The Problem of Hell v.2

[elopez]

You are claiming there is torment in hell, just not as "one would really think".

I am claiming there is torment in hell.

How is this not a frivolous correction by you? Whether or not the souls in hell experience non-physical pain from sources other than God is irrelevant. God is still aware of them experiencing this pain and as an omniscient omnipotent and benevolent superpower has it easily within his grasp to end it by means of annihilation or redemption.

It's not frivolous because torment is usually referred to as some type of pain that is inflicted by another. You haven't defined what torment means here, and the definition of words we use in discussions are very important. That I am explaining this to you has me completely confounded as to why you think defining what words mean in discussions is irrelevant.

There is redemption. Annihilation is not a sound doctrine, it may be at face value but when we get into the theology of it there is no support for such an idea.

How do you morally justify the permanent "not as you would really think" non-physical torment of all those afflicted with "mortal sin"?

I don't have to justify it. Not to you or anyone else.

So the answer is yes. Being saved according to you is the only way to avoid hell.

I would have thought that would go without saying, but okay.

What about Muslims? Does God have no recognition of their conviction?

Muslims disregard the nature of Christ, so what do you think?

Do you think God has it within his power to just remove hell from existence?

This is why I have defined omnipotence and why it holds much relevance in this discussion -- because you are inquiring about it. Now, I think God can do anything logically possible. If the nature of Hell is everlasting, then it cannot logically have an end to existence. So, it would not be logically possible for God to remove the existence of Hell, but that is not to say He lacks omnipotence to do so as again it is not a logical possibility.

Torture is the gratuitous infliction of pain done entirely for that reason. Sometimes torture is used as a means to get information, but in hell that doesn't appear to be relevant so it would be inflicting a massive amount (infinitely in hell) of pain for the sake of it. That's beyond contemptible. In the context of hell being permanent and the pain being beyond comprehension according to some I can think of nothing more evil either actual or hypothetical through human history.

See, you are defining torture as the infliction of pain, while this is not the case of Hell. There is no being in Hell that inflicts such pain on souls. The pain is self inflicting. I could see why you would think it would be evil if s being were there in Hell to inflict such pain, but as this is not the case I don't really think it is 'evil' in the slightest.

Whether or not it is actually some non-physical 'torment' detached from God does not make any of it better either. Pain is pain. It hurts and if someone is receiving it in the knowledge of an apathetic overseer that could prevent it the overseer is acting immorally.

Yes it does. If the pain in Hell is not inflicted by God or any other being, but is indeed self inflicted, it is not really torture as one would usually conjure up the image. That is like saying the judge is immoral for not letting prisoners out because they are in some type of pain. Again, a judge is not accountable for the prisoners being in prison, he is accountable for sentencing the inmate.

It was an assertion stating my convictions or my contention. I intend to support it in my counter-arguments (as I have done). If you are going to refuse to defend the question put to proponents of eternal hell in the OP, why are you here?

All you've really done is go around stating definitions are irrelevant when they are really not. Not too much support for any claim you have made has been offered. I am not refusing to answer anything as I have been and am continuing to answer your questions.

Sorry, it is semantics. Whether hell is physical torture or non-physical torment or some kind of avant-garde infliction of pain makes no difference to any of it. God knows it happens and according to you does not try to stop it to those it happens to. This indicates apathy or approval.

There is a difference as I have shown. It really indicates neither. God could feel sorrowful for those in Hell while not doing anything to remove them from Hell, just as the judge could of prisoners. We are taught not to rejoice over those in Hell exactly because God does not.

Whether God inflicts pain through direct intervention in hell or whether he just sets up the conditions to allow it to run itself is completely irrelevant: He set it up and allows it.

It's only irrelevant because that it is accommodating to your argument. As far as the issue of relevancy actually goes, the difference has all the significance.

I'm not the moral authority? Okay. Not that I thought I had to or it to be astoundingly hard to argue against people being tortured or tormented for thought-crime. I thought taking up that kind of conviction was quite mainstream.

I'm just saying you're not type of any authority to claim what or who is moral. You can make judgements, but that's all it is.

They do not choose to go to jail (well, unless they did it specifically to go to jail). Other people choose to send them there. But they do not choose to go to jail.

First, you just admitted to the mere possibility of choosing to go to jail, which the same could be said of Hell. It is possible that one consciously chooses to go to Hell, sets themselves on a path for destruction, and then gets what they want. I am not saying that happens or has happened, but that it is a possibility of happening. They choose to do the things that will send them to jail. It is not the judge's fault why the inmate is in prison, is it? Didn't think so...

Similarly, we do not choose to go to hell.

But it is possible, just as you said it was of choosing to go to jail. And again, we choose to do the things that would warrant us Hell. A sinner chooses to sin, to murder and steal and all the rest.

Right.

So what is it we do in life that commands permanent "non-physical torment"?

Sin. Sin carries an everlasting effect.

This is an unjustified assertion. That God is eternal does not mean any infraction against him should last eternally. That is like saying if you murdered a government minister you should get an extortionate sentence compared to if you murdered a working-class mother.

It is not like saying that at all. That is a rather weak analogy. If we sin against an eternal God, we can only be punished eternally.

Why can't God just declare the souls non-immortal? Why even necessary for an everlasting punishment? What even is its purpose? Punishment in civil society is done for several reasons. To protect the party from the criminal in question and to attempt to reform the criminal. There is no talk of torment or permanent limbo. Any justice system that offers that tends to be along the line of North Korea or Saudi Arabia or some other such place you really wouldn't want to be accused of anything in.

God cannot declare souls mortal for the very reason that God is without end. When God created man He infused into us the image of Himself, which bears the immortal nature of our soul just as God. Punishment in society is also to remove the individual from population as to no longer cause a threat. That is why some people get life sentences.

Only if you accept the bogus claim that somehow sinning against an eternal God warrants eternal punishment by the fact he lives forever.

Well, you haven't showed it to be bogus, so it stands to reason.

Is God not aware that most people who 'sin' against him do so on the basis of ignorance? They do not believe he exists, do not accept the legitimacy and existence of vicarious redemption and act presuming humanism and the value of human growth. Why would he expect people to follow rules that hey have no reason to believe in? What is worse he created humanity knowing that billions of people would be born ignorant of his existence and would die ignorant of his existence. He knew that and knew what would befall them.

God is aware of everything. You're not really ignorant of sin or God you just don't adhere to any of these concepts, which is not the same as being ignorant of them as to reject them one would have to indeed know what they are.

The question then becomes are people well informed enough to be held account for disbelief. On a Biblical basis I believe this to be true. I know you don't, and that's fine.

So my first counter-argument is correct then. No-one chooses to go to hell as some here naively assert.

No, but one chooses to sin, which will warrant them Hell.

