> They rejected him once, that's a finite crime, you can't punish someone over and over and over again for the same thing.

You are aware, I am sure, that sometimes as a sentence for heinous crimes people are given several and multiple lifetime sentences. Even in our limited ways we recognize that some crimes are worthy of punishments even beyond what we can deliver in this life. The idea of God punishing people in the afterlife for their sins is not punishing them over and over for the same crime, as you suggest, but punishing with a longer duration that what this life affords.

> At the most the only just thing for god to do if rejecting him truly was a crime would be to punish them for a little while and then let them out of hell regardless of the fact that they are still rejecting him

To me that sounds like you would advocate that Charles Manson should have been released a while ago, since "justice" means punish him for a little while and then let him out.

It's not immoral to make the punishment fit the crime, and to make the duration of punishment as substantial as the crime was. But again I still sense you have a misunderstanding about eternity. The point is not so much punishment, but that you don't want to be with God. You think he's evil and want nothing to do with him. Just like Burger King, you can have it your way, but then don't blame him when you find yourself indeed without him.

Micah 7 juxtaposes judgment and mercy. In the beginning of the chapter, we find that the righteous people are being trampled on by the godless. Now, these righteous people aren't perfect, but they have placed their lives in God's. But the time we get to the middle of the chapter, the righteous (though not perfect) are granted mercy, and the ones who perpetuated the evil are judged, as they deserve. Mercy is given where people are truly repentant, and judgment is given where they are not. This is very fair, and is the very definition of proper justice. Rebellion is judged, repentance is acknowledged, mercy is offered, but where mercy is defied, judgment will fall. There's nothing unfair or immoral about that.

They rejected him once, that's a finite crime, you can't punish someone over and over and over again for the same thing. That's called double jeopardy and is illegal. At the most the only just thing for god to do if rejecting him truly was a crime would be to punish them for a little while and then let them out of hell regardless of the fact that they are still rejecting him, because it's still the same instance of the same original crime, which they have already been punished for.

So again, still immoral. And infinitely so. And no, justice is not merciful, Justice is a suspension of mercy and vice versa. The two are polar opposites. Like good and evil. Related but in no way the same. Therefore absolute justice by necessity negates mercy at all times, even if such a god doing so was omnicient.

You can't have perfect absolute justice and have ANY mercy, as again, they are opposites of each other.

So I'll say it again, and turn it around, I kindly invite you to turn from these wrong ideas and start to process the truth of what the bible actually teaches . . . pure evil. If you don't, may I add, you are showing the attitude of someone that only believes what they want to believe and don't really care about the truth of the God in the afterlife. And if that's the case, my friend, then you will continue to be deluded and not free yourself of the evil cult you find yourself in. Here's a viable opportunity in your lap.

Thanks for your words. I'm hoping that my response will shed new light on the subject for you.

The "crimes" of sinful rebellion against God and defiant disobedience to him are not just attitudes and actions of this life, but ones that persist in the next. You know, when you send a man to prison (I'm generalizing now), they don't instantly become repentant and change their ways. They stay hardened, and when released, many do the same crimes again. The punishment didn't change them. When the US imprisoned Al Qaeda criminals in Cuba, and then released them, they went right back to terror (generalizing here). People make their decisions about God. Crossing into eternity doesn't change them, but they continue in their rebellion against him and non-love for him. So it's not infinite punishment for finite crimes, as you mistakenly accuse. It's infinite punishment for infinite crimes. The "crime", the sin, is rejection of God. That doesn't change.

> The god you worship is already depraved if he created hell to be a eternal punishment for ANYTHING.

Hell was created for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25.41), entities that are the very manifestation of evil itself. You would need to give logical reasons as to why draconian punishment is inappropriate for those whose nature is pure evil, rather than just make a statement.

> Justice must fit the crime

This is exactly the Biblical picture. 2 Cor. 5.10; Rom. 2.6; Heb. 4.12-13; Ps. 62.12; Jer. 17.10.

