"God isn't a puppet master."
"God doesn't want to take away peoples' free will."

These are but a couple of the myriad of explanations theists will offer for the seeming distance of God from the majority of people. The argument is as such: "If God were to prove he exists, you would have to choose him and it wouldn't be free will. God doesn't program robots and he isn't a puppet master, he wants you to have a choice."

This argument is horribly flawed, given the composition of the human mind and emotions and decisions that stem from it, as well as some simple logical thinking.

We live in a world of robots

One of the biggest problems with these types of arguments are that humans are, in fact, very robot-like and very much programmed. Sure, it may not be with silicon chips and transistors and whatnot, but we are all slaves to our humanity. The choices you make define your personality and what causes you to make those choices is, for the most part, in your brain chemistry.

For one, there's our basic survival instincts.

-You know that when you're hungry that you should eat.
-You know when you feel pain or discomfort that you should do something to heal the affected area.
-You feel fear which helps you avoid or be cautious of dangerous situations.
-You have empathy which causes you to work well with other humans for a common goal.
-You have memory so you can learn from your past experiences and understand your current situation better.

All of these are part of the human programming. They're hard-wired into your brain to keep you alive, and your thoughts and decisions are affected by them.

But brain composition decides much more specific things than that... It decides your intelligence, your abilities to perform in every aspect of life, your talents, your weaknesses, your susceptibility to emotional disorders, and so on. There is a specific brain composition that will choose atheism every time and there is a specific brain composition which will choose theism every time.

To give a better example, humans are like a self-playing piano which has a computer system that allows it to generate random sequences of notes. There are small variables that we can see but in the end it is a very small margin of change, most of what it is is set in stone.

The fact is that if you're designing something in the first place, you're already making robots or playing puppet master. Does God ask animals to turn to him? No, because they aren't intelligent enough to do so, they don't have the right fundamental programming! God can only ask smart enough creatures to follow him... and to make those creatures smart, he has to program his robots a bit.

And of course, on this same topic, there's the simple fact that overwhelming incentive to choose one thing is not the removal of choice. The only way you can force someone to do something is by completely removing any other option. And why would any God be concerned about free will if it were the case that proof would be like forcing people? Pretty much every modern religious book makes some sort of threat for if you do not believe. If the Gods are so concerned about keeping things free of uneven odds or biased choices, then why do their holy books not reciprocate that?

On another note, belief is a large factor, and nobody will choose to follow something which doesn't exist in their minds. As an example, someone who is more susceptible to a disorder like psychopathy will be less susceptible to belief in the paranormal, including God. Since the term God basically describes an all powerful being, we should be able to assume that he could remove advantages and disadvantages such as these if he existed and wanted a fair choice for all.


I know we'll never see an end to this argument, but I'd simply like to point out that it's no excuse for the large lack of evidence of God, and it's quite simply ridiculous.

(And this argument is of course, talking under the hypothetical situation that God actually does exist.)

Very intelligent post, KBA. But most of yours are.
--
Indeed, if one is to believe every word of the Bible, the God character is literally asking them to "Choose Life or Death."
Of course people will choose Life if they're convinced that book speaks the truth.

if you have a glass half full of water, does the half full part prove there is water or does the half empty prove there is not water?

randomhit10

But there is were faith come into the equation. If there was hard solid evidence there would be 0 free will choice because we would be relying simply on our survival instincts. But a very interesting post never the less

This negates "God is a puppet master," how exactly?
If one is to believe the bible, as so many tend to do, it really makes no difference whether or not there was proof of this God's existence.

oo! oo! oo! oo! **jumps up and down** I KNOW!

You have 50% too much glass.

In order to believe in the bible requires faith that a creator would provide a means to be re-united with the created.
I will give you an analogy.
Two spacecrafts land on your front lawn, from the first craft a being appears clothed in white light, wonderful music in the background smells of fresh baked bread emanating from his spacecraft. The being says Hi ya fella, I have come to take you home" You scratching your head ask where is home. He replies back to the planet you were created and to meet your creator. there you will live for eternity in peace and health"
Suddenly a loud voice comes from the other craft " hey wait a minute I,m here to take him home too" There standing at the door to his ship is a nasty looking elf that smells like cabbage, sounds of tormented kittens caught in a washing machine emanating from the windows. again, You scratching your head ask "where is home". He replies "Oh, too a dark smelly hole in the ground from were you came and were you’ll stay".
Now, your decision although predictable is not based on free will, but human reasoning.
If our Creator truly wanted a being that exercised free will, he would never put us in a position where the choice was obvious. That is why our spiritual journey must be personal and meaningful, and the evidence supporting it only arrives after the decision is made. Forgive my story telling, As a grandfather its part of my Job!

