Theist, are you up for a challenge. Let’s compare hells.

I think that it would be better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation and place or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not create such a place as hell because then, heaven would be hell. If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

To think that God would overcome evil with an evil place like hell and ignore the above is quite droll.

In my theology there is what we would call heaven, but there is no hell.
A good analogy for how the system I know works, is that as the soul makes it's way through the doors of heaven, there is a cleansing action or process that is self imposed in thinking. By the time full entry to the cosmic consciousness or Godhead is gained, there is no evil left and no reason to send anyone anywhere but heaven.

This, strangely enough, is even Biblical if you read scripture as I do.
This quote shows that Bible God is a universalist God even as many theists make him a God of exclusion instead of inclusion.
That would make this quote true.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The theists I have spoken with on this issue do not seem to like the way my Godhead does things. They want to see sinners like Hitler for an example, suffer long and hard for his sins and crimes. The policy, and I do not think the Godhead has a choice in this, is that there is no need to punish as the sinner is rehabilitated or repents upon death and entry into heaven and no other punishment is required.

Even Bible God, could not come up with a better or more moral system than what my Godhead uses.

I challenge any theist to prove that statement wrong by showing a better and more moral system where God does not lose any souls. Anything less would not befits an omnipotent God. What exactly that leaves for a Satan type of character, I do not know.

Regards
DL

Just a few You Tube links for your viewing enjoyment on how some think about hell and a God who would create souls to fill it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rm...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baGww...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZM3FXlLMug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FKn...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpJ8...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7C...eature=related

Regards
DL

Not much to compare. Not on my side, anyway. I don't believe in hell as an eternal place of punishment.

Good. How does your God, if you have one, administer punishment.

Regards
DL

I believe in the Christian God, but I do not believe in him as most Christians do. I do not hold the Bible to be infallible, for example. I do believe in Jesus as redeemer.

If Christ was who he claimed to be, and indeed was sacrificed for the sins of man, what remains which requires punishment?

I agree. If the claim is true. A rather large if.

If true though, that also means that God, a non corporeal being somehow developed a taste for human sacrifice. that would make him a rather barbaric God. In fact it has to be the blood of his own offspring. That is rather insane. Right?

What would an omnipotent God need with a blood sacrifice when he can just forgive without it and did elsewhere in scripture showing that it was not required.

I also find it strange that he would give us an example to live by where fathers bury the sons which is opposed to what we do as we prefer that the sons bury the fathers.

What would you do? Send your son to be sacrificed or step up yourself?

Regards
DL

The sacrifice of Jesus is a fulfillment of the Blood Oath God took with Abram. Under a typical blood oath, two men would strike an agreement. Once the terms were agreed, they would sacrifice and animal, cut it in two, and walk through the blood and entrails, communicating 'You may walk in my blood should I break this oath.' They would then exchange names and mark their bodies as a sign of a covenant.

Genesis 15:7-10, 17-18
When God told Abram to bring a heifer, he was talking in Covenant language. Abram knew God was about to strike a deal. But in verse 17, God himself walked in the blood, thereby saying that He would honor both sides of the Covenant. Abram's name was changed to Abr'ah'am (taking on part of God's name, Yahweh, as his own.) Yahweh then became the 'God of Abraham'. Abraham was circumcised as an additional sign of the covenant.

Now, Jesus and God are one in the same. Two representations of the same being (the Spirit being the 3rd). In that regard, God did not sacrifice his son as we would understand, but rather sacrificed himself. It was not to satisfy blood lust, but to keep the promise of the Blood Covenant made with Abraham. God made the promise, kept the promise, then fulfilled the covenant. This is why sacrifice is no longer required.

I like this answer; it's definitely not one expected to be "preached from the pulpits" today.

Any God who preaches a reverence for life and then demand a sacrifice of one is a false God.

You say God and Jesus are the same.

Was God doing unto others? No he was not and so must have been a false God.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/histor...tingexodus.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uefDgWq5aQc

Regards
DL