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?

 


WHAT IS HELLFIRE? 

The whole point of Jesus' work and mission is that he came to save sinners for unrepentant sinners will suffer everlasting punishment in Hell.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics 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.