The Ultimate Tool for Redemption

[Smilebong]

Is it a second language for you?
No worries.
You said if we reject god while here on earth then we don't get him in the afterlife. Did I read that correctly?
If that was the end of the story, that would seem fair.
But the story continues.
Not only do we not get god in the afterlife, we get brutally tortured forever.
I like your version better.
Was this clearer?
It seems identical to me.

Do you ever have a point? Other than to try and bait Christians?

Why do people get mad at me when they make poor arguments or don't make the arguments they think they have made and it's pointed out to them?
I never understand that.
Do you think striking out at me for pointing out your poor argument somehow makes your argument magically better?

It was not an argument. It was a statement.

And it is not anger. It is a question. Do you have a point other than to bait Christians so you can display your superior knowledge?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Do you ever have a point? Other than to try and bait Christians?

Why do people get mad at me when they make poor arguments or don't make the arguments they think they have made and it's pointed out to them?
I never understand that.
Do you think striking out at me for pointing out your poor argument somehow makes your argument magically better?

It was not an argument. It was a statement.

And it is not anger. It is a question. Do you have a point other than to bait Christians so you can display your superior knowledge?

I appreciate you recognizing that.

 

[Smilebong]

Why do people get mad at me when they make poor arguments or don't make the arguments they think they have made and it's pointed out to them?
I never understand that.
Do you think striking out at me for pointing out your poor argument somehow makes your argument magically better?

It was not an argument. It was a statement.

And it is not anger. It is a question. Do you have a point other than to bait Christians so you can display your superior knowledge?

I appreciate you recognizing that.

Well, the fact that you bait people is pretty obvious.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What? Speak English.

Is it a second language for you?
No worries.
You said if we reject god while here on earth then we don't get him in the afterlife. Did I read that correctly?
If that was the end of the story, that would seem fair.
But the story continues.
Not only do we not get god in the afterlife, we get brutally tortured forever.
I like your version better.
Was this clearer?
It seems identical to me.

Do you ever have a point? Other than to try and bait Christians?

The point is obvious. If the afterlife for the Godless was simply a neutral situation absent of God, that would be a fair "reward" for being Godless in life.

If the reward isn't simply the absence of God, but also ETERNAL TORTURE, how is that fair?

If God is just -and- he loves each of us, how is -ETERNAL- torture a just punishment for -anything-?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The God of Christianity is regarded as all-merciful and is touted as being slow to anger but fast to forgive. Why then is the punishment for eighty years of misdeeds an eternity in eternal suffering? Even the US government would not be so harsh- protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Why then is God? It should stand to reason that Hell would be some kind of final redeemer, where the amount of time spent there is equivalent to the amount of time it takes one to repent truly, ie, the ultimate tool for redemption. People face unimaginable pain and torture until they realize their sins. And once they realize their wrongs, would a true God of compassion who cares for all of his creation leave them to continue to suffer?

You're talking about "ultimate reconciliation" which, unfortunately, isn't a biblical doctrine. Death and hell are literal consequences for man's sinful nature and actions. God is just. He gave man a choice in the very beginning. He laid out in simple terms what was necessary for eternal life and what would happen if man disobeyed Him. Man chose the latter. So mankind was doomed to certain death until God took mercy upon him and gave him a way out. He took on a flesh body and died in our stead thus paying the penalty for sins.

So the door is open to anyone who desires eternal life in the Kingdom of God. That door is Jesus Christ. Accept Him and claim entrance or deny/reject Him and suffer the consequences. This truly is a life or death decision.

I get that the bible says that God is just over and over, but if that's the case, then what is justice?

Your first premise here is that God gave "man" a choice in the beginning and "man" chose a sinful nature, thus death and hell are the consequences for mankind. What you are stating is that an entire species is being punished up to and including the potential for eternal torture beyond imagining, for the actions of the first man, i.e. actions that nobody else among the species, other than Eve, had any chance of preventing.

The implication you're making here is that justice includes punishing people for the actions of others over which they had -no- influence. Justice includes punishing someone for the actions of someone else, if we are to believe that the biblical God is the template for justice.

So the question must be asked: Is our idea of justice skewed? Is true justice the punishment of everyone for every transgression of anyone?

