Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, apparently, it's bad because, like everyone else, I have a "sin inclined nature", but, as you have just said yourself, I was made by God, so why is my sin inclined nature my responsibility, rather than God's? After all, he made me that way, and I had absolutely no say in it.

You need to read Genesis before you try to comment on it. Mankind was created innocent, and chose rebellion. It wasn't the other way around.

Man didn't choose his nature,

Actually, he did. He was created innocent but free. He used his freedom to fall. So now he has a fallen nature. That's the Genesis picture.

Well, speaking as an outsider, I would say that work is for God to do.

So would He. But many people are not willing that the work should be done. And they are free to choose.

It couldn't be any clearer that I have made a choice, so your continual reminders that I have one are obviously not necessary.

Well, it's hard to understand, then, why you mentioned God at all...you don't believe in Him.

I've done lots of things during the course of my life that I feel guilty about, but none of those things can be undone, so how can there be salvation from the guilt,

Because all sins are ultimately against God.

Even if I believed in God, I would disagree with that.

And you're free to be wrong.

I accept being held to account for anything I've done wrong,

By whom? Aren't you the one who believes "wrong" is only subjective? So nobody can "hold you to account" for anything.

Think about it: if there's no God, there is also no "sin" in doing anything at all to another person.

If you don't believe that harming other people is wrong in its own right,...

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

But if there is, then to abuse that person whom God has created is an offense against the person, but also an offense against the Creator.

No it isn't.

And yet, you'll find that it is.

Guilt is the price we pay for anything that genuinely deserves the name of sin,..

It is. But you've already said that you don't believe in objective right and wrong, so for you, there's no such thing as "sin."

Although I do think "sin" is a stupid word, along with "evil", I do believe in right and wrong,..

Well, you've already said elsewhere that they have no objective reality, so it's hard to see how you manage that. But if you think you can explain, I'll listen.

[Age]

I never ever thought I had disagreed.

Oh, but you did. Both about steps in the process and the whole thing. How odd you don't remember disagreeing.

But I never disagreed.

What 'we' have here is another prime example of how one's own assumption/s can and do get in the way of what the actual Truth is, exactly.

But, what you are actually referring to here no one knows. Besides you, of course.

Are you kidding? Integration processes have been described by Jung, Perls. Moreno, and many other psychologists and other kinds of practitioners, and then in integrative spiritual approaches, shamanism and more. Once again, if you don't understand, no one understands.

But, how come 'you' are not included here?

Habitual binary thinking and univeralization. I can see how you end up with these negative judgments of human beings.

Okay.

you really cannot let go of and get rid of this extremely wrong habit of yours here, can you?

Projection.

Here is another prime example of this one not having any absolute idea nor clue as to what I am talking about and referring to, but assumes it does, and then concludes things based on absolutely nothing but its very own made up assumption/s.

What was the suppressed and judged part? What was your judgment of it?
What was it like when you allowed it to express?
What is it like now that it is integrated?

Are you even aware of what the example is, exactly, that proved the opposite True?

Are you even aware how poorly you communicate?

Once again, it is always 'my fault'.

And, considering that it is 'me' who is continually seeking out, and asking for, clarification, what you ask and write here could very will be absolutely hypocritical.

By the way, from 'your responses', yes.

It is often to the degree that one wonders if you actually want to communicate or perhaps you just want to 'confirm' your own judgments of people.

See this is, exactly, what this one continually does.

But people haven't often in real life and online had problems with the way you communicate and to a severe degree. It's other people's fault, not yours.

Just out of curiosity, how do you know what happens outside of this forum regarding 'me'?

LOL The only one here who, continually, states that it is the other's fault 'in communication' here is 'you'.

And, in case you have forgotten, I am here to learn how to communicate better, and, you are the self-professed "teacher of english", correct?

And, are you even aware that 'the example' actually proved the opposite of what you said and claimed, is what is True?

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason?

Once more, this one will not just answer and clarify. And, worse still, then asks questions as though its very own made up assumptions are actually already what is true and right.

Are you aware of why you do this?

Just out of curiosity, have you forgotten that your assumptions and beliefs here could be partly or absolutely Wrong and Incorrect?

Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings?