Correct. I was just informing you of the reality of the situation and replying to your claim that one is only in hell because of wanting to sin or wanting to disregard the divine law.

That is a false dichtonomy.

You can't even spell dichotomy properly, why should I expect you to use it in context then? I never said one is only in Hell because of wanting to sin or disregarding the law. I gave that as one reason, and I didn't say that was the only option, so again this is not a false dilemma.

I don't want to engage in any sins. I don't even accept the notion of 'sin'. What would I be sentenced to hell for?

Essentially unbelief. Even then, some criminals don't believe they are breaking the law when in fact they really are. Just because we don't accept something doesn't make it necessarily false or non - existent.

 

[Skavau]

It's not frivolous because torment is usually referred to as some type of pain that is inflicted by another. You haven't defined what torment means here, and the definition of words we use in discussions are very important.

I contend the definition employed by you as non-physical pain is just as contemptible. Any kind of pain inflicted upon people permanently or otherwise by another person be it through inaction or direct intervention is evil. It is unjustifiable. No crime can command such a punishment.

That I am explaining this to you has me completely confounded as to why you think defining what words mean in discussions is irrelevant.

All kinds of inflicted pain are immoral for the purpose of causing pain are immoral.

There is redemption. Annihilation is not a sound doctrine, it may be at face value but when we get into the theology of it there is no support for such an idea.

I know you believe there is redemption. I also consider the entire way to achieve redemption as immoral scapegoating that alienates people who are simply ignorant of the truth.

That annihilation, eternal torture or universalism has doctrinal support or otherwise concerns me not at all. I'm arguing against a specific doctrine in this thread be it scripturally sound or not.

I don't have to justify it. Not to you or anyone else.

Then why are you posting here? This thread asks for people to defend it. If you refuse I will go on thinking you evil. I mean that literally. There are no words less to describe someone who approves of permanent "not as you think" non-physical torment towards others for what they think or for their nature.

I would have thought that would go without saying, but okay.

Well, that depends on the Christian. I've met many that have slightly different views on how to avoid hell.

Muslims disregard the nature of Christ, so what do you think?

Again: depends on the Christian more often than not.

That God would allow Muslims to be tormented forever is evil though, period. They are guilty of nothing more than believing in a different concept of God. As far as they knew, they were worshiping God and accounting for their sins.

This is why I have defined omnipotence and why it holds much relevance in this discussion -- because you are inquiring about it. Now, I think God can do anything logically possible. If the nature of Hell is everlasting, then it cannot logically have an end to existence.

You've just pulled this out of nowhere.

How do you know that an indefinite state of existence cannot be removed from existence?

So, it would not be logically possible for God to remove the existence of Hell, but that is not to say He lacks omnipotence to do so as again it is not a logical possibility.

Would it be possible for God to prevent all non-Christians from entering hell?

See, you are defining torture as the infliction of pain, while this is not the case of Hell. There is no being in Hell that inflicts such pain on souls. The pain is self inflicting.

A God that would allow people to permanently "self-inflict" pain onto themselves is evil. He would be better served to end their existence.

I could see why you would think it would be evil if s being were there in Hell to inflict such pain, but as this is not the case I don't really think it is 'evil' in the slightest.

If I die and find myself in hell, I would not self inflict pain on myself. If I did, it would not be me.

Yes it does. If the pain in Hell is not inflicted by God or any other being, but is indeed self inflicted, it is not really torture as one would usually conjure up the image.

God established hell. God set up the criteria to enter hell. God is responsible.

Unless you think God somehow inept.

That is like saying the judge is immoral for not letting prisoners out because they are in some type of pain.

We don't sentence prisoners to jail to cause them pain and indeed, if they are in some kind of emotional or physical pain they are moved if possible or their situation is attempted to be resolved. We don't sit there shrug our shoulders and act as if it is always self-inflicted.

Again, a judge is not accountable for the prisoners being in prison, he is accountable for sentencing the inmate.

God is wrong to sentence people for hell for being unsaved. It is an infinite punishment for a 'crime' that was not even a crime. It would be a non-conviction, a thought that disagreed with the claims of Christianity.

You are endorsing thought-crime as well, by the way.

All you've really done is go around stating definitions are irrelevant when they are really not.

You have done little to provide reason why they are relevant.

There is a difference as I have shown. It really indicates neither. God could feel sorrowful for those in Hell while not doing anything to remove them from Hell, just as the judge could of prisoners. We are taught not to rejoice over those in Hell exactly because God does not.

God has it within his power to remove them and since they are there on unjustifiable grounds he ought to.

I'll further add that unlike prison or life itself there is no chance of reconciliation or release. He knows their turmoil will go on and on and on. He should end it on that basis. It serves no purpose.

It's only irrelevant because that it is accommodating to your argument. As far as the issue of relevancy actually goes, the difference has all the significance.

My argument is based on the fact that God set up hell, set up the conditions of hell and directly sentences people to it. He is responsible for the conditions encountered there and the prisoners of conscience he has made from it.

I'm just saying you're not type of any authority to claim what or who is moral. You can make judgements, but that's all it is.

Okay.

This is true of everyone. What's your point? Arguments are won or lost by reason. I await a good reason from you why people who don't believe in God or rather people who don't accept Christianity ought to undergo such dreadful conditions for eternity.

First, you just admitted to the mere possibility of choosing to go to jail, which the same could be said of Hell.

Yes, it could. Though I doubt anyone serious actually chooses to go to hell. It would be even lower than the amount that choose to go to jail.

It is possible that one consciously chooses to go to Hell, sets themselves on a path for destruction, and then gets what they want. I am not saying that happens or has happened, but that it is a possibility of happening.

People can certainly set themselves on a path of self-destruction and harm others in the process. Whatever harm they cause to themselves and others though, hell is not relevant at all. People don't operate with that in mind at all.

They choose to do the things that will send them to jail. It is not the judge's fault why the inmate is in prison, is it? Didn't think so...

This is a false comparison. People who break the law do so more often than not knowingly. They don't choose to go to prison but they do choose to break the law. They know the consequences of their actions.

This is not so with non-Christians. They of course don't believe in hell and those amongst the non-Christians that do (such as Muslims) believe they are destined for heaven and are acting in accordance with their own doctrine. God knows this as well. God knows that billions of people are unaware and/or unconvinced that the sin, salvation, sacrifice etc are anything less than fantasy.

Yet he still acts as he does.

But it is possible, just as you said it was of choosing to go to jail. And again, we choose to do the things that would warrant us Hell. A sinner chooses to sin, to murder and steal and all the rest.

I daresay it is far from even a small minority that actually choose to go to hell. People choose to go to jail because they gambit of a better life inside.

