HELL IS A HARMFUL DOCTRINE
INDEX – CLICK TO NAVIGATE
DIVINE MERCY
THE DEGRADING DOGMA
THE DOCTRINE IS USELESS
BELIEF IN EVERLASTING PUNISHING IS
HARMFUL
WAS IT GOOD OF JESUS TO REVEAL HELL?
CONCLUSION
Christians will not consider a faith that says God had sex with a virgin
for a good purpose. Presumably what God
does is okay as long as it hurts people to the extreme. According to Christian dogma, an eight year
old boy can go to Hell to suffer forever, and from it there is no escape, at death
just for masturbating or for not accepting Christ. They find that more palatable. That says a lot about them. The sentence of everlasting punishment which
involves everlasting torment and abandonment by God is the worst thing
imaginable. If we can condone God
allowing such a thing and creating such a state then we can condone
anything. Why? Because anything else is not as bad as it.
DIVINE MERCY
All the apparitions and miracles in Roman Catholicism
promise that God will forgive the sinner and show mercy. Yet they seemingly occur to bolster the
claims of the Catholic Church to be an infallible teacher and which has
infallibly revealed that Hell is real and that there is no escape from it for
those who go there. It is believed that
the person who dies in serious sin goes instantly down to Hell and there is no
escape and the punishment is everlasting.
This is a dogma of the faith having been proclaimed by Jesus Christ who
is God in the Bible and by the infallible Council of Trent. If the Church is wrong about that then we can
no longer believe in Catholicism for this Hell is part of the tradition that
the Church says is infallible revelation from God.
Now, if we
deserve unending torment then we cannot dodge it except by repenting and
throwing ourselves on God’s mercy. The
purpose of true punishment is for showing that wrong should not have been done
and because the alternative is rewarding.
If you don’t mete out retribution then you are not serious about
opposing wrong. Only whitewashers would
be more interested in deterring or reforming the criminal for deterring does
not change the evil desires and we are all capable of crime and nobody tries to
reform us. They look to the future and
not the past. So, you have to be
punished mainly because you have asked for it.
So, mercy is a declaration that a person should not be punished as much
as they should be. Therefore mercy
implies at least half-hearted approval for sin.
It is saying that it is bad and terrible but that you have to give some
measure of approval to it all the same at the same time. God hates you when he approves of your sin by
forgiving you and letting you off the hook.
His sending you to Hell if you fall into mortal sin again is still an
act of hate for he has not repented of having had mercy upon you and because he
believes in mercy. We all have committed
Hell-deserving sins like letting the starving die and not doing enough about
them. We are murderers. But when God
half-likes and approves of sin it is undeniable that his sending us to Hell is
an act of hate. He is punishing us for
something he likes. The hatred of
sending us to Hell would be a greater hatred than the weak hatred shown to us
when he gives us mercy.
A God
who sends to Hell is into revenge not retribution for retribution should try to
reform. If revenge is ever right it is
always right and so mercy is offensive.
Forgiveness
is putting a person saying they are sorry before the fact that they have done
wrong. You are more sure that they have
done wrong than that they are really sorry for doing wrong. And if you do it for your sake to rid yourself
of ill-feelings that is not real pardon.
You have to do it not for the sake of your feelings for that is selfish
but so that you will be of service to the offender so it has to be done for the
other person alone which is rewarding them.
So forgiveness is degrading. An
all-powerful and all-good God cannot do it for that means he does not love
himself (and therefore anybody else) and he should for he is infinite and
perfect love. He can wish he could
forgive under the right circumstances but he cannot forgive. It is a terrible sin to ask for pardon. It is really asking to be rewarded for doing
wrong and adding on a further insult. It
is worse than the sins you have committed.
Forgiveness
implies that retribution is right. The
alternative views of punishing see its purpose as causing a conversion from
crime or deterrence. Forgiveness makes
no sense in such a scenario because it can’t be right to want to cancel what
should be done to prevent evil in the future.