But, I have never made a negative judgment of you human beings. As I have clearly informed you of this already.

you seem to have forgotten, once again, that you presumption that there has been a negative judgment/s could be False and Wrong. And, considering the fact that you very rarely, if ever, seek out to obtain actual clarity and clarification, from the Truly open perspective, then absolutely all of your assumptions, and beliefs, here could well be False and Wrong, from the beginning.

Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing?

If any one of you human beings had a 'equally valid way' of 'healing', then why are the rest of you not using 'it'?

My sense is you cannot consider this.

And, you are absolutely free to 'sense' absolutely any thing. But, just like all of your assumptions and beliefs can be absolutely False and/or Wrong, so to call absolutely every thing you 'sense' as well.

Also, why do you not consider just asking clarifying questions from the Truly open perspective, instead of asking 'the way' that you do here, which is from an already presumed or believed conclusion? Which is obviously a very 'closed way' of 'looking', and of interacting with others.

What you want is what everyone wants, they just don't know it.

If you say so, then okay.

And you seem think you are unique, unaware how many practitioners of very similar disidentification systems there are out there.

If this is what 'appears' to you here, then, again, okay.

[Age]

All of them.

The world would not be fallen at all if it were not for mankind's disobedience. So no such things would ever have occurred, but for man.

Oh, I see. Adam and Eve fucked up so that means we fucked up?

No, it means Adam fell, and you fell. You have enough of your own choices to answer for, obviously, as do we all. But our sin-inclined nature, that, we inherit.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, God does not want you human beings to argue, fight, kill, and destroy what you claim is a male gendered thing created. Yet, what you call a "he" created you human beings naturally to 'sin'.

Can you really not see any contradiction nor hypocrisy here?

That's just a biological fact.

LOL you cannot even inform the readers here of what the word 'sin' even means nor is even referring to, exactly, which would fit into and make a crystal clear picture of things here.

Your genetics come from two people -- your parents.

This one, literally, believes that some male gendered 'It' placed two already adult human beings down on earth out of 'somewhere' of no known imagined possible place, and then every other one of you human beings came from those two.

This one could not have more delusional thinking and beliefs here even if it want to have some.

Likewise, theirs. You might want to be somebody else's descendent, but wanting won't make it happen. Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...nobody else.

"Fallen man and woman". All I can here is LOL "immanuel can".

[Age]

No, it means Adam fell, and you fell. You have enough of your own choices to answer for, obviously, as do we all. But our sin-inclined nature, that, we inherit. That's just a biological fact. Your genetics come from two people -- your parents. Likewise, theirs. You might want to be somebody else's descendent, but wanting won't make it happen. Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...nobody else.

And what do most of us do that is so awful it deserves to be talked of as "sinful" and "fallen"?

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done.

So, tell 'us' what 'you' have done "immanuel can". Prove that 'you' really are a "christian" and a 'child of God'. Be open and honest here for once.

However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true.

But, the bible was written before 'you' evolved into being. So, does this then mean that 'you' could be not classed as 'all who 'have' sinned'?

I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

So, what have you done, which was so awful it deserves to be talked of as 'sinful' and 'fallen'?

[Age]

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

Wait, you're saying that people all fall short of the glory of an omnicient, omnipotent being and if they don't do the right things before they die, it is ok that they are tortured for all eternity?

I'm saying something much simpler and more direct, something that C.S. Lewis put well:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' – and those to whom God says in the end, 'Okay, thy will be done. ' All who are in hell choose it."

We will all get exactly what we choose: an eternity with God, or an eternity without. And what kind of person complains that he has been given too much of exactly what he asked to get?

Well if deceiving and deception is Wrong doing, in the 'eye of God', and the ones that continually try to deceive and fool their fellow human beings, like the 'devil', itself, would do, then from what I have observed here, then you "Immanuel can" will be the one going to what you call 'hell', for sure.

Trying to pretend that one is the 'most christian', or 'most knowledge' here regarding religion, christ, and/or God, but then refuses challenges and/or clarifying questions is the most deceiving' and thus 'most devilish' one, which means that 'that one', which is 'you' "Immanuel can" here, will suffer and have to endure 'the most'.