What do you say to atheists that generally live a good life, don't do much more to anyone or cause themselves any infractions other than the odd parking ticket and have helped others. Do they deserve hell?

Sin. Sin carries an everlasting effect.

An absurd claim. Completely meaningless. No reason to believe it.

Sorry.

It is not like saying that at all. That is a rather weak analogy. If we sin against an eternal God, we can only be punished eternally.

How ironic.

You frequently insist that I claim things without elaboration and you hand-wave my analogy away sans explanation. Explain precisely how your argument does not lead to the idea that infringing upon 'higher' members of society ought to lead to harsher sentence?

God cannot declare souls mortal for the very reason that God is without end. When God created man He infused into us the image of Himself, which bears the immortal nature of our soul just as God.

If this is so then God is extremely incompetent, or outright malicious.

He would have done all of this knowing that billions of people would suffer for eternity based on it. I call such an action evil.

Well, you haven't showed it to be bogus, so it stands to reason.

No it doesn't. You simply asserted it. You can't just declare certain things to be true that have no reason whatsoever behind them. What can be asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason.

God is aware of everything. You're not really ignorant of sin or God you just don't adhere to any of these concepts, which is not the same as being ignorant of them as to reject them one would have to indeed know what they are.

I don't accept the existence of 'sin' be specific acts of sin nor any kind of original sin. I am aware that people claim they exist but I am hugely skeptical of their existence.

The question then becomes are people well informed enough to be held account for disbelief. On a Biblical basis I believe this to be true. I know you don't, and that's fine.

Except I'm happy for you to think that. You have freedom of belief, freedom of speech. I may think it abhorrent but you can go on.

You approve of my permanent "self-inflicted", "not in a usual way" torment for it. You see why I'm antagonistic on this?

No, but one chooses to sin, which will warrant them Hell.

Many choose to sin unaware that the action is divinely forbidden.

You can't even spell dichotomy properly, why should I expect you to use it in context then?

My apologies though being a frivolous spell checker does not remove the fact that you did commit it. You presented only two reasons for people to be in hell. These choices were:

- Wanting to sin
- Wanting to disregard the divine law

Neither of these are true for me, or any atheist I know. Certainly not true for a Muslim, goodness me. Your understanding of reality is completely out of touch.

Essentially unbelief. Even then, some criminals don't believe they are breaking the law when in fact they really are. Just because we don't accept something doesn't make it necessarily false or non - existent.

Ah yes, so you endorse thought-crime.

Just as I suspected. I could not have a lower opinion of you at this stage.

 

[madaz]

Forgive me if this question has already been asked but Im curious to know if one had no knowledge of the christian doctrines would the christian god still send one to hell?

 

[elopez]

I contend the definition employed by you as non-physical pain is just as contemptible. Any kind of pain inflicted upon people permanently or otherwise by another person be it through inaction or direct intervention is evil. It is unjustifiable. No crime can command such a punishment.

You're missing something key. There is no pain that is inflicted upon the souls in Hell. There is no being there with a whip causing the souls pain.

All kinds of inflicted pain are immoral for the purpose of causing pain are immoral.

I would agree, but again, this is not an inflicted pain, and thus not immoral.

I know you believe there is redemption. I also consider the entire way to achieve redemption as immoral scapegoating that alienates people who are simply ignorant of the truth.

Care to back any of this up with an actual argument? Or are you just going to make baseless claims?

That annihilation, eternal torture or universalism has doctrinal support or otherwise concerns me not at all. I'm arguing against a specific doctrine in this thread be it scripturally sound or not.

Well you're the one that even brought up annihilation, so if it is not important to you, why even mention it in the first place? Doesn't really make sense on your behalf.

Then why are you posting here? This thread asks for people to defend it. If you refuse I will go on thinking you evil. I mean that literally. There are no words less to describe someone who approves of permanent "not as you think" non-physical torment towards others for what they think or for their nature.

Because you have an obscured idea of what Hell is, and I want to correct that. I don't care what you think as again you're no moral authority. You really think what you think of me or my views matters one once to me? Stop kidding yourself.

That God would allow Muslims to be tormented forever is evil though, period. They are guilty of nothing more than believing in a different concept of God. As far as they knew, they were worshiping God and accounting for their sins.

Worshiping a false god is enough to be judged for everlasting punishment.

You've just pulled this out of nowhere.

How do you know that an indefinite state of existence cannot be removed from existence?

It is the definition I've provided for omnipotence, and if you have an issue with it, then what you need to do is explain why and support that with reasons. Look at the question you asked me. Read it back to yourself and ask, "Does this make any sense?" The answer is no. If something has an indefinite state of existence, then by definition of "indefinite," it cannot be said to not exist.

Would it be possible for God to prevent all non-Christians from entering hell?

If they wouldn't sin, yes.

A God that would allow people to permanently "self-inflict" pain onto themselves is evil. He would be better served to end their existence.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say about this self inflicted pain. I am not saying we like cut ourselves or anything like that, but rather it is mental anguish that one would suffer from by realizing they were wrong about God.

If I die and find myself in hell, I would not self inflict pain on myself. If I did, it would not be me.

Again this is not to say you would be hurting yourself, but you would be in constant realization of your missed opportunity to be with God. It's like if you would be in jail and realize you messed up, missing your family or loved ones, etc. That is the mental anguish that is 'self inflicted'

God established hell. God set up the criteria to enter hell. God is responsible.

Those two factors are not enough to have God be responsible for those who are in Hell. Again, this is like saying a judge is accountable for an inmates 3 year sentence. He is not.

Unless you think God somehow inept.

I don't see how God not being accountable means He is inept? Doesn't follow.

We don't sentence prisoners to jail to cause them pain and indeed, if they are in some kind of emotional or physical pain they are moved if possible or their situation is attempted to be resolved. We don't sit there shrug our shoulders and act as if it is always self-inflicted.

I did not say we sentence prisoners to cause them pain. I said we sentence them, in some instances, for life so that they pose no danger to society again. It doesn't matter if they are in emotional or physical pain, as that would not somehow act as a get out of jail free card.

God is wrong to sentence people for hell for being unsaved. It is an infinite punishment for a 'crime' that was not even a crime. It would be a non-conviction, a thought that disagreed with the claims of Christianity.

Right, it's not a crime it's a sin. And I am willing to bet, regardless of your rejection of sin, that you do commit what is considered sin by more than just way of thought. For example I am sure you have lied at some point in your life, more than likely more than one time, and possibly about something sever.

You are endorsing thought-crime as well, by the way.

I am not solely saying the only sin to damn one is unbelief. So no.

You have done little to provide reason why they are relevant.

You have done absoultely nothing to show why they are irrelevant. I don't have to show the relevance until you show the irrelevance. You claim it, and you back it up.

