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?

Patrick H

Chapter 12, Hell
How can an all-good God let evil happen? Why do babies suffer if God has the power to prevent it? The Christians claim that part of the answer is that suffering is temporary. That is a lie for they believe that certain sinners will suffer everlasting punishment in Hell. And their answer shows an unwillingness to accept Jesus' doctrine that it is good to get your just deserts so if you deserve Hell have the humility to accept it. They might be afraid that people might want to go to Hell because they deserve it. Some people do want punishment.
A Roman Catholic prayer calls upon St Michael the Archangel to put Satan back in Hell. That sounds vicious. The Church may say that Satan belongs there and that we would send him back there not because we are bad but because we are so good that we give him what he wants. The Church says that if we go to Hell to suffer forever, it is what we have asked for and God kindly grants it. This is an obviously absurd teaching. It shows the Church is actually grateful to God for putting demons and people in Hell. And as God is considered to deserve worship for this what does that say about those who worship him?
Understand this: IF EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT AND THE LOVE OF GOD CAN BE RECONCILED, THEN GOD IS SO LOVING THAT HE GIVES THE PEOPLE IN HELL THE EVERLASTING AGONY THEY ASK FOR. That is the heart of the issue. But we recoil from it though Christians don't. We know it makes no sense. Whoever preaches Hell is wilfully whitewashing his or her vindictive God. You need read no more unless you want to.
The Handbook of Christian Apologetics devotes chapter 12 to defending the doctrine of Hell. The doctrine alleges that those who die estranged from God will suffer and sin for all eternity in the misery and loneliness of Hell.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
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? 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
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.
Reason Says
They 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.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

If there is no eternal damnation there is no free will


Reason replies:


That is too strong.  Free will does not mean that even if somebody can go to Hell forever and stay there forever freely that anybody will do it.


Free will is all about the power to change your mind.


The handbook says that there needs to be a final sentence to Hell for your choice has to have infinite value.  But giving you a final choice is only doing that if you have to give a last chance.  God does not need to give anybody a last chance.  Hell is not about protecting anybody from the damned.  So there is no need.


The last chance thing means that even if you do decide to leave Hell you cannot.


Vindictive people always tell themselves that the other person asked for it.  That is what the Christians are doing.  If they want to be damned they are doing a better job of getting damned than the sinners they say are going to Hell.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Those Eastern religions that do not believe in Hell do not believe in an objective morality.
Reason replies:
The implication is that you have to believe in eternal Hell in order to believe that morality is real.
As long as the Eastern religions believe in behaving themselves on earth who gives a damn? And lots of people deny Hell and do believe in objective morality.
And if people do good and do not believe in an objective morality then does their belief matter? People who think morality is mere opinion and is not objective can still do marvellous things.
Buddhism does believe in objective morality - its absolutely wrong to take life in Buddhist thought. 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
If there is no everlasting punishment then Jesus is only a teacher and prophet but not saviour.
Reason replies:
So 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 Says
Page 289 says that the torment of Hell is love. God showers love on the damned and it torments them because they hate it and want to cling to their selfishness instead of receiving it and turning to him. It gives the example of a stubborn enraged child that hates its parents and sees the love they lavish on it as torture as exactly what happens in Hell. Then it is said that we influence our punishment in Hell and shut God out but he does not shut us out. The shutting out of God is the reason Hell is painful it says for God alone can give joy.
Reason replies:
But few mortal sinners who are fit for Hell feel that bad towards God. God must make them feel like that in Hell so it is his fault after all that Hell exists and not just their fault, not down to their misuse of free will.
Page 299 then puts a damper on the idea that it is Godís love that is painful for the damned by saying it may be the tormenting fire of Hell. So the Christians are not sure if it is God's love that hurts the damned the most. The notion that the damned hurt themselves by how they respond to God's love is the same as the idea that the torment of Hell is not Godís fault or doing at all. 
If God lets the damned burn one another then he is no better than a God who creates a fire to burn them in himself to save them the trouble.