So, exactly, what you are doing here will be, exactly, what you asked to get. Well according to 'your logic' anyway. Which, by the way, could not be further from God's Truth.

[Age]

I'm saying something much simpler and more direct, something that C.S. Lewis put well:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' – and those to whom God says in the end, 'Okay, thy will be done. ' All who are in hell choose it."

We will all get exactly what we choose: an eternity with God, or an eternity without. And what kind of person complains that he has been given too much of exactly what he asked to get?

So, we should follow the exact words of the Bible...and add in C.S. Lewis' interpretations when we are faced with problems?

I didn't say you should "add in" anything at all. I was only saying that Lewis put concisely, in modern language, what is true.

But it is not true. So, why do you believe, absolutely, that it is true? (Not that you will ever answer.)

We all get to choose. Some choose well, some choose badly.

And, you "immanuel can" have chosen to be the most 'sinful' here. Which is really rather ironic consider 'the position' that you are so desperately trying to hold onto and express here.

That's what it means to "have the choice." It means that you can choose the right thing, but you are also permitted not to choose it, or to choose the opposite.

And, obviously you have chosen, and will continue to choose, to do the 'Wrong thing'. As you have claimed 'all' sin and are fallen. you have even claimed that it is your very nature to sin. So, this means that you will, by your very own 'choice' continue to choose to 'sin'. Thus, asking for your own eternity in hell.

But, then again, you laughingly believe that you choose to do the Right things, right?

If you have another meaning for "choice," one in which there is only one 'option,' I guess you'll have to explain how that would be possible.

[Age]

I didn't say you should "add in" anything at all.

Well, you added it in. You didn't turn to the Bible. We've got modern language versions of that and I can do fine with the not so modern ones.

I was only saying that Lewis put concisely, in modern language, what is true.

We all get to choose. Some choose well, some choose badly. That's what it means to "have the choice." It means that you can choose the right thing, but you are also permitted not to choose it, or to choose the opposite.

If you have another meaning for "choice," one in which there is only one 'option,' I guess you'll have to explain how that would be possible.

Yup. No response to the issue of a deity setting it up so fallible humans could choose, in CS Lewis' theology, could choose to suffer for all time. That he chose to make humans who would end up forever tortured.

Now you riase this issue of 'choice' as if it has much to do with my post.

What the loving father allows his children to choose.

There are quotes in the Bible that support CS Lewis and others that not.

And they all beg the question of why a deity would create fallible creatures where some will be tortured for all time and he will leave them there.
[/quote]

But, according to "immanuel can" 'all' have sinned and are fallen. Which means that 'all' are torture for all time.

[Age]

And what do most of us do that is so awful it deserves to be talked of as "sinful" and "fallen"?

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing? It seems that no matter what we do, we are "sinners", but we are not entitled to be told what our "sin" is, or what is so dreadful about it.

If the Truth be told, you, here, all have a very Wrong interpretation of what the word 'sin' actually meant and was in reference to, exactly, anyway. Let alone how far astray you have all been 'misled' regarding what other words in the bible were actually and actually referencing, exactly.

How can anybody accept that? We were talking about Stalin not long back, well that was precisely his approach to dominating the masses.

[Age]

Yup. No response to the issue of a deity setting it up so fallible humans could choose,

There is no "issue," so far as I can see. If you'd rather be a robot with no options, I guess you can make yourself that...or try to. I won't stop you.

That's your choice.

False dilemma. The options could, for example, lead to purgatory like afterlives, where one eventually learns from the mistake or can. We can have choice without enternal damnation. This isn't tough to work out for a mere human and it should be easier for a loving deity.

And I notice that you continue to avoid responded to the issue I raised.

God is not limited to making a universe with a Hell and making humans that will choose eternal torture. That's the best idea of a deity you could come up with. A deity so weak, cruel or nuts that that is the best metaphysics he could come up with. And we can reverse those. What kind of loving all powerful being can only manage to come up with a set up where fallible humans, some of them, will get tortured for all eternity.

Why do you only say 'some'. If all who sin and are fallen in regards to God, live eternally in hell, and 'all' have sinned and have fallen, then, obviously, 'all' will be living in hell.

