• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Does Hell Exist?

hell (1).jpg

A Response to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) - Does Hell Exist?

The answer to the question is no. Hell as most people know it is a Christian adoption of pagan mythology, and isn't a Biblical teaching. The skeptic points out three possible interpretations. Those that don't go to heaven are tormented forever in hell; Those that don't go to heaven, just die; and Everyone goes to heaven after they die. None of these are correct Biblical teachings. The Bible teaches that a few people go to heaven to judge and rule with Christ Jesus, the rest of the people who have ever (or will ever have) lived will either live forever in paradise Earth or suffer everlasting destruction. Not a literal torment, as in hell, but a simple death.​

SAB: Yes, God tortures some people forever after they die.

No. Not literally. The Greek basanizo or related terms, can mean being restrained, as in Matthew 18:34 where the tormentors are jailers. (See Revelation reference below in this section #2) In modern colloquialism it is similar to telling someone if they jump off a cliff, they'll be sorry, not meaning sorry in a literal sense because they'll be dead. Romans 6:7. (Compare Translations) The wages of sin are death.

Daniel 12:2 doesn't convey the idea of hell. The meek shall inherit the earth and the disobedient will be destroyed.

Matthew 13:41-42 is a parable about the harvesting of crops after the weeds have been burned, beginning in verse 39. Jesus compares the disobedient to the weeds that would have been thrown into the fire and burned so that the crop may live. Fire was, in Bible times, the most thorough means of destruction.

Matthew 18:8-9 is a reference to Gehenna. Gehenna was a literal place which came to represent spiritual destruction. A figurative everlasting fire.

Matthew 22:1-14, the illustration of the marriage feast, is actually a pretty good account of Christianity. The King (God) invites his subjects (Jews) to the marriage feast of his son (Christ) and bride to be (anointed 144, 000) but they refuse. The first call went out from 29 - 33 CE during missionary work of Jesus' disciples (the King's slaves). The second call began at the wedding dinner (Pentecost 33 CE) and continued to 36 CE but still the subjects refused and even began to kill the slaves of the King. He became enraged and his armies destroyed them (70 CE). Since the subjects of the King had refused, he sent his slaves outside of the city (Jerusalem) to gather any who would attend (Gentiles) beginning in 36 CE. First the Roman army officer Cornelius and his family and continuing to this day. The man without the wedding garment is the apostate, who will be removed and thrown into the darkness. Which brings us to the next verse given by the skeptic:

Matthew 25:41, 46 - Verse 41 is a reference to the lake of fire which is symbolic of everlasting destruction and verse 46 is interesting in that the KJV uses the term everlasting punishment, or in other translations, cutting off. From the Greek kolasin, which literally means "lopping off or pruning."

Mark 9:43-48 is a reference to Gehenna, mentioned above. Gehenna was a literal place which came to represent spiritual destruction. A figurative everlasting fire.

Luke 16:22-24 is the illustration of Lazarus and the rich man. It isn't a literal/historical account. Jesus would later say that no man had ascended to heaven. (John 3:13)

John 5:28-29 in the KJV is a pretty poor translation. Compare John 5:29. Damnation comes from the Greek anastasin kriseos and the Latin resurrectionem iudicii, far more accurately translated as "judgment" or "resurrection to judgment." It is a reference to the resurrection of the unrighteous. (Acts 24:15) Those who have not been given the opportunity to know Jehovah God, though unrighteous, will be resurrected and given the opportunity to do so.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 deals with the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction of the disobedient.

Revelation 14:10-11; 20:10; Revelation 20:14-15 indicates that the wicked are tormented, from the Greek basanizo or related terms, which can mean being restrained, as in Matthew 18:34 where the "tormentors" are "jailers."

SAB: No, those that don't go to heaven, just die.

This is actually the closest interpretation to the truth according to the Bible. If it were reworded to say those that don't go to heaven or live forever on earth just die it would be correct.

Deuteronomy 29:20 - The book of God's remembrance is used throughout scripture to symbolize him taking note of those who are righteous and those who are not. The righteous to live and the unrighteous to die. This doesn't indicate that the righteous go to heaven or the unrighteous to hell, but that the meek shall inherit the Earth and live forever upon it and the unrighteous will suffer everlasting destruction. Death.