The book gives the example of a stubborn enraged child that hates its parents and sees the love they lavish on it as torture as exactly what happens in Hell. No child sees such love as torture. He may not like it but it does not torture him.
Also, if the damned are enraged so much that they would suffer forever to spite God the problem is not their stubbornness but their instability. They need pity not condemnation.
The Handbook speaks of Godís love as some kind of energy that the damned receive that torments them. This is ridiculous. He does nothing for them and love is work. There is a word for their idea, shit. If God offers them an actual happy pill that they wonít take and when he knows they wonít take it then God is one sick vindictive God. The authors wonít admit it but that is what they are saying.
They speak of God's love as if it were a force. A person can simply love you and your life will be no different and it will make no difference to you. If God's love torments the damned then clearly God must be showering favours on them to annoy them. The favours then are not really favours but pure malice.
Parents do not and cannot rain the power of love on their children Ė love is not like an electricity that you can make flash from your fingertips. Unwanted parental love cannot hurt the child. If you lavish love on a person to hurt them that is not love. They can hurt the child only by doing pretend loving actions such as by giving the child unwanted hugs and unwanted sweets. It is the actions that hurt. God then is tormenting and teasing the damned and then pretending he loves them. And the Handbook authors are trying to make excuses for him so they are no better. Their arguments show their manipulative ways up. Consider this. If you teach that Hell is our doing not Godís then you have no choice but to say that it is Godís love that torments the damned. That way you make it superficially look like that God is not deliberately tormenting them.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Page 298 argues that since all of us fear what will come to pass after death there must be a Hell!
Reason replies: 
Presumably, since God makes us and if there is a Hell he would have to warn us by giving us that feeling.
This argument calls anybody who says they donít have this fear a liar. Atheists can fear extinction at death but none fear Hell. One could well argue that anybody who says they donít believe in the pope is a liar.
The argument is also vindictive in the sense that it is non-falsifiable Ė whoever needs to use bad arguments is teaching harmful doctrine and seeking to harm us and manipulate us. It is more evil to use non-falsifiable arguments in favour of nasty doctrines. For example, if Hell logically implies that God is evil and vindictive and that his worshippers are really condoning his evil whether they realise it or not then it is infinitely evil to use non-falsifable arguments in its defence.
The fear of death is not about Hell Ė it is a fear of extinction and the unknown. It is only some Christians for most are just skeptics who feel the fear of Hell. The argument fails if people exist who donít fear Hell. As they exist then clearly there is no Hell for God would put the fear of Hell in everybody.
If you donít fear Hell then presumably you are so evil that you want to go there even if you live a good life. See the vindictiveness in such a stance?
If there were a Hell the fear of judgment at death would be a universal thing but it is not. It is among those who have heard of Hell and think it could exist. But if it existed God would give all people a great worry about what would happen if they died in a bad spiritual state. If he did, most people would be devout!
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The same page then starts answering objections to Hell. It agrees with the objection that Hell is against the love of God but says it is not Godís fault or God's doing.
Reason replies: 
The Bible never says that God has nothing to do with it and neither does tradition. It is only theological opinion that it is not God sending people to Hell. For these men to tell us that he doesnít and not confess that it is just an opinion is pure whitewashing deception.
If you tell people that Hell is entirely their own choice and their own creation, then they do not need to fear God sending them there. People do not fear their own choices but only not being in charge. If God does send them to Hell then they are in trouble!
If it is a mystery how a loving God can send people to Hell forever then those who do not believe it is a mystery do not understand God. Whoever dies adoring a false image of God will not be able to enter his presence and have to go to Hell.
Punishment is defective if the punished person does not feel punished or does not agree with the punishment. If you have a debt to pay, you have to believe you should pay it and not be forced to pay it. If you are forced, then you have no intention of paying the debt and justice is not served. Jesus said hell was eternal punishment - surely God of all beings would ensure that if people have to go to Hell that they regret the choice that put them there forever? This implies that they get a choice and cannot reverse it. It would actually be cruel to make people suffer for a crime while not caring if they regret it or not. The punishment needs to be fundamentally based on regret.
Hell has to be God's doing.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The second objection answered is that the punishment does not fit the crime. It says it does fit the crime for it is what the damned want.
Reason replies:
Nobody is so evil that they would choose to suffer forever. It is a total insult to human nature to challenge this. Even when we do wrong we only do it because we misperceive it as a good. Nobody commits murder because they want to go to jail or choose jail.
You do not say that murdering a person who wants to be murdered is right. You do not say it fits the crime for it is what they want.
Nobody believes that even if we have free will that our choices are totally unprogrammed. People believe that they are partly programmed. Thus nobody can choose Hell 100%. God has to give them the benefit of the doubt, "Maybe if they were totally free they would not choose it" and refuse to punish them to the extent of putting them in Hell forever.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The third says that God could have done more to stop people getting into the situations that caused them to choose Hell.