I'll further add that unlike prison or life itself there is no chance of reconciliation or release. He knows their turmoil will go on and on and on. He should end it on that basis. It serves no purpose.

There is such a thing as a life sentence. So, just like prison in that instance, there is no chance of reconciliation or release. That serves a purpose, so the same could be said of Hell.

My argument is based on the fact that God set up hell, set up the conditions of hell and directly sentences people to it. He is responsible for the conditions encountered there and the prisoners of conscience he has made from it.

Yes, but all of those factors are not enough to show moral accountability. You would have to define moral accountability, and then begin to show how those factors makes God accountable according to said definition. I wouldn't expect this of you, however, being that you are under the impression defining words in discussions is for some odd reason irrelevant.

This is true of everyone. What's your point? Arguments are won or lost by reason. I await a good reason from you why people who don't believe in God or rather people who don't accept Christianity ought to undergo such dreadful conditions for eternity.

My point is your assessment of me as a person or my beliefs means absolute jack to me. You think I think you're any of a better person for being so judgmental?

Yes, it could. Though I doubt anyone serious actually chooses to go to hell. It would be even lower than the amount that choose to go to jail.

I wouldn't disagree with that, my point is that it's simply a possibility. If it is, then technically your claim that "we do not choose to go to Hell" is slightly more discredited.

People can certainly set themselves on a path of self-destruction and harm others in the process. Whatever harm they cause to themselves and others though, hell is not relevant at all. People don't operate with that in mind at all.

How do you know what mind set people operate on? You don't, so I don't think we could say with what mind set people act.

This is a false comparison. People who break the law do so more often than not knowingly. They don't choose to go to prison but they do choose to break the law. They know the consequences of their actions.

I don't notice any relevant differences that make this a false comparison. People who break the law may know they are but they may not believe what they are doing is actually wrong or against the law, as in they disagree with it.

This is not so with non-Christians. They of course don't believe in hell and those amongst the non-Christians that do (such as Muslims) believe they are destined for heaven and are acting in accordance with their own doctrine. God knows this as well. God knows that billions of people are unaware and/or unconvinced that the sin, salvation, sacrifice etc are anything less than fantasy.

A drug dealer does not believe he is breaking the law by selling dope, indeed, he may think what he is doing is perfectly justifiable. Similarly, non Christians may think what they are doing is not sinning because they reject the idea of it, but that wouldn't necessarily mean they are not sinning.

I daresay it is far from even a small minority that actually choose to go to hell. People choose to go to jail because they gambit of a better life inside.

Doesn't matter. My point is that it's a possibility. As such, one could choose to go to Hell, which discredits your claim that we cannot or do not.

What do you say to atheists that generally live a good life, don't do much more to anyone or cause themselves any infractions other than the odd parking ticket and have helped others. Do they deserve hell?

I believe everyone deserves Hell as none are really righteous. I don't doubt that atheists can uphold the civil law and are generally nice people, but upholding the civil law is vastly different from upholding the divine law.

An absurd claim. Completely meaningless. No reason to believe it.

A baseless counter claim. Completely meaningless. No reason to believe it.

How ironic.

You frequently insist that I claim things without elaboration and you hand-wave my analogy away sans explanation. Explain precisely how your argument does not lead to the idea that infringing upon 'higher' members of society ought to lead to harsher sentence?

For one because I am not talking about society or members of it. I am talking about God.

If this is so then God is extremely incompetent, or outright malicious.

I don't think God maintaining His eternalness is incompetent at all. And I believe it would be any less malicious to exterminate one's soul.

He would have done all of this knowing that billions of people would suffer for eternity based on it. I call such an action evil.

Knowledge does not necessarily equate to responsibility, you know.

No it doesn't. You simply asserted it. You can't just declare certain things to be true that have no reason whatsoever behind them. What can be asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason.

I gave a reason.

I don't accept the existence of 'sin' be specific acts of sin nor any kind of original sin. I am aware that people claim they exist but I am hugely skeptical of their existence.

I understand that. I just don't think that means sin is actually non - existent, though. That is something you would have to argue for.

You approve of my permanent "self-inflicted", "not in a usual way" torment for it. You see why I'm antagonistic on this?

I do actually.

Many choose to sin unaware that the action is divinely forbidden.

If one is truly ignorant of divine law, I do not believe they experience Hell. Yet as I said in the last post, ignorance and rejecting something is not the same thing. You are not ignorant of divine law as you know what it is, what it means, and so forth. You just don't but any of it.

My apologies though being a frivolous spell checker does not remove the fact that you did commit it. You presented only two reasons for people to be in hell. These choices were:

- Wanting to sin
- Wanting to disregard the divine law

Neither of these are true for me, or any atheist I know. Certainly not true for a Muslim, goodness me. Your understanding of reality is completely out of touch.

You're right, that you misspelled it does not mean it wasn't committed. However, that I did not actually claim those were the only two options does in fact mean I did not commit said fallacy. False dilemma occurs when one claims there are only two options available disregarding a third or more options. First, as I just said, I did not claim these are the only two options. Second, you haven't offered another relevant option. As such, there is no occurrence of false dichotomy on my behalf.

Ah yes, so you endorse thought-crime.

Just as I suspected. I could not have a lower opinion of you at this stage.

I endorse unbelief as a sin that one is held accountable for, and while that is not the only sin as there are sinful acts, I would have to disagree. And again, your opinion of me is of no importance, so mentioning it like it does only shows your need to be some type of moral figure. Good luck with that...

 

[Skavau]

You're missing something key. There is no pain that is inflicted upon the souls in Hell. There is no being there with a whip causing the souls pain.

As I've said to you repeatedly, this is somewhat irrelevant. My contention is with the fact that God set the entire situation of hell up and either cares little for it or is actively in favour of it.

I would agree, but again, this is not an inflicted pain, and thus not immoral.

You're going to insist that people in hell self-harm themselves for eternity as a kind of 'natural' response to their new circumstances? God is responsible for judging they should go there (on frivolous unjustifiable crimes) and responsible for making it so conditions there are so awful.

Care to back any of this up with an actual argument? Or are you just going to make baseless claims?

The very idea of redemption through Christ is to annul your personal responsibility onto a scapegoat, a human sacrifice who will declare your sins paid for. It is not a moral thing to do. It preaches the idea that simply believing a certain way annuls your own responsibility and guarantees you heaven. It simply is not a moral path.

Unless of course, you think works come into as well.

Well you're the one that even brought up annihilation, so if it is not important to you, why even mention it in the first place? Doesn't really make sense on your behalf.

I bought up annihilation to another user as they raised it. I bought it up to you because I suggested it as a solution to end the permanent suffering of those in hell.

Because you have an obscured idea of what Hell is, and I want to correct that.

