If someone is inside a house which is on fire, should they not have a healthy fear of being burned? If they do not fear being burned, then perhaps they would see no reason to leave...

If Hell is merely a made up place meant to frighten people into Christianity, then I would agree it would be wrong. If there is a real danger, however, that one might end up there... then I would suggest a certain amount of healthy fear of it is a good thing.

I disagree. Someone learning to walk a tightrope isn't going to benefit from considering the dangers of falling. Someone jumping out of an airplane isn't going to be helped by thinking about the possibility of the parachute not opening. No amount of fear is healthy as a motivator.

2.) Now, supposedly god is not bound by our every day morality. Supposedly, god is higher than us, and so our moral concepts don't apply to him, or apply to him in a different way than to humans. Atheists see no reason to grant that this is so.

To add to this, it's inherently contradictory for Xians to argue this since it's an appeal to relative morality, while Xians hold to absolute morality.

You cannot say the Bible's definition of love is incompatible with logic until you understand both the logical view and the Biblical view.

If the Biblical view of love is not what we understand love to be, you may as well argue that the Bible supports zuglug. If the Bible says that god is loving because he sends us to hell, well, you can't use the Bible as support for the Bible. When the Bible's definition of love does not line up with what we logically deduce, too bad for the Bible.

However my lack of ability in these areas, compared to yours, does not invalidate the core of what I am saying.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that your reliance on circular reasoning does invalidate what you are saying.

We can continue to play games of semantics, or you could at least consider the core point of what I'm saying.

What games of semantics? We are all presenting arguments as to why your god isn't loving or just. It's a game of semantics to insist that we parse the Bible wording if anything.

If I, being obviously younger and less experienced in this topic than you, am expected to understand the CORE of what you are arguing... then I would suggest I should expect no less from you.

Again, what makes you think I don't understand what you are arguing? I simply reject it, and I've given reasons why. Disagreement is not the same as non-understanding.

1.) According to our every day usage of love and justice, the existence of hell would show a complete lack of love and justice. I think this is an unarguable point. Any human being who said they loved you, yet tortured, or allowed you to be tortured (especially for eternity), would rightly be called grossly immoral. Atheists apply these simple concepts to the idea of god, and so argue that if there is a god, then god is totally unjust, supposing that god sends to or allows anyone to go to hell.

2.) Now, supposedly god is not bound by our every day morality. Supposedly, god is higher than us, and so our moral concepts don't apply to him, or apply to him in a different way than to humans. Atheists see no reason to grant that this is so.

3.) Supposedly, according to the bible, god's love and justice are defined differently than human love and justice. Saying this appears to atheists as special pleading; simply an attempt to make compatible what seems obviously incompatible. Saying that god's love and justice are different according to the bible is a contentious issue. It interprets the bible according to a pre-existing belief, or a post hoc system to allow god off the hook. Atheists don't agree with this interpretation of the bible, since we don't think the bible is anything special, nor that there is any One True interpretation of the bible. In other words, "what the bible says" is either irrelevant or indeterminable (or both).

"You can't frighten people into the faith. The fear, in many cases, will endure longer than the faith."

If Hell is merely a made up place meant to frighten people into Christianity, then I would agree it would be wrong. If there is a real danger, however, that one might end up there... then I would suggest a certain amount of healthy fear of it is a good thing.

"You can't come back with, "Well the Bible says that god is just so I win." It's the Bible we are arguing against! Do you really not understand this?"

You cannot say the Bible's definition of love is incompatible with logic until you understand both the logical view and the Biblical view. Just as I assume you would argue I could not say the Biblical view is logical until I understood the logical view. You're very intelligent OMGF, and a much more articulate person than I am. You are very good at establishing concepts and presenting a debate. However my lack of ability in these areas, compared to yours, does not invalidate the core of what I am saying. We can continue to play games of semantics, or you could at least consider the core point of what I'm saying. If I, being obviously younger and less experienced in this topic than you, am expected to understand the CORE of what you are arguing... then I would suggest I should expect no less from you. (In print it more than likely seems as though my compliments are sarcasm, they aren't. I value the insight you offer, even if I disagree with you.)

