Does Hell exist? An Ex-Jehovahs Witness viewpoint and research #1

[TheSnarkyApologist]

Interesting point Dann! I never thought of the etymology of the term "Gehenna". Some guy in Canada was blabbering about it to me one day, but I don't really focus on what he says ; O

Keep up the fine work brother!

[1Peter3Fifteen]

Well done! ... Glad you made this video ... I am going to read the book.

[Haukman66]

I would like to recommend a good book on the subject. "Hell on Trial-A Case for Eternal Punishment" by Robert Peterson. A very good read, and biblically sound.

[jhweh2007]

great vid, just like you said what does the bible say? even the nwt

[pretoshohmoofc]

What shocks me about the JW response to hell is this. They say that being tormented day and night forever and ever is symbolic. But Symbolism is something that always participates in what it is discribing. Example:a wedding ring symbolizes a marriage between a man and a woman, but the ring participates in this marrage. That's why we wear a ring on our finger. So,..what does being tormented day and night forever have to do with NOT being tormented day and night forever?

What is it symbolic of?

[earnestlyseeking]

@pretoshohmoofc New to me also. Could this be another hting that Atheist pass around among themselves that doesn't have backing behind it?

[pretoshohmoofc]

I'm reading this book right now. And the same subject floored me too.

[21crosscheck21]

Interesting point.... I bought the book and I hope to find the time to read it soon.

[earnestlyseeking]

@21crosscheck21 Maybe you can do a professional video about the subject (GRIN) not like this amateur effort (smile). God bless you Brian.

[theapologeticfront]

@anzwertree I gotcha, I mistakenly thought you were one of those :-)

[anzwertree]

@theapologeticfront Cheers

[theapologeticfront]

Welcome back Dann! I actually never knew there was any controversy on that point. I'm curious though as to what implications it would have on the doctrine of hell if this valley did or did not exist. What points does Chan make about it?

[earnestlyseeking]

@theapologeticfront The point he's trying to make is that the Jews already had a belief in a place of torment in place by the time Jesus came on the scene, and that he was building on that rather than, as Bell and others suggest, a new idea of a person dying and then being disposed of and being totally annihilated. I have some of my personal thoughts on this that I will do another video on.

[anzwertree]

No evidence for the Hinnom Valley. That is somewhat true. But the only warning we have is a book of fallacies and contradictions. If we're talking about "evidence" then the entire Bible is suspect, not just the Valley of Hinnom; most everything else is questionable too. There is no evidence the Jews were ever in Egypt, that means no Exodus. No evidence of any census -- how Jesus supposedly got to Bethlehem. In fact, there is no evidence this Jesus guy ever existed outside the Bible

[earnestlyseeking]

@anzwertree It's not the hinnom valley that's in question, but the theory that it was a burning trash dump.

[clnmyjts]

This is a trick question! Ok..how should we view our planet? is it a dead planet or a living planet?

[Galmozzi99]

Interesting, I had never heard that before either. Good video.

[Lambieschmoo]

It's a. head-zcratcher. Yesterday I went through a terrible time. The only person who took the time to help me was a girl dressed like a boy. I can't reconcile in my head that she would go to hell

[msm1876]

@Lambieschmoo >>>I can't reconcile in my head that she would go to hell

I totally see where you're coming from...it's just that you're looking at it from a human standpoint. We don't examine it from the viewpoint from a God who, simply by his very nature, cannot tolerate sin...the same way, say, you cannot tolerate the concept of drinking diarrhea water. I use this graphic, gag inducing imagery to simply hit the point home.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 " We don't examine it from the viewpoint from a God who, simply by his very nature, cannot tolerate sin."

That's strange, because your God is supposed to be omniscient. In other words, he knew what we would do before he created us. He cannot tolerate sin? How do you surprise an all-knowing God? You cannot offend someone that knows everything. That's like throwing a glass across the room and getting mad when it breaks. Are you saying your God is irrational?

[msm1876]

@anzwertree Sin doesn't suprise God; it's just that it's repugnant to him. He can tolerate sin in his presence no more than, say, you would tolerate the notion of pedophelia. He simply quarantines people who haven't forsaken it.