I am interested in people justifying their vision of hell and not what the Bible inevitably argues it to be. You don't appear to have much of a different view of hell than most people other than less of an emphasis on 'fire and brimstone' (which really, was imagery and has no relevance to my points).

I don't care what you think as again you're no moral authority. You really think what you think of me or my views matters one once to me? Stop kidding yourself.

I didn't say it mattered to you. I just said it. I thought it was worth saying.

Worshiping a false god is enough to be judged for everlasting punishment.

Morally justify that claim, please.

Also on that I'll post a hypothetical: Suppose it turns out that the Islamic concept of God is true. Do you think you would deserve eternal torment as punishment for not worshiping Allah?

It is the definition I've provided for omnipotence, and if you have an issue with it, then what you need to do is explain why and support that with reasons. Look at the question you asked me. Read it back to yourself and ask, "Does this make any sense?" The answer is no. If something has an indefinite state of existence, then by definition of "indefinite," it cannot be said to not exist.

If something is 'indefinite' that means as it is it will not end. It does not necessarily mean that it cannot be removed by a changing of the rules or by some external imposition. It just means that by itself, it will not come to a natural end.

That said, even if your point is true it does not justify why it was established in the first place (at creation) nor why all non-Christians deserve to go there.

If they wouldn't sin, yes.

Why only on this condition? Seems rather absurd to create an entire species and punish each one for eternity for a single sin no matter how minute or accidental.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say about this self inflicted pain. I am not saying we like cut ourselves or anything like that, but rather it is mental anguish that one would suffer from by realizing they were wrong about God.

This changes nothing, by the way. Be it self-inflicted physical pain or mental pain it is still unjustifiable and God would serve himself morally to end their suffering.

Also as I've said, if I in the afterlife impose mental anguish upon myself then it would not be me. I as I am would not do that. Period.

Again this is not to say you would be hurting yourself, but you would be in constant realization of your missed opportunity to be with God.

Nope. Would not be me. If I had any mental anguish it would be at any external circumstances that make life hard and not at what I missed. I would not respect in the slightest the doctrine, the way of redemption nor the fact that God would send billions of people to hell for what they thought. I'd rather reign in hell that serve under a cruel dictator.

Those two factors are not enough to have God be responsible for those who are in Hell. Again, this is like saying a judge is accountable for an inmates 3 year sentence. He is not.

Yes, they are. The criminal who committed the crime committed the crime but he did not choose to make it a crime, nor did he decide his sentence.

Additionally if a judge also established the law, established the prison system and everything else with then he is responsible for the punishment people receive and what they receive it for.

For example, if a judge made homosexuality illegal, decided the sentences and decided their conditions - his action in doing so would make him responsible for anyone convicted of homosexual intercourse.

I don't see how God not being accountable means He is inept? Doesn't follow.

I mean, unless you think the circumstances of hells existence elude God's power and make him unable to prevent it.

I did not say we sentence prisoners to cause them pain. I said we sentence them, in some instances, for life so that they pose no danger to society again. It doesn't matter if they are in emotional or physical pain, as that would not somehow act as a get out of jail free card.

No, it wouldn't - but we don't ignore an inmates emotional plight. If we can stop it, we do so.

We also don't sentence inmates to jail for victimless crimes (or where it happens, ought not) such as what they think. You think God does and worse you approve of it. You image of God is little better than any despot in the Middle-East.

Right, it's [unbelief] not a crime it's a sin.

And since you believe a sin is punishable by God it makes it de facto a crime in his eyes. More frivolous semantics.

And I am willing to bet, regardless of your rejection of sin, that you do commit what is considered sin by more than just way of thought.

If the Christian claims are true, yes.

Only the ones that impact other people concern me though. I'll think what I like how I like when I like and I reject anyone's insistence be they divine or human to tell me I ought to be punished for certain thoughts. That is totalitarianism of the very worst kind. Literally Orwellian in application.

Christopher Hitchens - Vicarious redemption IS immoral - YouTube

For example I am sure you have lied at some point in your life, more than likely more than one time, and possibly about something sever.

Yah. I've paid my debt for those severe and less so. Been punished for it by my fellow humans and have learned.

I am not solely saying the only sin to damn one is unbelief. So no.

Uhm, so what? You still say that the one sin to damn one is unbelief - which is thought-crime. That you don't only approve of thought-crime does not take away the fact that you do approve of it.

You have done absoultely nothing to show why they are irrelevant. I don't have to show the relevance until you show the irrelevance. You claim it, and you back it up.

The distinguishing features of different kinds of self-inflicted pain or inflicted pain make no impact or little impact to my claims. It is pointlessness. Just as you correcting me on calling a sin a crime by saying it is a sin. The end result is still the same.

There is such a thing as a life sentence. So, just like prison in that instance, there is no chance of reconciliation or release. That serves a purpose, so the same could be said of Hell.

How can it be said of hell? Most of those inside aren't dangerous, just misled of the objective truth. Indeed many millions are there just because they happened to belief a different path to God.

Yes, but all of those factors are not enough to show moral accountability. You would have to define moral accountability, and then begin to show how those factors makes God accountable according to said definition.

To be morally accountable for a situation is to establish it and set up the parameters for those to be affected by it. I cannot think how someone would dispute that.

Now, God established hell and established the criteria for entering it. He also knew that billions would fail to pass his test to enter it through sheer ignorance and/or skepticism (things that have nothing to do with morality) and yet proceeded anyway.

My point is your assessment of me as a person or my beliefs means absolute jack to me. You think I think you're any of a better person for being so judgmental?

No. I'd think you'd perhaps think me more moral for condemning thought-crime.

It isn't hard to feel superior to totalitarian apologists.

I wouldn't disagree with that, my point is that it's simply a possibility. If it is, then technically your claim that "we do not choose to go to Hell" is slightly more discredited.

My claim is based in reality. Most people (and I will say 99.999999% of people) who enter hell by your standards do not choose to go there. It is therefore incorrect to insist as many Christians do that all people who enter hell choose hell.

How do you know what mind set people operate on? You don't, so I don't think we could say with what mind set people act.

Given that you set out two standards for why people are in hell earlier I'll ask you the same question.

I don't notice any relevant differences that make this a false comparison. People who break the law may know they are but they may not believe what they are doing is actually wrong or against the law, as in they disagree with it.

This is true, but they still recognise it as against the law officially. Not so with non-Christians regarding sin.

A drug dealer does not believe he is breaking the law by selling dope, indeed, he may think what he is doing is perfectly justifiable.

You completely miss the point. The drug dealer may believe the law is unjustifiable but (unless he is completely divorced from reality) he knows that it is actually against the law. This is not so of non-Christians. They don't believe in hell and those amongst the non-Christians that do (such as Muslims) believe they are destined for heaven and are acting in accordance with their own doctrine. God knows this as well. God knows that billions of people are unaware and/or unconvinced that the sin, salvation, sacrifice etc are anything less than fantasy.

