Hell is immoral and unjustified.

Pro thinks that if God appeared to all mankind that 98% of them would become Christians. They would become theists, but that doesn"t show they will become Christians. Believing that God exist doesn"t make you a Christian, and believing that the Bible is true doesn"t give you a relationship with him. Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and the nation still rejected him. And likewise today Christian organizations feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and still their message is not lived out by most people receiving their care. A magnificent appearance of God in the sky won"t stop people from preferring a sinful life. Even angels in the presence of God turned against him, what then about us? To illustrate my point, look at how many professed Christians you know who don"t practice what they preach. Even people who believe the Bible still choose to rebel against God, and they are not a few, they are many. So even if God proves he exists to the whole world, that doesn"t show the world will chose willingly to obey him out of love. Even if they obeyed him, it will most likely be out of fear of punishment. This isn"t the kind of worship God wants.. Like those who prefer sex outside of marriage. So no, God"s appearance won"t make the world into genuine Christians, not from the heart. It won"t make them love his way above what their sinful flesh desires. Many men will prefer to look at a naked woman than God"s glorious appearing. In Pro"s illustration of Daddy and his kids, he leaves out the part where after the ones who are saved because they accept the right version of Daddy are informed that now that they have a clean slate, they cannot practice rape, murder and so on again, or they too will burn. So Christians don"t get to heaven only on the basis of believing in the right God, but on how they live up to his standards afterwards. They must right the wrongs they have done as much as they are able, and if they killed someone, they must willingly turn themselves into the authorities to serve the time for their crimes. Christians must own up to what they did. And as for what Pro calls "an understandable mistake," I wonder, do you think that rejecting your claim that hell is unjust is an "understandable mistake" on my part? I doubt you do, because you made the information available to me. And God has made the information about himself available to the whole world not just in the Bible, but by sending missionaries, using TV broadcasts, the internet, tracts, and even visions and dreams, and conscience. God can speak directly to anyone, but he doesn"t force people to love him. Most people have no excuse. It"s not like they have not heard. And Muslims, for example, have heard the criticisms of their religion and choose to turn a blind eye. No, its not a mistake for most of us, it"s a choice; just like when most religious people choose to reject evolution, it isn"t because they don"t know what evidence you have for it; its because they don"t like it. People who don"t want to have to live like a Christian won"t accept it even if it"s true. This comes down to love of truth versus love of darkness. Now Pro claims torturing someone for not loving you is immoral. How do you decide what is moral and what is not? This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Because you don"t like it, then it"s wrong. You make your own feelings the measure of justice and truth. But if God attaches greater importance to loving him than he does to your personal happiness, what is it that makes him wrong for doing so? I am sure you know that moral values do not exist outside of consciousness. If all humans and animals vanish off the earth, and a rock falls and kills a mouse, is it evil? Where is morality? But because we can think, we can experience a realm of moral values, and the question arises: where do these moral values we apprehend come from? Well, it is only because an eternal being (God) has always existed, that such moral values exist, and God prefers these values because they are part of his very nature. It is because God is loving that love is objectively good, it is because God is just that justice is objectively good. And these moral values were not invented by God; so God didn"t arbitrarily decide to make any action morally right or wrong. Rather, lying, for example, was always morally wrong, and God didn"t decide to make it wrong, he merely revealed it was wrong. This standard cannot exist independent of God as Pro suggests, because it is only wrong because God"s character is truth, the opposite of lies. So God"s character itself is the standard for all moral behavior. So again I see Pro falling on his own sword. If hell is immoral, than objective moral values exist. But if they exist, their source must transcend mere human opinion, for human opinion is relative. Just as humans disagreed on whether slavery was right, so my opponent and I disagree on if hell is right. If there is a supernatural source of moral values, it gives that being the final say on what is right and wrong, and if this being, God, says that hell is part of his justice, who then are we to disagree? To disagree is to create another source of morality, and I dare Pro to tell us what it is. For I don"t see any morality being an accidental byproduct of evolution, as being anything more than subjective opinions. Pro argues that logic and consideration for suffering is the basis for morality. Well, its logical for a minority to suffer for the benefit of the majority, so using logic would very well justify any mistreatment of minority groups to benefit majorities. Its logical to pull the plug on the sick who are taking up valuable resources that can be better utilized by the healthy. Logic was used to justify eugenics, slavery, and all kinds of suffering. Its logical to force five young girls into pornography because the millions gained from he hundreds of thousand of perverts who will buy the videos, will go to provide free medical aid to thousands of sick patients. Sacrifice of the few to benefit the many is logical. Does logic make it fair? Logic can tell you if suffering was necessary, but not if it is just. What seems logical to one person, doesn"t seem logical to others, so in cases like this, how can logic be a decided of truth, let alone justice? Millions of people think it is illogical to believe that life spontaneously appeared out of non-living material, some like yourself believe in abiogenesis. How do you decide whose logic is the right one? Do you count hands? Then we are back to deciding truth and morality by majority vote. So again, I challenge Pro to try it again, and tell us how he even gets morality without God. He cannot! He knows he cannot! Yet wants to accuse God of being immoral when sending people to hell as if his opinion was an objective determiner of truth. Pro, could it be that we humans are so emotionally incensed at human suffering that we are unable to objectively condemn hellfire? We seem to have no problem with the suffering we do to animals when he kill our livestock, or experiment with animals in the lab. We justify it by saying it serves a purpose, but if God has an even greater purpose for sending people to hell, what makes you think you would be privy to those reasons? How do you know, that a being with infinitely more wisdom and knowledge than you, could not have reasons unknown to you, why he created hell in the first place? How can a speck of dust in this vast universe argue with God as if we comprehend his outworking of the bigger picture. Honestly, as an ant cannot see the big picture from our point of view, I think we can only graze the surface of God"s reasons, for he is far more than us than we are over the ants. Pro said: "The only logical reason for a man to torture someone for eternity would be to satisfy his own sadism." I wonder if rats in the lab are saying a similar thing to themselves when poked with instruments. The difference between God and us is bigger than the difference between us and rats; so how does he know we would even comprehend all of God"s reasons or be privy to them? Who are we to argue with God? Pro argues with my authoritarian view of morality, but unlike human dictators who could be wrong because they don"t know everything and are not the very source of moral values, God himself couldn"t be wrong because he does know everything and is the source of moral values. So if God, the very source of morality, was ever wrong, then how can Pro or anybody else ever be right? On logic? Whose logic? How is Pro"s logic any better than God"s? The same atheists who have made these arguments on how immoral hell is were equally involved, side by side with religious fanatics, buying and selling slaves during 400 years of African slavery! They themselves change in their human opinions, and what is considered right today by them, will not be considered right years from now as they continue to change as they always have. Pro argues that I asserted without evidence that God is omniscient and morally perfect, but that is part of the very definition of God; any being who isn"t omniscient and morally perfect can"t be God. What"s more, if he demands that I prove God has these qualities, would that not be a subject for a different debate? Pro, are we debating the morality of hell on the assumption that God exists, or are we debating the morality of hell AND the question of whether or not God exists? If you wanted a debate on the existence of God, you should have said so. When sin separates someone from God, God suffers the pain of losing that one forever. They too, will experience pain forever. Sin has eternal consequences either way.