Reason replies: 
The Handbook's silly answer to this is that this would be doing away with free will. It says the bad situations are our fault not Godís. Even if this is true on earth it need not be true when we leave the earth for God could put us on another world that will give us a better chance of turning to him forever.
And besides if God gave us better influences on earth we would choose better. There would be nothing wrong with that for we have influences on us all the time anyway.
Religion says that all you can do is assume that God has done all he can. If he is not doing enough then he is evil and it is evil to condone him having people suffer in Hell. It is unfair to ask people to guess that God has done his best. The matter is too serious. You don't guess that people have cancer. Guessing about Hell is far worse.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The fourth and fifth objection answered says that nobody would choose Hell. The reply answers that nobody can understand why or how people could do that but says that they do. Then it blames it on choosing to be insane.
Reason Replies:
It admits that insane people are not responsible but adds that if you choose to be insane it is different. Most people would be disgusted at that suggestion for it means that God is justified in allowing the person to become mad by choice and lose free will for in Hell you cannot change. A God who really respected free will would give us more free will not less and ignore the choice. And nobody deserves to be punished while they are insane even if they have chosen it because it is not them anymore. They are not themselves. The Christians insult insane people to maintain the credibility of Jesus. 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The answer to objection six which says that Jesus would have been immoral if he taught Hell says that he was right to for he was only warning us. The book says, "If there is no Hell, Christ is not only a deceptive teacher but a wicked one for he terrifies us needlessly, falsely and harmfully."
Reason replies: 
But he never said he saw Hell so what business had he doing that? He hadnít even proved by his resurrection that he had come from God at that stage and he was making outrageous statements like that. He was not warning but causing trouble.
At least the answer is willing to recognise that if Hell is fiction then Jesus was indeed immoral. This implies that they think that if Hell exists then it can be justified and if it does not then it cannot be justified. That is as odd as arguing that if you get fined in court its just and if you don't then its unjust. It shows the believers are willing to have Hell declared just even if it is not!  
The book says that a suicide tries to get away from life and ends up realising that he lives on after suicide and has to endure life and God forever and this causes great suffering. It softens this appallingly insensitive doctrine a little by saying that not all suicides are sane and responsible. But think of the torment parents undergo just because they don't know if their abducted child is dead or alive! The authors of the evil handbook want to extend a similar but worse torment to the families of suicide victims. The book even goes as far as to say that though the damned suffer and are alive they are not really persons any more. The book denies that Hell is like annihilation so they are like living corpses. This is an excuse for holding that they endure eternal punishing but are not worthy of our concern for they are not proper persons!
Not only are we expected to accuse unknown people of getting punished forever and deserving it just because Jesus said so but also we are expected to impose this further doctrinal indignity on them!
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Objection seven says that Hell is a bad doctrine for it scares people and makes them feel hatred and despair. The answer says that the doctrine leads to a healthy fear and that only bad teaching makes Hell lead to despair and hate.
Reason replies:
But the authors surely know that lots of people would not agree with their solutions to the problem of a Good God allowing a place like Hell to exist so what do they expect? Their solutions are not dogma or necessarily correct. They are only their opinions and could be wrong. People still have reason to worry. The Bible speaks a lot of the wrath of God so nobody can deny that he would cut somebody off from his help and so that they are left to the overpowering temptations of sin and damned forever.
If you get a temporary depression from guilt see then how the thought of Hell affects your mind. It will not bring a healthy fear to a person who suffers from depression or bad self-confidence. The only persons who can be happy while believing in Hell are those who only kid themselves that they believe in it or who are smug and happy because they think they are going to Heaven and are enjoying the thought of others going to Hell.
Also, even if the authors arenít too upset about Hell because of their arguments and understanding of Hell, what about people who have a worse view of Hell than they do? The authors cannot condemn them for disagreeing with them for they do not claim to be infallible.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Objection eight says that if your loved ones go to Hell you canít be happy in Heaven.
Reason replies: 
The answer is that you should pray for your loved one if you canít stand heaven when they are in Hell. But people have prayed for the salvation of the world and all people and still some go to Hell so what use is that for consolation?
The answer is not an answer. It dodges the problem. If you pray for people and they go to Hell while you are in Heaven then surely the more you have prayed the worse your pain at their suffering will be.
 The answer encourages people to fear their loved ones going to Hell. It is cruel. People suffering on earth worrying about the eternal fate of others is a reality. No religion should be followed that encourages or embraces that fear.
The answer is vicious when some people have a tendency towards depression.