About your "no evidence of Jesus outside the bible" thing...if you'd be willing to look at the NT books as ancient documents rather than religious texts, you might conclude that it's MUCH more reasonable to believe that Jesus existed than he did not.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 The new testament is part of the Bible. That's why I qualified what I said with, "...outside the Bible." You say sin is repugnant to God. Again, this doesn't make sense. Why does God have human inclinations like anger? Anger serves a practical purpose for biological creatures such as ourselves. But God is supposed to be perfect. He doesn't need anything. Anger, distaste, disdain -- these are useless characteristics for such an endless cognitive agency. This God seems too human

[msm1876]

@anz>God...too human

Perhaps more accurately, we humans are too much like our God. We are made in his image, after all.

Anyway,

>>>The new testament is part of the Bible

Not originally. Originally, Paul's letter to the Galatians was just a letter he sent to that Church. Mark's gospel was originally a just story written about Jesus' life. If you examine them that way, would you be more inclined to consider those reports of the miraculous reportage rather than a tall tale?

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "Perhaps more accurately, we humans are too much like our God. We are made in his image, after all."

Not only am I more moral than your God, so are you. We're talking about the same God who ordered the Israelites to go into neighboring villages and kill everything that moved -- including slaughtering women and children -- who were also instructed to keep the female virgins as slaves. Here is civilized society, we put people in prison that think like your God

[msm1876]

@anzwertree If that God didn't give the people that he ordered to be killed life, I could see your argument. If he gave the life, he could order one of His creations to end it. It's His business.

As for your reference to Judges 21:10-14, look at the whole chapter. Does it say ANYWHERE that God commanded that? In fact, look at the last verse. Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.

Cont.

[msm1876]

@anzwertree cont.

Now, look; I know you don't "get" the God of the bible; I know you don't like Him. But what if He exists anyway? Again, those miracles in the Gospel of Mark...you think they're made up? Take Mark 10:46-52. Jesus healed the blind man on his way in to Jericho. Luke 18:35-43 says it happened as he was leaving. This pretty well shoots dead the notion that Mark and Luke were collaborating.

cont.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "This pretty well shoots dead the notion that Mark and Luke were collaborating."

First of all, I never said they were collaborating. I said the Bible is insufficient to justify miraculous claims. What valid reason do I have for believing any of this happened as described? Maybe these writers actually believed their delusions. But that in no way makes their claims more credible. The same reasons you have for accepting the Bible are virtually the same reasons Muslims list for the Quran

[msm1876]

@anzwertree >>>I said the Bible is insufficient to justify miraculous claims. What valid reason do I have for believing any of this happened as described?

So, you're saying that people made up a story of Jesus being unable to perform miracles, save minor ones, in Mark 6:4-6? Again, does this sound like something that was made up, or a simple report of the information?

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "So, you're saying that people made up a story of Jesus being unable to perform miracles."

Yes, maybe not all of it was made up, but definitely a lot was embellished over time. Many of the Bible writers even fabricated various details to make Jesus fit with prophecy. Take the census for example. It never happened. No evidence of any census ever took place throughout all of history. Where would you go if there was a world-wide census today? Sounds highly impractical.

[msm1876]

@anz>>> definitely...embellished over time.

Mark 6:4-6 as an embellishment? Jesus NOT being able to perform any miracles except a few healings is an embellishment? Jesus cursing the fig tree when it wasn't even fig season and the tree withers the next day, an embellishment?

And why did his enemies not say so? If even your enemies are conceeding that you're working miracles, not saying, "These stories are fakes!" well, why should I be skeptical that he wasn't doing SOMETHING?

[msm1876]

@anzwertree Also, look at 2 Corinthians 12:12. Look at Paul reminding the Corinthians of the miracles he performed while there. If miracle stories are all fakes, why did Paul remind them of the signs and wonders he performed for the Corinthians? Only an insane person says, "Hey, remember when I performed miracles before your very eyes?" when they in fact did nothing.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 Also, look at 2 Corinthians 12:12

Dude... how many times do I have to tell you this? Quoting scripture does not impress me. I don't believe the Bible, so quoting your scripture is a waste of time. If I quoted chapter 6 of Harry Potter, would that persuade you to accept Hogwarts as a real place? Obviously not. Why should I care what the Bible says?