But with retribution it is not about the future so much as making person
pay for a past bad deed. Retribution is
an evil theory for we have no free will and forgiveness evilly implies that it
is true. The past is past and cannot be
undone. It is the future that must be
looked at. Retribution is the same as
revenge which Christians know but won’t admit though they read in inspired
scripture how God said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay” (Romans 12:19). Retribution is commanded in scripture and the
Christians pretend that it is not the same as revenge which is supposedly
trying to pay back wrong for wrong. There
is no difference and Christianity is a vengeful religion. To look up to its bigoted God as good is to
set yourself a goal of becoming like him.
To see the wrong thing as good, results in you becoming closer to that
bad ideal for even when we do evil it is because we perceive it as good.
The
Christians hold that God was right to bring forth evil on the earth such as
nettles and thorns and scorpions and sickness on account of Adam and Eve having
sinned in the early chapters of the book of Genesis. God’s logic was that though their sin was
just eating a forbidden fruit it was consent to evil and if you consent to evil
you consent to all evil and you give God the right to punish you forever. In other words, if you create evil by even a
“small” sin, you are breaking order and control and creating what can destroy
all order and goodness. So to consent to
disorder at all is to consent to what cannot be controlled and what cannot be
controlled can eventually destroy everything so any sin you commit makes you
totally evil.
God is not merciful
and forgiving if forgiveness is bad.
That means that once you commit a sin you are destined for Hell forever
if there is a Hell. He will not punish
you infinitely in one moment in this case because when he does not do it when
you sin he does not want to be friends with you ever again. His not giving you the instant punishment
means that he prefers to be out of your life and your heart.
The doctrine that sin
deserves everlasting punishing permits us to do what we like to others. If forgiveness is wrong then nobody should
expect it and deserve whatever they get.
If it is wrong to hurt a person who deserves it can’t be too wrong by
human standards. It’s minor. It would be cruel to punish a person for
giving another their come-uppance.
Would it really be
right to condemn a person for hurting a person who deserves it? Even if the latter has been pardoned he or
she still deserves it. Forgiveness does
not say that you don’t deserve punishment anymore but that you will not be
treated as you deserve. When there is a
choice between condemning a person who hurts a person and deserves it and the
latter is it obviously the first who should be declared faultless or at least
to be a person who had not done much wrong.
When, according to religion, we all deserve to roast in Hell forever it
follows that everybody should excuse cruelty but within limits for we have to
survive on this planet.
We can turn over a
new leaf and hate our sins even if God won’t forgive them so let nobody say
that mercy is justified to enable a person to have the chance to change.
We would go to Hell forever, the instant we sin if there were an unmerciful God. Perhaps we can repent our sin and do an equivalent measure of good works in its place to cancel it out. Then God does not damn us, to give us a chance to atone. That would be an alternative but Christianity or Islam cannot accept it.
THE DEGRADING DOGMA
The dogma of
everlasting punishment is a manifestation of the doctrine that God comes first.
If God is infinitely
good then everything we do should be done for him. We have to love others just for him which is
not loving them at all. It is just using
them. Words like love and thanks have to
be struck out of our vocabulary or else we become deceivers and licks.
Moses and Jesus told
us to love God with all that is in us.
The only thing I can be fully sure of is that I
exist at this very moment. I am not as
sure that I existed in the past or that the past was real or that other
people. I am even less sure that there
is a God. So, I ought to put myself
first and be my own God. Anything that
casts doubt on this principle is telling you that you are dirt and is
slandering you for your self-indulgence.
The doctrine of God, God is that which ought to be put first, is an
attack on your human dignity.
The doctrine of Hell
teaches that since God puts himself first and asks us to make him number one
and is right to do this, then is why there is such a thing as everlasting
punishing. Everlasting punishing cannot
benefit the victim and the rest of us can live without it being done so God
does it for himself. You cannot be sent
to Hell for doing wrong against yourself but for doing it against God. Hell says that God alone is to be loved. It says that God ought to demand that the
person put God first which is against human dignity.
God expects me to
approve of Hell but how can I when I believe I come first and should not go
there? Only a false prophet could reveal
Hell.
I am more sure I
exist than I am of God or anything else.
