Hell is immoral and unjustified.

My opponent, by claiming that wading through the lottery of religions makes unbelief in Christianity justified, has underestimated the work of the Holy Spirit and the power of an omnipotent God. Jesus said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." (John 6:44) The Father does not draw men primarily by the preaching of Christians, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Those who reject this witness have already received ample evidence of where the truth lies and are thus not justified in rejecting the truth. However, God does not need to draw every person in the world to him for being omniscient, he knows those who would obey him out of love for who he is, and these he draws. So knowing those whose hearts would reject him anyway justifies God in not going to the extremes my opponent suggests he should go to to prove himself, like appearing in the sky to the whole world and say "I am God." In fact, Pro only assumes without proof this would convince everyone. Many scientists would think it was an alien being, and ask how they could trust what it says. Others would become theists, but that doesn't show they would exercise faith in him and love him. God didn't want mindless robots, so he gave us free will; but Pro seems to think that God can MAKE people FREELY love him. This is a logical contradiction. Even if people only obeyed God out of fear of going to hell, that wouldn't mean they loved him in their hearts for who he is. And if people only obey God for the rewards, or to escape punishment, their worship will still be meaningless in his eyes. You don't want your children to pretend that thy love you, do you? So yes, no one freely chooses hell, but people freely choose not to love God and his ways. Some people prefer to cheat on their wives than to be faithful. Some people prefer to steal than to work hard for a living. So just believing in the right God is not enough to keep a relationship with him strong and get to heaven, one must love to do what is right and hate what is bad. I even find it odd that an atheist should argue that hell is immoral, because if God didn't exist there would be no immorality or morality, for human opinions of right and wrong would only the accidental spin-offs of socio-biological evolution, and I have no reason to think that a morality developed by animals ought to be correct. Morality without God would not be objective, so that you could justly condemn anyone. Love, justice, and compassion would only be aids to survival, but any deeper meaning would be illusory in a universe devoid of purpose or meaning. When an atheist says "love your neighbor as yourself," he thinks he is referring to some standard above and beyond himself, but in doing so he holds to the Christian view that there is some transcendent lawmaker beyond human opinion. A sense that what is just and fair isn't decided by majority vote. I would ask Pro what is his basis for justice in a world without God? But he also argues that it isn't fair to torture someone in hell for a limited lifetime of sin, but that fails to understand the nature of hell. In the lake of fire, people are not only being tortured for sins in this life, but for sins they continue to commit after death, as they continue to hate God in their hearts for what he has done to them. The rich man in Luke 16:19-31 didn't repent, even though he was begging for mercy. And even if he did repent, he would not be doing so out of a sense of guilt for his wrong, or his love of God, but simply to avoid torture. This is no reason for mercy! I wonder how Pro knows that anyone genuinely converts after being in the lake of fire? If they couldn't appreciate the love of God in this life to move them into worship, what makes you think they will see God's love in hellfire? But again, Pro argues in a circle. His whole argument boils down to this: God is wrong because hell doesn't seem fair to me. This begs the question: what makes Pro think that objective morality, that is, standards that are binding on all of us rather we choose to believe in them or not, should be decided by him? How is it that his human view of what is right ought to trump God's? Just because he doesn't agree with God's reasoning, how does that make him right? Even if no human thinks God is fair, how does that make them right? Since when was truth, or better yet, justice , decided by majority vote? And by majority vote of lower beings at that? If God exists, it stands to reason even on common sense grounds that he would know better than us what is just, and he would also have the right to make the rules. So the only way to show that any human ideas of morality trump God's view of morality is to assume for the purposes of this debate that God doesn't exist. But not only is that an assumption without proof, its not even on the topic of this debate! Pro asked me is the Muslim God Allah sent me to hell for not believing Islam if it would be fair. Well, if Allah is the true God, and if I would have been willing to love him for who he is, he would have reached me in the same way the Holy Spirit reached me, giving me enough evidence to choose him if I so desired. If then I rejected him, he would be within his rights to burn me in hell forever. But let me also say something also on this matter of people going to hell because they didn't accept the right God. For while God has rules, got isn't an unreasonable tyrant. They are exceptions to rules. For example, Paul says that people who did not receive the law which the Jews had received at Sinai, the Gentiles, were still given the faculty of conscience, and God would basically judge them on the basis of the extent to which they were willing to follow the little truth they did know. (Romans 2:11-16) I am saying this to suggest, that babies who died in childbirth, or folks who suffered from mental illness and so forth will not be sent to hell just because they didn't believe. God knows if they "would have" believed were they in a position to hear the good news, and he also has the option of judging them on the basis of how they lived their lives. Its not all as black and white as you make it seem, and that is why most genuine Christians would not point fingers and say "he or she won't be saves" because Jesus is the judge, not them. Furthermore, while I believe people will experience being in literal fire in that lake of fire, scripture doesn't say they will "burn" forever, only that they will forever be that place which has fire burning. There may be occasions when they will not be in fire. In fact, Jesus taught here will be different degrees of punishment in hell, or gehenna (the lake of fire). He said it will be more endurable for some than for others. (Luke 10:12-14) The real anguish, even more so than the fire in that place, will be to experience forever total separation from God. So yes, no one consciously chooses to be in a place like hell, but the y do choose in this life to separate themselves from God, even though they may believe in him. Look how many people will tell you they believe fornication is wrong, yet they still do it. So the problem here isn't belief, its the heart condition. Those whose hearts would be acceptable to God, I have to reason to think he would not reach them effectively, and for you to say that he hasn't just because many people have not accepted him seems to imply your belief that you know for sure they would love and serve him if they were convinced the Bible was true. How could you know this? I have a Muslim friend who told me that even if the Bible was true he would not serve God, because any God who torture his own Son on a cross doesn't deserve worship. No God who accepts human sacrifice doesn't deserve his love. Yet he has no problem with all the lives that have been sacrificed in Islam's jihad's over the years! The very act that God used as the greatest expression of his love, sacrificing himself for us, taking on our suffering, he rejects. You, a mere human are in no position to say that God isn't fair when punishing people in hell. For his thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and his ways, higher than your ways.