Irish

I guess you could go down this avenue, but the problem I see here is that the Bible doesn't reciprocate this theory. It (and most other popular religious books) paints a very dire picture of what will happen if you don't believe. Why would these books be scaring you with hellfire if you're supposed to have a completely fair and unhindered choice?

What's in the bible is the same situation you just talked about, only it's "if you believe, then these are your options: an easy and obvious choice, follow me, or a poor choice, end up in hell".

^A lot of the more reasonable Christians these days have dropped the fiery torment hell, and have decided that "Hell" is really just a separation from God. The same thing that Atheists believe happens anyway. Death.

However, "Heaven" is supposed to be a place of wonderment and joyfulness where you live eternally, basking in God's glory, even after your body dies.

The choice is clear, if one is to believe the choice-giver.

Bring on the cup!



I think the traits attributed to god, such as : Omniscience (all knowing), Omnipresence (Animism, or present in all that exists), and Omnipotence (All powerful) , declare there is nothing god could not know, thus while we may exercise our will/choices freely, nothing can surprise omniscient omnipresence. And since people that declare creationism superior to evolution, that implies god is invested yet again as omnipresent omnipotence, effecting every little detail of change in all that changes. Which would then mean there is nothing in our exercise of free choice, that is truly free of gods knowledge of it, or his allowance of it to happen. So when that kind of power is said to judge from those three traits it possesses, puppet master sounds about right. Or heavenly director, if one doesn't approve that terminology as metaphor for one that pulls the strings. But it all says the same. There is nothing god can not know, and if all is gods plan then everything that occurs is always going according to plan.

Just a thought.
An all knowing position would not have any personal challenges But an omnipotent God has the ability to accomplish anything why would He not challenge Himself by adding randomness to His creation purely for the entertainment factor. I once new an elderly man that built grandfather clocks who shared with me that he added extra unneeded components to make the clocks more interesting and unique.

As Christian I believe that God became a mortal man in Jesus to truly experience what a man feels and experiences in his lifetime. I believe He did this for Himself as much as He did it for the salvation of mankind.

I as a Christian believe that the qualities in man are somewhat a reflection of the creator (His Image) and therefore humor and curiosity are as much apart of the Creator as the creation. Which certainly give you a different perspective on things?

Initial creation itself was an event that was completed, finished, done on the sixth day. Like a precision time piece once it was completed it was designed to run continuously. the manner that it runs now is pro-creation of all species. And as God is not limited to time itself I believe the 6 days of creation was a metaphor for mans understanding of measure and more for the understanding of order of creation.

Irish

It proves that I have a glass with water in it.

Well, think about it, you are given a choice, if either choice seems just as good, then what is to stop you to make you consider which one is the proper path?

Another thing to think of. You've died, you're now standing before God and He says, "Why did you choose not to follow the path I pointed out to you?" If you try to say, "Well, I really saw no difference between the end of one path and the end of the other," God would look down and see, "... where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..." and, "...where all tears will be wiped away and there will be no more pain..." and he will say, "I gave you a better brain than that, you consciously chose."

*Covers ears and shuts eyes in preparation of the coming onslaught*

Lol, this is funny.
Again, "...where all tears will be wiped away and there will be no more pain..." can only be considered a remotely logical choice, by one who believes the promises of the choice-giver. (Which in this case is a character in a book.)

Sorry if my wording's sloppy. I think I need a break.

Ya, well, ya know, I'm a minimalist that way.

I've always believed the idea that God and God's Word is within and always has been.

So, yes, God would be omniscient and omnipresent... however, I'm not convinced that God is omnipotent or maybe not in the way we as humans think of omnipotent.

I believe that God, acts through man IF we choose to hear him. But, if individuals choose not to hear, they aren't necessarily doomed either. The whole theory tends to begin to wander down a fairly estoteric path of a certain level of conscienceness that I'm not sure I can gracefully communicate. The very basic idea is that God made his creation, now he can only act THROUGH it not ON it. Because he gave us freewill, we can intentionally block or invite his word and work to manifest through us. This idea requires me to select my words carefully, and I'm not doing a real good job of that this afternoon.

You so silly.