Psalm 1:4-6 - Interesting because the Hebrew word here translated as wind is the Hebrew ruach, which can also be translated as spirit. Not that this implies some spiritual connotation - quite the contrast - ruach simply means any invisible active force like breath, wind, or spirit. Like chaff, the thin covering on wheat and barley which is blown away with the wind after harvest the ungodly will be "blown away" in the end. Useless to a perfect creation without sin.

Psalm 34:16 - Interesting that the "remembrance" being removed can also be translated as the "mention" of them being removed. They are no longer remembered or talked about. Dissolved along with their sin.

Psalm 37:1-2; 37:20 refers to the corrupt evildoers who, through injustice and malice advance while the righteous gain nothing through wrongdoing. Those who rape, murder, steal, cheat and lie to get what they want corrupt the system, or world. Their demise would cease this destructive pattern.

Psalm 69:28 again refers to the book of life, those noted by God as deserving of life in a perfected heaven and earth, free from sin.

Proverbs 10:25 is a variation of both the chaff in the wind and the end of sin, death and destruction. The results of sin may seem like a storm now, but there are better days ahead.

Proverbs 24:20 reflects the sentiment in some verses mentioned earlier. Not only will the wicked be destroyed but the illumination of their works will be a thing of the past. Their corrupt system ended along with its effects.

Obadiah 1:16 - Again, the remembrance and mention of them will be no more. Forgotten.

Romans 6:21, 23 indicate an end to sin, which is disobedience to Jehovah, the creator, and brings death. These are interesting scriptures in the context of a discussion about hell, because if the wages of sin are death, then at death the debt of sin is paid in full. To suffer beyond that in a literal fiery torment would be overcharging. Romans 6:7 makes it clear when it says: "For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin."

1 Corinthians 3:17 - It is important to realize what exactly is meant here by the "temple" or "church" of God. It isn't, of course, a building which houses a congregation. It is the congregation itself. The people. As 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16 indicates. In addition to persecutors this may also apply to apostate Christianity who spiritually destroy God's true congregation.

2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - The Roman soldiers would parade victorious through the city of Rome and burn incense in the altars, perfuming the air. To the Romans it was a sweet smell representing honor, promotion and riches. But to their captives it represented the unpleasant reminder that they would be executed at the end of the parade. Likewise, to those who accepted the Christian message and those who reject the message.

Galatians 6:8 - The indulgence of sinful human desires corrupts one in a way that leads to death.

Philippians 3:18-19 - These verses properly convey the idea that the sinful will be destroyed, but don't imply that the righteous will all go to heaven. On an unrelated note, the KJV uses the word cross where torture stake or pole should have been used. Jesus didn't die on a cross.

James 1:15 - A sinful nature leads to destruction and death. Through sin we all die, but if, during a brief life in faith, we avoid a sinful nature which corrupts the spirit as well as the flesh and so there is the hope of a resurrection to eternal life without sin rather than eternal destruction.

James 4:12 - Not everyone agrees with the morality dictated by the lawgiver, whether God or man, but as men we have no authority to question the morality of God. We may still not agree, but God the lawgiver has the authority to judge.

James 5:20 - Interesting because some Christians think that being "saved" is predestined, but this verse along with others considered in this article indicate that the sinful can turn back from destructive ways, and the righteous can turn to sinful ways.

SAB: No, everyone goes to heaven after they die.

1 Corinthians 15:12 - This chapter isn't dealing with mankind in general, but rather only those who have "fallen asleep in death in union with Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:18.

1 Timothy 4:10 - Christ gave himself a corresponding ransom for all, but not all will accept it. 1 Timothy 4:10 points this out. Paul said that Jesus was a savior for all men, potentially, but specifically for the faithful.

1 John 2:2 - "Our sins" refers to the sins of the anointed Christians (144, 000) like John himself, who would judge in heaven with Christ, but also the people of the world who have the possibility of resurrection to everlasting life in paradise earth.

SAB: No, everyone dies. There is no heaven or hell.

Put simply, the Biblical words heaven and hell mean, respectively, high and grave.

Joshua 23:14 - Joshua was dying with the hope of resurrection. God is in hell in the sense that his attention is fixed upon the grave to resurrect the faithful. Like Joshua. (Ecclesiastes 9:10; Amos 9:1-2 Compare; Proverbs 15:11; Psalm 139:8 Compare)

Job 7:9; 14:10-14; 20:7 - At Job 7:9 Job may have been referring to the permanence of death in this world or he might have been pointing out that resurrection was out of his control. At Job 14:10 there is some variation between the Masoretic Hebrew texts and the Septuagint. The former says "Where is he?" and the latter says "he is no more." Compare Job 14:10. But, interestingly, at Job 20:7 there is no such variation. One thing is sure, Job believed in the possibility of resurrection. (Job 14:13-15)

Psalm 6:5; 31:17; Psalm 88:5; 115:17; Ecclesiastes 3:19-21; Ecclesiastes 9:2-6; Isaiah 38:18 all have to do with death and the grave. In the case of hell, it is really easy to sort the theological - the pagan influenced apostate Christian doctrine - from the scriptural truth.