More to the point of the OP, however, the question of eternal punishment must be considered. The only reasoning you've offered for why eternal punishment is the norm is that God said we either obey him or we pay the consequences. The implication this time is that hell is a just punishment because it was included in God's this-or-that. Essentially, I must assume by your reasoning that if a figure of authority includes a punishment in his ultimatum, then that punishment is automatically a just one.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the guy with the gun is the guy who decides the nature of justice. Shall I assume this to be your view on the concept?

If that's not the case, then why is an eternity of torture a just punishment for not figuring out who the real God is?

 

[thebrucebeat]

It was not an argument. It was a statement.

And it is not anger. It is a question. Do you have a point other than to bait Christians so you can display your superior knowledge?

I appreciate you recognizing that.

Well, the fact that you bait people is pretty obvious.

I thought I pointed out a reasonable problem with your argument.
If that "baited" you, that's on you.

 

[DriftingSand]

BreezeWood: an example of the inequities pervasive in scriptural "Christianity" whereby "while living" they rely on a "Savior" as "we could all simply murder, rape, pillage, steal, lie, and cheat and be rewarded for it" to save themselves - and without retribution even to the victim.

the same as above - "and be rewarded for it when we get around to repenting".

I honestly tried to make sense of your post but simply couldn't. Sorry that I don't have a response but I'm not sure what to respond to.

 

[DriftingSand]

Fair point, but light can't exist without darkness, love without hate, peace without war, etc. so I'll ignore that.
If Adam and Eve didn't sin, Adam would have replied, "No. My love is for God alone."
Speaking of the first sin, you seem to forget that eating the fruit also gave mankind knowledge of good. Thus, without the fruit, God could not be seen as good by us, because we couldn't comprehend it.

I disagree. Darkness is simply the absence of light. You seem to hold to the eastern Yin/Yang philosophy in which good and evil exist as equal counterparts. But the fact of the matter (from a biblical point of view) is that light can absolutely exist without darkness. Good can absolutely exist without evil. One is not at all dependent upon the other.

To the second point: God could absolutely see man as good if man had no evil. Man wouldn't necessarily have to have "knowledge of good and evil" in order to be good. He is "good" by default if he is not evil.

 

[Chuckt]

The God of Christianity is regarded as all-merciful and is touted as being slow to anger but fast to forgive. Why then is the punishment for eighty years of misdeeds an eternity in eternal suffering? Even the US government would not be so harsh- protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Why then is God? It should stand to reason that Hell would be some kind of final redeemer, where the amount of time spent there is equivalent to the amount of time it takes one to repent truly, ie, the ultimate tool for redemption. People face unimaginable pain and torture until they realize their sins. And once they realize their wrongs, would a true God of compassion who cares for all of his creation leave them to continue to suffer?

You're talking about "ultimate reconciliation" which, unfortunately, isn't a biblical doctrine. Death and hell are literal consequences for man's sinful nature and actions. God is just. He gave man a choice in the very beginning. He laid out in simple terms what was necessary for eternal life and what would happen if man disobeyed Him. Man chose the latter. So mankind was doomed to certain death until God took mercy upon him and gave him a way out. He took on a flesh body and died in our stead thus paying the penalty for sins.

So the door is open to anyone who desires eternal life in the Kingdom of God. That door is Jesus Christ. Accept Him and claim entrance or deny/reject Him and suffer the consequences. This truly is a life or death decision.

I get that the bible says that God is just over and over, but if that's the case, then what is justice?

Your first premise here is that God gave "man" a choice in the beginning and "man" chose a sinful nature, thus death and hell are the consequences for mankind. What you are stating is that an entire species is being punished up to and including the potential for eternal torture beyond imagining, for the actions of the first man, i.e. actions that nobody else among the species, other than Eve, had any chance of preventing.

The implication you're making here is that justice includes punishing people for the actions of others over which they had -no- influence. Justice includes punishing someone for the actions of someone else, if we are to believe that the biblical God is the template for justice.

So the question must be asked: Is our idea of justice skewed? Is true justice the punishment of everyone for every transgression of anyone?

More to the point of the OP, however, the question of eternal punishment must be considered. The only reasoning you've offered for why eternal punishment is the norm is that God said we either obey him or we pay the consequences. The implication this time is that hell is a just punishment because it was included in God's this-or-that. Essentially, I must assume by your reasoning that if a figure of authority includes a punishment in his ultimatum, then that punishment is automatically a just one.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the guy with the gun is the guy who decides the nature of justice. Shall I assume this to be your view on the concept?