[msm1876]

@anzwertree >>> Quoting scripture does not impress me. I don't believe the Bible,

You atheists don't get it. I'm not quoting the bible as a religious book to you people, I'm taking a letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians and treating it as any other document of antiquity. And in that document, he speaks of how he performed miracles while there. And I'm asking if you think he insanely reminded them of miracles that he didn't actually perform.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "You atheists don't get it. I'm not quoting the bible as a religious book to you people, I'm taking a letter that Paul wrote..."

I don't care who wrote it or what you call it. I don't care if it's a letter or a poem or a blog entry. Whatever it is, it requires justification like everything else. The problem is that you have a very low standard of evidence. All you proved here is that you are easily impressed. I'll ask again, why should I believe what Paul wrote?

[msm1876]

@anzwertree >>>you have a very low standard of evidence.

Not quite. I did a video about this a month or so back, and a former Christian who believed Paul had an hallucination en route to damscus watched it and said, "You're right. Paul is absolutely your best evidence. People don't perform miracles after they have hallucinations. This is absolutely baffling."

The problem is that you are utterly unwilling to look at written testimony and consider the evidences from it.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "The problem is that you are utterly unwilling to look at written testimony and consider the evidences from it."

The problem with you is that you are unwilling to read Lord of the Rings and believe that middle Earth actually exists. It says so right there in the book. Clearly Tolkien wasn't insane. It must be true. That's how stupid you sound.

[IvanDefendingTruth]

@anzwertree The genre is not even the same. Paul's letter is a public letter written to a group of real human beings living in Greece during the middle of the first century. It's a real, historical document. Somehow paralleling this to a known work that is fiction/fantasy doesn't work...

[anzwertree]

@IvanDefendingTruth So what are you saying, that the audience of a particular type of document affects the truth value of a proposition? Guess what? That's nonsense. It doesn't matter what the genre is. It doesn't matter how many people believe or disbelieve. If something is false, it's going to be false regardless if people do or do not believe. Convince the entire world the earth is flat and it's still wrong.

[IvanDefendingTruth]

@anzwertree No, that's not what I said. But what I was saying is that your analogy to prove msm1876's argument wrong, was not legitimate.

[anzwertree]

@IvanDefendingTruth Okay. That sounds fair. Can you please elaborate why it's not legitimate?

[IvanDefendingTruth]

@anzwertree Because you paralleled Paul's letter to a real, living community in Greece to Lord of the Rings...

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "Only an insane person says, "Hey, remember when I performed miracles before your very eyes?" when they in fact did nothing."

Right, and I think it is much more likely Paul was insane than there being an omniscient agency from a parellel dimension who occasionally authors books. It's not hard to imagine someone being insane. I've seen insanity before. I know it exists.

[msm1876]

@anzwer Ok, Pauls an idiot who, while writing to the Corinthians, made up that he performed miracles while there. I think it's safe to say that the Corinthians now view him as a complete moron. Now, is this what actually happened in Corinth?

No.

Read 1 Clement, a letter written from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth in 95 AD. Read Ch 5, where their shared reverence for Paul is apparent, and he is put on par with OT heroes.

That theory of yours doesn't stand up.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 Written testimony is simply not enough. All we have are copies of copies of translations of copies that cannot be verified. Anything that qualifies as a God would clearly understand how unreliable this is. The best you got is, "Paul supposedly believed X and Y. Why would he lie?. That's just silly. You don't have to be crazy or lying to believe in nonsense. I don't think you're lying and you believe in nonsense. People in ancient times also believed nonsense.

[msm1876]

@anzwertree >>>The best you got is, "Paul supposedly believed X and Y. Why would he lie?.

The amount of strawmanning you're doing for the sake of brushing aside evidence is very telling. Please don't pretend like you want to believe, but you just can't because there isn't enough evidence.

I NEVER said, "Paul believed X and Y. Why would he lie?"

I'll spell it out for you REALLY thoroughly:

[msm1876]

@anzwertree Paul...in a letter he's writing to a church he founded. This letter, BTW, is accepted by liberal scholars, skeptics, et al, as coming legitamitely from the Apostle Paul. Follow so far?

