of our previous mistakes and allowing us a path back to heaven.

The x-factor is willingly.

[regarding reincarnation] Probably because if someone rejects God with both their heart and mind, that soul will do so forever without change. So why bother making them decide over and over. That would be like making a kid in school take the same test over and over until they got it all correct. What would the point in the test be then? Why not just give the kid all the points from the start? Of course this would violate free will totally and completely wouldn't it. Hence another problem.

And would it not violate free will to say, "times up! you lose." Those who believe in reincarnation reject your hypothesis that the soul cannot change.

Lets take your first sentence first. The short answer is no. It would not violate free will. The reason is God does not make you chose anything during your life. The person choses without any direct coercion from heaven. Just because they chose to reject God and then they die, is no excuse.

That would be like someone having a warrant for their arrest, not taking care of it and then found by the police and being arrested. Then they tell the judge that he shouldn't judge the man because the courts just didn't give him enough time to return to court and clear up the problem. The warrant would have gone away any time the man went into court on his own and addressed the problem. But he didn't so he was arrested and judged accordingly.

Same goes for life. Just because you die (are arrested) is no excuse for you rejecting God your whole life (not going to court on your own and clearing it up). Therefore, blaming god by saying "You didn't give me enough time" is really a pretty pathetic excuse. Our courts would laugh at someone trying that as a defense. It wont work on God either.

As for the reincarnation crowd, I have no problem with them disagreeing with me. I disagree with them as well. I am not here to be PC and hold everyone's hand and say "Its going to be ok." Disagree with me if they want. I am an apologist, not an evangelist.

I would suggest two things to those people however.

1) Look at all religions and compare their histories, archeology, literature and science. Then make an informed decision. If after you have looked honestly you can still claim your reincarnation to be the most well supported historically and the most logically correct religion, then so be it. Good luck and call me if you need anything.

2) Answer me a couple quick questions.

---If there are a certain number of souls which have been living over and over and over again until they get it right, where did the First souls come from?

--- If there are a certain number of souls which have been living over and over again, how do you account for the massive increase in population over the last few thousand years?

--- The universe has been around for a few billion years. The earth has been around a shorter time that that. Humans have been around for only a few thousand years. Souls need to go through MANY rebirths before they get it right. Only a very few have made it to Nirvana. With this in mind, what will happen to the people who are on earth when the Earth ends (which science has proven it will) and they have not even come close to Nirvana and can not be reborn? What will happen to those souls?

Just a couple questions I would ask them about their faith.

[regarding universalism] Once again this would be creating a universe without any justice at all. You seem to be anxious that everyone who does something wrong should never be punished. If God simply turned a blind eye to open defiance and rejection, what kind of justice would there be? Why should I worship a God who would allow Stalin into his presence while Stalin was still committing atrocities and defying God himself?

And yet you do. If someone like Stalin came to repentance and accepted God's forgiveness and sacrifice before he died, your God would accept him.

YES! You hit the key point. IF Stalin had repented and asked Gods forgiveness, then yes he would have been forgiven. But once again you did not read my words carefully.

I said,

while Stalin was still committing atrocities and defying God himself

I did not say as you did,

Stalin came to repentance and accepted God's forgiveness and sacrifice before he died

What you wrote is true (the second part, not the first). If Stalin had repented and decided to seek God, then he would no longer have been trying to place himself in God's place and would therefore, while seeking God, be welcome into Heaven. That was my point exactly.

The God you suggest would be a weakling in my eyes. I will never follow a God who sets rules, and then just ignores those rules and didn't have the spine to do what he said he would do. I admire my Father in part because when I did wrong, he was big enough and strong enough to punish me and he did. This told me on a subconcious level, that if Dad was strong enough physically and willfully to dicipline me, then he would also protect me.

Jesus' teachings about God also seems to be a weakling in your eyes. He set the rules and rather than having the spine to do what he said he would do, he pays the price himself for your sin.

Your statement here was very insightful but you are forgetting our main discussion, Hell.

God does have the spine to punish those who continue to defy him. Hence our entire debate about Hell, (the discipline). Lets go point by point again to make sure we get everything.

1) Before sin man was destined to go to Heaven and fulfill our primary purpose in being created, To Chose to Love and worship God.

2) Man then sinned.

3) God had declared the penalty for sin to be death. What he did not spell out (and Satan pointed out), was that this was an eternal or spiritual death, not an immediate physical death.

4) Therefore, men's souls died. They could no longer have everlasting life with their creator. (This is where God did carry out his promise. You see he did have the spine to do it and still does)

5) God still longed for Man to adore and worship him and be with him. He wanted his creation to have access to him.

