I knew you were being sarcastic, caposkia--I just didn't find it funny. Did you know I was being completely serious and sincere when I said "because God created a stupid system which He refuses to change"?

Honestly? Other than mocking me, I didn't realize your statement HAD a point. So...sorry about that... Will you please explain to me exactly what your point was? I'd really appreciate it.

What really bothers me about you, caposkia, is the you seem to seriously think people deserve to suffer for eternity with no chance of escape. Do you understand just how mind-blowingly f*cked up and evil that is?

Oh, no, I don't mind at all. In fact, I very much appreciate it. Thank you! 

Being outside an authority is one thing, but our problem is we are a creation of the authority in question who lives and utilizes everything it created.  In other words, what you'd be asking to do is rebel against the very entity not only that created you, but that made everything you know to be real.  So rebel, but he still has to allow you to use his stuff??? That doesn't seem right.  

Basically it seems you're suggesting that For Christians to believe as they do and to justify God's actions, it is devaluing human life for those who've done wrong to face judgement

To be judged for what you've done in life, it seems you're saying that's blaming the victim.  

Considering killing people, What does God killing people really mean if there is eternal life?  

Actually, you're twisting words around.  Let's look at it this way.  Though parents have to have sex and carry a child to birth, they did not create the child, God did.   Or for those non-believers out there, cell division created the child by the means of DNA information... either way, the parents didn't "create" the child, so they in turn have no right to destroy it.  God on the other hand created all of it... beyond that, God also knows more than His creation will ever know... including why things are the way they are.  Some believe certain children are never born or never make it past infancy because that was their purpose.  Despite the fact that they haven't been able to make intentional influences on the world, they still have made changes in those around them.  Those changes might be necessary for whatever is supposed to happen... we don't know and won't until the end.  

We as Christians generally understand that we're put on this Earth for a purpose... or maybe many purposes... and when we have completed whatever it is we needed to do on Earth, we die.  So you say, Gods goal for some people is to make them hurt by pretending to give them a child then take it away?  I can see why someone would look at it that way, but what else could have happened because of such traumatic events?  It's hard to see the good in such things, but just look at inspirational stories from people who have gone through it.  Most of them talk about strength and inspiration from even the unborn child that never made it to life.  What does that strength and inspiration mean for their future?  how has it changed them?  We can only speculate.  

I don't have much detail.  I wasn't there.  as far as life on Earth was concerned, how many miles would you say the Bible writer or any observer at the time would be aware of when referencing to "the whole Earth"  Let's be logical here.

When reading the Bible, we need to take into consideration the author, time period, the audience and the perspective...  When God speaks of everything on Earth perishing... it very well could have been everything.  Or it could be everything any human knew to exist... which would then localize it to human settlements.  Both can be correct perspectives when looking at this text.  If the text was written for people today, our perspective of the world is pretty literal, so I would assume that it means the whole world and that God found a way to bridge the gap with continents... either that or he somehow allowed all zoo animals across one continent to escape and migrate to the ship... that would be logical in today's standards... however, this was not written for people today, it was written for people thousands of years ago... where the world literally consisted of the kingdoms that ruled them.  Anything outside of that was perceived as space.  If you look at an artists rendition of Earth from that time era, you would not see a round Earth... You would see a flat Earth held up by pillars:  http://witwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hebrew-bible-flat-earth.jpg  that picture I even think gives them too much credit be it that it has a map of Africa and their territories very clearly... which I doubt were as clearly understood at the time, let alone the shape of the continent or its expanse.  

Point and case, an Earth like that would not only be easy to flood, but also wouldn't make it difficult for animals to migrate to a ship.  

Naturally speaking, if the flood actually happened, all land animals would migrate to higher ground.  IF Noah happen to build his ship on a high point, it is logical that animals would eventually find their way to it.  The Bible however doesn't get into that much detail.  I do believe however that God uses the creation standards within which he created to make things happen rather than breaking the laws... it's just easier that way.  

Basically, if we're going to tear apart scripture as in depth as we seem to be getting, we need to take into consideration all aspects of the writing including why it was written the way it was, who wrote it, the time it was written, the audience and what they'd be getting out of it and what it would mean to them and perspectives of all involved.  We also have to look at translational issues and whether what we're reading in English is really what was written or if it had to be paraphrased or selected among many possible translations. This happens in Hebrew and Greek.   Reading scripture today takes a lot more education than it did then becasue today we look at the words completely different than the people intended to read it so long ago.  

