First, the most well respected theology experts have quite a while ago recognized that most of the bible stories, both old and new testament, are midrash authored by the rabbis of the time, that is, morality tales made up to convey an idea to their people.  Only the uneducated ministers preaching to uneducated people still try to take the bible literally. 

Second, if one wants to accept the truth of documents written 2,000 years ago and endlessly revised and changed, then one may just as well accept the Greek and Roman stories about their gods and heros as truth.

Third, Parture, you cannot even begin to claim you have read any authoritative account in the old or new testament unless you have taken the time to learn the original languages (understanding the idioms of the time) they were written in then going back and studying the original documents (or photocopies of them).  Next you would have to examine the stories of adjacent cultures and religions of the time and earlier to identify all the tales that were lifted from them and inserted with small modifications into the bible stories.

Occam

Why does Hell exist? Because you won’t cease to exist and it would be unloving of God to allow the unsaved anywhere near the saved. Obviously the unsaved have to go somewhere. That place is called Hell. Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone in the Bible. The atheist wants to be eternally separated from God so that is what Hell is, an eternal separation from God. Atheists send themselves to Hell as they wish.

God provides common grace to all and special grace through the gospel. If someone who never heard of Jesus believed in the God of the mountains and the stars if he were presented the Scriptures he surely would have accepted Jesus.

My religion speaks of a perfect little teapot, cream in color, with 13 peonies scattered on its surface to represent the perfect truths that will be revealed to me when I die, although some believers are convinced there are 12 peonies, I know this to be wrong. The teapot orbits Mars in the heavens placed by the goddess Venus. When I die I will have her truths revealed to me when I die and drink honey mead from the holy teapot while floating in the heavens with Venus. I have a telescope trained on Mars because everyone in MY religion’s greatest goal is to spot the the teapot before they die. I have spoken to people who have actually seen the holy teapot and they say it has changed their life!

Parture, you completely fail to address the two essential moral problems with the idea of hell. I wouldn’t allow hell to exist for my children if I had the power to prevent it. Would you allow it to exist for yours?

Parture - 19 October 2009 11:58 AM

Why does Hell exist? Because you won’t cease to exist and it would be unloving of God to allow the unsaved anywhere near the saved. Obviously the unsaved have to go somewhere. That place is called Hell. Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone in the Bible. The atheist wants to be eternally separated from God so that is what Hell is, an eternal separation from God. Atheists send themselves to Hell as they wish.

Why would it be unloving to allow the unsaved near the saved? They were near each other in life. Your claim makes no sense. I would want to see the people I cared about, and if God wants to save them, he can save them. Then they’ll be saved by God’s grace and there won’t be a problem. Wouldn’t God have the power to allow the later-saved to co-exist without any danger to the earlier-saved? If not, why would God’s power be limited? Your argument is a set of conclusions looking for an excuse.

Furthermore, why would hell be eternal? I know what it is to Love a child, as I have two of my own; and I say shame on you for making that argument. If it was my children, I would never give up on them. There would be no such thing as eternal punishment or eternal separation or whatever your version of hell is. You theists can’t even get your story straight. So why should we believe you?

In fact, you can’t even get your internal story straight. You’re telling a part of one story and a part of the other, and they don’t fit together. On the one hand, you warn us about an eternity in hell if we do not “accept Christ”; on the other hand, you say that people choose hell. But if people choose hell, then it must be preferable to the alternative. So tell us, what is hell like? Is it the exquisite and unremitting torture usually associated with the idea, or is it actually quite pleasant? If it is unremitting agony, then no one would choose it. You can’t have it both ways. Again, you’re making a ridiculous claim as an excuse for a conclusion you wish to believe. And then you have the audacity to tell us that we’re being selfish, when in fact you are the one trying to build reality around your desires.

No atheist that I know wants to be eternally separated from God. Here, too, your argument is a conclusion desperately seeking an excuse. In addition, the argument contains an obvious contradiction: the atheist cannot wish to be separated from what he does not know to exist. Further, declaring other people’s motives reflects a lack of charity, and beyond that, you do not speak for us.

Parture - 19 October 2009 11:58 AM

God provides common grace to all and special grace through the gospel. If someone who never heard of Jesus believed in the God of the mountains and the stars if he were presented the Scriptures he surely would have accepted Jesus.

Then it isn’t necessary to believe in Jesus. So why are you proselytizing us?

Besides, people grow and change. How can you justify hell being eternal? Why can’t people “accept Jesus” after spending a little time in hell?

People sincerely do not believe in Jesus. That doesn’t make them bad people. Shame on you for suggesting that it does; or are you saying that God punishes good people? Take your pick. Either way, your theology is full of absurdities.

I’m t’ru wit’ dis one.

Parture - 19 October 2009 11:58 AM

If someone who never heard of Jesus believed in the God of the mountains and the stars if he were presented the Scriptures he surely would have accepted Jesus.

Indeed, history is full examples of how eagerly the Indians of the Americas converted to Christianity. Really really charming stories.

I just love how a person can live their lives committing no end of heinous crimes against people; mass murders, armed robbery and rape of babies, yet, if on your deathbed, you asked for forgiveness, you are given an immediate pass to ‘heaven’ without being called to task for you past behaviors. BUT if you live your life as a good person, making the world a better place through your works, but do not believe or ‘know’ ‘god’ you are condemned to eternal ‘hell’.

What an insecure and egotistical deity you have, to insist that the constant grovelling at its feet, or grovelling at the correct time is more important than anything else you do with your life.

PLaClair - 19 October 2009 12:26 PM

Furthermore, why would hell be eternal?

God is just giving you what you want. You want to be eteranlly separated from God.