6) Enter a second chance in the form of Jesus

7) This second chance has the same stipulation as the first that we messed up. . . Love the lord God with your heart, mind, and soul, accepting him in his place as God, rather than putting yourself there.

8) Those who accept this second chance remove the death sentence.

9) Those who reject God still, are still under that sentence. See God does have the spine to allow men to reject him and since the sentence of death has already been carried out, the free will of those men will see that punishment is carried out all on their own.

I hope this cleared up why I said what I did and that God still has any "spine" you may wish to discuss. The choice is ours. We have that choice now, but if we want we can still be on death row. It is up to us to leave.

They have that same thought process. No one should be punished for anything, ever.

I cannot find any positive social value in retribution.

Society has rebuked drunk driving pretty well and the punishment is usually 1 year in Jail. This is a punishment. It is designed as a punishment. And guess what . . . from the lack of repeats on DUI's it works. Many of the men who are in on DUI's, I have talked to and a great number of them never realized they even had a problem until they were sent to jail. Now they voluntarily go to AA and other programs. Some of them now have GED's and all of them know the PUNISHMENT for drinking and driving.

So therefore, I think that punishment does have a place in the justice system. Feel free to disagree and we will just agree to disagree on that point. I know first hand, to some degree or another, it works.

All child rapers and murderers and thieves and dead beat dad should not be punished for what they do, is what the ACLU stands for.

Really? Can you quote sources? I thought that the ACLU stood for the protection of American constitutional rights. I guess I am just a dumb foreigner.

Actually I can quote a few examples.

1) An individual was transferred from Adams county to our facility. I remember this individual well because Adam's dropped him off. Now understand that 99% of the time one county will not drop off anyone. The receiving county must pick the person up. But this man, last name of Bordock, was such a trouble maker they were willing to bend the rules just to be rid of him.

Why was he such a problem? He was always fighting, biting, yelling, banging and other ridiculous behavior. Why was he doing this? Well he was trying to use the "temporary insanity" plea on his murder case. However, we can listen into cells and we have a few minutes of documented and recorded conversation where this man ADMITS to his celly that he is acting out just to "prove" he is insane. He was convicted by the way.

Why do I mention this? Because the ACLU had a huge part to play with both the insanity plea and the more recent "temporary insanity" plea. These pleas are most often used on high level cases where the individual has done something terrible (murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault) and does not want to be punished for it. The ACLU will go as far as to pay for their lawyers to defend these people.

The ACLU also attempts to change case law. In other words things like protecting a mans right to sue a school about the pledge of allegiance is high on their list. It apparently violates some right of the man to have his child hear the pledge, yet they forget that they are violating every students right to free speech by placing this suit.

They also seem to have a massive agenda. For example within the last 2 weeks a high school valedictoriann was giving her speech at graduation. However, when she mentioned God (an act protected by the first amendment and almost never questioned) she was immediately stopped, removed from the stage and not allowed to continue. Her case was not accepted by the ACLU even though it was a clear violation of her civil rights.

These are just a few examples. The ACLU goes out of its way to try and create upheaval within society. They try to make massive changes under the guise of protecting civil rights, yet when a real civil rights violation occurs (like in Arizona) they do nothing.

They have a huge liberal agenda. They have historically stood for criminals and have always opposed Government (which by the way is run by the constitution) and they have opposed Christians, Jews and other religions.

Hence, my earlier statements.

This topic is way off subject however. I would not be at all opposed to dropping it and moving on. In fact this would probably lower my blood pressure as the ACLU is a soap box of mine.

You say that society needs to be protected and defended from scumbags. Those who do not follow the rules are a danger to the welfare of those around them.

Yes. The penal system in my view, should not be there to provide retribution against lawbreakers. That achieves nothing. Do I advocate the repeal of the penal system? No. Do I advocate that criminals be allowed to commit whatever crimes they wish and not be stopped? No. The penal system serves a number of useful purposes. By restricting the movement of convicted criminals, it prevents them, for a time, from harming others. By providing a negative consequence to criminal behaviors, it provides a deterrent to first-time and repeat offenders.

You are correct. In fact your last sentence made my point. I guess we are in agreement. Otherwise I am very unclear about what

By providing a negative consequence to criminal behaviours, it provides a deterrent to first-time and repeat offenders.

meant. This describes the discipline (punishment) I described. As you pointed out, and I agree with especially for low level crimes, it is a great deterrent.