You knew I was being completely serious and sincere and still responded with sarcasm?! You really are an ass...

It's infinitely better. As you already mentioned, prison terms are finite. People in prison are also not completely separated from all that is good.

Who would want to be with a being that allowed eternal suffering?!

It was to make an obvious point more obvious.  I've apologized.  I won't do it again.  If you're stuck on it still, I guess we're done talking.  

In the end, I really don't care what you think of me.  What I do care about is what you think of God.  If you think I'm an ass, then I'll stop talking to you.  I hope that you take it upon yourself to further study the scriptures.  They will have all the answers.  Granted they can be misunderstood at times, it is important to get an experts understanding of what you might have issues with.  I hope you find that someone who you feel is not an ass

That's just it though, they still have access to God.  If God is all that is good as defined by scripture, all they're doing is being separated from God... which in turn is being separated from all that is good.  

A life sentence without parol is not finite to someone who dies without an afterlife.  To them that is eternity because all they will know till the end of their existence is jail.  If God is real and there is an afterlife, then you are right to say that prison is finite.  

You're stuck on eternal suffering.  God only allows people to choose to be with Him.  If you choose not to, you choose to be separated from Him... that's it.  It is understood that the separation is a terrible thing.    Again, people make that choice for themselves.  God allows it because He chooses not to dictate to you the choices you have to make.  

Well, it completely failed. But...I do appreciate the apology, and I'll move on now, sorry

Provided your God is the way you describe Him, I think He is the most evil being in existence. I think He is a sadistic, genocidal tyrant, and that worshiping Him is one of the most repulsive things imaginable.

Since their existence is finite, their jail time must be finite as well.

And, as I think I've stated before, God SHOULD dictate the choices people make if it's the only way to ensure no one goes to Hell.

I thought we were talking about Exodus and Noah.. Infant was not used there.  Either way, my point that God claims they're his and when they die they are brought to His care still stands.  

Parents are responsible for their children.. Despite popular belief, your actions affect your children.  

Beyond that, I don't know exactly what God's intention was when allowing that... mainly because I"m not omnipotent or omniscient.   Considering what He's promised and proved, I don't doubt that His reasoning was sound.  For all we know, all those children could have been worse then their parents when they grew up.  You could argue against that, but in the end, all we can do is guess.  

I do believe however in the 2nd resurrection in the end, when all are risen to a life of judgement, those children will be safe.  

Which is why I responded with; "it seems you're saying... It seems you're suggesting" which would imply I'm offering you an opportunity to clarify rather than pulling what you write out of context as you're suggesting.  

No, Parents bring the problems to their children, that is seen throughout history.  All we know is children are taken away along with their parents.  You're only assuming they're destroyed.  Killed is not destroyed.  That is a non-believer understanding.  If God is real, you also understand that an afterlife must be as well.  

Right, I did

The Wailing and gnashing of teeth is referring to the people that are there doing it... Considering the unquenchable fires.  What are those fires exactly?  Are they literal?  If so, what is fueling them?  

I kept it so we can all reflect on your goal post claim.  You also responded by saying that if we took into consideration all the weight you lifted in your lifetime, you'd be seen as the strongest person alive.. There the comparison to other people came in by me saying that everyone is going to be judged like that.  You would not be considered the strongest because others will be judged likewise.  What i originally said and said after does not contradict or change any goal posts.

No one can be "accidentally pregnant".. They still made a choice that involved the possibility... everyone doing that should be aware that each time has that possibility no matter what precautions you take.... beyond that, a rape victim  had no choice, but the other person made the choice for them.  Unfortunately, Our laws don't make them responsible completely, only financially.  I don't mean by raising the child either.  If the person got pregnant, there is a plan, but no one understands it until you allow that child to come to be. 

Sure, but you posit that God is an intelligent entity and not an unintelligent actor. If a parent leads their kid into a fire and the fire kills them, it's the parent's fault. If they toss them off the boat into water and they drown, it's the parent's fault. If they sin in front of their kids and Almighty God figures the kids will turn out bad as well and kills all of them, it's God's fault. The idea that this is the parent's fault is a horrible false equivalence.

