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?
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.
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.