The Problem of Hell Redux (2)

I find it ironic that he claims my arguments are rife with problems when, in fact, it is Pro's arguments that are fatally flawed. I will, of course, point those out momentarily. However, Pro's claim that my exegesis has problems is just a baseless assertion, as he did not make his case (due to space constraints). I can say my exegesis is spot on which wouldn't prove that it is, but is no less valid than Pro's assertion to the contrary. But let me point to an example of a verse I quoted last round. In Matthew 25:41 Jesus says to those on his left to depart into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Eternal fire. I'm sure Con would claim that the fire is eternal and not the punishment, but what's the point of having an eternal fire that never goes out if punishment is only temporal? Why leave an eternal fire to burn long after the last punished souls are annihilated? I understand that space is limited, but I laid out a case for why Hell is eternal. A rebuttal of "your interpretation is wrong" doesn't work unless you can show why my interpretation is wrong. As such, I exted my arguments into the next round. God Cannot Stand SinMy objection here has not "gone off the rails. " In fact, Con presents a false dilemma. Since God cannot stand sin, he has only two options: Allow it to continue forever, or annihilate all sinners. But there is a third option: Allow them to survive in a state that is completely separated from you so you don't have to be around it. For example, if my niece is bugging me so much that I can't tolerate her attitude, I can send her into another room or, better yet, I can leave the house altogether (provided there is another adult there to watch her). Saying that God is tolerating sin by sending people to Hell is simply untrue. Hell is complete separation from God. Sinners are punished and allowed to die in their sins, but God doesn't have to tolerate it because those sinners exist in a state completely separated from God. There is nothing incoherent about this. God Is Justicei) Even though Jesus died on the cross so that all may be forgiven, Jesus does not force himself on anyone. If somene wants to be saved, they must accept God's salvation. After all, God allowed His only Son to die a horrible death on the cross. Why would God save anyone why would God save anyone who wouldn't take Jesus' death seriously? ii) Actually, I never said that all sin was deserving of the same punishment (although Hell is eternal for all sinners). There are verses that indicate there are different degrees of punishment in Hell (Matthew 10:15, 11:22). So Hitler will be punished a lot more than someone who didn't commit mass murder but still died in their sins. In fact, Con has overlooked a crucial point in my argument. While even one sin is deserving of Hell (for example, Con brought up stealing a pencil), Hell is so heinous because we are all guilty of a lifetime, a multitude of sins in thought, word, and deed. Free WillThere are no problems with the free will defense, as I will show. i) The boy who thrusts his hand into the fire despite having strong inclination not to did, in fact, make the free choice to do it. In fact, Talbott's argument actually proves too much. If we didn't have free will, then the boy would not stick his hand into the fire because he had strong inclination not to. The fact that we can act contrary to what we know is right, or how we were raised, is strong indication that we do, in fact, have free will. I have known people who know what Hell is and yet still reject God. It happens. It may not be in their best interests, but they may, in fact, believe they are acting in their best interests. Some have deluded themselves into thinking that Hell is one big party. Even though one can make the case they are not accept the true reality of Hell, if you try to explain to them what Hell is really like, they may not believe you. And often times when someone rejects a reality, it is because they can't face that reality. In that case, they are freely accepting Hell, but they are also freely accepting a skewed version of Hell as a way to cope with their decision. We also see people freely rejecting Christ in the Scriptures. Jesus even weeped over Jerusalem whom Jesus wanted to bring them under His wing but didn't, because they were not willing (Matthew 23:37). Even someone like Dawkins can be said to be "freely rejecting" God. He may claim that God is morally bankrupt, but this is because he doesn't understand God's actions. He sees the same things we do in the Bible and considers them evil. He is rejecting God because he doesn't understand God's nature. He still sees the same God we do. ii) Free will is sacrosanct because if God were to controvert free actions, then we would not actually be free. Additionally, we could not be held accountable for our actions if we were not free to do them. If I have no choice but to do good, then rewarding me is useless. If I have no choice but to do evil, then punishing me is cruel. The very reality of Hell attests to the fact of our free will. Now, there have been times in which God has superceded free will. This is because God had a grander plan that couldn't be interrupted or changed (for example, no one could have changed the fact of Jesus dying on the cross because this was an event that was necessary for God to redeem mankind, and He has predestined this event to happen before humankind was even created because by God's foreknowledge, He knew that we would sin and need a Savior. But these events are the exception, not the rule. We cannot truly be free if we have no choice but to do good or evil, and we would not be responsible for our actions. The problem with the analogies of irrationality is that an irrational person is not responsible for his actions. He doesn't know what he is doing. Sinners know what they're doing when they sin. Even if someone refuses to see the truth, they are still accountable for rejecting the truth. Rejecting the truth doesn't just mean saying "no thanks" and walking away. It can also mean believing an alternate worldview as a convenient way not to have to accept the truth. The Bliss of the Savedi) Again, this is another exegesis issue. My claim should not be dismissed because Con is misrepresenting this verse. God doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked. I said last round that it's not something to rejoice in or find comfort in. But God is still eternally happy in Heaven despite the fact that sinners are going to Hell. Con has not actually refuted my argument here. He has merely tried to sidestep it. ii) Con's reason for dismissing Norman Geisler's words are unfounded. He gave a valid reason for why we can be in happy in Heaven, by showing that we can be happy eating despite knowing there are starving people in the world. This does not undermine the bliss of the saved. I look forward to our next and final round.