Christian belief in eternal torment is indefensible.

"How many people would end up in hell if God had not created humans and created hell? ZERO!" How many men would have sex with animals if women had not given birth to the babies who became men? ZERO! How many men would be serial killers if women had not given birth to them? ZERO! This is the kind of logic my opponent is using; that just because A is responsible for B's very existence, he is also responsible for everything that B does! This kind of logic leads to the conclusion that all parents are responsible for murder when their kids grow up to be killers. And if they are responsible for the actions of their offspring, should they not be jailed or hanged along with them when justices catches up with these offspring? Anyone can see this reasoning is flawed. God is no more responsible for the way we use our free will then parents are when their adult offspring commit heineous crimes. We are all responsible for our own actions, not those of others, and God is no different! To believe my opponents argument, we would have to believe that a company which manufactures or sells salt, is responsible for a woman's blindness because somebody threw salt in her eye. The rational would be that she wouldn't get salt in her eye if companies didn't make or sell salt. Its like blaming your mother eveytime you get drunk, just because if she didn't give birth to you you owuld exist in order to be drunk. This is nothing more than an attempt at shifting the blame instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions. "Let me give you a story to show the problem. Suppose when my children were young, I gave them a loaded gun to play with, and one was killed. My defense would be, "I am not the one who pulled the trigger, so I am not responsible." Is that legitimate? You would be appalled by my response. I knew the danger, yet went ahead with it." This reasoning again is flawed because it does not accurately respresent the situation under discussion at all. Minors without the proper nowledge or ability to make an informed decision about spiritual matters will not automatically go to hell. And while a human being can pull a trigger by accident due to being a child, he cannot reject salvation by accident. The argument is also unreasonable. A woman knows the risk of having a child, that there is always the chance the chance he'll turn out to be a rapist, yet she gave him life anyway; is she to blame for how he uses his life when he grows up? No! And no court should lock up a woman for the crimes of her son. God isn't to blame for how free agents use free will. "God should have destroyed Adam and Eve before they reproduced billions of offspring, where most are destined to eternal torment. In fact, God should have destroyed Eve in front of Adam so he did not follow her into sin." (1) To destroy Adam and Eve would be an admission that Satan had tharted his plans and he had to start over from scratch, which would mean a created being was able to outsmart God; the angels of heaven would be unable to have confidence in him as an all-wise God, would would lead to more rebellion. (2) Destroying Eve would not guarantee Adam's faithfulness. God has destroyed many evildoers in the Old Testament in front of witnesses, and this didn't prevent the witnesses from following a sinful course. After destroying Pharoah's army in the sea, the Israelites who saw it still rebelled afterwards in the wilderness. After the flood of Noah's day, rebellion began afresh. Destroying people and starting over doesn't mean the new folks won't rebel. "Human parents have limitations, while God is omnipotent. If you want to use "logic" to compare, then humans have limited responsibility while God has unlimited responsibility." God has no responsibility to stop people from using their free will as they see fit, and I challeng my opponent to show us, on what basis does he argue that God is obligated to stop suffering? God doesn't have to save anyone, that why Christians teach that it is a free gift. We are born in sin and never did anything to deserve eternal life in paradise or heaven. "There are graphic documentaries on television about war, starvation, disease, crime, child abuse, and other suffering. Many get very upset and cannot watch these disturbing programs. While these programs are disturbing, we can be comforted by the fact that all the suffering is TEMPORARY; it will end someday. Many Christians, who cannot even stomach watching these disturbing shows, believe and preach the doctrine of endless torment, which is far worse than any temporary hardship today. Is there a section of their brains they shutoff to keep them from connecting the dots?" The fact that these scenes on TV are hard for some to look at doesn't make them any less real, thus, we have no reason to conclude that something worse doesn't exist in hell. Also, many people also enjoy watching scenes of violence and they call it antertainment. Some of the kung-fu movies today are very brutal, and many of these foks are Christians. So we can't settle the issue by comparing what Christians watch on TV. Also, the same Christians who can't stomah brutal scenes, would do worse to someone who hurts someone they love. Its human nature to want justice. Even in Old Testament times God commanded Israel to slaughter women and children, why not hell? "By that "logic" you could justify child abuse." The reason why the consequence of sin is eternal is because our spirits were designed to live forever. So have to spend etertiny somewhere. Also, the abuse of children is only wrong because they are children, but adults are legally responsible to bear harsh penalties, and in some cases even torture! It all depends on the situation. "When people are sincere and do not believe in Christianity, how are they responsible for honestly rejecting what they do not believe to be true?" I beleive some sincere seekers who reject Christianity will get to heaven by God's mercy, others will not. It all depends on the situation. "This is an unfair assertion that only non Christians are biased." I never said that only non-Christians are biased, and if you don't think the evidence for God is good, then I'll post you an argument for his existence not even you can refute, up for it? "But most reject this fix. Not much of a remedy when the vast majority does not get fixed." A good doctor doesn't force a treatment on his patients. When was the last time the doctors forced you to take meds? So you're blaming God for allowing you to choose how to live your life? "But you prefer to deny that there are any legitimate reasons to reject Christianity." You argue that just because many reject a thing that their reasons are always legitimate? Many reject that man landed on the moon, does it make their reason legitimate? Some do have legitimate reasons for rejecting the truth, and God mercifully forgives. When Jesus was dying on the cross he told God to forgive the Romans who killed him out of ignorance; but many don't have legitimate reasons, and they will go to hell. (Luke 23:34) "So far, you have done nothing but preach to the choir. Christians who already agree with you, and don't want to question their beliefs, will continue to agree with you. But non Christians, as well as Christians who have been wondering about these issues already, could not possibly be swayed by your presupposition that God must be right and we cannot question God" I never said we can't question God, Abraham did; but when you get answers, you should take them seriously.