First, the wages of sin are death, not a literal torment in hell. (Romans 6:7) The soul is mortal/destructable so it can't be tortured literally forever in hell. (Ezekiel 18:4 compare; Matthew 10:28) The Biblical soul is the life/blood of any breathing animal or human. The Hebrew word translated soul literally means "breather." The immaterial soul of pagan origin, (Socrates/Plato) as well as spirit creatures - Satan and his demons - wouldn't be harmed by literal fire. (Exodus 3:2) Hell and death are thrown into the figurative lake of fire which is symbolic of everlasting destruction. Meaning they are no more. Destroyed. (Revelation 20:14) The meek inherit everlasting life on earth. (Psalm 37:11; Matthew 5:5)
 

Attachments

  • hell.jpg
    hell.jpg
    80.9 KB · Views: 1
This is essentially the Garden of Eden. Two innocent kids - who had no concept of right or wrong - are tempted by a serpent to eat the forbidden fruit. God created the kids, the serpent, and then left them all alone together (which seems impossible for an omnipresent being) knowing full well that the serpent would tempt them. When they fall for the temptation, God punishes the kids and all of their descendants for all time. God takes no personal responsibility for enabling the situation, inflicts no punishment on the serpent (that he created) and instead punishes Adam and Eve and all of us.
God punishes the serpent by making it move along its belly, then God puts animosity between man and the serpent. Can't let them team up after all. Took all of five minutes to screw up his Garden Slave idea. We'd see this irrational behavior out of God when he fears a tower reaching his heavenly digs.
 
  • Roll Eyes
Reactions: DLH
This is essentially the Garden of Eden. Two innocent kids - who had no concept of right or wrong - are tempted by a serpent to eat the forbidden fruit. God created the kids, the serpent, and then left them all alone together (which seems impossible for an omnipresent being) knowing full well that the serpent would tempt them. When they fall for the temptation, God punishes the kids and all of their descendants for all time. God takes no personal responsibility for enabling the situation, inflicts no punishment on the serpent (that he created) and instead punishes Adam and Eve and all of us.
God punishes the serpent by making it move along its belly,

So the serpent previously had legs, huh? Sounds like the kind of macroevolution DLH says never ever happens. Yet there it is right in the first book of the Bible!
 
Isn't a creator responsible for the state of their creation?

That's kind of like asking isn't a parent responsible for the state of their children.

Yes and no.

So then ask is a parent responsible for wrongdoing their children commit if the parent did everything possible to prevent it. Like disciplining, which the Bible calls creating evil. Isaiah 45:7. Some translations say evil, some say calamity, etc. Hmmm. I must have went back in time and changed the rules again. Tricky bugger.

The bible tells us that its God deliberately creates both evil and the evildoer.

Oh, and the evildoer. Like the parent. Created the child. To be evil? Who's responsible?


You are using a false analogy. Human parents have no control of biology or genetics or designing the body/brain/minds of their children. Human parents don't create the conditions in the world in which their children live.

Unlike an omnipotent God, human parents are dealt the cards they have to live with.
 
Isn't a creator responsible for the state of their creation?

That's kind of like asking isn't a parent responsible for the state of their children.

Yes and no.

So then ask is a parent responsible for wrongdoing their children commit if the parent did everything possible to prevent it. Like disciplining, which the Bible calls creating evil. Isaiah 45:7. Some translations say evil, some say calamity, etc. Hmmm. I must have went back in time and changed the rules again. Tricky bugger.

The bible tells us that its God deliberately creates both evil and the evildoer.

Oh, and the evildoer. Like the parent. Created the child. To be evil? Who's responsible?


You are using a false analogy. Human parents have no control of biology or genetics or designing the body/brain/minds of their children. Human parents don't create the conditions in the world in which their children live.

Unlike an omnipotent God, human parents are dealt the cards they have to live with.

You're not listening to me. You're just trying to win an argument.

My answer, what was it?