There is a VERY old fragment, called P46, that dates to around 200 AD or so, which contains the verse I'm quoting...and there are NO variants on it. In other words, what it said, in Greek, in 200...it says today. Nobody has laid a hand on that verse in the past 1800 years... cont

[msm1876]

@anzwertree cont. which is a pretty good indicator that it's what was written in the original copy Paul sent to Corinth.

Ok. Paul is trying to defend his credibility to the Corinthians, who are getting flirsty with a group of frauds called the "Super Apostles."  Their teaching is dangerous, and should not be obeyed, according to Paul. Paul is defending his own credentials as an apostle, and he...and here it is...

Reminds the of the miracles he performed while in Corinth. cont.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "Ok. Paul is trying to defend his credibility to the Corinthians..."

Do you understand what I'm asking for? You're just formulating apologetics. None of this suddenly makes the Bible's supernatural claims more plausible. Do you find the Quran compelling? Let's apply your own logic to Muhammad. He was defending himself against the rebels! He spoke to an angel in a cave! His teachings have been unaltered for hundreds of years! So what? None of that persuades me to convert to Islam.

[msm1876]

@anzwertree Again, he's trying to persuade them to obey his teachings.  If you are trying to persuade people that you are credible, you do not simply lie to them about spectacular stuff that you did that they supposedly saw.

At least other skeptics have tried to interact with this stuff. One guy I talked to said, "Well, perhaps Paul became convinced that he could work miracles, and the Corinthians were charmed by him, so they believed it too."

cont

[msm1876]

@anzwertree Or another said, "Well, Paul struck me as a conman, he probably tricked the Corinthans."

Neither are particularly good counters, but at least they tried.

Feel free to continue in this disbelief, but know that you are not continuing in it for good intellectual reasons.

You're in a state of disbelief because you hate God, and it would be much better for you if he didn't exist. So you're looking for any reason to rationalize Him out of existence.

Bye.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "You're in a state of disbelief because you hate God"

That's absurd. Since I don't believe in God, that doesn't even make sense. Why do you hate Allah? You're not Muslim. Do you hate Thor, too? You don't believe in Thor. Why do you hate Thor so much? What did Thor ever do to you?

[msm1876]

@anzwertree Oh, yes you do hate God. I've seen you call Him an "uncreative jerk," and "A-Hole who you wouldn't worship if you paid me."

So let's not kid ourselves here. You are trying to rationalize him out of existence, give youself any kind of reason to feel ok that He's not there...because if he is...you're in some DEEP trouble.

But I'm going to go explain 2 Corinthians 12:12 to my entertainment center now...it tend to listen better.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 Just because I call your God a jerk doesn't mean I hate him or think he exists. It just means the character you call God happens to exhibit the atributes of a douche-bag within the context of his fictional world.

[anzwertree]

@msm1876 "Feel free to continue in this disbelief, but know that you are not continuing in it for good intellectual reasons."

Disbelief is the default position. Until someone justifies their supernatural claims, disbelief is the only honest position to take. You don't believe a claim until it's disproven. You disbelieve until a claim has been substantiated. I can't disprove the Bible. But I also can't disprove the Easter Bunny. Yet I don't believe because these claims are unsupported. Simple

[msm1876]

@anzwer Also, are you aware that even Jesus' enemies conceded he performed miracles, and just slandered them as sorcery? Google "Agaisnt Celsus" by Origen, book 1, Ch 28. Origen is answering Celsus' slander of Jesus, which Celsus is getting from Jews. Celsus is talking about how Jesus was born of a loose woman who after being booted by her fiance, bore Jesus in Egypt, where he learned sorcery.

Did his enemies say his miracles were made up?  No. They said they were sorcery.

[msm1876]

@anzwertree cont. Now, if they weren't collaborating on this story, is it not more likely that they were simply recording the story from their source? And their source (probably Peter for both) remembered that Jesus healed a blind guy at Jericho and was simply relating that story to them?

[pretoshohmoofc]

@anzwertree That's strange, because your God is supposed to be omniscient.