If we listen to you, any other solution means we have no choice. That's just plain poverty of imagination or heart.

[Age]

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing?

Of course not. The reason you exist is that you were made by God. How could that be bad?

That being said, you were born the same nature as other humans, unless I miss my guess. And it doesn't take a normal person very long to have sins of his own.

How 'long' is 'not very long' to you "immanuel can"?

The problem turns out to be the kind of nature that tends that way, rather than just the question of which particular sins there are, and how bad each one is. It turns out we're not actually the right kind of beings to be in relationship with God.

LOL So, the 'children, and creations, of God', Itself, are, supposedly, not the actually right kind of beings to be in a relationship with God.

Are you aware "immanuel can" that the more you respond to the questions and challengers put forward to you here, then the more absurd, nonsensical, and irrational your responses are becoming. Although some or your posts from the outset of coming into this forum were absolutely absurd, nonsensical, and irrational anyway.

We could have been, but now we're not. Some serious reno work is required if that were ever to be possible.

It is extremely and simple to 'get' to 'where' you are referring to, and are wanting to be.

you just need to discover, or learn, and understand, fully, the 'how-to', to 'get there', or HERE from 'our perspective'.

That's the real, deeper meaning of "salvation." It doesn't just mean to be "let out of Hell," or something like that. It means to be delivered from the guilt, progressively from the nature, and eventually the presence of sin.

But that's all theological, and I know you don't like that. So I'll forebear further elaboration.

So, here 'we' have another one who instead of just being open and honest, they will instead make up 'more excuses', 'lies', and/or 'deceptions'.

You have just enough here to answer the question you actually posed.

LOL "immanuel can".

your attempts at deceiving do not go unnoticed. But, the only one 'you' are Truly fooling here is "your" own 'self'.

[Iwannaplato]

But, how come 'you' are not included here?

I am included there. See if you can figure out your assumption here. Where might I be in that list?
And then, lack of substance on your part.

you really cannot let go of and get rid of this extremely wrong habit of yours here, can you?

Projection.

Once again, it is always 'my fault'.

Projection.

And, considering that it is 'me' who is continually seeking out, and asking for, clarification, what you ask and write here could very will be absolutely hypocritical.

You do intersperse questions for clarification. 1) these often include assumptions and negative judgments 2) it's not a context where we see who wins via more clairifying questions. There are many other things going on. Also, lack of substance.

It is often to the degree that one wonders if you actually want to communicate or perhaps you just want to 'confirm' your own judgments of people.

See this is, exactly, what this one continually does.

Projection, lack of substance.

But people haven't often in real life and online had problems with the way you communicate and to a severe degree. It's other people's fault, not yours.

Just out of curiosity, how do you know what happens outside of this forum regarding 'me'?

I'm sure you'll give us your evaluation if you want to. I didn't use the word 'know'.

LOL The only one here who, continually, states that it is the other's fault 'in communication' here is 'you'.

This is incorrect. I have many kind of interactions, here and elsewhere. You have blamed human beings for the way they behave and communicate, universally, since arriving here. You have made it clear you know everything. That is the context for your communication. While you don't often communicate these beleifs of your directly, they are implicit in the way you communicate. And yes, I used the word 'beliefs'. See my longer response after a quote a few quotes down.

And, in case you have forgotten, I am here to learn how to communicate better,

I do remember you've said that. Your behavior says that is not the main motivation.

And, are you even aware that 'the example' actually proved the opposite of what you said and claimed, is what is True?

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason?

Once more, this one will not just answer and clarify. And, worse still, then asks questions as though its very own made up assumptions are actually already what is true and right.

It wasn't a question, it was an assertion. It's fine if you want to think of language in your own 'literal' way. I have tried to work with your habits of language, even though you have no noticed that I did this, and when you refer to our interactions it is always in binary terms where I never do a variety things, despite my doing them. One of these things I have done is, for periods, accepted that to communicate with you, one must, use language in an idiosyncratic way and/or take everything 'literally' - which can't actually be done, but one can move in that direaction. That cross-cultural effort has included pretending that a question mark makes a question a question, rather than it communicating something else in total or in the main. Sometimes I don't grant you the authority over languages and don't feel like pretending what you think your are doing is what is happening.