Therefore, God has no right to put me in Hell for even if I deserve it I
should put myself first and not him and when he puts himself first he should
respect me for doing the same. I am not
in Hell for my benefit for there is none but for his. He may put himself first but still he has no
need to damn me. He expects me to
approve of my suffering. Rome says that
you can only commit a mortal sin with the full consent of the will. That is to say, when you are partly forced by
nature or feelings or lack of perception your consent isn’t completely free so
no mortal sin is possible. How can
mortal sin be serious or exist and take me to Hell if I understand that I come
first? Then, the sin is not full consent
to malice for it is consent to malice and also to your right to put yourself
first within reason. The doctrine of
mortal sin and Hell is telling me that I am not most sure I exist!
To summarise: When I
am more sure of my own existence than anything else God can’t expect me to put
him first and if Hell exists it expresses the idea that God alone must come
first. This is the secret that refutes
Hell in two seconds flat.
Catholic and
Protestant leaders know fine well from their philosophy that each person is
most sure of his or her existence in the present moment and that lesser
certainties should not be put above greater ones. When you are more sure that you are than that
God is it is evil to expect you to make God the centre and everything in your
life.
We all have some
defects and God could make us retarded though otherwise normal so that we never
fully consent to serious sin so that nobody goes to Hell for you can’t go
there, according to Catholic doctrine, unless you commit a serious or mortal
sin. If this doctrine is true then God
is a monster.
When God made me
unable to be selfless and meant me to have self-interest in all my actions and
made Hell he is evil for I cannot love anyway so what is he doing sending me to
Hell for being unloving?
THE
DOCTRINE IS USELESS
Any doctrine that is
not necessary for making us happier and better people is useless. This is true of all religious doctrines for
what you need to know is how to accept the trials of life and be happy not that
there is a hell or that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin or that the
Holy Spirit is God. We find happiness
through our own natural powers.
Religious people say that God makes them happy. But when it comes down to it, it was because they
let others condition them to like God.
They still made themselves happy and it wasn’t God. People can be happy without God which proves
the point. They might have some very
simple and plain form of spirituality but if you need belief in God as the Church
interprets God then you have been conditioned.
The people with simple beliefs are the ones doing the most right thing –
they keep things simple. Complicating is
bad and leads to division and unnecessary disagreement.
Doctrines like hell
seek to make people so grateful to the Church for warning them about hell and
saving them from it that they will do almost anything for the Church. For example, if the parish priest saves your
soul doesn’t he deserve all the millions you have if you are a millionaire? The potential for manipulation is stupendous.
Christianity has to
admit that this doleful doctrine of everlasting punishing for all those who die
in serious sin has damaged lots of people.
It has put thousands in psychiatric hospitals. It has given many poor souls many a sleepless
night. It has made many detest God and
follow what boasted about being his religion out of fear and deprived them of
any sense or taste of liberty. The
Church nods at these facts and she says that worse would happen if people
ceased to believe in it. Let us see.
The alleged benefits
of subscribing to the doctrine are that it puts one off sinning mortally, makes
one take more care to protect others from sinful influence and makes one
conscious of how terrible sin is. The
doctrine is thanked for making the world a nicer place. The Dark Ages had a worse world and the
doctrine was accepted and propagated more deeply and seriously that it is now.
The only relation
between the doctrine and the benefits is that they happen in spite of it. Why not sin mortally when you are unlikely to
die? If God wants nobody to go to Hell
let him worry about attractions towards sin.
And the doctrine of God itself which implies that all sin is infinitely
evil is a sufficient indication of the gravity of sin so who needs
threats? A person should do good and
obey not to avoid Hell but to please God and because when sin is bad it is only
right to avoid it. Fear is useless for
it means you would commit the sin if you could so it does not stop you choosing
to sin. How could you be altruistic when
you would not go to Hell forever in two other people’s place? Yet Hell is supposed to advance altruism
which is the true morality according to the spirituality of the
Christians. The doctrine is morally
useless even according to Christian standards.
When we are told to
love God alone the Hell doctrine is not needed for we have to suppress sin for
God and not others or ourselves. We are
not to think of the suffering sin causes but only of God’s hatred of sin which
incidentally cannot hurt him for he is perfectly happy. Besides, God is supposed to be able to change
all minds about sinning for he has the power to attract and influence.