> the whole point of justice is to CORRECT behavior, NOT to punish

This is exactly the Biblical picture. Isa. 4.4-5 lets us know that his punishment is designed to rehabilitate. His object is not to destroy, but to build. The same point is made in Isaiah 1: God judges, but his judgment isn't vindictive; it's supposed to be rehabilitative. See also Zech. 13.9; Mal. 3.2-3; 1 Pet. 1.7.

Eternal punishment can, therefore, be just, if rehabilitation is impossible, individuals persist in their rebellion against God, and if there are degrees of punishment in hell (which there are) so that the punishment is commensurate with the crime.

> Therefore eternal punishment is NOT justice, it is just vengeance

As you know, there are different kinds of justice: distributive and retributive. They each have their appropriate place for justice to be truly just. Your assumption that eternal punishment is not justice but merely vengeance (especially vengeance for vengeance's sake) belies another misunderstanding on your part. All true justice has a potential for elements of mercy and grace in the process of judgment. Of course, once again this is exactly the biblical picture. Because of God's omniscience and righteousness, he can certify absolute justice all the time, and apply the exercise of mercy and grace without flaw. You'll notice in Isa. 1.25 that God demands judgment, but he turns his hand against the offenders, and his vengeance issues in cleansing rather than destruction, and his judgments work to remove impurities, not just wreak vengeance for vengeance's sake.

As it turns out, your assessments and condemnations of God are based on a truckload of misunderstandings. I kindly invite you to turn from those wrong ideas and start to process the truth of what the Bible actually teaches. If you don't, may I add, you are showing the attitude that I've been talking about, that even in the presence of truth and evidence of God in the afterlife, people will still continue in their rebellion and wrong thinking. And if that's the case, my friend, then God cannot correct your thinking and behavior and rehabilitate you. Here's a viable opportunity in your lap.

Infinite punishment for finite crimes is infinitely evil and immoral. The god you worship is already depraved if he created hell to be a eternal punishment for ANYTHING.

Justice must fit the crime, and furthermore, the whole point of justice is to CORRECT behavior, NOT to punish. Eternal punishment is thus by definition incapable of EVER being just, because even if you learn from your mistakes via the punishment, the punishment will still never end.

Therefore eternal punishment is NOT justice, it is just veangance. And who would want to worship a god of veangance over a god of justice? I know I wouldn't. As veangance for veangance sake is not moral, it is evil.

Wow. Let me try to be even more clear.

> If a parent gave their child the gift of life, then threatened to take back that gift unless the child worshipped them, those parents would be locked up.

The analogy isn't fitting. A more accurate one would be parents give birth to a child, whom they love. As soon as he is able to speak, he says, "I hate you." And he tries to run away continually. They keep telling him how much they love him, but he smacks and kicks them. They tell him that the world out there is a violent and dangerous place, but if he stays with them and respects what they teach him, they will teach him love, wisdom, and they will protect him. He tells them he doesn't even believe they love him, and they're just trying to deprive him of "freedom". They let him know that if he leaves the house, he'll probably get killed. Please stay. The child, now grown, chooses to leave, and he gets killed, as warned. But he left a note before he died: "This world is awful. I hate you. You should be locked up." You see, this doesn't make sense. God isn't threatening to take back the gift of life. He is saying, truthfully, "If you walk out of here, you'll die." He is not depriving people of gifts; they are rebelling against him and disassociating from Him. It's not extortion. God is love. People are rebellious.

> If I create someone with a disease so that they'll die unless I continually send them "gifts" that temporarily heal them

Again, you misunderstand. God created people good. They chose to go their own path (of death and disease) rather than the path of life and health. God then created an antidote and offered to anyone who would come. When people choose not to come, then God goes to them. They smack the antidote of his hand. You know what? God is not the problem here.