And yes, killed does not mean destroyed, but that's a whole other bag of worms. Also, they died by asphyxiation, which is one of the worst ways to die. So, good afterlife or not, God has a weird (creepy) way of showing mercy to children.

or is it that evil is generally misunderstood.  We can't define evil by saying it's anything we don't like.

You are right to say you are not Gods unless you allow him too... this is where the choice comes in.   for you to say that you won't be going to Gods presence when you die shows that you are aware of the choice. (I know, according to most Christians, not you)  At this point, if that is true, you will choose that fate... You still have a chance for that not to happen.  I don't care what you've done in life up until now.  

Also, consider if we're wrong, you lose nothing, if you're wrong you lose everything.  

Obviously you need to make peace with God first.  i can see that.

if there's no life after death, we might see it as finite because we will survive beyond that point to observe its end, however if you're the one dying there, how is it finite to you if you have no existence after death?  To cease to exist makes this life eternal only because you are aware of nothing after including anything in this life ending for you... the end won't be the end, rather it's just nothing.  

How do you suggest that eternal suffering is Gods way to genuine relationships?  I think I missed that part in the Bible.  

Again, he allows people to make a choice.. as far as what this eternal suffering is, we can only guess.  It's just the absense of God from what I understand.  The suffering comes from that separation, not from any intentional torture from what I can tell unless you can show me how it's intentional.  

considering your opinion of God, I'm surprised that you want Him to force you to be with Him.  Wouldn't that be suffering for you?

sure, weird too yes, but here's the thing.  This rapist is also going to be held accountable for every choice they make with and for that child.  The bible makes severe warnings about leading children astray.  

Point and case, the rapist isn't just going to get back door service in jail...   consider that compilation of all actions in life discussion we had that seem to go to left field.

why, because he made a point that we feel we have no power over?  

other than finances and jail time, consider what responsibility someone like that really has for their actions... virtually none.  Explain how I'm wrong in stating that.  I honestly dont' understand.

I am by definition an agnostic atheist, because I don't claim to know that no god exists. However, when it comes to the Christian god specifically, I am a gnostic aYahwehist/aChristist (for lack of a real word). I simply can't think of any conceivable way that Christianity can be true, so this doesn't worry me whatsoever. 

If it comes to other gods, the Christians are screwed anyway and perhaps more-so than me. Worshipping false gods is seen as worse than worshipping no gods in most scriptures.

A question about hell for the Christians: Can hell exist without god's permission? If you say yes, then you are saying that god is not omnipotent. If you say no, then you're saying that it is with god's blessing that a place of ETERNAL TORTURE exists. While typing this I thought maybe the word blessing is a little too far, but after reading it again I've decided it's actually perfect. Certainly an omnipotent being wouldn't be indecisive. I could not see that being go "ehh...uhhh...wellllllluhhhhhhhh yeah. Sure! Let's do the eternal torture thing. I wasn't sure, but yeah. Gabriel! Could you deliver the title deed to Lucifer?" "I'm busy writing my book; The Qu'ran! Can you get Raphael to do it?" "*sigh* Ok fine!" I'm just poking fun now, but it's to illustrate the point that for hell to exist, god has to WANT it to exist. 

Consider the outcomes.  How does this suggest I'm not open to sound argument or evidence?  Have I shown that i'm not open to that?   Pascal's Wager aside, how is my statement not true in this light?

but to break a promise would be to become a liar.  Point and case... We can imply by context in the story that God had been in contact with those people and had not been getting anywhere for a while.  He pretty much gave up trying and said. Ok, here's what i'm going to do.  Again, regardless... God wanted to start fresh.  I see your parallel, but God didn't get what he wanted... which was for everyone to repent and turn to Him for guidance in doing so.  In other words, he never got the money.  

That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.  

This statement assumes its first premise. What is a god? How does it interact with the material world to create life? How can you know how much 'god' knows about his 'creation'? If you have no objective proofs of these truth statements then they are hypotheses with no data. You say "God did it". Show us that this is true using a proof that does not involve only a convolution of language. 

What we can say in the case of humans is that sperm and egg contribute half the DNA to a germ cell and from that single cell a human grows. Life makes itself. No, I don't understand how at the genetic level, but that's how it seems to be. We can say that life creates ecosystems. We can even say that human bodies are symbiotic ecosystems and we might argue that genomes too, are symbiotic ecosystems. 