On a side note, your first sentence is also applicable to Hell, so we agree on two metaphors. Hell is both a deterrent (punishment) but it also removes those rebelling from God from those willing to follow his rules. So I guess we can really begin to see how HELL is a lot like societies JAIL.
I think we are in agreement about the purpose of both Hell and jail.

True. However, this man does not think he did anything wrong. He told the other guy, "The way she was dressed and by the way she came on to me she wanted it. I was come on to by her. If it is anyone's fault is is her's. Not mine. But noooo. I am sitting here and she is happily playing at home probably."

In my view, this guy is mentally ill. Now, I don't say that to excuse him. He has an illness that we do not understand fully and that we cannot treat and that makes him a danger to society. It may shock you, but I feel that until we make a great deal of progress in the sciences relating to this man's condition, that the best way to deal with him it to execute him. We cannot really help him. We cannot with any clear conscience allow him to freely inhabit society. It is cruel and unusual to incarcerate him for the rest of his life with no hope for escape.

Now you understand God's dilemma. How to make someone chose to follow the rules when they do not want to. How to make someone love him without violating free will. Did you ever see the movie Bruce Almighty. Great film. That theme runs throughout the movie. How can someone with infinite power force someone to love him, without violating that person's free will to ignore him.

This was God's dilemma before it was societies.

Now take this a step farther and imagine that the person who is the problem, the person you said

that the best way to deal with him it to execute him

, this person, is now your daughter. This is your daughter whom you love more than anything and want to be able to be with and have tried to be with. Yet when she is presented with two options, your loving fatherly arms or else leaving you behind forever, she choses to exile herself away from you. This is no common street punk. This is your daughter.

I for one would be more than a little perplexed at what to do and would be very willing to pay her penalties if she wanted to come home. But then, I have a daughter sleeping upstairs. You probably have children too so I bet you understand that feeling.

Now in as far as the spiritual realm goes, many people are saying kind of the same thing. "I am a good person. I do not deserve to be punished. I never raped or murdered or stole anything. I am good. Why can't God make things obvious? If people go to hell it is obviously God's fault, not mine. He should have told made things more obvious." Yet those people, (most of them at least) not only know what the bible says but openly reject it.

Or have not been given a good reason to believe it. A lot of the apologetics that I have been exposed to are quite lame.

I apologize if I am being lame. I do not think anything I have said yet violates logic. Many of your objections were due to not reading my writing carefully and several more I think I have answered logically.

Still if my lameness is to blame for your rejecting God, then I must really be in a heap of trouble.

Still I can't help thinking, that anyone can chose either way when examining the evidence. I find that really cool actually. God can provide just the perfect amount of evidence so that two different people can look at the same thing and chose either way. What a perfect way to reveal himself to those who seek and yet not be so obvious that it would over-ride the free will to ignore him.

Einstein chose not to be a Christian. His close friend, fellow scientist and man who worked closely with Einstein on the Atom bomb, Arthur Eddington was a Christian.

Two men, both of extrordinary intelligence from almost identical walks of life. One rejects God. One chose God.

Also, as a side note, I have in my possession a list of 176 scholars, authors and scientists who are Christians. So apparently there is enough evidence to believe and not "throw out your brain".

It is the CHOICE which makes the difference, lame apologetics aside.

They reject spiritual law as stupid and inappropriate just like the man who was sitting in front of me rejects societies laws. God made thing obvious because he came here himself and told us what is what. Remember what I said about God appearing himself. Atheists ask "why can't God just do a huge miracle or appear. Then I would believe him." But if you check your Bible, this is exactly what happened. The Pharasee's saw huge miracles and they saw God appear and teach and even claim who he was directly. But insead of believing like they said they would, they attacked him. Some people just do not want to go with rules or powers they have to answer to. So they turn away or fight against it instead.

It would have been nice if there were some record of these events other than by those who were selling the Christ religion after the fact.

I'm sure you already know I am going to say read both Josephus and the Talmud for an ANTI-Christian telling of these miracles (or magicians tricks as they called them).

And yes I have further evidence to validate both of these sources as archeologically and logically sound. Again, this conversation is for another forum. Suffice to say, the evidence is there and it is even presented on the silver plate and by the non-Christians you requested.

It would have been nice if there were some record of these events other than by those who were selling the Christ religion after the fact.

Remember what I said. . .

Well even if God himself appeared and declared himself, atheists would explain it away as some strange phenonminon and go on with their lives

Taking your first post, this is why Christ told his disciples to spread his word. It is our job to let people know the facts of his life. I will admit that the current church is not doing as well as they should.

In his "great commission", why did the Creator of the Universe neglect to tell the disciples that there were three undiscovered continents with populations requiring God's salvation?