The Church might say
that the doctrine is useful for getting a person interested in the Church for
selfish reasons so that they can drop these selfish reasons and come to God in
faith, hope and charity. It is reckoned
that it is better to encourage the kind of selfishness that will lead to
holiness than to encourage any other kind when there is no other choice. But true faith and love which please God are
supposed to be caused solely by the power and grace of God. It is not true then that following God out of
the fear of Hell can lead to real and grace-caused following of God in a
selfless fashion. Also, counterfeit
spirituality is more dangerous than blatant egotistic materialism which was why
Jesus thought it was more fruitful to work on harlots and thieves than on smug
religious hypocrites.
The only protection
from eternal punishment the person who wants to embark on a life of mortal sin
and have a deathbed repentance needs is knowing how to make an act of perfect
contrition. Something like, “My God, I
repent of my sins and will not sin again simply because you hate them and for
no other reason”. This prayer remits
sins even without priestly absolution.
It is easy as any Catholic who as tried it will know for it is an act of
will not of feeling. It is as a headline
in Life In Christ by the Jesuit, Fergal Mc Grath, puts it, “PERFECT
CONTRITION NOT DIFFICULT” (page 89). If
one gets past the first word and immediately dies one will still go to Heaven
for one tried to repent. God understands
that the incompletion couldn’t be helped and that you meant to repent of your
sin. It is the thought that counts.
Repentance
can be genuine even if you start reversing it an a few minutes. The resolve never to sin again can be meant
and be broken later. The person who is
scared of dying in their sleep need have no fear about ending a day of sinning
with an act of contrition and walking the same road of rottenness the next day
and the day after that.
Catholics
believe that if they cast certain spells like going to Mass and taking
communion for Nine First Fridays in honour of the Sacred Heart of Jesus he will
save them on their deathbeds.
If you
are a Protestant you will believe that once you repent and trust in Jesus to
pardon you, you will reach Heaven no matter what kind of sin you die in. The saved behave in a worthy manner but they
still sin.
Hell
makes sin worse. For example, if you
commit the mortal sin of adultery and you believe that Hell exists you commit
the infinitely worse and more cruel sin of
being ready and making somebody else ready to go to Hell forever.
We
conclude that the doctrine of Hell has no deterrent effect on sinners and is
not meant to have any. When such a
doctrine does harm and is just excess baggage we see how malicious it truly is.
BELIEF IN EVERLASTING PUNISHING IS HARMFUL
We have learned that
the doctrine of endless torture has no beneficial results. Now its time to realise that it certainly has
unbeneficial ones by the score. Implying
that the Jews will be eternally damned for not being converts to Christianity,
St Paul claimed that his sorrow was intense and his anguish of mind endless and
that he would allow himself to be condemned and cut off for Christ if it would
help them (Romans 9:1-5). There would be
no need for him to face all that pain unless something really bad would happen
to unbelievers. That makes it clear that
Christianity promotes depression.
The Catholic Church
teaches that nobody can know with full certainty that they would go to Heaven
if they died right now. Many Protestants
would tell you that they thought Jesus had saved them when he hadn’t for they
hadn’t accepted him right. When one
cannot be sure one cannot be too careful.
Some religionists suffer from a form of religious neurosis. They are scrupulous. Day and night they are tormented by worry
about if this or that thing they did, or thought, was a sin and the awful
possibility of going to Hell if they died there and then. The Church trains priests and ministers to
“help” such people. Such help will be no
good for it is the Christians who are not scrupulous who are the crazy
ones. Mortal sin is so bad, so evil,
that if there is any chance you have committed it and have forgotten or not
realised you have to worry about it.
Memory can be so often wrong. You
have to try and remember to the best of your ability. It is a mortal sin to allow yourself to
forget that you have sinned mortally even if you only think you have committed
a mortal sin. It is possible to commit
what is a venial sin and mean it to be a mortal sin by the malice you commit it
with. The warnings of the Church against
scruples have more to do with her wanting a good name than anything else. It conflicts with her doctrine of sin being the
most terrible evil. Those who have joy
are mistaken or actors. How could
anybody be happy when they might go to Hell?