We can't say certainly what life is, but what we can say is that a mother grows her baby with chocolate, oatmeal and fruit salad. A child is made of the stuff of our planet. There's nothing supernatural in the recipe of life. 

I've lost 3 children in utero and that experience argues the universe does not care - not in the way we want it to. It has no agency, no plan, no intent. Older women and men accrue genetic mutations and we lose our babies because their broken genomes are not viable in an environment that's fiercely competitive from the instant of conception. The idea young women keep their babies and older ones lose their's as the result of god's plan has no basis in the data. 

All life seems to be part of an entropic system powered by a solar host. This does not mean that in the absence of eager acceptance of supernatural assertion, losing children has no meaning for non-believing humans. Like everything else, loss of little ones has what meaning we give it. It is the shape of the pain I give it.  

The New Testament.

I think a furnace of fire is a "place" by definition. (Matthew 13:41-42).

Everlasting fire is not a place per se, rather it's a condition of a place, but it nonetheless also has to occur in...you guessed it, a place! (Matthew 18:8-9).

Outer darkness, as described in Matthew 22:13, would also most likely be a place. If not, it would fall into the same category as above; a condition of a place. 

Luke 16:22-24 definitely describes a place where "the rich man" went. 

So unless you are a Christian who does not believe what the bible says (which would be quite contradictory, as the Christian claim IS the bible), then it's your own book which says that hell is a place. I think you were just trying to dodge the question by redefining things, or putting them into the realm of the unknown, or abstract. Common apologist tactic in order to deflect attention away from problems. 

Yes let's. Otherwise this conversation would be quite pointless.

No, it's nothing like that at all. Hell is a place of permanent torture. If there is an eternal afterlife (or an infinite number of finite lives), then that means infinite crimes do not exist. Someone who is murdered will go on to the next life, whatever it may be. However, the Christian hell is typically seen as being eternal. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is a hideous proposition, no matter which way you look at it. It's especially sinister if infinite punishment is administered to those whose only sin was non-belief. In North Korea, you can be jailed for speaking out against Kim Jong Un. In North America, we find that concept abhorrent. Do you agree? If so, why is it not abhorrent for god to do the same?

Yes, that's what the word means. If you meant to say "is hell really forever"? Then ok, a simple mistake. If that's actually what you meant to type, then you are either attempting to deliberately obfuscate, or your theology is so irreconcilable, that you must try to explain that two words that mean the same thing, actually don't. 

The bible is incoherent. That is not my problem. It's yours. Your problem, as well, is that you did not answer my question. Is it possible for hell to exist without god's permission? 

And a bonus:

Read what you wrote here. Keep reading it. Keep on reading this until you are utterly disgusted by what you've typed here, and apologize for it. Because feeling anything milder than complete disgust while reading that, means that you have a lot of work to do before you can start to speak about morality.

"From what we understand"? Is it possible that you're wrong within the confines of Christianity? Maybe god DID plan the assault. What, does he sit there and go "hmm....this rapist's sperm would do well mixed in here...yeah, you know what? Let's put this through!". I sincerely hope not!

The most disgusting part of this paragraph is that you refuse to talk about the victim. It's more important to you for this woman to give birth, than to heal from one of the most horrific things that can happen to a person.

We tend to be unable to shake certain connections as humans. One example would be the swastika. It is a symbol far older than Hitler's reign and the Nazi party. However, whenever we see one, even if in a peaceful context (it is still used by many eastern religions as a symbol of auspiciousness) our minds immediately go to the Nazis, and world war two. Imagine how intense that is for someone who was there during that war. 

The reason I say that is, no matter what happens in the life of a rape victim who had a child from the crime, the child WILL be a constant reminder of the most horrific time of the woman's life, no matter what else happens. Do you honestly think that it's OK for this woman to go through ALL this, for god's (perhaps minor) plan for a child? The Christian right's inability to empathize whatsoever with a woman who has gone through this frightens me. The only time they ever mention it IS when someone calls them on it. 

doing a whole lot better there than you think you are, blacklight.  

Aww, thanks.   I probably should have just said "what courage I do possess", leaving out "little". Honestly, though, I really don't know what amount of courage I possess.