What's perhaps interesting in that scenario, of logical choice, as I see it from reading the words on the page, there was no consciousness of choice afforded A&E in the garden, in the beginning and for what transpired later. When the satan that gained admittance into gods domain, instructed Eve about knowledge and she ate of the fruit from that tree of knowledge and as such, became like god in that state of Gnosis. So only after becoming knowledgeable of all things good and evil, could one then be declared to have the conscious ability to make a choice, between good or evil. Context, does indeed serve it's purpose.

If god has a plan, then we must assume that everything will go according to it. It says in the bible that not everyone will believe and be saved - someone else can find the verses... I'm too lazy - so whatever happens, there will be some who believe and some who don't. So, we can't all believe or all disbelieve. So where is free will in this? It's already predetermined that some will believe... so we couldn't all choose (every last one of us) not to believe. And it's stated that not everyone will believe... so we couldn't all choose (every last one of us) to believe. If you preclude those two choices - that mankind can believe as a whole or disbelieve as a whole - then where is free will? It is predetermined that some will go to hell.

Are you being forced not to believe?

If it is already determined that not all will believe, how would we know who is being forced not to? Let's say that god decided that only half the population would believe, but sixty percent chose to... ten percent would have to be forced not to believe. One thing's for sure, a hundred percent of the population cannot choose to believe... as not everyone will believe, it's been predetermined... so if one hundred percent of the population tried to use their free will to choose to believe, at least one of them would have to be prevented from doing so.

Exactly. Omniscience foresaw as much when god sent himself in the body of jesus and said as much in Matthew 13:8-15.

So that declares the whole world isn't intended to hear or believe, only the one's meant to understand jesus words, because those words are not to be heard by everyone, so as to allow them to be redeemed. God applies the curse of sin, sends himself to save the few of the all that are sinners. That speaks of predestination, because if jesus words were only intended to be understood by those god chose to be redeemed, (remember the bible also Shadow, when it says it's not by good works one enters heaven, but by gods grace), or receive that grace. So when certain of the faith declare it's their duty to try to convert the world, they're actually not following jesus words that tells them not everyone will understand the message. SO then, the condemnation of those that do not understand. The name calling of others of different faiths, violates the admonition to love thy neighbor as thyself, and is judgment against what god ordained to be. And since the words are made by god not to be understood but by the chosen, there is no choice in the matter of not believing, it's simply the way god intended it to be, according to jesus, that was sent by him/as god himself, to say so.

The thing is, Shadow, unless you KNOW you are one of the ones who was slated not to believe (in which case you also would have to KNOW that God is the Abrahamic God since there would be no other way for you to know), you have no way of proving that it isn't your choice not to believe.

How do you know that every non-believer isn't already not believing because that has been predetermined? If one hundred percent of the population would have believed, and that is not an option open to mankind, then every one of the non-believers would have to be forced to not believe because it is god's will that all men won't believe, not because they chose not to believe. So how can we know that all of us wouldn't have been believers if we hadn't been forced not to be? In which case, those who believe would also not have free will, because they would only be believing because god allowed them to... having already forced everyone else not to.

You are going forward on the assumption that it is God's will for some to not believe, when in truth it is just that He knew ahead of time that some would not believe, and made arrangements accordingly. There is a difference. Choice given and turned away from does not = choice never given and alternate belief forced on an unwilling would-be believer.

What do you mean... made arrangements accordingly? That sounds as if he looked ahead and then decided on his next course of action.

If it is simply a matter of him looking into the future and knowing all would not believe, then this must be in accordance with his plan. If he has a plan then it must be that non-belief fulfills its role or he would not allow it to take place... in which case it is necessary, and again precludes the possibility of one hundred percent belief.

If his plan was to have everyone believe in him, then it has failed. If it was to have only a certain percentage believe then this precludes one hundred percent belief.

You still have not proven that the plan allowing for disbelief = disbelievers being forced to disbelieve. Because He knew ahead of time what choices some would make, and allowed for that in His plan, does not in and of itself prove that the disbelief was forced; only that He was aware of what choices would be made while we lived. His being aware of the choices, still does not = His choosing for us, nor His forcing disbelief on any of us.

Does someone with precognition, force the events she foresees?

P.S. Sorry my first post in this thread was not the best laid-out or planned post of mine ever, I was cooking dinner and just jogged in, sorry for that. What I mean is, I believe it is inevitable in His plan that some will not believe and He knows that, but before the whole thing is done playing out, we will have each been the ones who determined exactly who chooses to know Him and who doesn't. He knows ahead of time; we don't. We make the choices, He just already knows what choices they are, which does not mean that He excluded the possibility for any of us to individually make the choice to come to Him.