What would that matter? They were told to spread his words to the ends of the earth, to all men. What is your point here?

Once again, I have fairly unique feelings about the church from a Christian point of view. Also, for individuals who died without ever having the choice to follow or reject God, I think God probably has a plan for those individuals. What it is, I do not know. But that is why I am not God. Good thing too.

Yet the Bible seems to teach that salvation is only available to those who accept Christ.

Half-granted. The Bible teaches that salvation is available to anyone but given to those who accept Christ. Hence I am sure God has a plan. Perhaps as Paul tells us, God reads those peoples hearts and knows they would recognize and accept Christ. This happens a lot in remote countries. People hear Christ's name and his story and they say, "I knew this was true. I have yearned for it my whole life and here it is."

Those people yarning would probably already be accepted because they are not in open rebellion to God. On the contrary they are seeking him.

But like I said, I do not have all the answers. Anyone who tells you he does, is selling something. I will let God figure that one out.

What is the purpose of punishment after all?

What purpose indeed? Tell me what purpose retributive punishment serves?

You told me, remember?

By providing a negative consequence to criminal behaviours, it provides a deterrent to first-time and repeat offenders.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

You act like people who do things that are morally, ethically, physically and spiritually wrong should not be punished. Is this really what you think? You would prefer a universe without justice?

Society should be protected from those who would harm it. That has been a principle of law for human society for as long as it has existed. I have no idea what spiritually wrong is. Justice is a human construct. The universe has no inherent justice.

[/quote]


Ah this is a very interesting point. First lets get a definition of Justice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice

jus•tice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n.
The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

Two of the three definitions include Morals.

So lets look at morals.

In a Christian worldview we find that objective morals come from God. He authors them and all actions are weighed against him as holy and perfect.

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective (or being measured against something) values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

Well the morals could have been developed over thousands of years. Lets explore this option.

For morals to develop they must have served a purpose. Society needs a few things in order to survive. They need population, food, and shelter as bare basics. Then on the next step society needs education, enterprise, and advancement. It goes on from there.

Where would morals fit in?

Well the need for population would explain do not murder. Without more people that would be a problem. Do not be violent would also fall under this subject as well as food and shelter because you can not really be around the food if a violent person in there. It would make it hard to live.

Other morals can also be explained by this "evolutionary" method.

But what about rape?

Why is rape wrong? It increases the population. That is a helpful thing. Remember that this is before society has deemed it wrong so right now rape is just something that happens. In fact it still happens all the time in animal societies, so therefore rape is natural. Why is it wrong then?

Every society that has made any impact of the world at all for all time agreed that Rape is wrong but is can not be because of the evolution of morals because we have shown it still exists in animals and would have been actually helpful in some ways.

How about adultery? Once again it would increase the population. It doesn't damage the structure of society when a wife or husband cheats. So why is it wrong?

OR is it even wrong? Some people today partake in it regularly. Why are those individuals looked down on by society. Obviously they do not think it is wrong. How about the First time?

THE VERY FIRST ADULTERY according to this theory was not wrong because there was no one to say different. Therefore, the first wife probably didn't feel hurt right? After all no one has ever said different. Why have hurt feelings?

You see Morals had to come from somewhere. They couldn't have evolved. I have not heard any other theories. Where did objective morals which every society across the world agree on, come from without any source by which to compare them?

Morals exist. Therefore justice exists. To deny the existence of justice is to both ignore and deny the feelings of injustice felt by every victim throughout all of history. Believe me those feelings are real. Justice exists, contrary to what you said.

[McCulloch]

If you would like to debate the Bible's validity then I am game. I think we should probably start a new forum for that though.

I am game. "Is the Bible true?" seems like a rather large and unspecific topic, would you like to narrow it down a bit?

After I die, if I find myself still conscious and in the presence of Almighty God and He is even more wonderful than even the Christians have imagined, I would not seek to be by myself in eternal torment and isolation. Honest.

Second, I believe you about your second paragraph. And I believe you, not because of just your words or that it makes sense. I believe you also because the Bible has already mentioned that those who die still rejecting God will weep and gnash their teeth because they will realize what they have missed out on. This is Hell. Not some lake of fire. It is simply missing out on God himself.

OK, maybe I have misunderstood you. I thought that you had said that souls that rejected God in life would choose after death to go to Hell rather than be in God's wonderful presence. I thought that I was disagreeing with you.

1) God has the power to be omnipresent.
2) God can limit his power when ever and where ever he wants to. (Jesus emptying himself or God's turning his eyes from Jesus on the cross)
3) Therefore, God can be aware of those in Hell without ever extending his loving presence to those individuals.