When my children were really young, I taught them to stand up and walk knowing fully well that they would fall. I must be a monster of a parent. I also bought them crayons knowing full well that they would draw on my furniture and walls, then,...I got mad when they did. But knowing this, I also know that they would love to draw. That's why I bought them.

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc Interesting analogy. And at what point did you lock your child up in the basement and torture them?

[pretoshohmoofc]

@anzwertree God doesn't lock up and torture HIS CHILDREN. God locks up and totures Satan's children. Rev 20:10,15. Those like yourself who reject and mock him.

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc I don't care if they're Satan's children or the offspring of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Proceeding to torture ANYONE an eternity for a finite crime is infinitely unjust and malevolent. There is no reason for such a place to exist. It's not even a valid form of punishment. Why do you punish your kids? To teach them something. To make them more productive members of society. But you don't come out of hell a better person. Thus the only reason it would exist would be for vengeance.

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc (Continued) Your entire system of justice is not based upon morality. How do you get to heaven? By accepting Jesus as your lord and savior. As an atheist, because I disbelieve, I'm destined for hell. Has nothing to do with my actions. I could be a perfectly good person, but if I disbelieve in your God then I'm "Satan's child." Again, has nothing to do with the good I do. It's about what I believe. Meanwhile, a child molesting rapist repents before he dies and gets into heaven.

[rachelbinto]

@anzwertree "I could be a perfectly good person"

That's where the problem is. You cannot be a perfectly good person; none of us can. What seems like a small thing to you, might be a big thing to someone else. We think we are good people and that it is other people who are the bad people when we compare ourselves with others. But when we compare ourselves with Jesus and the Father we are all bad people. None of us deserves to go to heaven. The good news is that any can be saved

[earnestlyseeking]

@rachelbinto Good point. And the good news becomes really good when we see that salvation save us not from everlasting sleep or non-existence, but from everlasting conscious punishment. so in the end there will be two very contrasting realities everlasting life in undescrible beauty and awe, or extreme anguish. Now is the time to decide which we want. The gift is free for the taking.

[anzwertree]

@rachelbinto "The good news is that any can be saved."

Again, this "saved" process you're talking about is vicarious redemption. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with my actions. It's about belief not works. So it doesn't matter how good I am. All that matters is that I'm gullible enough to believe something for no good reason. That's not a God interested in truth. It's a God that favors ignorance over reason. What kind of God prefers gullibility over intellectual honesty?

[earnestlyseeking]

@anzwertree You seem to be saying that the only God you would consider is one that fits your perfect definition of what God should be according to you, and since you don't believe in the possibility of God then he doesn't exist. There have been examples of people in the past that thought their way was right and they were proven wrong. So if you are wrong, it won't be the first time. Saying we have to have proof for something before we believe is unwise.

[anzwertree]

@earnestlyseeking I accept the "possibility" of God! A true skeptic doesn't prescribe a probability of zero to anything. I never said there was absolutely no God, or that I didn't think the idea of God was possible. I said there is no reason to believe these outrageous unsupported claims about God(s). Especially some God the invents this absurd loophole where he comes to sacrifice himself to himself to save his people from a fate that he himself created. It's absurd. That's the God I object to

[earnestlyseeking]

@anzwertree Well how about the possibility of a God that you don't and can't understand? If he was easily understood, then he wouldn't be God. Some scientific concepts like the theory of Relativity are not understandable, but it doesn't make them fiction, at least to me.

[anzwertree]

@earnestlyseeking If we can't understand him, then how can you say anything about him? How can you make any claims about it? This goes back to the whole God's thoughts are higher than ours. Okay. That seems reasonable to assume if such an agency could actually exist; I'd expect him to be much more complex than anything he created. But that only adds more questions. If God is so incomprehensible, how can he hold us accountable to his standards, when he's beyond our understanding?

[anzwertree]

@earnestlyseeking (Continued) concepts like the theory of Relativity are not understandable, but it doesn't make them fiction"

No and yes. Scientific theories are based upon established facts. Relativity can be demonstrated and thoroughly understood. Just like gravity and heliocentric theory. You don't need faith to know gravity exists. You don't need faith to know the earth revolves around the sun. No god claims (Thor, Zeus, Allah, Yahweh) are equivalent to any established theory in science

[rachelbinto]

@anzwertree The issue is not gullibility, it is about seeing and accepting the truth about who you are and who God is. It doesn't matter how good we are, because the truth is we are not good when compared to God. You are thinking God should grade on a curve, but salvation is like a test where you either get 100 or a 0. Jesus got 100 and he is willing to assign his grade to you if you will accept it.