If a person who thinks she or he has cancer can’t be happy think of how
the person who knows the risk of going to Hell must feel. It would be a mortal sin to deliberately
prefer the thought of going to Hell to that of having cancer for that is
preferring to hurt God forever.
We must also dread,
just as fanatically, the possibility of committing mortal sin. You never know what you are going to do
next. There is no way of knowing what
you are likely to do.
The doctrine of
eternal punishment claims that God’s moral standards seem like madness to
us. Anybody can ruin our lives with any
stupid moral teaching because of that principle. You could tell a mother to sacrifice her baby
to God and hold up Hell as an example that God wills some terrifying
things. It would seem to be bigoted of
Hellfire and brimstone believers to condemn you for they approve of God’s
apparent barbarism.
No true Christian
would say that it is better to say nothing about Hell. Jesus said more about it than Heaven. Some would say that people need to be warned
so that they will not land themselves in it but that though it sounds Christian
it is not for you are supposed to care about God and not yourself and warning
implies that God cannot do his best to keep people out of Hell or that he wants
people to go there in which case warning would be sinful. The concealers are accusing God who revealed
it of ignorance or malice or both for saying it exists. God has the power to cure hearts by his word
so it is up to him to take care of the frightening results of hearing the
doctrine. The Hell doctrine is as good
as unheard of these days in the churches and especially the Roman Catholic
Church. Even if it is a sin to want to
be good because of the fear of Hell, Hell should be revealed. Revealing it does not imply it is being
revealed as a deterrent. People would
still have to avoid it not because they want to but because God wants it.
Some
might say, “There is no excuse for a believer teaching the Hell doctrine even
if it is true. God can stop people going
there for he’s almighty so they don’t need to be warned. The doctrine is a tool fashioned in sadistic
hearts and minds for one purpose, the creation of Hell. Not a burning Hell in subterranean regions
but one in the psyche that burns just as savagely.” But if we refrain from preaching Hell then we
must know about it. When God told us
about it, it must mean that he wishes us to tell others. The objection denies his decency.
James
said that few must be religious teachers for their judgement by God will be
stricter than that of anybody else (James 3:1).
(The Amplified Bible says he means self-constituted teachers which is a
lie for he includes himself in this gang.
The text refutes the Christian notion that everybody is to be preached
to which means that all Christians must be missionaries which is why the lie is
told.) What about Christians who hide
Hell or water it down? When God would
rather there were less Christian teachers for their own sake even though they
would do more good, in the Christian sense, than harm it proves that not being
strict is a grievous sin and an extremely dangerous one for the sinner.
Christianity
teaches the good news or gospel, that is its essence. But what is this good news? It is that God has saved us from sin and its
penalty. You cannot have the good news
without knowing and being grateful for what you have been saved from: eternal
torment in Hell. So it follows that
people should be warned about Hell before invited to receive the good
news. It follows that children should be
indoctrinated about Hell. How can you
really accept God’s salvation right if you don’t know that salvation is from
Hell? To abandon Hell or to say nothing
about it is to fail to teach the gospel.
All the
evil we do is down to fear. Doctrines
like Hell that increase and play on fear therefore have to be a shot in the arm
for evil and division.
The vast
majority of people do not have a strong faith that the doctrine of eternal
punishing is true though many will have a strong fear in case it is true. What use is it then when it is so difficult
to believe and when so few do? It would
be as malicious as saying that murder is right and defending that doctrine
though only a few can believe in it with any fervour. When we would be horrified at that but not at
Hell which is worse experience-wise than murder that tells us that religious
conditioning has hardened our hearts.
The New
Testament claims to be for everybody even children and it speaks of Hell in
frightening terms. Jesus spoke of Hell
in his sermons to crowds which must have included very young children and older
children of about 8 to 12 too. Women
that wanted to hear him certainly took all their young children with them. In those days, a female child was a woman at
12 and forced to marry and have babies.
Jesus did no protesting against that at all though he did plenty of
complaining about the scribes and the Pharisees and people not believing in
him. Instead he said knowing that a
child of 12 hasn’t the consent to get married properly that a woman who
divorces her husband commits adultery.
