Why We HATE Hell

Originally posted by sonhouse
Come on, you think Neantertals were what, fake, no such thing? When we have already extracted DNA from them and established and it is like ours but with differences, lots of differences and some of OUR DNA comes directly from them.

Are you a Neandertal denier?

Lots of differences, give me the links!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Lots of differences, give me the links!

https://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html

One recent analysis suggests Neandertals need about 600 calories more per day and this was ok when food was plentiful but a real disadvantage when times were scarce.

Originally posted by sonship
Man does not "hate" the concept of punishment. That should be obvious from history.

Now man does not like not being able to beat God, best God, out think, out maneuver God. I think the thought of being completely at a loss before God as a unrepentant sinner, is hated.

This is possibly exacerbated because God is not intrusive. No lightening is likely ...[text shortened]...
What we should think more about is what God has done that man may be reconciled to the Perfect.

"Man does not "hate" the concept of punishment"

That's not what I said...but I disagree anyway, I never like punishing people (except when its consensual) I'm sure most would agree.

Hell and Armageddon are monotheism's caveat. No good entities would endorse such suffering.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html

One recent analysis suggests Neandertals need about 600 calories more per day and this was ok when food was plentiful but a real disadvantage when times were scarce.

They sure came up with a lot of information about everything to do with this creature from
what bones, from family structures and so on. Do you think those to be facts?

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
Hell and Armageddon are monotheism's caveat. No good entities would endorse such suffering.

Have you been introduced to @sonship?

Originally posted by sonship
If you want bring up again this accusation about " beings in other worlds " matter I would request that each time you please paste in the quotation from which you derive that complaint.

Since the half truthfulness of your accusation has been dealt with more than once, accompany your revisiting of the charge with the original quotation.

Otherwis ...[text shortened]... just acting like Senator McCarthy - repeating the big lie:
An argument by repetitious slander.

I've quoted and posted the link loads of times, you just run away every time I do.

Originally posted by sonship
bump for Divegeester

Do you believe that Jesus was unethically and unrighteously giving us the wrong impression when He spoke about Lazarus, the rich man, and their respective conditions after they died ?

See [b] Luke 16:19-31.

All I want you to do is explain WHY Jesus gave an impression in His teaching which is not true. If He did, was it not unrighteous for Him to leave us with that kind of impression ?

[/b]

Jesus taught using parables, stories and analogies all the time.

Not yet, could I trouble you for an introduction?

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
Not yet, could I trouble you for an introduction?

Sure; this is @sonship.

Enjoy each other.

Originally posted by divegeester
Jesus taught using parables, stories and analogies all the time.

Jesus taught using parables, stories and analogies all the time.

Brevity doesn't help your argument that much.

Analogies, stories, parables have a point.
Why would Jesus give an analogy, parable, or story illustrating a situation which He knew would never be possible to exist (Luke 16:19-31) or anything like it ?

Would it not be unrighteous of Christ to convey a point that is unnecessary and impossible, not to mention against God's will ?

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
Hell and Armageddon are monotheism's caveat. No good entities would endorse such suffering.

I have heard people be appalled at the concept of hell.
I have never heard of anyone saying that the Battle of Armageddon was not worthy of a good God.

How can we have a eternally good God without an corresponding eternal hatred for sin evil and rebellion against His good kingdom?

Before you rattle off a response, please keep in mind how much space in the Bible is given to God's work of redemption and salvation from His judgment through Christ.

Originally posted by sonship
I have heard people be appalled at the concept of hell.
I have never heard of anyone saying that the Battle of Armageddon was not worthy of a good God.

How can we have a eternally good God without an corresponding eternal hatred for sin evil and rebellion against His good kingdom?

Before you rattle off a response, please keep in mind how ...[text shortened]... the Bible is given to God's work of redemption and salvation from His judgment through Christ.

I don't know how it all fits together but I do know this. Any entity that truly loves others would not rise above them.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
I don't know how it all fits together but I do know this. Any entity that truly loves others would not rise above them.

Thank goodness you're here...to help us.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
I don't know how it all fits together but I do know this. Any entity that truly loves others would not rise above them.

So a nursing mother should never, in some sense, rise above her children?
A providing and nurturing father should never, in some sense, rise above his children?