They don't contradict each other. I've addressed this repeatedly. You've set up an unreal context and ply your case, and so the case is not legitimate. It's like me saying, "Suppose the world were made of Jell-O. Now let's talk about how we would walk on the surface." Well, the world ISN'T made of Jell-O, so it's not much of a conversation.

Your claim was "It's wrong to send someone to hell based solely on them sinning if God created the world to send everyone to hell." That's the Jell-O scenario that makes no sense and is a false premise.

Let me try again. We go to hell because we are separated from God and have refused His offer of a free gift that brings us into relationship with Him. God, at the creation of the world, had already instituted a plan of redemption to save people from that separation, and it was available from the very beginning. It's was part of the system from creation. God has every right to judge people appropriately according to principles of justice and fairness, and He will. In doing that He will take into account their motives, what access they had to the truth, their familial and cultural context, their personal situation, and their responses to His initiatives in their lives to communicate the truth and reveal Himself to them (in this case, such as these things I'm saying to you).

Therefore, there is no such thing as "solely sending someone to hell based on them sinning." That is NEVER the case. There are always more factors involved. While it would be God's right to send them to hell because of their sin, there are always other elements in the equation, so that prospect (sending someone to hell based solely on them sinning) is never reality, though it would be God's right.

Hopefully that helps.

> If God were just to pronounce encyclopedic judgment with no consideration of motive, environment, context or situation, and with no opportunity for any way out, that is certainly wrong.

> I never claimed that it is wrong to send someone to hell based solely on them sinning.

Pick one. These directly contradict each other.

> You are saying there is nothing wrong with sending people to hell as long as you offer them a way out.

What I'm saying is that it's just for the punishment to fit the crime. It's ultimately fair that people get what they deserve. If someone commits a crime, anyone with a sense of justice would agree that there should be a negative consequence that appropriately fits what they have done.

But mercy is also part of justice. We all know this. We recognize such a thing as justifiable homicide, where the perpetrator acted in self-defense, or in survival (like a woman who has been so severely abused for many years kills her husband). We get this. There should be accommodations for situations, motives, environment, and context.

> But it is wrong to send them to hell if you dont offer them a way out.

Punishment across the board ignores the principles of retribution and distribution of justice that make justice what it is: just. If God were just to pronounce encyclopedic judgment with no consideration of motive, environment, context or situation, and with no opportunity for any way out, that is certainly wrong.

> Since God could and would not do something that is wrong, why did he need to send Jesus?

Jesus was the way out. Jesus is the means by which the free gift of salvation is offered, accessible by and available to anyone without regard to intellect, economic status, culture, gender, or social status.

> If it is wrong to send someone to hell based solely on them sinning, then none of us would deserve hell and there would be nothing for Jesus to save us from.

I never claimed that it is wrong to send someone to hell based solely on them sinning. I know you're working hard to make God the guilty party here and Jesus an unnecessary strategy, but it doesn't work. What I said was, "They are in hell because they are separated from God and don't have the nature of Jesus in them, and they refused to appropriate the free gift of God that would save them from that end. ... There is nothing wrong with God sending people to hell for sinning, but it's not the situation you described. ... God sent Jesus because His atonement is the mechanism by which salvation can be appropriated."

In other words, you have asked all of these questions before, and I have already answered all these questions. Throughout the whole conversation, your premise has been faulty, and therefore your case development has been flawed, and therefore you conclusion is mistaken.

> There is nothing wrong with God sending people to hell for sinning, but it's not the situation you described. There has always been a way out; there has always been an opportunity to establish a relationship, and the situation has never been that all humanity was doomed just because they were human.

You are saying there is nothing wrong with sending people to hell as long as you offer them a way out. But it is wrong to send them to hell if you dont offer them a way out. Since God could and would not do something that is wrong, why did he need to send Jesus? If it is wrong to send someone to hell based solely on them sinning, then none of us would deserve hell and there would be nothing for Jesus to save us from.