If that's not the case, then why is an eternity of torture a just punishment for not figuring out who the real God is?

I wish to field and answer this question.

Adam was the prototype and since the prototype sinned, all the copies can't do any better than Adam.

Romans 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

How did Paul's group prove that all were under sin?

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Satan wants you to justify yourself and for you to tell yourself how good you have been but the law was added to show you that you are under sin that the promise might be given to them that believe.

Galatians 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was given because of transgressions and it shows you that all are under sin.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

There are two ways to get to heaven that don't work for us. One is to keep the whole law and no one can.
The second way is to be sinless and no one is.

In practical terms, our computer at work got a virus. Tech support looked at it and didn't clean it because time is worth money. We threw the computer out. They can't resell it because the motherboard needs to be cleaned, it needs new power supplies, it has a virus and it is two years old. No one wants it. In the real world when something doesn't work, you throw it out and get a new one because it isn't perfect. The computer didn't get a virus on its own. Someone uploaded the virus to it. Why should the computer go to the trash? Because no one wants to get infected by the virus and we have a virus called sin. And God is not going to allow sin in His house.

 

[BreezeWood]

Exactly! Earth is the "testing ground" for our faith. Now is the time to choose wisely our acceptance or rejection of Christ. One can't expect to live a life of sin and debauchery here on earth then be rewarded for it at some later time. If that were the case we could all simply murder, rape, pillage, steal, lie, and cheat and be rewarded for it when we get around to repenting (when we're on fire).

an example of the inequities pervasive in scriptural "Christianity" whereby "while living" they rely on a "Savior" as "we could all simply murder, rape, pillage, steal, lie, and cheat and be rewarded for it" to save themselves - and without retribution even to the victim.

the same as above - "and be rewarded for it when we get around to repenting".

.

Would you rather have an eye for an eye? A world where there is no forgiveness?

What can you give for an eye?

Restitution is still a Biblical concept.

Luke 19:8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."

What system works where a person is trash and can't redeem himself especially in a world that is out of control?

And retribution is a concept because Christ paid for every sin. Ask Him what it costs him for your sins.

nothing -

that might have worked had JC returned within a few days, however the magnitude of sinefullness since year 0 would preclude in practicality anything accomplished at that time - which means the Christian religion's beliefs are inaccurate and the proper interpretation is the Heavens are rightfully waiting for humanity to - Redeem Themselves.

.

 

[thebrucebeat]

an example of the inequities pervasive in scriptural "Christianity" whereby "while living" they rely on a "Savior" as "we could all simply murder, rape, pillage, steal, lie, and cheat and be rewarded for it" to save themselves - and without retribution even to the victim.

the same as above - "and be rewarded for it when we get around to repenting".

.

Would you rather have an eye for an eye? A world where there is no forgiveness?

What can you give for an eye?

Restitution is still a Biblical concept.

Luke 19:8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."

What system works where a person is trash and can't redeem himself especially in a world that is out of control?

And retribution is a concept because Christ paid for every sin. Ask Him what it costs him for your sins.

nothing -

that might have worked had JC returned within a few days, however the magnitude of sinefullness since year 0 would preclude in practicality anything accomplished at that time - which means the Christian religion's beliefs are inaccurate and the proper interpretation is the Heavens are rightfully waiting for humanity to - Redeem Themselves.

.

Twentieth person today to have discovered the "proper interpretation".

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You're talking about "ultimate reconciliation" which, unfortunately, isn't a biblical doctrine. Death and hell are literal consequences for man's sinful nature and actions. God is just. He gave man a choice in the very beginning. He laid out in simple terms what was necessary for eternal life and what would happen if man disobeyed Him. Man chose the latter. So mankind was doomed to certain death until God took mercy upon him and gave him a way out. He took on a flesh body and died in our stead thus paying the penalty for sins.

So the door is open to anyone who desires eternal life in the Kingdom of God. That door is Jesus Christ. Accept Him and claim entrance or deny/reject Him and suffer the consequences. This truly is a life or death decision.

I get that the bible says that God is just over and over, but if that's the case, then what is justice?

