Hi Rick,

I did some major trimming, but even still my reply seems very lenghtly to me. Sorry, I guess that's how these discussion go after a few pages.

You were saying that the way you know God cares is through divine revelation, and you explained that divine revelation is "The Scriptures, otherwise known as the Bible." So, the Bible told you that God cares. My next question: How do you know the Bible is right?
There are several ways one may gauge that the Bible is right. Fulfilled prophecy, manuscript evidence, archaeological confirmation, just to name a few. The Bible has enough examples of these that one may safely rely on its contents as being divinely inspired, and therefore worthy to be trusted. But how do you know that the Bible is not right?

"Furthermore, God doesn't allow us to do as we please, at least not with impunity."

Okay, let's stop right there. These are two very different concepts. I said "God allows us to do as we please." This is observable. Your response was, effectively, "no he doesn't, because he punishes us." A punishment is not a limitation on freedom. You have to see that we are free to do whatever we want! The fact that there might be a punishment after the fact does not change our ability to perform the act in the first place.
I know, I did not word myself very well. I should have instead worded my response as such: Yes, God does permit us to do as we please, but not with impunity. I think that would clarify my position a bit better.

And then we'll discuss these punishments you allege next... You are saying, effectively, that God burns us in hell for doing things wrong. Again... our core, fundamental argument here is... how do you know? What evidence do you have in the universe indicating that God punishes people after they die? Or that hell exists? Is your collection of writings from those 1st century middle easterners your only evidence?
That collection of writings from those first century middle easterners, mind you, has the best manuscript evidence of any document in antiquity, bar none. So it is not in your best interests to make the implication that they are not a reliable source of information, divine or otherwise. And so, yes, my evidence for hell ultimately rests upon the authority of the Scriptures.

Well, let's take a look:

The scripture in question is John 10:34. The context is, Jesus has just said "I and the Father are one." (10:30) The Jews are about to stone him for saying that he is God. Jesus replies, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

It sounds to me like he is saying that everyone is god, and it is written in the law that way, so it must be true. Therefore, if everyone is god, how could he be blaspheming by saying he is the son of god? (a slight retraction of his earlier statement that he is God.) Your response was: "God was using sarcasm." I reeeeally reeeally don't think this interpretation of scripture flies. Given the context that Jesus is about to be stoned, which explanation is more likely; Jesus is saying "The law says you are gods, and the law is never wrong, therefore I am not blaspheming" or Jesus is being sarcastic, and saying "you are arrogant," in an attempt to save his own life?
This is why I tried referring you to Psalm 82. One cannot comprehend Jesus’ defense by ignoring the context in which those words were originally spoken. In that Psalm God was not addressing everyone, as you suppose he did, but rather he was speaking to his chosen people, the Jews, to whom he entrusted with keeping his law. The question then becomes just why did God refer to the Jews as “gods” in this Psalm? Was it really because he considered them “gods”? No, it could not have been that because elsewhere we read:

I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God…Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God. I know not any. (Isaiah 44:6, 8)

So in Psalm 86 God was not literally referring to the Jews as “gods.” He was speaking figuratively, sarcastically, and the reason Jesus used it as his defense (along with the evidence of his good works) was precisely because it incriminated the Jews as having acted under the pretense of keeping the law when in fact they were perverting it by their false accusations of blasphemy (see Lev. 24:10-16). Also keep in mind that Jesus’ claim to being God while at the same time being human was not without biblical precedent. God had, at times, appeared to the patriarchs in human form (called a "theophany," e.g. Gen. 32:24, 30), not to mention the fact that the prophets anticipated that God would come as a man (e.g. Isa. 9:6). That he claimed “the scripture cannot be broken” was simply his way of affirming the truth of what the Psalm was speaking about in reference to law-breaking Jews who lived under the pretense of keeping the law. This scenario was similar to when the Jews wanted to stone an adulterous woman. They were unable to carry out the execution because Christ exposed their own guilt.

Next question: Is it possible for something to go "not according to plan" for God? The almighty perfect Creator? This is my main argument against the Christian idea that we are sinful and that a devil exists. Because they both posit that things happened against God's will, or as an unexpected foul up in the machinery of his own design. Neither is consistent with the idea of a perfect, omnipotent God.
The problem here is that you’re starting from a presupposition of determinism rather than the Jewish concept of God as contained in the Bible. Sure, if one interprets “God’s will” as something that cannot be avoided by man, but then observes man acting contrary to God’s will, he will undoubtedly arrive at the conclusion that God is somehow flawed, and therefore relinquish himself from believing in this God.

In the Bible, however, an omnipotent God is depicted as having delegated authority to man, giving him the power of choice to either comply with his will or disobey it. The latter doesn’t change what God’s will is for man, it only makes man a steward of God’s will and therefore accountable for the choices he makes whether for or against God’s will. We can liken this to a business owner who hires someone to manage his store. The owner sets the policies for his business and expects his manager to abide by them. If not, then the owner has the right to impose consequences for non-compliance. I realize analogies are never perfect, but I think you can get the gist of what I’m trying to say. The implication is that we don’t incriminate the business owner for when his manager fails to comply with his policies; likewise, we don’t incriminate God simply on account of man’s disobedience to his will.