People have prayed for the salvation of the world and all people and still some go to Hell.  Prayer is meant to be what you are not just what you say.  Thus you cannot be happy in Heaven when  you want everybody there and they are not there.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The Handbook says (page 271) that it is foolish to wonder how God and the saints can be happy when people are suffering in Hell forever because this happiness happens so it can be done. God is happy and the saints are happy despite the sufferers in Hell.
Reason replies:

The "despite" shows that the happiness is manufactured and not real.

The answer on page 271 is a cop out. It is a despicable cop-out as well because it is like saying to somebody, ďI am going to extract a tooth from you now without an anaesthetic and you will still be happy despite the agonyĒ. It is not an answer to say that the impossible is possible because it happens. If the happiness of heaven disproves Hell these men are refusing to admit it and see it. It is like saying it is a sin to provide drunk men with drink and that somehow it was not a sin for Jesus to have done this at Cana for it happened therefore it is possible. The copout answer is callous when one considers how serious hell is. The doctrine is evil for it forces us into this evil and vindictive copout.  It is evil to believe in Christian doctrine.
The handbook says that happiness is not a feeling but is the state of being well permanently. So it follows that the more you are loved the happier you are even if that love does you no obvious good. The existence of the damned who hate the saints then is opposition to their happiness and welfare. If they are happy about that then it is absurd to say they are really happy.


Christianity says that you are here to obey God and not to be happy.  If you are happy then good but it is not why you are here.  It points out that if there is a choice between happiness and obedience then choose obedience.  So why do we care if Heaven is happy or not?  How can we be sure?
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Objection ten that says that Hell means that evil will exist alongside good forever meaning that God failed to destroy all evil is answered as follows. It says that scripture says that God will one day triumph over all evil but says that Hell will still be everlasting but it does not know how the two doctrines can be reconciled and that it is a mystery to do with time and eternity.
Reason replies:
But we know what time is like and eternity so when we are not given an answer there is no answer. How could there be? Heavenly happiness is as everlasting as hellish torment so we see here an attempt to obscure a contradiction. The answer is that devious and nasty thing called a copout.  
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Objection eleven says that Hell cannot be true for it serves no good purpose. The answer admits that Hell is useless but says that since God made souls to be immortal he cannot end it by destroying them.
Reason replies: 
So if God made souls to be immortal then he needs Hell to put them in so it does have a use after all! Christians say it is useful and then useless. They cannot make up their minds.
Also why didnít God make the souls conditionally mortal? They seem to be implying that by making the soul immortal God was promising it that it would live forever. Wasnít that irresponsible of him? They say that making is not promising so perhaps he is innocent of that charge. But he knew what people were like. He is said to know you better than you could ever know yourself.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
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.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Page 309 responds to the suggestion that those who preach Hell are being self-righteous and telling others they could go there while thinking that they themselves are too good for that at least in their present condition.
Reason replies: 
Christians admit that all sin is rooted in pride and when they say that they are all sinners let us take their word for it that pride motivates their preaching about Hell for a heart given to pride cannot issue humble acts but only acts that superficially appear humble.
The response given is that all preachers of eternal Hell must realise that it could happen to them. But anybody who takes precautions can afford to be self-righteous. Surely if you are smug you can be smug because it can happen to you and you don't think it will?
Born again Christians are self-righteous for they say they have chosen Jesus which is a righteous act in their opinion and that those who do not do as they have done are going to rot in Hell forever and ever. Their claim that God does all the work but they cannot mean that.
Catholics who go to confession and communion often are taking all the best precautions and can be fairly confident that they will go to Heaven. When they warn about Hell they think themselves to be more sensible and righteous than those who need that warning. They think that they have more right to walk the earth than them. The authors of the book know fine well that self-righteous people cannot be made as humble as they ought to be by the thought that they could be damned so their saying that preachers knowing they could be damned means they are not self-righteous when they preach to sinners is utter nonsense. Itís a desperate cover-up but it fails to mask how vicious and self-righteous and pompous the Hell doctrine is.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
They say that Christians would do anything to keep people out of Hell and so they are not like people who wish there was a Hell
Reason replies:
Hell is a doctrine of hate. Jesus said that unless we believe in him and get his forgiveness we will go to Hell forever at death deprived of mercy for all eternity. If he said we must love the sinner and hate the sin, this does not apply to the damned for loving them is tormenting them and they will never change. They are anti-love. They hate it. Love is not love if it hurts another being - if it is good for you and not them then you are selfish.