Worship is not extortion, but recognition. If you want to go from Chicago to Philadelphia, the path is EAST. 90, then 80, or even other ways. But if you choose to drive west, you blame God for insisting he knows what's right and what's best. You're not thinking clearly.

If a parent gave their child the gift of life, then threatened to take back that gift unless the child worshipped them, those parents would be locked up.

> but not sending them if you sue him for emancipation

He chose to create us such that we cannot experience joy without these continual "gifts". That's extortion, plain and simple. If I create someone with a disease so that they'll die unless I continually send them "gifts" that temporarily heal them, and then demand that they worship me in order for me to keep sending them those gifts, how much of an asshole would you think of me?

> What's immoral is not recognizing what God has done for you by offering him at least a thank you.

A thank you for creating me in such way that he can then threaten and extort worship from me?

> Go out and invite him in. Hang out the windows and call him. Call his cell. Do everything you can to persuade him to make the choice to come in. But he has to choose it. Dragging people into the mansion is not "living in his house in love." This is what God does, and this is what Christians do: "Please come into the mansion. Please join the family. Choose it. Choose to love, and choose life. Respond to the invitation for salvation." But if you refuse to come, don't blame me for being the evil one.

Wow. WOW. This example at the end is very beautiful.

I can't help, while I'm reading your text and trying to figure out your perspective, that you're being a bit naive. You don't seem to recognize the palpable presence of evil in this world, the propensity to power, and the ease of violence. The Middle East is always an example, and ISIS the most recent manifestation. But we could also look to the warlords of Africa, the rampant and ubiquitous human trafficking, and the oppression of basic human rights around the world. Any entity truly interested in the curbing of violence and evil must be prepared not with the flowers of peace or a sharp word of rebuke. It is absolutely true that there has to be a legitimate basis by those who are righteous to use a qualified and justifiable use of force to contain and subdue violence. Whether Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Joshua Blahyi, Muammar Gaddafi, or Robert Mugabe, legitimate use of moral force is the controlling discipline of truth, justice, and authority in action. Without moral force, violent force would destroy the world as we know it. Again, reference the names above, and more.

> an all knowing, all powerful god should be able to use reason (or some other non-violent method) to help set evil-doers on a better path.

Welcome to the Bible, where God uses reason, history, intervention, spoken and written messages to appeal to your reason to help set you on a better path. But if you refuse all reasonable appeals, what is left but a judge and jury to evaluate your rebellion and pronounce judgment?

> God requires violence to forgive.

God didn't "make up" the rules; the rules are the substance of his being (his nature) and the necessary framework of creation. God is life; all that is separated from God is therefore death. The only way to conquer death is from the inside: to die and show that it has no power over you. To enter death and overpower it. God could NOT have chosen to forgive without a murder. You don't understand reality. Death was the only possible result of rebellion against life and separating from it. It's the meaning of the sacrificial system and the significance of the crucifixion.

> It's a barbaric, violent God.

Since death stole life by entering life and killing it, the only way to restore life was by entering death and killing it. It's not only a legal transaction but a transaction of the very nature of the universe.

> It's the reason why so many mental health professionals are calling for prison reform.

Of course there should be prison reform. I don't disagree with that one bit. But that doesn't mean we should give up on our sense of and enforcement of justice. If justice is not systemic, then anarchy will be.

> If he's going to punish me for not being able to believe in him, then he's punishing me for something out of my control.

NOT BEING ABLE TO? There's a twist that almost snuck by me. You may choose not to, but it's undeniably within your control.

> To punish people for refusing to worship you is egomaniacal.

It's only egomaniacal if said honor is unjustified, and it's just to fulfill the deviant needs of a maniacal ego. But what if the subject is worthy? What if the subject has your well-being in mind, not his own? Did you have any teachers in school that you respected? Would you accuse them of egomanicism because they demanded that you respect their authority? Not if they deserved your respect and had your well-being in mind. Welcome to the Bible. God is both worthy and loving.