Yes and no.
 
Isn't a creator responsible for the state of their creation?

That's kind of like asking isn't a parent responsible for the state of their children.

Yes and no.

So then ask is a parent responsible for wrongdoing their children commit if the parent did everything possible to prevent it. Like disciplining, which the Bible calls creating evil. Isaiah 45:7. Some translations say evil, some say calamity, etc. Hmmm. I must have went back in time and changed the rules again. Tricky bugger.

The bible tells us that its God deliberately creates both evil and the evildoer.

Oh, and the evildoer. Like the parent. Created the child. To be evil? Who's responsible?


You are using a false analogy. Human parents have no control of biology or genetics or designing the body/brain/minds of their children. Human parents don't create the conditions in the world in which their children live.

Unlike an omnipotent God, human parents are dealt the cards they have to live with.

You're not listening to me. You're just trying to win an argument.

My answer, what was it?

Yes and no.
Yahweh hears you DLH. We hear you.

You are saying basically the bible is true, I am explaining it to all of you, and you all are not listening.
 
Isn't a creator responsible for the state of their creation?

That's kind of like asking isn't a parent responsible for the state of their children.

Yes and no.

So then ask is a parent responsible for wrongdoing their children commit if the parent did everything possible to prevent it. Like disciplining, which the Bible calls creating evil. Isaiah 45:7. Some translations say evil, some say calamity, etc. Hmmm. I must have went back in time and changed the rules again. Tricky bugger.

The bible tells us that its God deliberately creates both evil and the evildoer.

Oh, and the evildoer. Like the parent. Created the child. To be evil? Who's responsible?


You are using a false analogy. Human parents have no control of biology or genetics or designing the body/brain/minds of their children. Human parents don't create the conditions in the world in which their children live.

Unlike an omnipotent God, human parents are dealt the cards they have to live with.

You're not listening to me. You're just trying to win an argument.

My answer, what was it?

Yes and no.

Neither. I'm just pointing out what is written in the Bible, and the moral implications of its portrayal of 'God,' inconvenient as that may be to your own mental image of God.
 
Neither. I'm just pointing out what is written in the Bible, and the moral implications of its portrayal of 'God,' inconvenient as that may be to your own mental image of God.

First of all, if you're pointing out what is written in the Bible, you should try and do what I've suggested. Consider outside of tradition. Look at the original language, the temporal, linguistic, cultural aspects outside of the contemporary to the writers rather than the traditional transmogrification. You're not really pointing out what is written in the Bible, your giving deconstructive (higher) criticism of the traditional theology.

Why would your portrayal of God, which you can't even define, be inconvenient for me? Why would I be having this discussion if it were?

Let's say God is morally portrayed in the Bible as the arrogant monster you might suggest, damning, i.e. angrily sending the people that piss him off to eternal fiery torment. How would that be inconvenient to me? It would just mean that I had better do what he says if I don't want that. When I first became a believer, after a brief period of euphoria, I realized that I couldn't restrain from homosexual activity. I chose it over God, which I knew would result in a separation, and that if I didn't change I would suffer everlasting destruction. After more than a decade I changed, like the prodigal son returning. For more than a decade now I've faithfully upheld that and you think that your uninformed higher criticism is going to be an obstacle for me only because you see me as the same as the religious fanatics who want to convert you to traditional adherence or as being similar to that sort of mindset you yourself was once associated with, directly or indirectly.
 
DLH

I have known people whose lives were turned around by Christianity. But then I’ve known people who turned around their lives by getting into running, wright lifting, and getting into chess.

For you it was the bible, good for you.

Some swear by Scientology.


Things turned around for e when I began to get into math and science. That was back in the 70s.

As to religious fanatics, you showed up going after atheists and preaching creationism.....seriously to me you talk like Christians do. You are testifying to faith and lecturing from the bible with interpretations.

I can't speak for all atheists, for me you are welcome to your beliefs. If it improves the quality of your life ten good for you.

I say the same about homosexuality. If people find comfort in a same sex relationship, then good for them.

All that being said, if you come here to preach, attack atheists, and push the bible I will criticize and question what you assert.
 
And DLH, your tactic has been to try and urn the tables and make atheists answer questions abut the 'babble';and hen you cmolai it is all wrong.

Us atheists do not believe in gods. We can come up with attrtubutes based on the bible for your Yahweh, but it is on you the Yahweh believer to tell us exactly what Yahweh is.

Which you can;t because it is nit in the babble.