You cannot say the damned are essentially good but twist that good into evil and use that as an excuse to say that you can love them. You cannot say they are good in their nature and therefore lovable because the whole point of hating evil is that it is a mockery and distortion of good!
It is claimed by some that Christians caringly preach Hell because without Hell life is bland! So we are to believe in Hell and condone the punishing of the sinners forever just because it makes our lives more meaningful!
Faith in the God who would send you to Hell forever arises from vice not virtue and no matter who says the doctrine is not caused by some level of hatred for others that is exactly what is behind the doctrine. Also, the many bad things that arise from belief in God are enough to show that to believe in a God and also in Hell makes you a very bad person indeed no matter how your outward actions appear. What could you expect for you are believing that a bad God who gives you unhealthy faith has the right to abandon people to Hell forever? Who does he think he is and who do you think you are? Good and evil are too close for anybody to deserve a cruel punishment and especially one like eternal punishment. Even evil consists largely of good intentions Ė the only thing that is wrong with evil is that it is perverse or harmful good. Not only does the Church cause a lot of hatred by brainwashing people into seeing good and evil as complete opposites when they are not opposites but cousins but it has to invent the doctrine of Hell as well.
The book contains the kindest interpretation of Hell possible and it is still vindictive. It proves more than any other book that Hell has to be scrapped. The kinder the doctrine is made to appear the worse it gets. A doctrine that depends on stupidity to make it a bit more believable and look better is an evil doctrine. It is like trying to convince the downtrodden poor under a brutal dictatorship that the tyrant is doing out it of the goodness of his heart.
To say that Christians do their best to keep people out of Hell is simply a lie for most of them donít even mention Hell these days, most of them are embarrassed to convert others or correct their fellow believers in faith matters and most of them have hardly any interest in learning more about their faith. If you really love others you will try to keep them out of Hell so clearly the doctrine is good for nothing but making people cast aspersions on the Christian love of these people.
So we are left with no evidence that Christians are not like people who wish there was a Hell. A few who preach sermons that warn against hellfire is not evidence for they are too few. And as for Protestants who claim that Jesus has saved them so they cannot go to Hell no matter what they do and do nothing to make sure nobody else goes to hell its undeniable that they are evil people who do act like they wish there was a Hell but not for them!
Even most religions admit that the theologies they have are manmade. Protestantism for example claims that the Bible is the word of God but admits that the theologians disagree in the theological systems they set up.  You have Catholic theologians who donít agree on where and when the Church used its infallibility or ability to speak without error in telling us what God has revealed. Since its mostly manmade theologies then why not go a step further and hold that every religion is manmade? After all the religions all disagree sharply with each other.
You choose out of all the possible theologies of the world one that has a Hell in it. That is proof that you deep down at least want there to be a Hell for people to go to. You think you won't go to it.
What if you work hard to convert others so that they might dodge it? It is irrelevant to attempts to prove that you are not the kind of person that wishes there was a Hell for others to go to.  It only proves you want your converts to stay out of it but what about those that laugh at you? Remember you chose the assumption of Hell and you didnít have to. And as for the converts, making them more like yourself is where the buzz is coming from not saving them for if you loved them and wanted to save them you wouldnít be deep down hoping they will go to Hell if they refuse to be converted.
Pride is supposed to be the lie of thinking you are better than what you are. If sin is pride and pride is in all of us then it follows that you can lie to yourself easily that you love the people who are in danger of Hell.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