Your first premise here is that God gave "man" a choice in the beginning and "man" chose a sinful nature, thus death and hell are the consequences for mankind. What you are stating is that an entire species is being punished up to and including the potential for eternal torture beyond imagining, for the actions of the first man, i.e. actions that nobody else among the species, other than Eve, had any chance of preventing.

The implication you're making here is that justice includes punishing people for the actions of others over which they had -no- influence. Justice includes punishing someone for the actions of someone else, if we are to believe that the biblical God is the template for justice.

So the question must be asked: Is our idea of justice skewed? Is true justice the punishment of everyone for every transgression of anyone?

More to the point of the OP, however, the question of eternal punishment must be considered. The only reasoning you've offered for why eternal punishment is the norm is that God said we either obey him or we pay the consequences. The implication this time is that hell is a just punishment because it was included in God's this-or-that. Essentially, I must assume by your reasoning that if a figure of authority includes a punishment in his ultimatum, then that punishment is automatically a just one.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the guy with the gun is the guy who decides the nature of justice. Shall I assume this to be your view on the concept?

If that's not the case, then why is an eternity of torture a just punishment for not figuring out who the real God is?

I wish to field and answer this question.

Adam was the prototype and since the prototype sinned, all the copies can't do any better than Adam.

Romans 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

How did Paul's group prove that all were under sin?

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Satan wants you to justify yourself and for you to tell yourself how good you have been but the law was added to show you that you are under sin that the promise might be given to them that believe.

Galatians 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was given because of transgressions and it shows you that all are under sin.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

There are two ways to get to heaven that don't work for us. One is to keep the whole law and no one can.
The second way is to be sinless and no one is.

In practical terms, our computer at work got a virus. Tech support looked at it and didn't clean it because time is worth money. We threw the computer out. They can't resell it because the motherboard needs to be cleaned, it needs new power supplies, it has a virus and it is two years old. No one wants it. In the real world when something doesn't work, you throw it out and get a new one because it isn't perfect. The computer didn't get a virus on its own. Someone uploaded the virus to it. Why should the computer go to the trash? Because no one wants to get infected by the virus and we have a virus called sin. And God is not going to allow sin in His house.

You've presented a lot of scripture here, but not a lot of logical answers to what I asked, and you ended with an analogy that is a poor comparison for several glaring reasons.

First point. Adam is the prototype and Adam sinned, plus all of those scriptures, and the explanation that the law being passed down to keep people from doing wrong is proof that we are all sinners. Over and over again you make the assertion that no human can help but be a sinner.

Therefore, we are sinners simply by existing. It is our very nature. Humans are literally incapable of being sinless and are literally incapable of keeping the whole law.

So if we have no power over being sinful, how is it just to punish us for being sinful?

Your prototype argument also implies that responsibility for one's sins is carried specifically by one's predecessors. How do you feel about reparations for slavery here in America? Seems to me that this theory pretty much implies that demanding retribution from the descendants of the slave owners would be the Godly thing to do. Not that it would punish them (vengeance is mine sayeth the lord), but punishment falls on those held responsible. If one can be held responsible at all for the sins of their predecessors, then wouldn't making the victims (identified by the same logic) whole also be delegated thusly?

Last, your analogy. . . .

The glaring set of differences here is that you're not all-powerful, you didn't create the computer, and you are not infallible. The God of the bible is all-powerful, he created man, and he is infallible.

That means that God had the power to make humans incapable of sin, but -chose- not to. It wasn't a mistake: He's infallible.

The closest way to parallel this with your computer analogy would be to say that you built the computer, that you purposely uploaded a virus to it, and then, tho you had the power to remove the virus, you instead threw the computer away. In God's case, however, throwing the computer away also implies subjecting a sentient being to an ETERNITY of horrible agony. In a proper analogy, you would be acting as foolishly as God, but not nearly as psychotically.

Anyway, to more directly relate this to the topic, if you built a computer and then knowingly loaded a virus onto it, how would you justify blaming the computer for its plight? And if you didn't blame the computer, how would you justify throwing the computer away (punishing it) if you were capable of fixing it? How would you define that as justice? How do you reconcile your understanding of love if -this- is the template given us by a God of infinite love? Do love and justice mean that you intentionally imbue a creature with negative attributes and then torture it if it never learns the identity of the guy to whom it owes an apology for said attributes?