This question has been debated for years on the forum, asking Christians to define what they mean by god

The babble says we are made in the image of god, so does god have a penis or a vagina, or is it androgynous? Is god sexually neutral?
 
When I first became a believer, after a brief period of euphoria, I realized that I couldn't restrain from homosexual activity. I chose it over God, which I knew would result in a separation, and that if I didn't change I would suffer everlasting destruction. After more than a decade I changed, like the prodigal son returning.

You say you have studied the bible for more than 30 years. Maybe you could explain why Jehovah prohibits homosexual activity? Why would homosexual activity, in and of itself, be wrong, any more than heterosexual activity, in and of itself, be wrong?

Certainly, any sort of sexual activity can have negative consequences — such as STDs or in the case of heterosexual activity, unwanted pregnancies. Homosexual activity is less problematic in that regard.

And, any kind of sexual activity can be conducted with other activities that can be destructive, such as excessive alcohol or other drug use.

But homosexual activity, in and of itself, is wrong in the eyes of God — why?

Because you see, homosexual and heterosexual activity is an artificial distinction and a false dichotomy to boot. There is only sexual activity — and it is rife throughout the animal kingdom, including abundantly the homosexual variety. So what? In addition, there is bisexuality, and even, as I learned recently, autosexuality — people sexually attracted to themselves.

So what?

All of this is to be expected from a messy, undirected biological process that just produces by chance and selection genetic structures dictating sex drives of various varieties. It’s not at all expected from an all-loving god who gives you, say, an attraction to the same sex, but then forbids you on pain of eternal torment from doing anything about that attraction.

What does the bible actually say about homosexuality? I believe there is one verse only about forbidding men from lying with men, and some other verse about onanism. That’s it, I think.

You, who are always lecturing us about how the bible should be interpreted through the lens of ancient people, not modern science, should ask yourself — why the ban on homosexuality and masturbation?

Viewed through ancient eyes, it sort of makes sense. Back then having children was the coin of the realm. Children, lots of children, were needed, to be put to work as soon as possible and to care for their parents when the parents could no longer care for themselves. Child mortality rates were very high back then. Lots of children died in birth — mothers, too — and many children did not live very long because of diseases against which they could not cope, lacking modern medicine and hygiene.

The ancients may have thought that squandering seed on non-procreative activity lessened the chances of badly needed children, hence the injunctions.
 
Also, since, according to the bible, god commands us to be “be fruitful and multiply,” I take it you have switched from homosexual to heterosexual activity, and over the last 30 years you have produced many children that are pleasing to the eyes of the the lord?
 
Neither. I'm just pointing out what is written in the Bible, and the moral implications of its portrayal of 'God,' inconvenient as that may be to your own mental image of God.

First of all, if you're pointing out what is written in the Bible, you should try and do what I've suggested. Consider outside of tradition. Look at the original language, the temporal, linguistic, cultural aspects outside of the contemporary to the writers rather than the traditional transmogrification. You're not really pointing out what is written in the Bible, your giving deconstructive (higher) criticism of the traditional theology.

Why would your portrayal of God, which you can't even define, be inconvenient for me? Why would I be having this discussion if it were?

Let's say God is morally portrayed in the Bible as the arrogant monster you might suggest, damning, i.e. angrily sending the people that piss him off to eternal fiery torment. How would that be inconvenient to me? It would just mean that I had better do what he says if I don't want that. When I first became a believer, after a brief period of euphoria, I realized that I couldn't restrain from homosexual activity. I chose it over God, which I knew would result in a separation, and that if I didn't change I would suffer everlasting destruction. After more than a decade I changed, like the prodigal son returning. For more than a decade now I've faithfully upheld that and you think that your uninformed higher criticism is going to be an obstacle for me only because you see me as the same as the religious fanatics who want to convert you to traditional adherence or as being similar to that sort of mindset you yourself was once associated with, directly or indirectly.


I do consider context. I also understand that context doesn't transform what is written and meant into something more palatable for the current moral values of believers.
 