So your God is not omnipresent. Your God is omnipotent and has the ability to be omnipresent but He is not actually omnipresent. I get it.

First, (and this is not my main point but it still applies to this topic) God did not only sacrifice his "only son." Jesus was "in essence, God" according to Paul and Jesus own teachings. This is because God is infinite and can not die. So he created himself in human form to pay. So really God himself died.

God cannot die. God himself died. And people say that religion is not logically consistent!

Jesus died WILLINGLY. He was not forced. He went to his death willingly and even mentioned it many times in advance to his followers. Because he did so willingly, it does not create an injustice like it would if he was forced. Therefore, this clears up your question. Justice was done on Jesus because he was sinless and went to his death willingly, thus cleansing us of our previous mistakes and allowing us a path back to heaven.

So if I commit a murder and find an innocent who would willingly take my punishment, you would consider it just that I escape punishment?

Same goes for life. Just because you die (are arrested) is no excuse for you rejecting God your whole life (not going to court on your own and clearing it up). Therefore, blaming god by saying "You didn't give me enough time" is really a pretty pathetic excuse. Our courts would laugh at someone trying that as a defense. It wont work on God either.

But in our courts, except for the most serious crimes, the sentence is finite. After time served, the criminal returns to society with a chance to start over.

If there are a certain number of souls which have been living over and over and over again until they get it right, where did the First souls come from? If there are a certain number of souls which have been living over and over again, how do you account for the massive increase in population over the last few thousand years?

Would these questions be answered in the same way as that a non-reincarnationist would answer it?

If Stalin had repented and decided to seek God, then he would no longer have been trying to place himself in God's place and would therefore, while seeking God, be welcome into Heaven. That was my point exactly.

and this is just?

1. Before sin man was destined to go to Heaven and fulfill our primary purpose in being created, To Chose to Love and worship God.
2. Man then sinned.
3. God had declared the penalty for sin to be death. What he did not spell out (and Satan pointed out), was that this was an eternal or spiritual death, not an immediate physical death.
4. Therefore, men's souls died. They could no longer have everlasting life with their creator. (This is where God did carry out his promise. You see he did have the spine to do it and still does)
5. God still longed for Man to adore and worship him and be with him. He wanted his creation to have access to him.
6. Enter a second chance in the form of Jesus
7. This second chance has the same stipulation as the first that we messed up. . . Love the lord God with your heart, mind, and soul, accepting him in his place as God, rather than putting yourself there.
8. Those who accept this second chance remove the death sentence.
9. Those who reject God still, are still under that sentence. See God does have the spine to allow men to reject him and since the sentence of death has already been carried out, the free will of those men will see that punishment is carried out all on their own.

Society has rebuked drunk driving pretty well and the punishment is usually 1 year in Jail. This is a punishment. It is designed as a punishment. And guess what . . . from the lack of repeats on DUI's it works. Many of the men who are in on DUI's, I have talked to and a great number of them never realized they even had a problem until they were sent to jail. Now they voluntarily go to AA and other programs. Some of them now have GED's and all of them know the PUNISHMENT for drinking and driving.

So therefore, I think that punishment does have a place in the justice system. Feel free to disagree and we will just agree to disagree on that point. I know first hand, to some degree or another, it works.

I agree with you. This punishment does work. But it does not work because it is some form of retribution on the offender. It works because the negative consequences, in many cases, affects the behaviour of the offender not to continue offending. Since Hell is eternal, I don't quite see the parallel.

Now take this a step farther and imagine that the person who is the problem, the person you said

that the best way to deal with him it to execute him

, this person, is now your daughter. This is your daughter whom you love more than anything and want to be able to be with and have tried to be with. Yet when she is presented with two options, your loving fatherly arms or else leaving you behind forever, she choses to exile herself away from you. This is no common street punk. This is your daughter.

I for one would be more than a little perplexed at what to do and would be very willing to pay her penalties if she wanted to come home. But then, I have a daughter sleeping upstairs. You probably have children too so I bet you understand that feeling.

And if she chooses not to come home, you would eventually find her, lock her in the basement and torment her.

In a Christian worldview we find that objective morals come from God. He authors them and all actions are weighed against him as holy and perfect.

So you are of the persuasion that a particular thing is good morally because God has declared it to be morally good rather than the persuasion that God has declared something to be morally good because it is intrinsically good?

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective (or being measured against something) values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals. Objective values cannot exist in and of themselves. They must come from somewhere else, God.