Oh, I take responsibilty for ALL my sin! Every last delicious drop of it! I enjoy my sin, very much. I am not blaming God for the sin in my life. I am saying that the concept of a hell is inconsistent with the idea of a God full of Love for the children he is burning (okay, for his children that are burning through the process he created for them.) You do realize that according to Christian thought, the vast majority of all people ever have burned in hell! And this as the result of the efforts of a God who loves them! Oops!
Rick, taking personal responsibility means that one remorsefully accepts that which he has done wrong. What you wrote above is not taking personal responsibility for your sin; instead, what you wrote is called reveling in your sin. I’m sure you can concede that there is quite a difference between the two.

Besides, I wasn’t intimating that you blamed God for sin but that you blamed him in a way that demonized him or depicted him as malevolent simply because he does punish sinners with hell. Some people have the audacity to do this even to human authorities, precisely because they do not wish to take personal responsibility or be held accountable for their actions. These have nothing but contempt for human justice, and the same can be said of those who demonize God for his justice. So I am unmoved by your emotional plea, that a God of love would not, out of love for the righteous and a sense of true justice, separate and incarcerate the wicked in hell.

No, I am not trying to fault God. Nice try at changing the point at hand though ;) I am saying that the Christian stance that you can commit the worst acts known to man and still go to heaven at the last minute is not consistent with any sort of "justice" we have ever known. You are calling it "mercy and pardon." What if a human judge were to forgive a killer/murder/rapist/genocidal maniac at the last minute before execution, because that judge wanted to be "merciful." Is that being just? (which you say God is)
Well, first of all our judges have no authority to grant pardons but our President does, and the only constitutional restriction to a pardon is in the case of impeachment. Other than this, a President may pardon whomsoever for whatever reason he sees fit, though most presidents follow a set of legal recommendations. A syllabus I found concerning the case of Andrew Jackson granting a pardon to George Wilson in 1833 reads as thus:

The power of pardon in criminal cases had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance. We adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it. A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.

I like the description a pardon is an act of grace. Thus clemency is not merited because it is based on mercy, and not what the convicted offender rightly deserves. And so it is with God. On the basis of his grace and mercy he exempts men from the punishment due to their sin. But unlike men God is not so indiscriminate or arbitrary about who he pardons. He requires that men meet his criteria of repentance and faith in order for his forgiveness to follow. In this way he ensures their amendment of life, whereas in the case of our legal framework we have no assurance that the pardoned criminal will be reformed of his ways.

But you just said God excuses people who commit ungodly, evil deeds! If God shows "mercy and pardon" for people who commit sin, then those ungodly, impenitent people have gone unpunished! You contradict yourself! If your logic for the existence of hell is to make sure all ungodly sinners get punished, but it's not the case that all ungodly sinners get punished, then there is no logical case for hell. Unless you can think of another one.
Rick, impenitent means that such sinners refused to repent. Consequently, it is these who are punished, not those who exercise repentance. Repentance is the criteria that God expects to be met before he grants the forgiveness of sins. The ungodly who are impenitent, therefore, are those who will go to hell, not the ungodly who are penitent. So my logic for hell stands.


Sorry Ray, but you're whining here a little bit. There is a fundamental contradiction in the thinking of Christians about God. 1) "If God sends people to hell, then they take him for a cruel, sadistic monster." Yes, that's true. Since God can't be both loving and cruel, then he must not be burning people in hell.
The real logical fallacy here is that you have built a straw man argument. You have argued for a God that is not the God of the Bible. Consequently your conclusion about him is erroneous because your premise was false to begin with. The God of the Bible is both a God of mercy and a God of justice. And what determines which end of the spectrum a man winds up is entirely dependent upon whether or not he complies with God’s criteria of repentance and faith for the forgiveness of his sins and salvation of his soul.

2) "On the other hand, if they don't think God is doing or has done anything about evil in this world, then it must be evidence that he just doesn't care." Also true! We can see that God doesn't care because we are free. There is no evidence of punishment for sin in our world. You can have as much sex as you want before marriage. Kill all the people you want. God never comes down and gets us. So, he doesn't care. Which is to say he has no preference. Lacking in any verifiable punishment from God on Earth, Christians then formulate the belief that they will be punished after they die! (when we can't see it!) This is where evidence and logic leave the stadium, and pure, creative speculation and fear mongering take over. "I can't show you, but I'm going to tell you that you're going to be punished for that after you die! So come join our church."
Rick, I question whether you really want evidence of God punishing sinners in the here and now. Why do I suspect this? Because I have spoken with plenty of atheists and unbelievers who, when they read of such events in the Bible such as Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the peoples in the land of Canaan–instances in which God punished sin on earth–they are not only quick to deny such things ever happened but in the same breath denounce God as evil and malevolent because he is said to have punished sin his own way. So it is as I stated, unbelievers and skeptics create a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” argument against God, so that in their own minds God can in no wise win. And that’s the way they like it. But if you ask me, this is the height of irrational thinking.