I'm going to act just and loving the same way God does from here on out. When I have a kid, I'm going to have the doctor remove one of its eyes. Then I'm going to choose one specific person in the world and decree that it is to them that the child must apologize for his being half-blind. Also, I'm gonna make him guess who it is that he needs to apologize to, and if he guesses wrong and that dude never gets his apology, I'm gonna peel that kid like an onion. Real slow, and cauterize as I go, so I can make it as painful and as drawn out as I possibly can. Cuz I love him. Infinitely. And because I'm just.

 

[Chuckt]

The glaring set of differences here is that you're not all-powerful, you didn't create the computer, and you are not infallible. The God of the bible is all-powerful, he created man, and he is infallible.

That means that God had the power to make humans incapable of sin, but -chose- not to. It wasn't a mistake: He's infallible.

That is the point. God came down as a man. Jesus was the second Adam and Jesus kept the whole law as the perfect law keeper so God is not fallible. The first Adam had only one commandment and that was to not eat of the one tree. Adam only had to keep one law.

All sin is willful. You don't have to sin but you do because you choose to.
You have the law. You don't have to sin. You have the information right there but you and many other people will sin because it is a choice you do.

 

[Chuckt]

Anyway, to more directly relate this to the topic, if you built a computer and then knowingly loaded a virus onto it, how would you justify blaming the computer for its plight? And if you didn't blame the computer, how would you justify throwing the computer away (punishing it) if you were capable of fixing it? How would you define that as justice? How do you reconcile your understanding of love if -this- is the template given us by a God of infinite love? Do love and justice mean that you intentionally imbue a creature with negative attributes and then torture it if it never learns the identity of the guy to whom it owes an apology for said attributes?

I'm going to act just and loving the same way God does from here on out. When I have a kid, I'm going to have the doctor remove one of its eyes. Then I'm going to choose one specific person in the world and decree that it is to them that the child must apologize for his being half-blind. Also, I'm gonna make him guess who it is that he needs to apologize to, and if he guesses wrong and that dude never gets his apology, I'm gonna peel that kid like an onion. Real slow, and cauterize as I go, so I can make it as painful and as drawn out as I possibly can. Cuz I love him. Infinitely. And because I'm just.

A computer doesn't have a choice. The computer runs the program it is given.

I have a choice. I have a different program to run and it is called listening to God and I have a backup program called the Bible.

I choose. I choose redemption. You can choose whatever identity you want. You can keep the old life but I choose to exchange the slop in this life for good stuff.

I choose heaven. I hope you choose heaven too.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Anyway, to more directly relate this to the topic, if you built a computer and then knowingly loaded a virus onto it, how would you justify blaming the computer for its plight? And if you didn't blame the computer, how would you justify throwing the computer away (punishing it) if you were capable of fixing it? How would you define that as justice? How do you reconcile your understanding of love if -this- is the template given us by a God of infinite love? Do love and justice mean that you intentionally imbue a creature with negative attributes and then torture it if it never learns the identity of the guy to whom it owes an apology for said attributes?

I'm going to act just and loving the same way God does from here on out. When I have a kid, I'm going to have the doctor remove one of its eyes. Then I'm going to choose one specific person in the world and decree that it is to them that the child must apologize for his being half-blind. Also, I'm gonna make him guess who it is that he needs to apologize to, and if he guesses wrong and that dude never gets his apology, I'm gonna peel that kid like an onion. Real slow, and cauterize as I go, so I can make it as painful and as drawn out as I possibly can. Cuz I love him. Infinitely. And because I'm just.

A computer doesn't have a choice. The computer runs the program it is given.

I have a choice. I have a different program to run and it is called listening to God and I have a backup program called the Bible.

I choose. I choose redemption. You can choose whatever identity you want. You can keep the old life but I choose to exchange the slop in this life for good stuff.

I choose heaven. I hope you choose heaven too.

None of this addresses any point I made in what you quoted. Free will has nothing to do with it.

The point is, if you built a flaw into something intentionally, how do you blame that something for having that flaw? How is that justice?

 

[thebrucebeat]

The glaring set of differences here is that you're not all-powerful, you didn't create the computer, and you are not infallible. The God of the bible is all-powerful, he created man, and he is infallible.

That means that God had the power to make humans incapable of sin, but -chose- not to. It wasn't a mistake: He's infallible.

That is the point. God came down as a man. Jesus was the second Adam and Jesus kept the whole law as the perfect law keeper so God is not fallible. The first Adam had only one commandment and that was to not eat of the one tree. Adam only had to keep one law.