To the honest mind these girls were not married at all both because they
were forced and because they were so young and because if their husbands really
wanted and loved them they would not have been making them pregnant at such a
young age. Jesus recognising them as
married indicates approval for the abuse of these girls. The point is Jesus was capable of wanting
children to be taught about Hell and scared half to death. We see from the evidence that he actually
taught them the doctrine. Even in apparitions of the Virgin Mary no effort is
made to censor the message. At
It is
accepted by everybody these days that teaching children who are so vulnerable
and impressionable and who take all they believe on authority is child
abuse. Christianity is a religion of
child abuse and it is no wonder so many of its clerics couldn’t keep their
trousers on when alone with a child.
The doctrine
of everlasting Hell has led consistent Christians to refuse to take morphine on
their deathbeds which hastens their death.
God gives life for us to choose him or reject him and the last moment of
life is the most important moment of all.
At that point ones destiny, Heaven or an eternity in Hell is fixed. So one cannot be under the influence of drugs
as death approaches. The Roman Catholic Church
allows morphine to be given as long as the intention is to kill pain and not
the person. This is only a stunt to avoid a backlash that would expose the
Church for the dangerous entity it is.
Let the Hellfire
doctrine be damned.
WAS IT GOOD OF JESUS TO REVEAL HELL?
Should
Jesus have taught the doctrine of everlasting punishing even if it exists?
The
Christian, the believer in the sinlessness and infallibility of Jesus, will say
that he was even if he wasn’t. He or she
would preach, “It was good of Jesus to warn us about the existence of
everlasting punishment. It reminds us
about how bad sin is and how unwise it is to commit it. If there was no such thing as Hell or if we
walked through life oblivious of it we would sin more. We need it to put us off sinning”.
Some
Christians say they cannot assert that we need to be warned about Hell in case
we find ourselves in it for that seems like denying the power of God to save a
person from Hell even if that person does have free will. But God works mainly through people and
secondly through other things.
When
Jesus wanted us to practice disinterested love he made sure we wouldn’t when he
revealed Hell for it is psychologically impossible to sincerely avoid sin that
leads to Hell for a selfless reason. You
cannot really reject a sin because you love God and not because you are afraid
of Hell. You would be abnormal and
deranged if you could. When Jesus made
Hell a part of the faith he taught he was destroying the very selflessness he
commanded. Nobody can really love God
for to have a selfish motive mixed with unselfish is impossible because if you
were really unselfish you would drop the selfish motive. If God did not tell us about Hell but limited
our intelligence so that we could not even think it might exist that would
prevent us from doing good to avoid the suffering of Hell. The fact that we can think of Hell proves
there is no God and that the Bible is just human writings and that Christianity
is incapable of selflessness and only wears a mask of altruism.
The
argument that Hell is a good deterrent is an insult to God because it denies
what he said about love and goodness. He
says they are selfless acts of goodness, forgetting about yourself and thinking
only of what is best for himself. If we
were here to please ourselves there would be no need for suffering and we would
not be here but in Heaven. A good and
almighty God would only make us suffer if it could make us selfless. If a person turns away from sin because of
Hell that is no use for it is punishment he hates not sin. This person only acts repentant but is not
really. If a person stops sinning
because of the selfless love of God and because of the dread of Hell then this
repentance is not genuine either. If the
person truly loves God she or he will not have the selfish motive. She or he can repent for love alone. She or he can stop having the other
motive. Jesus said we must selflessly
love God with all our strength so if he preached the existence of everlasting
torture it was not because he wanted it to help to make a better world.
If you
love God for his sake and not your own then you would endure everlasting
torment for him. It is psychologically
impossible to tell God that you love him for his own sake and not to avoid the
everlasting pains of Hell and mean it.
That is really saying that if the love of God required you to undergo
this unnecessary pain you would. You
can’t really prefer a God who does not even need your love and who is perfectly
happy to freedom from everlasting pain.