Similarly, non Christians may think what they are doing is not sinning because they reject the idea of it, but that wouldn't necessarily mean they are not sinning.

They both reject the idea of it and reject its existence. A drug dealer knows at least that the law exists and that they can be punished for it.

I believe everyone deserves Hell as none are really righteous. I don't doubt that atheists can uphold the civil law and are generally nice people, but upholding the civil law is vastly different from upholding the divine law.

Why should we care about the 'divine law' if we are good people towards others and generally live a harmless life? Sure we err from time to time and act in self-interest (though ironically being saved is all about self-interest in gaining heaven and avoiding hell) but why does ignoring some nebulous divine law mean we ought to receive hell?

A baseless counter claim. Completely meaningless. No reason to believe it.

You said sin has an everlasting effect. Your claim, you demonstrate it. Until then I can dismiss it.

 

[Skavau]

Part 2:

For one because I am not talking about society or members of it. I am talking about God.

So? This is special pleading. Why does a crime against God warrant a harsher punishment than a crime against a human (who can actually be affected by the actions of others unlike God)?

I don't think God maintaining His eternalness is incompetent at all. And I believe it would be any less malicious to exterminate one's soul.

God imposing his eternalness on us knowing the consequences combined with his creation of hell is extreme incompetence or malice.

Knowledge does not necessarily equate to responsibility, you know.

Uhm.

It does if you have the knowledge will come to fruition based on actions you plan to do. If I know that ignoring a certain health and safety regulation in doing something will lead to someone receiving a serious injury in the near future and yet go on and do it anyway I am responsible.

Remember we are not talking about some non-passive knowledgeable observer but a being that knows everything and created everything. God knew that his actions would cause permanent suffering to billions of people and he knew additionally that those billions would suffer for nothing more than not believing in him (for reasons of skepticism and ignorance).

I gave a reason.

No, you didn't. Show me how you gave a reason that 'sinning' against an eternal God warrants an eternal punishment.

Also I must ask: Why am I under the governance of this God anyway? I never consented to this system. That I am somehow bound by an ancient human sacrifice and held accountable for not accepting it is a rather sinister form of tyranny.

I understand that. I just don't think that means sin is actually non - existent, though. That is something you would have to argue for.

Correct, it doesn't.

But it means I have a good reason for why I might inadvertently sin. God also knowing everything knows that I have no reason to consider certain sins as wrong and yet will punish me for it anyway.

I do actually.

Good. That puts you in a small minority of people I've talked to on this.

If one is truly ignorant of divine law, I do not believe they experience Hell. Yet as I said in the last post, ignorance and rejecting something is not the same thing. You are not ignorant of divine law as you know what it is, what it means, and so forth. You just don't but any of it.

I've got no reason to buy any of it. Why should I? Why should God expect me to accept certain claims and moderate my behaviour in certain ways on no evidence? He allowed me to be skeptical and knowledgeable and gave me free-will and yet will punish me for it afterwards if I don't go a certain way.

You're right, that you misspelled it does not mean it wasn't committed. However, that I did not actually claim those were the only two options does in fact mean I did not commit said fallacy. False dilemma occurs when one claims there are only two options available disregarding a third or more options. First, as I just said, I did not claim these are the only two options. Second, you haven't offered another relevant option. As such, there is no occurrence of false dichotomy on my behalf.

According to your beliefs people end up in hell for:

Believing in a different God
Not believing in any God

Neither of those are things ought to be punishable.

I endorse unbelief as a sin that one is held accountable for, and while that is not the only sin as there are sinful acts, I would have to disagree.

Endorsing unbelief (which is a state of mind, a non-conviction) as a sin and as punishable is endorsing thought-crime.

And again, your opinion of me is of no importance, so mentioning it like it does only shows your need to be some type of moral figure. Good luck with that...

It isn't hard to 'out-moral' someone who approves of thought-crime and our permanent subjugation as a species.

 

[madaz]

Worshiping a false god is enough to be judged for everlasting punishment.

Isn't the christian god the same god as the muslim god?

 

[MrMoe]

Isn't the christian god the same god as the muslim god?

no.

 

[madaz]

no.

Please forgive my ignorance but how many abrahamic gods are there?

 

[MrMoe]

Please forgive my ignorance but how many abrahamic gods are there?

if you read the scriptures and and compare it to the Koran they are clearly not the same

 

[madaz]

if you read the scriptures and and compare it to the Koran they are clearly not the same

I can clearly see they are two different belief systems.

How many abrahamic gods are there?

 

[MrMoe]

I can clearly see they are two different belief systems.

How many abrahamic gods are there?

there are two. YHWH which the jews and christians follow and allah the one the muslims follow

 

[Going Merry]

Islam was made in in the 600s
Judaism predates everything.
Christianity was there at well, 2000 years ago.
Islam took what it knew from Christianity to make its faith (hence including Jesus in there)
Just because they claim to believe in the abrahamic God does not mean they do.
They even named their God allah; and christianitys + Judaisms god is named Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh.

I once knew someone who believed in the Judaism, christian and muslim books. Lets just say I got flustered speaking to him because he believed in everything as being from God. The quran contradicts christianity obviously. You can't have one thing say "do this" but the other "do this" and have both be right. Lord in heaven have mercy...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Judaism predates everything.

This isn't even remotely true.

 

[Going Merry]

This isn't even remotely true.

The word was not put together till Moses time.
In Egypt for example they made many false Gods before this time of writing Gods word.
But we all hopefully know the story of Moses.
But don't think that makes Gods word any less true

Even though I am addressing your question I was applying it to three separate faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Judaism being the most ancient, Christianity the second most ancient, and Islam the third most ancient.

 

[madaz]

there are two. YHWH which the jews and christians follow and allah the one the muslims follow

Two gods or two names?

Most arab christians (depending on geographical location) refer to their god as allah.

 

[MrMoe]

Two gods or two names?

Most arab christians (depending on geographical location) refer to their god as allah.

yes allah means god in arabic but they are two different gods. the Jews say they believe in same god YHWH as christians do but they just reject Jesus as the messiah. not all Jews though. Jews are God's chosen people in the bible. the quran never says Jews are his chosen people in fact quite the opposite:

Quran 5:51 - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

 

[elopez]

As I've said to you repeatedly, this is somewhat irrelevant. My contention is with the fact that God set the entire situation of hell up and either cares little for it or is actively in favour of it.

Yes and the more you say it doesn't make it any more valid. It is not somewhat irrelevant it is relevant because defining words is important. That you still persist that is irrelevant is nothing but a joke to your own position.

