Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


WHY TRUST THE "PEOPLE GO TO HELL FOREVER" DOCTRINE?

CHRISTIAN ASSERTION: People and we don't know if the number is great or small go to Hell for all eternity for dying without being in peace with God.  If we reject the doctrine of Hell because we cannot stand it what is to stop us getting rid of other doctrines we cannot stand?
 
Reason says
 
So unprofessional is this book that it does not make a distinction between doctrines that we should stand though we donít like them and ones that we shouldnít endure. The adulterer would not be able to stand the ban on adultery but he should. Everlasting punishment in Hell by God is different.
 
To argue that we should endure the horrible doctrine is simply cruel.
 
And as for the other doctrines we cannot stand, none of them are as bad as that one.
 
The argument overlooks the fact that if other doctrines may be doubted if Hell is to be doubted then who cares? It is wrong to urge people to adopt an evil doctrine on the grounds that doubting it will call other doctrines into question too.
 
To tell people they may as well drop doctrines other than Hell if they drop Hell is sidestepping the issue. The question is, Is it right to say Hell exists and can God be justified in letting Hell exist or creating it? 

Christians say, "We believe in Hell which is a state of everlasting suffering and separation from God from which there is no escape for sinners who die rejecting him. It is unthinkable that Hell could not exist for that makes Jesus and the Church liars."
 
Jesus and the Church might be just mistaken. And considering the kind of dishonesty the Church is riddled with would it really be unthinkable for it to be lying?
 
It is sectarian to say it is unthinkable that the Church is lying for a member of any different religion could say the same about the people who set up his religion. Are the authors suggesting that the argument only applies to the Catholic Church for it is the only good religion? They have to be!
 
The book argues that since most believers in Christ accept Hell they are probably right that it exists. That is a hideous argument. It is basically asking us to accept an evil or potentially evil doctrine on the authority of human opinion! It is really about wanting to believe in the nasty doctrine of Hell. It is wrong to guess that we can be bad enough to fight God forever. You need proof for things like that. Thinking it is not enough.
 
No genuinely good person would say that we must be capable of hating everybody for all eternity just because we can't call Jesus and the Church liars. If the pope said that paedophiles want to become demons at death to possess children what would we think of somebody who argued that we must accept this for we must not call the pope mistaken or a liar? It shows plenty of concern for defending the doctrine-maker but none for the slander of the human race. It is no excuse to say that no specific person is being accused. To say any person could choose to be evil for all eternity insults us all for you could be speaking about anybody.
 
Christianity actually wants to believe in Hell. The Christians don't look for evidence that people can be stubborn enough to go to Hell for all eternity. No. They decide people can be bad enough just because Jesus Christ or somebody said so. If they started with evidence from human nature their adopting the belief might not be motivated by vindictiveness. Indeed evidence itself wouldn't justify belief that human nature could go to Hell and stay there. Proof would be needed. The less evidence the more vindictiveness lurks there. It may be stronger subliminally than consciously.
 
If I decide you committed a crime just because I felt you were guilty then I am vindictive. If I decided it because of the evidence then it is completely different. And so it is with the idea of Hell.
 
Anybody staying in Hell for all eternity is suffering from stupidity not evil. Thus the doctrine that they deserve it is vindictive.
 
It seems that if there is no everlasting punishment then Jesus is only a teacher and prophet but not saviour.   So what is our reply to that?
 
That we should believe in everlasting punishment just because we donít want to believe that Jesus wasnít saviour? When such an evil doctrine comes with the Jesus package then Jesus should be rejected.
 
He alone could still have died for our sins to save us from guilt and punishment even if there is no Hell.
 
The argument shows that Jesus being saviour from sin is not important to those Christians but believing he is saviour from Hell is. And those are the people who claim to believe in objective morality! They love sin and regard religion as mere hell-fire insurance.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 297 argues that if Hell is not true then if we donít like God who punishes in Hell we can worship another. It says that Hell follows from the exclusivity of God.
 
Reason replies: But even if we do sincerely adore another God we indirectly adore God. No matter what kind of God we invent he will have some features of the real God. The book itself argues that sincerity can save despite the errors so it has no right using this sectarian and arrogant answer.
 
It is not true that Hell follows from God being the only God.
 
If Hell and God did go together that would be one reason for dropping belief in God. We should not have a faith that risks bringing harm to others or risks condoning an abomination.