The Problem of Hell Redux

I have mentioned human ethics cannot be applied to within this debate before round 3. "You are attempting to apply human morality and human ethics to something which is indescribable and unknown by humanity" (1). Instead of making these brand new arguments, and yes they are new as neither these sources nor these arguments were seen in rounds before hand, he has decided to take it upon himself to argue this point in the last round. Since I now must refute these arguments to keep my case intact it cannot be abuse as my opponent is the instigator of the new arguments. D1. The Divine Immunity Defense As my opponent aptly pointed out, if I can defend this one premise my opponents case is refuted and mine upheld. The alleged contradiction running through my debate is not a contradiction. I have stated over and over again that God does not have to follow human rationality or human ethics for the simple reason, He is not human. In other words, God's rationality is not the same as man's rationality. I can reason God has these attributes because the scripture is God's way of telling man about Himself. The only things man knows about God is contained in Christian scripture. Scripture says God IS just, in all He does. God IS good, in all He does. Passages of the infallible Christian Scripture blatantly state this. Under what authority can my opponent argue this is incorrect? Therefore, according to Christianity, anything God does is completely justified…to God, but, no necessarily to man. Gods reasoning and rationality is beyond human comprehension. Who is man to say anything God does is unjustified when the infallible word of God, given to man by God, says the exact opposite; God is justified in all He does? God would be moral if He Himself condemns man to hell (which is inaccurate) simply because God is just in every action He does. Now as for my opponent's claims about a personal God, in Christianity, God is considered to be personal for two reasons, one, God interacts with man several times throughout the Old and all throughout the New Testament. Two, God created the universe for a personal reason. He had a desire to create the Universe. A person is a human being as the evident definition of a person is defined as being a human being. God can have personal intentions, God can act personally (showing anger, etc.) But, this does not mean God is a person, God is not human, thus, all taking of application of human aspects to God are invalid. According to Christian Scripture, God is good and all He does is good. This is blatantly stated in Scripture. Since according to Christianity, everything God does is good. Creating Hell is good. So far we know, God does not send man to hell. They freely choose to go. The crux of my opponents argument is basically, how can a loving God create Hell? To answer this, I refer back to my initial argument, Hell was not meant for man and man choose to freely enter Hell by their own free will. (1) You see in order to have free will there must be both Heaven and Hell. Mankind needs to have a choice, otherwise how can they freely choose what to believe? If there is no Hell, there is no free will. There needs to be a choice in the matter. My opponent cites David Baggett and Jerry Walls to make their point. But, my opponent is citing them out of context. I will provide the entire argument they make. "His goodness must be recognizable for our ascriptions of goodness to Him to remain meaningful, BUT there could still arise occasions where it isn't easy to see the goodness of what He commands. In fact, it would seem that some of God's commands might in a real sense involve something morally bad. We are all familiar with circumstances where the only available moral choices are in some way bad…the badness of an action does not nessesarily entail it's wrongness." (2) My opponent cites them out of context, in reality, my opponent is claiming Hell is a bad place. But, according to Mr. Baggett and Mr. Walls, something which is "bad" does not make it immoral or wrong. Something which is "bad" can in fact, be the "good" choice. Hell is a good choice. Hell is not necessarily unethical or evil, as my opponent claims, its creation is good. There are two choices, create Hell to banish Satan and Satan's follower's for all eternity or allow Satan to stay in heaven potentially ruling over the earth. The question is would you prefer God to rule or Satan to rule? Personally, I prefer a good ruler rather than an evil and rationally so does everyone. Furthermore, Hell upholds the doctrine of Free-will, which is held over all other doctrines. God gave man free will. Thus, it is man's choice about their fate. This is completely ethical as God gives man the tools they need in order to make a decision about their eternal fate. God sent prophets, God even sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to save mankind. Man has everything it needs to make an informed decision. Through the infallible bible they know heaven is eternal bliss and Hell is eternal suffering. They have all the tools they need, if a person chooses to ignore these tools, then they can only blame themselves. Romans 2: 14 address the problem of how man can condemn those who never heard of Jesus Christ to Hell. To put it simply, first, God does not condemn anybody. Second, whether you go to heaven or hell is your own decision. "if you disobey the truth that you have, even though you have never heard of Moses or of Christ, you perish, not because you didn't hear of Moses or of Christ, but because you have disobeyed truth that you already know -- that is the whole point. If you know of Moses and of Christ, and you still disobey the truth, you perish also" (3) Thank you Pro for participating. And thank you judges for reading. Sources: 1.This debate round 2 2.http://books.google.com... 3.http://www.preceptaustin.org...