All sin is willful. You don't have to sin but you do because you choose to.
You have the law. You don't have to sin. You have the information right there but you and many other people will sin because it is a choice you do.

Oh.
OTHER people do that.
Got it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The glaring set of differences here is that you're not all-powerful, you didn't create the computer, and you are not infallible. The God of the bible is all-powerful, he created man, and he is infallible.

That means that God had the power to make humans incapable of sin, but -chose- not to. It wasn't a mistake: He's infallible.

That is the point. God came down as a man. Jesus was the second Adam and Jesus kept the whole law as the perfect law keeper so God is not fallible. The first Adam had only one commandment and that was to not eat of the one tree. Adam only had to keep one law.

All sin is willful. You don't have to sin but you do because you choose to.
You have the law. You don't have to sin. You have the information right there but you and many other people will sin because it is a choice you do.

Okay, this almost defeats part of my point. You still have to acknowledge, though, that if God is infallible, then it is not by accident that no human can go through life sinless. It is guaranteed, and by His own intentional design. An all-knowing, all-powerful God would, in fact, even have to have seen Adam's betrayal coming before it happened. Indeed, the infallible and all-powerful God would have to have -planned- it that way (if it were a mistake, he would be fallible).

How is it just to intentionally design a creature for failure and then punish it and all of its offspring for that failure? How is that love?

 

[Chuckt]

The glaring set of differences here is that you're not all-powerful, you didn't create the computer, and you are not infallible. The God of the bible is all-powerful, he created man, and he is infallible.

That means that God had the power to make humans incapable of sin, but -chose- not to. It wasn't a mistake: He's infallible.

That is the point. God came down as a man. Jesus was the second Adam and Jesus kept the whole law as the perfect law keeper so God is not fallible. The first Adam had only one commandment and that was to not eat of the one tree. Adam only had to keep one law.

All sin is willful. You don't have to sin but you do because you choose to.
You have the law. You don't have to sin. You have the information right there but you and many other people will sin because it is a choice you do.

Okay, this almost defeats part of my point. You still have to acknowledge, though, that if God is infallible, then it is not by accident that no human can go through life sinless. It is guaranteed, and by His own intentional design. An all-knowing, all-powerful God would, in fact, even have to have seen Adam's betrayal coming before it happened. Indeed, the infallible and all-powerful God would have to have -planned- it that way (if it were a mistake, he would be fallible).

How is it just to intentionally design a creature for failure and then punish it and all of its offspring for that failure? How is that love?

He didn't design everything for failure. He said everything He created was good.

 

[Newby]

The God of Christianity is regarded as all-merciful and is touted as being slow to anger but fast to forgive. Why then is the punishment for eighty years of misdeeds an eternity in eternal suffering? Even the US government would not be so harsh- protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Why then is God? It should stand to reason that Hell would be some kind of final redeemer, where the amount of time spent there is equivalent to the amount of time it takes one to repent truly, ie, the ultimate tool for redemption. People face unimaginable pain and torture until they realize their sins. And once they realize their wrongs, would a true God of compassion who cares for all of his creation leave them to continue to suffer?

It is not that kind of equation.

You are basically getting what you want. You don't want God here, you don't get God there.

Now that would be fair.
Why isn't that the deal being discussed here.
Instead you don't get god AND you get unmercifully tortured for eternity.
Different proposition.
Let's agree on your reading.

In your supposed years at seminary and as an acting pastor, you never understood the concept that the definition of 'unmercifully tortured' is an eternal existence without God? It's not an 'and' proposition, it is causal. You get unmercifully tortured for eternity because you are without God. Your lie shows with every post you make.

 

[Newby]

Now that would be fair.
Why isn't that the deal being discussed here.
Instead you don't get god AND you get unmercifully tortured for eternity.
Different proposition.
Let's agree on your reading.

What? Speak English.

Is it a second language for you?
No worries.
You said if we reject god while here on earth then we don't get him in the afterlife. Did I read that correctly?
If that was the end of the story, that would seem fair.
But the story continues.
Not only do we not get god in the afterlife, we get brutally tortured forever.I like your version better.
Was this clearer?
It seems identical to me.

You're very blatantly displaying your lack of understanding of Christian doctrine, pastor.