There are two kinds of punishment. Natural law punishment and positive law punishment. A promiscuous homosexual who gets AIDS and dies got a natural law punishment. He did bad and brought AIDS on himself. A positive law punishment is one you choose yourself such as when you break a law and have to be fined or jailed for it. Hell is a natural law punishment for the sinner refuses God's love and suffers through resisting it.
Reason replies:
This is nonsense. The Bible never speaks of Hell as being that kind of punishment.
Punishment is based on the concept of retribution, making a person pay for having done wrong. It must then be intentional as far as God is concerned. Natural law punishment then must be just another way of giving out positive punishment.
The homosexual who sleeps around did not intend to get AIDS and if he did he didnít do it to pay himself back for his ďsinsĒ. What about the man who would be promiscuous if he could? He could be the worse sinner in his heart. Only a vindictive God would set it up so that the homosexual suffers for doing what is in his heart while somebody with a blacker heart gets away with it.
Hell is retribution from God. If God punishes you by putting you in jail (positive law) or by making sure you will get a disease if you commit certain sins (natural law) it is only the style of the retribution that is different. Both are still intended by him as punishment.
Is the saint who dies of doing good works undergoing a natural law punishment?
Living sinners donít necessarily suffer through rejecting God. God has the power to make sure this doesnít happen dead sinners so he makes sure they suffer. It is vindictive retributive punishment. And to lie that it is not and blame the sinner is vindictive too. There can be no doubt that this whitewashed book in saying that most of our pain is caused by mental pain which is caused by selfishness and sin, is blaming the victims of any suffering on earth or in Heaven. They say that before the fall, Adam would have felt only physical pain not mental pain if he stubbed his toe against a rock. After the fall he became prone to sin and so his pain was made worse. Mental pain exaggerates physical pain. This is a vile teaching. But it is quite consistent with the Bible which says that suffering came in only with the fall of Adam and Eve when they sinned against God and made sinners of themselves and their descendants.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Page 292 criticises the notion that Hell puts justice before love by saying that justice is simply a way of loving. Then it launches into an attack on the Calvinist doctrine that God makes some people and schemes to land them in Hell.
Reply: But if the authors are honest they will agree with Calvinist theology for God is the only explanation of the change in a sinner who dies from one who is in sin but who might repent given the chance to one to whom repentance is impossible. He is the only explanation of the change in a sinner who dies from one who is in sin. The first cannot repent and the second can.  God did something when all the sinners fit for Hell who die never repent.
And besides, God choosing some sinners for going to Hell is not as much of a problem as him causing them to STAY there. It is the STAYING! The Catholics cannot complain about the Calvinists having a God who has people destined to stay in Hell when their own is no better.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
We inflict our punishment in Hell and shut God out but he does not shut us out. The shutting out of God is the reason Hell is painful it says for God alone can give joy.
Reply: We can find joy on earth without thinking of God or believing. The Bible never says that the loss of God is to blame for the suffering of Hell. This is an invention of trendy Christians who do not want to believe that God created a torture chamber and who wish to distort the Bible teaching that he did exactly that!
God by definition would be our deepest need. But many of us do not have that need. Thus it follows we know by experience that there is no God.
Minds do not have nerves. Spirits do not have nerves. So God must put nerves in them to make them suffer!
The Handbook contains the kindest interpretation of Hell possible and it is still vindictive. It proves more than any other book that Hell has to be scrapped. The kinder the doctrine is made to appear the worse it gets. The more people end up evilly defending the indefensible. The more they end up worse than those who defend what Hitler did. If you invent a religion that is about control, then you will warn of dreadful torments in the afterlife and make out that God is love.  So you use fear and you cast guilt trips on your victims.  Christianity has those tell-tale signs of manipulation.