What about the apostles...



The commission of the apostles to go forth and teach all nations was imposed upon them by god. They did not volunteer to become apostles - they were chosen by Christ.

There are other passages in the bible which refer to particular individuals being chosen - again, too lazy to seek them out right now

Because every day there are non-believers who become believers.

Anybody notice there is no basis of an "everlasting torment" in hell in the Old Testament? It just describes sheol, or the grave, not a tormenting fire forever and ever. Just a few things to think about:

If Hell is real, why didn't God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was death- -not eternal life in fire and brimstone.

If Hell is real why didn't Moses warn about this fate in the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings in this lifetime.

If Hell is real, why did God tell the Jews that burning their children alive in the fire to the false god Molech, was so detestable to Him? God said that such a thing never even entered His mind (Jer. 32:35). How could God say such a thing to Israel , if He has plans to burn alive a good majority of His own creation in a spiritual and eternal Gehenna of His own making?

We are all chosen for particular work. Some choose to not accept it. The apostles chose to accept.

KBA states we are "programmmed" and "hardwired" Who did that?

As Machine said, this is not a matter of a simple choice, that's only if you already believe which looks past the purpose of this thread anyway. This thread is about why if God exists, does he not prove his existence? If God did prove he exists, then your scenario here would come into play. There would be no excuse to not follow God because he'd have proved what the Bible says is true. That would be a fair choice. He can't expect someone to follow him if they doubt his existence in the first place.



Right, and what I'm saying is that you can't say God wants people to have free will. Human behavior is controlled by our humanity. I'm saying in the argument for design, free will is thrown out the window. When you make something for a purpose, you have to design how that thing works and thusly it can never have free will as it has been given the framework to do a job. God cannot make humans if he desires them to have free will. The only free-willed beings he could create would be Gods, because all of their actions would truly come from their free will, and not their framework or their limitations.



Yes, that's true. Although the Bible does explicitly talk about hell and torment of the unbelievers, some choose to deny it. I'm just talking in reference to what the actual religion teaches, because you can never find a completely common opinion among moderate Christians regarding just about anything in the bible.



Well, if this were the case, God would be causing billions of people to suffer unnecessarily for a little entertainment.



If God creates all these people and is sure that some will not believe, then by creating the non-believers he is forcing a certain level of disbelief. Basically, if you have multiple options, and you know the outcome of each option, then whichever option you choose, you are forcing that outcome.



There is plenty of biblical basis for an everlasting hell of torment, and at the very least, there is unarguable torment happening to people who. If you're just counting the Old Testament, then you're leaving out a pretty important chunk of the teachings of Christianity.



This program has no specific programmer to me. I think this "hardwiring" was done by natural selection. I think it becomes even more evident that that's the case when you realize how almost every part of us serves some purpose for survival. Those who can survive flourish on this earth, and every birth contains small mutations, some are bound to help the creature survive just as some are bound to make it more difficult.

Interesting thread, KBA. Just curious, by using the argument that humans are just a form of biological machine, and thus subject to a form of programming akin to a computer, are you thus saying you do not believe humans have free will????? How many others would agree with you, do you think? I'm not criticising your argument (after all, I agree with the general principle that free will does not exist). I just think it is ironic that 300 years ago, Christianity firmly believed in the complete and total control of God over everything we did and would ever do (ie, there was no concept of free will). It wasn't until a bunch of Scots got together and thought "hang on, what if God doesn't control everything in our lives after all". Now, fast-forward 300 or so years, and the arguments are reversed. Christians are touting that God has given us free will to give us the choice whether to follow him or not, while the non-Christians are now trying to say that free will doesn't exist after all.

Isn't it grand how life really does go round and round in circles *wheeeeeeeee*

Regards, PA

P.S -
I think many people have realised this. Has anybody noticed that there is no basis (edit: well, minimal and insufficient basis at least) of an "everlasting torment" in hell in the New Testament either?????

I'm not saying we don't have free will. I'm saying we have a very limited amount of choice with a massive amount of absolutes. We have free will, but it's terribly limited and influenced by our humanity. Sure, you can always choose one of two things in any multiple choice setting, but your opinions about that setting which come from your humanity in one way or another make the choice for you. I have the free will to choose to be a Christian but at the same time my mind tells me that these stories in the Bible are simply fiction and thus I no longer have any reason to be a Christian. I couldn't make myself believe in God even if I wanted to, because in my mind I would always doubt it.