[anzwertree]

@rachelbinto “...the truth is we are not good when compared to God.”

Depends. If you mean the God of the Bible, then no, I’m definitely more moral than he is. Bible God favors things I'm obviously opposed to -- such as human sacrifice, slavery, slaughtering children with bears, and taking female virgin slaves captive after murdering their family... yeah, dude. I’m way more moral than Bible God. So are you. I don’t even have to know you to know you’re more moral than Bible God

[anzwertree]

@rachelbinto A position of faith is state determined to believe something regardless of supporting evidence. In other words, the position is held regardless; all contradicting evidence suggesting anything otherwise is ignored. Any God that asks you to accept something uncritically is a God that doesn’t want his subjects to think rationally, and ignoring empirically demonstrable facts to preserve a preexisting presupposition amounts to God that favors gullibility.

[earnestlyseeking]

@anzwertree What you call gullibility is what God calls faith. And it is required to obtain salvation. I feel that Atheist have a certain level of faith also, they just don't call it that. I think Dawkins referred to something he called the "anthropic principle" in which he explained that no matter how improbable something was, it's existence was proof that it happened. I call that faith, because you believe it happened despite the unlikelihood that it could happen.

[anzwertree]

@earnestlyseeking No. I don't have a faith, and the anthropic principle has nothing to do with faith either. In fact, it's "faith" that I object to. Faith is the stock answer people give when they don't have a valid reason. Ask a Muslim, they will say it's faith too. How do you differentiate between your faith and another's? If you're just going to pull the faith card, anyone can do that, including JW's and the survivors of Heaven's Gate. Why should anyone accept anything based on faith?

[earnestlyseeking]

@anzwertree Have you ever deposited money in a bank? Did you not have to have some kind of trust in that bank that your money would be available when you needed it? That my friend is a type of faith. Or when you get into vehicle, whether it be train ship, plane, or car. You don't have solid proof that you will get to your destination safely, but you choose to believe that you will. That is a form of faith.

[anzwertree]

@earnestlyseeking Trust is earned. I have reasonable expectations based on actual evidence. It's reasonable to assume my money is safe in the bank because it's insured by the government. That's not the same as a faith based position. Primarily because I know my bank actually exists. Let's make this analogy more like religion. You have to burry your money in an ancient cemetery. If you burry it right, you'll be rewarded in heaven, but if you burry it in the wrong place you'll be tortured forever.

[anzwertree]

@earnestlyseeking The anthropic principle just states conscious beings cannot arise unless an environment capable of supporting them exists. Logic. Obviously, we evolved because this particular system favors our particular type of life. But things could have been different. Life might still emerge, only it would be the type capable of thriving there, and then perhaps they’d think only their particular result is the only possible way life can exist -- assuming they’re shortsighted as humans are

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc How do you qualify what constitutes a child of Satan? You said you knew your kids would fall if they walked, but you taught them anyway. You knew they'd draw on the wall, etc... but you taught them anyway. At what point does your child become a child of Satan -- worthy of eternal torment? Is there ANYTHING your child could do that would warrant locking them in the basement and torturing them -- including not loving you back?

[pretoshohmoofc]

@anzwertree You never read my comment. God does not torment HIS children. God torments those who reject his Son. John 3:36.

The bible identifies who Satan is, and who a child of Satan is (John 8:44). So based on the very book where we learned who Satan is;- is the very same book who identifies you as his child.

My love for my children gave them the right to live free to choose. My first answer was clear. There is no contradiction. Just re-read my first comment.

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc "You never read my comment. God does not torment HIS children. God torments those who reject his Son."

No, I read your argument, I'm just surprised you find it compelling. You never answered my question. What could your child do that would warrant you locking them in the basement and torturing them? You ignored that entirely because you know NOTHING they could possibly do what make you torture them. So basically you've demonstrated you are more moral than your own God.