The Hell doctrine then prevents the very love for which God allegedly
made us. It means that if God made us he
made us for suffering and pain. It makes
God into the epitome of malignancy and a very dangerous idea. Hell forces you to be selfish and when you
believe that selfishness is always wrong as the God doctrine says many of your
morals will soon be abandoned. When
Jesus commanded us to love God for God’s own sake he was commanding mental
illness. Even if these considerations
draw you to the idea that there is a God but that there cannot be a Hell the
problem is not solved. Even if Hell does
not exist the pure love of God still demands that you must love God and prefer
to suffer forever for him if need be even if there is no such suffering.
If Jesus
preached it for no real reason then he should have had the decency to realise
that it could do untold harm. He just
didn’t care.
If he
preached it for a reason then he certainly did wrong. Either his reason was a childish one or a bad
one. Telling people to believe such a
horrible and distressing doctrine when no good could come of it is very very
abusive.
To tell
a person that they deserve everlasting punishment if they are sinners is to say
something very serious indeed. You know
that you have to have proof before you can tell anybody they are guilty of
murder and should be jailed for life.
Imagine then how strong the evidence has to be to entitle you to say
they deserve INFINITE torment! To
believe in a religion that asks you to approve even of the eternal loss of even
one person no matter how satisfactory the evidence for that religion is, is almost
psychopathic. To say that God asks you to believe in Hell is a blasphemy
of diabolical proportions.
The mere
fact that Jesus said there is a Hell is enough to prove that he is not the
entirely trustworthy prophet Christians put him up to be. The founders of the early Church were just as
unreliable when they turned such a person into the supreme manifestation of the
divine.
CONCLUSION
The
doctrine of everlasting punishment is harmful and is cruel. A terrorist even a sincere one who believes
what he is doing is right is still a terrorist.
The doctrine makes a terrorist of God.
And those serve him and form Churches for him are accessories to his
crimes. We regard people as evil when
they accuse another of wrong without sufficient reason and yet religion demands
the right to accuse others of deserving Hell, for example, they think
prostitutes who die will go to Hell forever.
It has no evidence for all the evidence is biased and the evidence for
Jesus’ resurrection for example is destroyed by the fact that non-religious
miracles are more convincing and more numerous.
BIBLE VERSION
The Amplified Bible
FURTHER READING
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC
DOCTRINE, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, M H Gill & Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE
PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, London, 1950
ENCHIRIDION
SYMBOLORUM ET DEFINITIONUM, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited by A Schonmetzer,
Barcelona, 1963
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens,
Atlantic Books,
‘GOD, THAT’S NOT FAIR!’ Dick Dowsett, [OMF Books, Overseas Missionary
Fellowship,
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN
APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1994
HAVE WE TO FEAR A
DEVIL? Fred Pearce, The Christadelphian
Office, Birmingham
HEAVEN AND HELL
Dudley Fifield, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham
HELL – WHAT THE BIBLE
SAYS ABOUT IT, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1945
JEHOVAH OF THE
WATCH-TOWER, Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Bethany House,
LIFE IN CHRIST, PART
3, Fergal McGrath SJ, MH Gill and Son Ltd,
RADIO REPLIES VOL 1,
Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
REASON
AND BELIEF, Bland Blanschard, George Allen & and Unwin Ltd,
THE
BIBLE TELLS US SO, R B Kuiper, The Banner of Truth Trust,
THE
DEVIL, THE GREAT DECEIVER Peter Watkins, The Christadelphian Birmingham,
1992
THE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF BIBLE DIFFICULTIES, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
THE FOUR
MAJOR CULTS, AA Hoekema, Paternoster Press,
THE
KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press,
THE LIFE OF ALL
LIVING,
THE REAL DEVIL, Alan
Hayward, Christadelphian Bible
THE REALITY OF HELL,
St Alphonsus Liguori, Augustine Publishing Company,
THE SERMONS OF ST
ALPHONSUS LIGOURI, St Alphonsus Ligouri, TAN,
THE TRUTH ABOUT HELL,
Dawn Bible Students, East
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE
SAY ABOUT HELL? Radio Bible Class,
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO
HEAVEN?, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
WHY DOES GOD?
Domenico Grasso SJ,