God created Hell originally for Satan and the other fallen angels. It was not even intended for man until Adam and Eve originally sinned and brought about the possibility of spiritual death. I don't really see how you're making the connection that there is little concern for Hell being that God provided an opportunity to avoid it, and we can definitely confirm that God is not in favor of Hell as He wishes no soul goes there.

The very idea of redemption through Christ is to annul your personal responsibility onto a scapegoat, a human sacrifice who will declare your sins paid for. It is not a moral thing to do. It preaches the idea that simply believing a certain way annuls your own responsibility and guarantees you heaven. It simply is not a moral path.

Unless of course, you think works come into as well.

Wow, look at this. You just destroyed your own argument in one sentence. You merely assumed that I thought believing in Christ was sufficient enough for Heaven. I believe in faith and works, since it is through faith that we are able to produce the works. Let's see how this false assumption will play out for the rest of your reply.

I bought up annihilation to another user as they raised it. I bought it up to you because I suggested it as a solution to end the permanent suffering of those in hell.

Um, I kind of figured that was your intention, which is why I said that is an invalid solution as the doctrine is unsound.

I am interested in people justifying their vision of hell and not what the Bible inevitably argues it to be. You don't appear to have much of a different view of hell than most people other than less of an emphasis on 'fire and brimstone' (which really, was imagery and has no relevance to my points).

If you're interested in the vision of Hell yet want to disregard what the Bible says, then you're not really interested in anything at all but to argue back and forth nonsensically and redundantly. People's view of Hell comes from the Bible. I'm not saying I have a different view of Hell than other Christians, I said you seem to have conceptions of Hell, which the emphasis of symbolism of fire and brimstone is most relevant.

I didn't say it mattered to you. I just said it. I thought it was worth saying.

What was it worth? Only to perhaps make yourself out to be 'more' moral than I, which is indeed wanting to be some type of moral authority. Just admit your arrogance.

Morally justify that claim, please.

Also on that I'll post a hypothetical: Suppose it turns out that the Islamic concept of God is true. Do you think you would deserve eternal torment as punishment for not worshiping Allah?

I am not sure if in Islam that worshiping a false god deserves of Hell. If the same would apply in Islam as it does in Christianity, I suppose so.

If something is 'indefinite' that means as it is it will not end. It does not necessarily mean that it cannot be removed by a changing of the rules or by some external imposition. It just means that by itself, it will not come to a natural end.

That said, even if your point is true it does not justify why it was established in the first place (at creation) nor why all non-Christians deserve to go there.

Do you really not notice the absurdity in your argument here about indefinite existence? If indefinite means it will not end, then it cannot cease to exist. If it cannot cease to exist, then it cannot be removed. It is really that clear. On this point you're being a little dishonest with yourself.

Even if? How about it is true. Something that cannot go out of existence cannot go out of existence. I mentioned earlier that Hell was originally created for Satan and the other fallen angels, not necessarily man since man was not created at that point.

This changes nothing, by the way. Be it self-inflicted physical pain or mental pain it is still unjustifiable and God would serve himself morally to end their suffering.

Also as I've said, if I in the afterlife impose mental anguish upon myself then it would not be me. I as I am would not do that. Period.

It is not physical pain. Logically it cannot be. And again, it would not be any more moral to end one's existence simply because of mental anguish.

You say you would not do that now, but you don't really know if you would or not at that point. This is not something you impose on yourself but something that arises naturally from realizing the mistake of neglecting God.

Yes, they are. The criminal who committed the crime committed the crime but he did not choose to make it a crime, nor did he decide his sentence.

Additionally if a judge also established the law, established the prison system and everything else with then he is responsible for the punishment people receive and what they receive it for.

I think your playing with words here. What I am saying by the judge is not responsible for the inmates being in jail, is that the judge cannot be held morally accountable for why the inmate is in jail. The only one who can be held responsible is the inmate himself. It matters not who set the system up as the system is there for a good reason. If we want to say the judge is responsible for establishing the law and the system then so be it, but that would only mean it is worth thanks and praise since we need such laws and systems to operate civilly and functionally.

The example you give is a bit extreme, as God does not punish homosexual acts themselves but all sexually immoral acts, which would not preclude heterosexual acts. So a judge would definitely not do this. But hypothetically, yes, however as stated that doesn't make the judge morally accountable for the inmates reason of being in jail. The inmate committed the crime, and is thus accountable for it, not anyone else.

I mean, unless you think the circumstances of hells existence elude God's power and make him unable to prevent it.

This is something I have already explained. The existence of Hell cannot be ended as the sheer nature of it logically implies there is no end, which makes God unable to end it, but not limited in power as to be omnipotent is to do anything logically possible.

No, it wouldn't - but we don't ignore an inmates emotional plight. If we can stop it, we do so.

We also don't sentence inmates to jail for victimless crimes (or where it happens, ought not) such as what they think. You think God does and worse you approve of it. You image of God is little better than any despot in the Middle-East.

This is an instance in which your false assumption of there solely being faith or no faith is enough to warrant Heaven or Hell. Of course we don't send people to jail for victimless crimes of what they think. Nor does God, since there is faith plus works. If one has no faith they cannot produce the righteous works that would bear Heaven.

Therefore, one acts on unbelief, while also thinks of unbelief.

If the Christian claims are true, yes.

Only the ones that impact other people concern me though. I'll think what I like how I like when I like and I reject anyone's insistence be they divine or human to tell me I ought to be punished for certain thoughts. That is totalitarianism of the very worst kind. Literally Orwellian in application

I'll explain how this is not totalitarianism which only shows your misapplication of the word or at worst your complete misapprehension of it. Totalitarianism includes that government rules all aspect of civilian life. This is not the same with God as He wants us to make our own decisions, but is there to help along the way. That is the opposite of said political view.

As far as the Hitchen's video is concerned, I am not going to watch it. I never took a liking to posters who post videos thinking it proves some valid point. While it may, what is the issue with you paraphrasing or telling me in your own words? Is that too difficult or too much to ask?

Uhm, so what? You still say that the one sin to damn one is unbelief - which is thought-crime. That you don't only approve of thought-crime does not take away the fact that you do approve of it.

I said that one sin is unbelief. It's not only unbelief because one acts on unbelief. I approve of no such thing.

The distinguishing features of different kinds of self-inflicted pain or inflicted pain make no impact or little impact to my claims. It is pointlessness. Just as you correcting me on calling a sin a crime by saying it is a sin. The end result is still the same.

It makes a difference to your claims of "torture" since that is indeed something pertaining to what you have claimed. The end result is not the same. A crime has end results of jail. A sin has end results of Hell.