[pretoshohmoofc]

@anzwertree One more time then I'm going to blow you off as a fool. Read carefully.

"God-Does-Not-Torment->>>HIS<<­<-Children." So you can't use me locking MY children into the basement argument on me. Stop misrepresenting my beliefs so that you can strawman it.

Now, I'll let you have the last say, then I promise not to read it.

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc Okay. So you're saying God can have children that can somehow become Satan's children, but you can have children that cannot become Satan's children? Do you notice the double standard? I'm trying to get you to admit there is no possible thing your child could do that would suddenly make them "not your child." But that is exactly what you're suggesting happens with God. He can have children, but they can turn away and become one of Satan's children -- worthy of eternal torment

[anzwertree]

@pretoshohmoofc What you're ignoring is that your God set these rules. He could have created anything he wanted. But for some reason, this God is obsessed with blood and death and suffering. Why does your God love the smell of burnt flesh so much? What is magical about blood? Without your God, blood wouldn't mean anything. Your God invented these rules. He determined blood was magical. He thought up hell -- he created hell. Why would I want to worship a God's who's idea of justice makes me sick?

[rpierre777]

@anzwertree "Why does your God love the smell of burnt flesh so much?"

He doesn't. "I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats." (Isa 1:11) Also, the burning smell of a sacrifice represent the destruction of sin in the flesh accomplished by Jesus. (Eph 5:2)

[anzwertree]

@rpierre777 According to your theology, God invented these rules. This God seems pretty obsessed with death, blood, and suffering -- just look how Jesus died. His entire system of forgiveness is based upon vicarious redemption. If God doesn't like blood then why did he set up this asinine loophole that has nothing to do with our actions, but instead favors gullibility over rationality? What makes blood magical? Without God's designation, this system of death and suffering wouldn't mean anything.

[rpierre777]

@anzwertree Just as in many societies, there are crimes that warrant the death penalty, while other crimes suffer more of a mental punishment and some do result in physical discomfort and sometimes pain. What Christ did was took all of that upon Himself so that, for our crimes (sins) against God, we won’t have to suffer any of the punishments that arise from committing the crimes.

[anzwertree]

@rpierre777 I'm not talking about a reasonable application of law. We often have valid reasons for executing people. It protects innocent lives. We lock people away to take them out of society. But killing someone and then proceeding to torture them for an eternity has nothing to do with protecting anyone. If someone is dead, they can't rape or kill anyone else. Hell, on the other hand, has nothing to do with a reasonable application of law. Not only is it unwarranted, it's immoral

[rpierre777]

@anzwertree “We often have valid reasons for executing people.”

Regardless of how “valid” we believe those reasons are, it is written, “Thou shalt not kill”. (Ex 20:13)

[anzwertree]

@rpierre777 Right, I said reasonable application of law. The God of the Bible is far from reasonable. The God of the old testament has no problem with killing. He spends the first couple of books of the Bible wiping out entire villages -- including women, children, even babies. Oh, but the female virgins got to survive as slaves to the Israelites. What a great God. Numbers 31:18. As I've said before, citing Dawkins; this particular God is arguably one of the worst characters in all fiction.

[rpierre777]

@anzwertree No, He's not far from reasonable.

[anzwertree]

@rpierre777 Um... Yes... He is unquestionably. Do you support slavery? Bible God does. Do you think women should marry their rapist? Bible God does: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

[rpierre777]

@anzwertree God doesn’t kill people and torment them for eternity. Death is a result of Adam and Eve’s actions. Hell is destroyed in the final judgment. The “torture” is more of a mental one-hence the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now, Christ suffered and died so that we, through faith in Him, will live. Also, how warranted or the morality of something is determined by God-not man. The torture isn’t meant for man, but, the one you serve determines who you spend eternity with. (Matt 25:41)

[TheRawFoodMommy]

I don't put it passed the WT! They've made archeological finds to back up their inventions. I use this text a lot for Hell. Jesus said: do not fear those that can kill The flesh, but fear He that can also kill the soul and send Him into Sheol. Now the body would go to The dump, but The soul? this text proof of hell and a soul.