Christian belief in eternal torment is indefensible.

"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! . . . " It doesn't matter how long you rant or how many examples you use, because parents are limited and do not know how their children will turn out. God DOES KNOW that billions will reject and end up in hell, yet continues on with the plan. Also, parents do not choose to make their children eternally conscious. God insists all will have an eternal existence, even though most will be in endless misery. You need to quit making comparisons between finite and infinite. For example, in your previous post, you compared our justice system and disciplining children to eternal torment in hell. You avoided that in your last post because I pointed out the obvious problem. But I also pointed out that making parents (limited in power and limited in knowledge) as responsible as God (omnipotent and omniscient) is wrong. Yet, you continue doing this. Again, don't compare apples and oranges! Or maybe "apples and oranges" is a bad analogy. Perhaps I should say don't compare a grain of sand to the universe. "This is nothing more than an attempt at shifting the blame instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions." Are you not paying attention? I have stated more than once that humans bear responsibility. I never claimed that humans are innocent. But to continue talking AD NAUSEUM about human responsibility is nothing more than sidestepping God's role in this. God is the ONLY one CAPABLE of stopping this great tragedy, yet God REFUSES. Since humans are a pathetic race where so few obtain salvation, then it made no sense to create us in the first place. God should have created a better race. When I discuss children, this sets off another long response. We are like children compared to God. And yes, we can reject salvation because of our upbringing and culture. You say God will not punish those who don't know. I assume you are referring to Romans 2:12-16, specifically verse 14: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." According to that passage I am saved, because I follow my conscience. I reject Christianity because I find it lacking in evidence, not because I want to "live in sin." My morals and lifestyle agree with most of Christian beliefs, with minor variations. However, there is a problem with this because many people would be saved by these standards. This conflicts with Matthew 7:13-14, which states that most are headed to destruction. "(1) To destroy Adam and Eve would be an admission that Satan had tharted (sic) his plans . . ." Face it: the plan failed! If the vast majority of humanity going to hell is not failure, then what is? What could be worse? Does EVERYONE have to reject God's plan before we call it a failure? I do not know how to make this any clearer. "God has no responsibility to stop people from using their free will as they see fit, and I challeng (sic) my opponent to show us, on what basis does he argue that God is obligated to stop suffering?" The real question of this debate is not whether God should stop the suffering. The crucial question is whether or not God should torment non-Christians endlessly. But I will respond briefly to this. As I stated above, "God is the ONLY one CAPABLE of stopping this great tragedy, yet God REFUSES." God's refusal to stop the tragedy contradicts Scripture saying that God does not want any to perish. A similar problem is that the Bible portrays Satan as the deceiver who leads many astray. If God really did not want any to perish, God would destroy Satan to keep him from causing more people to go to hell. Another point that you totally missed was how Christians can get so upset over documentaries of TEMPORARY suffering they cannot even watch, yet they accept eternal torment. I was trying to show that people don't realize how repulsive hell would be. I HOPE this is denial. Because if it is not denial, then it is lack of love. People who truly love, as Jesus commanded, would be in serious depression if they considered that billions of people will suffer day after day . . . year after year . . . century after century . . . millennium after millennium . . . with no end in sight. If this does not cause you serious depression, then you need to ask yourself if you truly love as Jesus commanded. Many Christians seem happy about going to heaven, even though they believe that billions of others will suffer endless torment. Anyone with this attitude sounds like a sociopath! "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?" If you have irrefutable proof of God, then why are you here? Why aren't you getting your Nobel Prize? Perhaps your "proof" isn't as powerful as you think it is. Then again, this may be just semantics. An argument that cannot be refuted (yet) does not mean it must be true; it only means it has not been totally discredited. Many arguments on many subjects have not been refuted, but they are not absolute proof. As I said, the core of this debate is why God insists on tormenting people endlessly for making wrong choices. The punishment does not fit the crime. This seems so self-evident, yet people refuse to admit it. One major goal of punishment is to correct behavior, like parents disciplining children. Another important goal is to keep society safe, like locking dangerous criminals in prison. These two goals should be the primary focus of punishment, while retaliation should be a DISTANT third. Obviously, the only goal of hell is retaliation, since it is too late to accomplish anything else. And when temporary disobedience leads to eternal torment, you have serious burden to justify this punishment. So far, this is all I have seen in your attempt to justify eternal torment for temporary disobedience: 1. You said the Bible says so and God has the right to decide (Round 1). 2. You compared judicial system and parents disciplining children to the punishment of hell (Round 2). 3. You said that a sin against an eternal God has eternal consequences (Round 2). 4. You said God created us with a plan that we would live forever (Round 2 and 3). I said at the beginning that our debate isn't about what the Bible says, so the first point is not valid. I also said the second point was absurd because you cannot compare temporary punishments of this life to eternal torment, and you did not bring that up in the last round. The third point has problems because we are limited and not even capable of causing eternal consequences, yet held eternally accountable in endless torment. And the fourth one does not make sense because it is obvious that the plan is a failure by any rational standards. Are there any other points where you would like to make to refute the thesis of this debate? You must respond in your next reply, because I will not be able to respond after your final reply. Thanks