So then as long as it's short lived, that's ok?!


(Excerpt) Hell is eternal. According to Matthew 25:46, Jesus said, "and these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal". Romans 16:26, speaks of the everlasting God. Hebrews 9:14 refers to the eternal spirit.

There are four expressions in these three verses to be considered. They are "everlasting punishment", "eternal life", everlasting God", and "eternal spirit". The only difference between everlasting and eternal in our language is a difference in spelling. They mean the same thing. The Greek word translated as everlasting or eternal in these three passages is the same. It is "ionious" which means eternal, everlasting, without end, never to cease, or indeterminate as to duration. (Continues at link)


Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (More passages about hell, including the temperature.)

But that just proves that a certain number of non-believers are meant to become believers. Where neither total non-belief nor total belief is possible, both must exist - that doesn't mean to say that a person is born a non-believer or believer and remains so... just that by the time they die they have become whatever it is they were destined to be. And if non-belief is predetermined, it goes without saying that belief is. So where exactly is the element of choice? It's the illusion of choice, that's all.

And if they'd said they weren't game, what would have happened? As long as god remained in his heaven he could pretty much wait as long as was necessary for everything to go as he'd planned, but not once Jesus was on earth as a mortal man. If it was part of god's plan to sacrifice himself on the cross - which it must have been or it wouldn't have happened - then everything leading up to that event had to fall into place. What would have happened if Jesus couldn't have persuaded a single man to follow him? What would have happened if Judas hadn't betrayed him? What would have happened if the people hadn't chosen Jesus to be crucified? Would god have sat by and said "oh well, better luck next time... I can always pop back in a couple of hundred years and continue doing that until they crucify me"? If god deliberately sent his son to be crucified, then it had to take place... and every event prior to the crucifixion had to be just as it had been planned by god beforehand.

You just have to look at god's dealings with pharaoh to see that if something is meant to take place - in that case the freeing of slaves - he isn't going to just sit back and let his plan get all knocked out of shape. He raised pharaoh up as a way of demonstrating his (god's, not pharaoh's) divine power. He hardened his heart. And those slaves were going free no matter what anybody did or said. God had a plan, and everybody had to accommodate it... not the other way around.

The universe is one. Therefore the will of the universe is one. This will wills all.

I was under the impression that you were speaking of peoples' free will in regard to choosing to accept/believe God for eternity vs. being "forced" not to because part of His plan includes "forcing" some to not believe, I was not speaking about events. Yes, some events indeed are part of His plan. I am not arguing that. Happenings in His plan that had to happen to fulfill it are a different subject, and an interesting one.

That is interesting. It raises the whole issue of predestination. Was Judas predestined to betray Jesus, or could he have backed out at the last minute? If he chose not to have gone along with it, it would have cast a spanner in the works of God's plan and the fulfillment of the prophecies.
The only explanation I can give is that history as we know it is a playing out of one version. We are focused on this version. There is perhaps an infinit number of other versions (parallel universes) playing out as well. Why we appear to be experiencing this version only, and not aware of the other versions, is a mystery to me.

If Judas backed out then the prophecy wouldnt have been fulfilled and so Jesus wouldnt have been recognized as the messiah. Not I recognize as the one and only messiah anyway but Jesus knew what would happen to him.

If we truly had free-will, shouldn't God make our final destination the beneficial one regardless of our life choices?

Having one outcome of your decisions eternal damnation is not granting one 'free-will', it's God saying "I'm loading the dice in my favour". The free-will in this scenario is ONLY for which destination you choose, not every other decision in your life.

I agree. That is why I dont believe in a fabled eternal hell. To do so is to believe God is a sadist.

If we have free will (which, as I said, I don't believe the Christian god has given his creation) then a man who is born (who would believe if he were to use his free will) who is required by god not to believe would have to be altered to fall in line - he would have to be forced off his chosen path to bring about his non-belief, because if he had been left to make the choice himself he would have believed. If, however, you believe the Christian god didn't grant his creation free will, replace "forces" with "creates"... god creates some to not believe and some to believe. In either case, as we are either given free will and forced to choose something contrary to what we would have chosen, or we are not given free will and are created not to believe, the final outcome is the same.