Parture - 19 October 2009 12:57 PM

PLaClair - 19 October 2009 12:26 PM

Furthermore, why would hell be eternal?

God is just giving you what you want. You want to be eteranlly separated from God.

No I don’t. That is an arrogant remark. Please explain on what basis you justify presuming to speak for me.

The thought process is so incredibly backwards here that I’m not quite sure why I’m bothering to respond to the OP.

Parture,

Please answer this for me: Do you have a choice to sincerely believe that you’re not reading this question?

You mentioned that people “don’t die for lies” and yet you assert that we (atheists) are willingly accepting a lie (Jesus not being god or the path to god). If you can understand this, I’ll know that you at least are willing to actually understand our positions- The reason I don’t “give my life to” Jesus is I honestly don’t believe that the stories are true. If you think that we honestly believe that god, hell and jesus are real and all the stuff is true and yet we still “choose” to not believe, you’re completely failing to understand the positions of who you are talking to. If we sincerely believed in all the stuff, you’d be speaking to Christians. So please answer the question above.

PLaClair - 19 October 2009 12:59 PM

Please explain on what basis you justify presuming to speak for me.

I don’t think I am speaking for you but observing by you denying God’s existence when He exists (and proven to us all) that is your desire to be eternally separated from Him.

Parture - 19 October 2009 02:05 PM

PLaClair - 19 October 2009 12:59 PM

Please explain on what basis you justify presuming to speak for me.

I don’t think I am speaking for you but observing by you denying God’s existence when He exists (and proven to us all) that is your desire to be eternally separated from Him.

Well then you have failed to consider why a person might sincerely not believe in the existence of what you call God. And since I’m the one who desires you are commenting on, I am the one who knows.

Are you prepared to admit that you could be wrong?

Parture - 19 October 2009 02:05 PM

He exists (and proven to us all) that is your desire to be eternally separated from Him.

I disagree, he has obviously not proven his existence to us. And what about all of the other multitude of beliefs? Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, various Native American religions, who are just as adamant about the existence of their particular deity?

PLaClair - 19 October 2009 02:21 PM

Are you prepared to admit that you could be wrong?

I’ll admit I am wrong when you can:

1) Find a naturalistic explanation that fits the data for the resurrection of Jesus (nobody has been able to yet in two millennia);

2) When you can reproduce conditions to bring a non-conscious universe to produce conscious life to say “I think, therefore I am, and testify to the existence of God”;

3) If you could fulfill (2) you would have to still show it didn’t require man’s intelligence but could happen naturally;

AND

4) Prove the universe could happen by itself from nothing, OR

5) show how the universe could always have been existing when due to the exponential progression of conscience mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does since it would have approximated into an eternity of an infinite regress.

If you can do all 5 I will become an atheist even though the Biblet teaches those who are truly born “they shall never perish” (John 10.28). This is my evidence and why I believe you want to be eternally separated from God because willingly shut your mind down to the evidence to reject God.

Christianity can be proven wrong if you can do these things. But in the minds of atheists, I don’t think they can be proven wrong. So the way the atheist comes across is they provide no opportunity for proof within realistic and moral methods.

Parture - 19 October 2009 02:27 PM

1) Find a naturalistic explanation that fits the data for the resurrection of Jesus (nobody has been able to yet in two millennia);

The resurrection of Jesus is about as likely as Mohammed ascending to the sky on a white horse, or Thor being responsible for bringing the rain. Do you have any evidence (apart from tall tales in old books of myth) that it actually happened?

Parture - 19 October 2009 02:27 PM

PLaClair - 19 October 2009 02:21 PM

Are you prepared to admit that you could be wrong?

I’ll admit I am wrong when you can:

1) Find a naturalistic explanation that fits the data for the resurrection of Jesus (nobody has been able to yet in two millennia);

2) When you can reproduce conditions to bring a non-conscious universe to produce conscious life to say “I think, therefore I am, and testify to the existence of God”;

3) If you could fulfill (2) you would have to still show it didn’t require man’s intelligence but could happen naturally;

AND

4) Prove the universe could happen by itself from nothing, OR

5) show how the universe could always have been existing when due to the exponential progression of conscience mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does since it would have approximated into an eternity of an infinite regress.

If you can do all 5 I will become an atheist even though the Biblet teaches those who are truly born “they shall never perish” (John 10.28). This is my evidence and why I believe you want to be eternally separated from God because willingly shut your mind down to the evidence to reject God.

Christianity can be proven wrong if you can do these things. But in the minds of atheists, I don’t think they can be proven wrong. So the way the atheist comes across is they provide no opportunity for proof within realistic and moral methods.

I’m not wrong. You are. Your admission should not be contingent on something that has nothing to do with it.

But since you asked:

1. There was no resurrection. This was explained to you.

2. When you can reproduce the conditions that give rise to God in the first place, then you will both have proved and disproved your argument. The point is, you can’t explain God any more than I can ultimately explain the universe. In other words, this is one of the many things we don’t know. That supports my argument, not yours.

3. In order to take a first step toward showing that “God” is even possible, you would have to show that consciousness can predate matter. There is no evidence of that. Every conscious entity we know of has a material brain. So all the evidence tends to disprove your argument.

4. Whence God? You have the same lack of an ultiimate explanation. You make one exception for what you wish to believe. That has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with what you desire. The way you have constructed it, what you worship is your own opinion.

5. That’s gobbledygook. It has no basis in reality.

You still ignore the primary moral inadequacies of your theology. Would you allow your children to suffer in hell? If you would, then you are a monster. If you would not, then how can you imagine that God would? You will never answer that question. You can’t. Your theology is wrong and if you are truly an objective, moral and ethical person, you will admit it.