God established hell and established the criteria for entering it. He also knew that billions would fail to pass his test to enter it through sheer ignorance and/or skepticism (things that have nothing to do with morality) and yet proceeded anyway.

I think your definition of MA is too simplistic. We don't hold a judge accountable for an inmates being in jail just because he established the sentence. No, we hold the inmate accountable for committing the crime, which makes the fact that he is in jail his own fault.

Moral responsibility is the contention to mentally grasp our actions and that they have certain effects. It is to understand why we act and to generally understand what ‘acting’ a certain way will mean in the long run, given that we desire to act that way. Given this definition of moral accountability, which seems valid enough, God is not responsible for any soul that enters Hell as He has no desire for them to be there.

No. I'd think you'd perhaps think me more moral for condemning thought-crime.

It isn't hard to feel superior to totalitarian apologists.

I don’t think you display an adequate form of morals in the first place being how judgmental you are. If this was thought crime, then yeah, but it’s not. Nor is this totalitarianism as you mistakenly thought, which only suggests that you want to feel superior for the sheer reason of feeling superior.

My claim is based in reality. Most people (and I will say 99.999999% of people) who enter hell by your standards do not choose to go there. It is therefore incorrect to insist as many Christians do that all people who enter hell choose hell.

LOL! Based in reality? What aspects of reality leads you to believe in such a specific number? What your calculations based upon according to reality? I'm sorry that is just hilarious to me. Also, I never claimed that all people who enter Hell consciously choose it, but choose to do the things that would put them in Hell.

Given that you set out two standards for why people are in hell earlier I'll ask you the same question.

I didn’t set just two standards. I gave them as options as to why, while not limiting it to those two reasons.

This is true, but they still recognise it as against the law officially. Not so with non-Christians regarding sin.

You recognize sin and divine law, you just reject it. There is a difference.

You completely miss the point. The drug dealer may believe the law is unjustifiable but (unless he is completely divorced from reality) he knows that it is actually against the law. This is not so of non-Christians. They don't believe in hell and those amongst the non-Christians that do (such as Muslims) believe they are destined for heaven and are acting in accordance with their own doctrine. God knows this as well. God knows that billions of people are unaware and/or unconvinced that the sin, salvation, sacrifice etc are anything less than fantasy.

As far as the drug dealer knowing what is against the law doesn't matter. The point is such a person would not believe in such a law, and if he did, he would follow.

They both reject the idea of it and reject its existence. A drug dealer knows at least that the law exists and that they can be punished for it.

But the relevant point is that the drug dealer does not believe in the law and thus rejects it. You don’t know for sure whether the divine law exists or not, but you know that if it does you can be punished for it.

You said sin has an everlasting effect. Your claim, you demonstrate it. Until then I can dismiss it.

If God created the soul immortal, then what the soul will experience after death is everlasting.

 

[elopez]

So? This is special pleading. Why does a crime against God warrant a harsher punishment than a crime against a human (who can actually be affected by the actions of others unlike God)?

It would only be special pleading if the reason give for an exception is not relevant or does not fit the meaning of "exception."

The relevant exception is that God is Creator of all, and Sovereign of all. See, God is affected by sin, just not the same way humans would be, yet affected nonetheless.

God imposing his eternalness on us knowing the consequences combined with his creation of hell is extreme incompetence or malice.

That would be true only if God intended man to go to Hell as a result of knowing and creating Hell. God does not intend for man to go to Hell.

Uhm.

It does if you have the knowledge will come to fruition based on actions you plan to do. If I know that ignoring a certain health and safety regulation in doing something will lead to someone receiving a serious injury in the near future and yet go on and do it anyway I am responsible.

Remember we are not talking about some non-passive knowledgeable observer but a being that knows everything and created everything. God knew that his actions would cause permanent suffering to billions of people and he knew additionally that those billions would suffer for nothing more than not believing in him (for reasons of skepticism and ignorance).

Again, knowledge of an action and engaging in that action does not necessarily imply being guilty or responsible. What must be shown also is the intention of acting. With acting comes the understanding that acting in a certain way will have certain effects. We can say that God foreknew He was going to create Hell and humans would end up going there, however, that isn't God's intention in creating Hell. God's orignal intention, as I have said, was for Satan and the fallen angels.

Even given the truth of foreknowledge and God's creative act it is not enough to make Him responsible for those who go to Hell. There is no 'premeditation' indicating God wants and created souls to go to Hell. That is what you're missing here.

No, you didn't. Show me how you gave a reason that 'sinning' against an eternal God warrants an eternal punishment.

Just in this post and in the other one when I mentioned sin has everlasting effects.

Also I must ask: Why am I under the governance of this God anyway? I never consented to this system. That I am somehow bound by an ancient human sacrifice and held accountable for not accepting it is a rather sinister form of tyranny.

Because God is the Creator. No one asked for this Sovereignty but there it is. Without it we wouldn't even be questioning why. It would only be tyranny if you were forced to accept that the sacrifice was true. Existence is noting to be consented to anyway, so to think it would be is a little silly.

Correct, it doesn't.

But it means I have a good reason for why I might inadvertently sin. God also knowing everything knows that I have no reason to consider certain sins as wrong and yet will punish me for it anyway.

So, then, if your rejection of sin does not necessarily mean sin is non - existent, then sin could very well exist despite your constant rejection of it. That, among anything else specifically here, is my point.

Do you think God changes something that is revealed just because one may reject it? Again, rejection =/= non existence.

I've got no reason to buy any of it. Why should I? Why should God expect me to accept certain claims and moderate my behaviour in certain ways on no evidence? He allowed me to be skeptical and knowledgeable and gave me free-will and yet will punish me for it afterwards if I don't go a certain way.

I didn't say there was for you, maybe there isn't. I have a reason, and so do other people. You don't need evidence to moderate your behavior. That is not how this relation with God is suppose to work. It is meant to be a faith based relationship, and if we have tangible evidence for everything, there is no point to the relationship. Free will suggests moral accountability of our actions, including sins, that we commit, so that one is punished is only just.

According to your beliefs people end up in hell for:

Believing in a different God
Not believing in any God

Neither of those are things ought to be punishable.

Again though, I did not claim these were the only two reasons why one would go to Hell. I merely offered these as two reasons. In order for there to be the false dilemma, I would have had to claimed that those are the only two options while completely disregarding another possible option. I made no such claim, nor have ignored any other possibility.

 

[sandwiches]

God created Hell originally for Satan and the other fallen angels. It was not even intended for man until Adam and Eve originally sinned and brought about the possibility of spiritual death. I don't really see how you're making the connection that there is little concern for Hell being that God provided an opportunity to avoid it, and we can definitely confirm that God is not in favor of Hell as He wishes no soul goes there.

He doesn't have to send anyone there. It's not like he's forced to do this or that. He's God, for God's sake!