If events are meant to take place to fulfill part of the plan then the people involved in those events were predestined to be believers or non-believers... so there is no free will. There is no choice. If people are created to take part in specific events, then why would this apply only to the big ones - the crucifixion, pharaoh, etc.? It's equally feasible that there are events going on around us all the time which are a part of god's plan... in which case the people involved in those events are also required to believe or not believe to fit in with it. So, where is the choice?

He is a god who has a plan and intervenes... he's not going to stand by and watch his plan go skewiff... hence we do not have free will.

Shadow,

If God is omnipotent He doesn't have to intervene or interfere. At the preordained 'end time' He just makes everything as He wants it. God doesn't need a plan...just an outcome.

Actually, my general opinion is that "hell" is simply a second and eternal death (Nothingness, much like many atheists believe in and take comfort from). Though since this topic is not really debating the biblical basis for hell, I won't go into detail of each of your passages. I'll suffice it to say that a large portion of them come from parables or apocalyptic writings (ie, highly symbolic). Of the rest, most words translated as "hell" either literally mean "the grave" (greek sheol) or refer to a location (greek gehenna - a valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem). So if a passage reads "one is destined for the fires of hell", I can virtually guarantee that the word translated is "gehenna", the valley where people often brought their dead to bury, and their rubbish to burn (I'm not certain if they burnt the bodies themselves or not, but it was a common rubbish dump where the refuse was incinerated.

If links such as you provide wish to see this as "proof" that the Bible warns of eternal torment, then so be it, but I would think a better view is to move away from the dogma of eternal hellfire, which does not stand up when reviewed on its own away from church doctrine.

Regards, PA

Personally I don't believe in divine intervention/revalation at all, or hell, or this big plan. But Christians tell me their god has a plan, and the bible tells me he intervenes... it makes no sense to me, but there you go.

I dare say all religion is subject to interpretation, yes!? You prove that well enough yourself, when you apply apologetics about context and church doctrine.
However, I'd think that you just made the point of hell being a burning place. When you described Gehenna, as a valley where the dead and refuse were burnt.
So if indeed it is a matter of parable and context, would jesus or any disciple, teaching that an after life in any way described as that place the locals would know so well, not be aware of the correlation, so as to impart the understanding of their words to those that listened, if they name this place they are speaking of, after life, for what is now known as a place for burning the dead and the garbage!?

At best I believe it would constitute as circumstancial evidence, GW. Perhaps if there were more to back up hell than these verses you might have a point. Parables are useless because they are basically fables told as analogies - there goes a large portion of scriptural support for hell. Revelation is useless because the only one who burns in punishment is Satan and those angels that followed him. Humans are only ever described as being cast into the Lake of Fire (which is separate from the place set aside for the demons), and this is described as a Second Death (which is what I said before about hell being a second and complete death, like nothingness). So there goes another large chunk of scripture.

Of that which is left, they either refer to a grave (for example, Jesus was in "hell" for three days because he was put in a tomb under the ground (ie, a grave/hell), or they refer to the valley of Gehenna (again for example, Jesus warned that those who do not repent are in danger of the fires of Gehenna - the final resting place of these people is gehenna while those who are gifted salvation are in no danger of being left here as their final grave).

When you factor in that the Bible also refers to this place as a desolate wasteland, and also as a place of Nothing, and I believe I can even find a couple of references to hell as a place of bitter cold, it would seem that hell as a place of fiery torment is extremely remote, to the point of impossibility.

Regards, PA

If you pick up a knife and choose to use it to cut off your finger, is the outcome of that as beneficial as picking up the knife and using it to slice a carrot to put in your stew?

Is the outcome of every major decision you make now the same no matter what you choose? If you choose not to get up in the morning and get ready for that big meeting with a major client, will the outcome of your decision be the same as if you did get up? If no, then why would your decision not to do what is correct in regards to eternal life have no impact on your eternal life? If the choices were completely meaningless then would there actually be real choice?

The choices are meaningless... aside from one. We can do good all our lives, and at the end of that life we will be judged not by our actions but by our beliefs. Not a single decision we make in our lives can impact upon the outcome other than that of whether or not we believe. So, if the outcome is judged on only one decision, what point is there in making any other? As a non-believer I may as well stay home and never go out again... or kill people, rape people, beat little children to within an inch of their lives, steal, and every other bad thing you can think of... because the only thing I'll be damned for is my unwllingness to believe in your god.

Fine, we can choose whether or not to go to that one meeting. Big deal. Every other decision we're faced with is cast aside as worthless.

And anyway, the choice doesn't seem to be whether or not we go to the all important meeting... it seems to be more about which tie pin we wear.