Militant atheism is only the same ideology as militant theism.
What? How infinitely broad is your definition of 'ideology'?
Is God the best made up villain in the best longest running drama of all time or is everything you blame him for really our fault?
A made up fault. Or the cults fault for making it up.
No big deal. If you're fooled into believing the wrong one who's fault is it?
Mostly the SCAMMERS fault. And partly the victim's fault for being so gullible.
Maybe you could explain why Jehovah prohibits homosexual activity? Why would homosexual activity, in and of itself, be wrong, any more than heterosexual activity, in and of itself, be wrong?
I am not gay, and have no motive for defending homosexuality.
However, I can answer that.
The Cults (all religions) made homosexuality 'Sin'(TM) because it doesn't grow the Cult. Doesn't create babies for the Cult.
For the same reason masturbation is Sin(TM). Abortion is Sin(TM). Marrying outside the Cult is Sin(TM).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
Militant atheism is only the same ideology as militant theism.
What? How infinitely broad is your definition of 'ideology'?
Is God the best made up villain in the best longest running drama of all time or is everything you blame him for really our fault?
A made up fault. Or the cults fault for making it up.
No big deal. If you're fooled into believing the wrong one who's fault is it?
Mostly the SCAMMERS fault. And partly the victim's fault for being so gullible.
Maybe you could explain why Jehovah prohibits homosexual activity? Why would homosexual activity, in and of itself, be wrong, any more than heterosexual activity, in and of itself, be wrong?
I am not gay, and have no motive for defending homosexuality.
However, I can answer that.
The Cults (all religions) made homosexuality 'Sin'(TM) because it doesn't grow the Cult. Doesn't create babies for the Cult.
For the same reason masturbation is Sin(TM). Abortion is Sin(TM). Marrying outside the Cult is Sin(TM).
Which is also a large part of why why abortion offends them so much. How dare a mere woman not want to bear another voice for the sacred cause?
 
I do consider context. I also understand that context doesn't transform what is written and meant into something more palatable for the current moral values of believers.

The current moral values of believers have no bearing on the context, which you haven't carefully considered, you've only read it at face value with a traditional bias. Believers want to believe in hell even though the Bible doesn't teach it because they have a false sense of moral superiority. Unbelievers want to believe in hell because it reflects poorly on that. Both are tradition and theology, not Biblically supported. I've demonstrated that clearly.
 
I do consider context. I also understand that context doesn't transform what is written and meant into something more palatable for the current moral values of believers.

The current moral values of believers have no bearing on the context, which you haven't carefully considered, you've only read it at face value with a traditional bias. Believers want to believe in hell even though the Bible doesn't teach it because they have a false sense of moral superiority. Unbelievers want to believe in hell because it reflects poorly on that. Both are tradition and theology, not Biblically supported. I've demonstrated that clearly.

Unbelievers don’t believe in hell by definition.

You have demonstrated nothing clearly, Hell is mentioned many times in the bible. The fact that you cherry-pick your own private version of the bible means nothing.
 
Believers want to believe in hell even though the Bible doesn't teach it write screed after pointless screed here because they have a false sense of moral superiority.
FTFY.

Do you never get bored with accusing others of having your flaws?

I can assure you, from direct personal experience, that it bores the shit out of your audience.
 
Which is also a large part of why why abortion offends them so much. How dare a mere woman not want to bear another voice for the sacred cause?

That doesn't make sense, you're projecting. The believer doesn't have to concern themselves with abortion, the unbelievers do. Of course, neither has much sense, so applying logic is rarely productive.

Abortion offends them because it's murder of the innocent for nothing more than irresponsible lust, a form of greed. It doesn't offend their opposition because as always, they pretend otherwise.
 
I do consider context. I also understand that context doesn't transform what is written and meant into something more palatable for the current moral values of believers.

The current moral values of believers have no bearing on the context, which you haven't carefully considered, you've only read it at face value with a traditional bias. Believers want to believe in hell even though the Bible doesn't teach it because they have a false sense of moral superiority. Unbelievers want to believe in hell because it reflects poorly on that. Both are tradition and theology, not Biblically supported. I've demonstrated that clearly.


The bible gives a description of love and its values, which are moral values attributed to God, where we are told that God is Love, therefore an embodiment of morality, justice, empathy, patience, protective and nurturing .....yet elsewhere we have numerous descriptions of God breaking each and every one of these values, with God acting contrary to these very same values.

1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''

1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
 
Unbelievers want to believe in hell because it reflects poorly on that.
You are confusing that with Belief.
We sarcastically indulge them in their fantasies to get their attention. (just as we are doing with you)
The believer doesn't have to concern themselves with abortion,
You are not paying attention. The Cults they belong to absolutely do concern themselves with abortion. And individual sheep fallow along.
You must not live in the US, if you haven't seen the protests at abortion clinics.
 
Back
Top Bottom