> Why create life just to force it to worship you?

It's not a matter of credit, but life and death. If you're driving toward a cliff, Thelma and Louise style, and I'm yelling and screaming at you to hit the brake, stop, reconsider, pleading not to do this, and you yell back at me, "You're so full of your own opinions. You think you know everything. You're such a prick." You know, I'm sorry, but you've misinterpreted by motives and actions. God knows that the worship of any created thing will lead you to death. He knows that refusing to acknowledge the truth will lead you further into darkness. So instead he says, "I am the only one who is life. I am the only one who can save you from death. Look to me. Trust me. Follow me." And you're response? "Oh, you're so egomaniacal and petty!" You know, I'm sorry, but you've missed the whole point.

> Why create humans knowing that every single one of them, without exception ... will sin?

It only make sense if at the same time he creates a plan to save them. A plan of mercy, grace, love, and self-sacrifice. Welcome to the Bible.

> It makes me think, "If policemen were really good, they wouldn't need guns." "If a war was moral, no weapons would be needed."

That's not a fair comparison. A policeman is a human whose job it is to protect other humans. While guns are a separate issue (and many countries have police that do just fine without carrying one), the gun is meant to give the police an advantage over a potential threat. God is all powerful. He does not need to murder to make his point. An all-knowing, all-powerful god should be able to use reason (or some other non-violent method) to help set evil-doers on a better path.

> Then he came himself to teach the ways of God and righteousness, show us how love really looks, teach us about God (speaking blessings and warnings), and reveal in flesh and blood what the character of God is like.

I disagree with your interpretation. The story of Christ shows me that God requires violence to forgive. I find the necessity of a human sacrifice barbaric (though, understandably it was less so by cultural norms when the authors of the Bible were kicking around) and offensive. God made up the rules, he created everything, he could have chosen to forgive without a murder and he didn't. God advocates, time and time again, violence and suffering. To me, that is not a God of love and righteousness. It's a barbaric, violent God.

> But if physical, fear-based punishment is ineffective, why do we have prisons?

That's a fantastic question, and it's the reason why so many mental health professionals are calling for prison reform. Many studies show that rehabilitation is much more effective at reducing the rate of committing future crimes than incarceration is.

> You're stuck on the "torture mentality."

I'm not. It's a common belief that hell will include suffering, so I was operating under that model of hell. I still find annihilation problematic. Again, you seem to forget that god is the one who decided the rules. If he's going to punish me for not being able to believe in him, then he's punishing me for something out of my control.

But I strongly believe that giving life does not merit worship, and that any being worthy of worship would not command it. To punish people for refusing to worship you is egomaniacal. I could never honestly worship a being who commanded it, because I would inherently lose too much respect for the being. It's petty.

Why create life just to force it to worship you? Why create humans knowing that every single one of them, without exception (unless we're counting Jesus, which I'm not as he's supposed to be divine in origin) will sin? Why create Lucifer, knowing he would be the downfall of humanity? Why create the world, knowing there would be suffering in it? Why create souls just to annihilate them?

Ah, but we're NOT all in agreement that he is truly awful; only those who feel that God would be a "much better person" if he distorted justice, ignored rebellion, and rewarded evil. Being a moral person with a moral perspective, I could never entertain that God would only be truly good if he ignored evil. Just so you understand we are not all in agreement that he is truly awful. As Haile Selassie said, "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most that has made it possible for evil to triumph." That's what you want God to be, and that is what is evil.

My issue here is that you are working so hard to make God seem evil because he perpetuates justice. But you believe strongly in justice, or you wouldn't be accusing God of being unjust. I'd be curious what your definition of "justice" is if God is the evil one for discerning good and evil rather than ignoring it, calling good "good", bad "bad", rewarding morality, righteousness and good, and punishing immorality, depravity, and evil.

There's a question for you, then. How do you define justice?