Just out of curiosity, have you forgotten that your assumptions and beliefs here could be partly or absolutely Wrong and Incorrect?

But you have nothing to forget here, because you think you know everything. Which means the your core judgments about me and even down to what I want, cannot be honestly called into question by you. YOu are 100% certain of them. You take pains to get others to admit that they do not consider their beliefs and knowledge 100%, while you yourself think you know everything.

No, I haven't forgotten that about my beliefs and assumptions. My intention is to never respond to that question or related questions again.

Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings?

But, I have never made a negative judgment of you human beings. As I have clearly informed you of this already.

You have claimed it. I have shown where you did it.

Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing?

If any one of you human beings had a 'equally valid way' of 'healing', then why are the rest of you not using 'it'?

So, the validity is shown by the rest all using it. By that criterion, your approach is not valid.

[Iwannaplato]

But, according to "immanuel can" 'all' have sinned and are fallen. Which means that 'all' are torture for all time.

Well, in his truly horrible view if you do certain things he considers make you a proper Christian and God's grace may grant you avoidance of permanent torture.

It is truly amazing how popular some version of his toxic view has been.

[Harbal]

You need to read Genesis before you try to comment on it. Mankind was created innocent, and chose rebellion. It wasn't the other way around.

Man didn't choose his nature,

Actually, he did. He was created innocent but free. He used his freedom to fall. So now he has a fallen nature. That's the Genesis picture.

Only a fool would consider Genesis a factual account of anything.

It couldn't be any clearer that I have made a choice, so your continual reminders that I have one are obviously not necessary.

Well, it's hard to understand, then, why you mentioned God at all...you don't believe in Him.

Because I live among people who do believe in him, and what they believe about him might have implications for me, so I would prefer them not to believe anything too stupid.

Because all sins are ultimately against God.

Even if I believed in God, I would disagree with that.

And you're free to be wrong.

I know, but I exercised my freedom to be right on this occasion.

I accept being held to account for anything I've done wrong,

By whom?

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

If you don't believe that harming other people is wrong in its own right, it means you are deficient in common human decency.

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

Like I said, if you don't understand, it means you are deficient in common human decency, in which case an explanation would make no sense to you.

But if there is, then to abuse that person whom God has created is an offense against the person, but also an offense against the Creator.

No it isn't.

And yet, you'll find that it is.

No I won't.

Although I do think "sin" is a stupid word, along with "evil", I do believe in right and wrong,..

Well, you've already said elsewhere that they have no objective reality, so it's hard to see how you manage that.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

[Iwannaplato]

Actually, he did. He was created innocent but free. He used his freedom to fall. So now he has a fallen nature. That's the Genesis picture.

Well, let's look at this. God created an innocent being. That is his or her nature. Innocent. But then this innocent being has an urge to do the wrong thing. This didn't come from his or her nature - according to you since you were respönding to Harbal talking about Adam's nature. So, why would a being created without sin have an urge/desire to do something evil?

That doesn't make any sense.

It is. But you've already said that you don't believe in objective right and wrong, so for you, there's no such thing as "sin."

Although I do think "sin" is a stupid word, along with "evil", I do believe in right and wrong,..

Well, you've already said elsewhere that they have no objective reality, so it's hard to see how you manage that. But if you think you can explain, I'll listen.

There's a flip side to this. If you aren't good in relation to God, you are tortured for eternity. Anyone believing that would have a conscious or unconscious terror greater than any other fear, except perhaps the fear that their child or other close loved one might end up tortured for all eternity.
In that situation to freely love God, or to have any idea if one is doing 'the right things' out of one's goodness is impossible.

That's not freedom, right off the bat. Even if you were inclined to be good and love God and ask for his Grace, etc., once you put the most horrible threat imaginable on the table, it would be hard for most humans to be clear at all what they are doing and what the motivation is.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no "issue," so far as I can see. If you'd rather be a robot with no options, I guess you can make yourself that...or try to. I won't stop you.

That's your choice.

False dilemma.

There's no dilemma. It's really quite clear.

In philosophy a false dilemma is when you, for example, present two options when in fact there is third or other options. An example, well you're either conservative or liberal. You don't agree with conservatives on that issue so you are a liberal.