I never asserted that this is the reason why it is wrong.

No, you didn't. You simply asserted that it is wrong without support, save that "god is higher than us" (paraphrased). You have not yet made a coherent, complete argument.

If I 'rebel' against God, and He does nothing... then it could be said that I successfully resisted the will of God.

Unless his will was for you to rebel of course. Either way, isn't this the point of giving us free will?

By His very nature God cannot not be God. Is it possible that God could allow people to resist His will without response? Only if He weren't God. (as this would prove that one could rebel against God without consequence)

I see no reason to conclude that god must act against all rebellion or else he can not be god. Even if this were so, there's no reason why god must wait until we die. There's no reason why this retaliation for rebellion must be infinite in nature. There's no reason for god to make a final judgement that is eternally binding on us, considering we could choose to discontinue in our rebellion. In short, you are doing nothing to defend your position.

It seems you can't accept this because you claim one cannot hurt God. As I've shown in my reference above, the only reason God's power and capacity as God are not diminished are BECAUSE He acts.

Asserting something is not the same as showing something. Considering that your assertion is far from proven and doesn't help your case, you haven't shown anything. And, the point that nothing can hurt god is still valid, since you have not rebutted it. You are arguing, in effect, that god must punish us for acts that have no negative consequences upon god at all. If god's power and capacity are determined by what he does, then god is not perfect, for god would be required to perform certain acts in order to maintain his position. A perfect being has no such requirements.

Unless I'm mistaken, I thought this was a place to dispute the validity of the Biblical depiction of Hell in light of the Biblical depiction of God as loving and just. If we aren't talking about the Biblical Hell or God, then what do you base any of your arguments off of? How does this conversation speak against Christianity at all if it is not the Christian concepts being challenged?

It is the Xian concepts being challenged, which is why you can't simply refer to the Xian concepts and act as if that's an answer to the challenge. When you say, Xianity says X, and I say that X is refuted because Y and Z, you can't turn around and say Xianity says X, so therefore X is true because that's what the Bible says. The Bible and Xian tenets are what is being argued - not what they say, but whether they make any sense. We all know what they say, even though you accuse us of not knowing. What we are saying is that they don't make sense or are contradictory.

For instance, you complained that the Bible defines justice in a certain way - basically as whatever god does. We claim this is unjust, because under logical situations, god is not acting in a fair, equitable manner. You can't come back with, "Well the Bible says that god is just so I win." It's the Bible we are arguing against! Do you really not understand this?

Unless I'm mistaken, I thought this was a place to dispute the validity of the Biblical depiction of Hell in light of the Biblical depiction of God as loving and just.

Karatemack, maybe you should re-read Ebonmuse's post. He's offering advice to ex-Christians who still feel a fear of hell, even when they've decided it's not real. It's not about the character of God; it's about overcoming a phobia.

Personally, I find the discussion interesting from an outsider's perspective. As I said in a previous comment, my own faith tradition doesn't talk much about hell; I think those that do preach hell have serious control issues. Most of what is being said here tends to confirm that, I think.

If anything, this thread shows the futility of hellfire sermons: You can't frighten people into the faith. The fear, in many cases, will endure longer than the faith.

I give hell no more credibility than I do reincarnation. Although reincarnation is a much less disturbing fantasy. If I am wrong, God is a monster for sending me to a place that defies the logic that I was given. But I am not wrong. The belief of hell is based on manuscripts written thousands of years ago by people who rode donkeys as a major means of transportation. Think about it, why argue for an idea that was advocated during the stone ages? Or don't think and simply kneel and believe what you are taught.

Is it possible that God could allow people to resist His will without response? Only if He weren't God.

Evidence plz?