Here you are saying that we must have an endless torture option or we aren't free. When in fact one could be free and this leads to a ranges of consequences, wihtout including endless torture.

God is not limited to making a universe with a Hell and making humans that will choose eternal torture.

Logically, He's limited in two ways: one, that there can be no such things as free will or choice if persons have no option but to comply with the best; and two, that if a person rejects Him, and God honours that choice, that entails that no vestige or trace of God is any longer imposed on that person. He has his demand: that God should be nothing to him. And there's no logical way it can be avoided.

Again, no. There is no reason to treat a choice as permanent. Not for a deity. A deity could allow people to change their minds or hearts. This also goes for number two. Even earthly fathers, not all but many, manage to allow their sons and daughters to reject them and then come back later. God is free, as omnipotent, to not have an utter deadline. Which of course looks very silly, when young people end up going to hell when getting cancer, while others 'get it' and turn to God in their 70s.

Of course there are many logical ways to produce a system where people can later make other choices, at least with an omnipotent God. And for those few who never get it, God could show mercy and snuff them out forever.

Unfortunately, God is also, as the Bible says, "the Giver of all good gifts." (James) With the expulsion of God from the rebel's universe, so go all good gifts...life, light, love, joy, peace, meaning, rightness, purity, health, liberty...for one who has rejected God, nothing good is left -- for all goods are derived from our relationship with the Great Source of Good, God Himself.

This is just restating as system that you think God chose, restricting his own freedom not logically, but with a strange, though somewhat common, metaphysics.

Further it's your rather idiosyncratic interpretation....

Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mark 9:43-48 (NIV)
It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’"

Luke 16:23-24 (NIV)

"In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’"

Revelation 20:14-15 (NIV)

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Revelation 21:8 (NIV)

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

And that is the primary way in which the Bible talks about Hell...as a place of separation.

The metaphors of darkness, aloneness, regret...these are not tortures...these are the natural and ineluctable consequences of rejection of God. An existence without the Giver has nothing left in it.

Certainly separation from God is a large facet of hell, but to say it is not torture is a hilariously bad read of the Bible, even where it mentions separation it mentions torment and buring in sulpurous pools - that's torture - and endless destruction. Come on, don't whitewash this.

Who would want that? Nobody, I hope. And the Bible says that "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

That's the way it is - torture - , if the Bible is correct. But of course, it was written by fallible humans who may only have gotten parts of God's message right, for example.

So God would prefer that that should not be, either. But free will entails it, and that result is nothing other than God giving full respect to the free will of a free individual, without which, relationship would be logically impossible anyway.

Nah, free will could lead to other options, as long as one can freely choose between them. Unless God is the most incompetent technician possible. Further, the actual threat of eternal damnation undercuts free will - a concept not clearly indicated in the Bible. If you wanted to see if someone loved you would you set things up so that they would suffer torture, even for a few days, if they decided they didn't love you? That's not freedom. It's quite the opposite. It's the fear of a tyrant creating a metaphysics that's quite evil.

Those who wish to be forever without God get their desire, just as Lewis said. And we can't cry about getting exactly what we bargained to get. That's the price of being a free individual.

So, you think Harbal knows that he will be tortured for all eternity and that God actually does exist. I'm not particularly fond of you, but I'd be pissed off at any deity that allowed you to suffer eternal torture, perhaps entailed by some sin you'll soon commit and a death before your realize what you've done and repented it. It's like God is running a Japanese game show.

And I notice you did not actually respond, as usual. to the alternatives I presented. You just filled out your position and repeated it.

Do you ever wonder why you avoid responding to certain parts of people's posts?

I gotta move back from you again. It's like it's my job to present points and it's my job to keep having to point them out.

I leave you to the vastly more - than your and mine - Jesus-like attitudes and responses of Harbal. It boggles the mind that you would think it was somehow OK for Harbal to be tortured endlessly and that a deity has his hands tied and we couldn't possibly have free will without eternal torture on the table. This is simply not true, logically, but further it assumes that your mind is capable of determining the limits of God. And, yes, I know, you'll say you hope that Harbal turns to God and you get no joy out his potential endless torture, but your an apologist for it.