> are people in hell for sinning or for not accepting Jesus?

They are in hell because they are separated from God and don't have the nature of Jesus in them, and they refused to appropriate the free gift of God that would save them from that end.

> If its for sinning then there would be nothing wrong with sending everyone to hell for sinning.

There is nothing wrong with God sending people to hell for sinning, but it's not the situation you described. There has always been a way out; there has always been an opportunity to establish a relationship, and the situation has never been that all humanity was doomed just because they were human.

> If it's for not accepting Jesus then why did God send Jesus.

God sent Jesus because His atonement is the mechanism by which salvation can be appropriated.

> If it's both, then again, why did God send Jesus if sinning alone is not enough to deserve hell?

People are born separated from God. God has offered them a way to be reconciled. Anyone who accepts that free gift of forgiveness and reconciliation has access to a full and free relationship with God, and anyone who rejects it rejects life, love, reconciliation with God and all that goes with that.

So are people in hell for sinning or for not accepting Jesus? If its for sinning then there would be nothing wrong with sending everyone to hell for sinning. If it's for not accepting Jesus then why did God send Jesus. If it's both, then again, why did God send Jesus if sinning alone is not enough to deserve hell?

> From the angry tone of your response I would say that you are the one with the chip on your shoulder.

I apologize if I've interpreted you wrongly.

> It's obvious you did not read my original po

You're right, I didn't. I just read this one because you said you had reworded it so it was better.

> My point is that if the "moral" laws that God follows say that their is nothing wrong with creating humans and sending all if them who sin to hell, then those laws are not "moral."

I agree with this, as I mentioned. In your hypothetical situation, this would be a problem.

> So I ask you, if it would have been immoral to send everyone who sinned to hell, then wouldn't that would mean that all sinners do not deserve hell?

No, I wouldn't say it means that. All sinners do deserve hell, but God would never set up a situation where there was no chance for relationship, no way of escape, and no possible destiny but punishment. Your setup is the problem. You've created a false character of God who does (in your situation) what a real God would never do, and then conclude that the reason God sent Jesus is flawed.

That's like me asking, "Suppose no dam could ever hold back water, but we build a dam and tell people they're safe." Well, then it's not really a dam, and we would never in good conscience tell people they're safe if that's really the situation, so what have I accomplished with my hypothetical? It's so unrealistic it doesn't achieve its goal.

All sinners do deserve hell, but before the creation of the world God planned the atonement. There was a way of escape before there were even people. God made the way of escape known, and He expressed His desire for relationship (in the covenant). He clearly showed people how they could avoid the punishment for their sins, and even did that for them. So your hypothetical is so far removed from the truth it doesn't accomplish anything.

The bottom line is that the whole reason God sent Jesus is eminently justified and effective.

My point is that if the "moral" laws that God follows say that their is nothing wrong with creating humans and sending all if them who sin to hell, then those laws are not "moral."

I understand that you say that it would be immoral of God to send everyone who sins to hell. So I ask you, if it would have been immoral to send everyone who sinned to hell, then wouldn't that would mean that all sinners do not deserve hell? Which would mean that the whole reason that God sent Jesus is flawed.

> Would there be anything wrong with God creating a world identical to ours full of humans and sending every human who sins to hell?

Yes. It would be unloving because He created people just to slaughter them with no opportunity to engage in relationship. It would be unjust because there would be no way of escape. It would be cruel because the design had no end but punishment without recourse.

> I do not see how it would be moral of God to create humans and send everyone who sins to hell

I agree that it would not be moral of God if there were no opportunity for relationship, no way of escape, and immutable punishment.

> I also do not see how you could say it would be immoral of God to do this without disagreeing with what the bible says.

I don't get your point. Since the biblical situation is not as you have described and since God is not as you have painted Him, how is this question answerable? You've created an unrealistic scenario and tried to compare it to a real scenario. Possibly you could explain your actual point a little more clearly. It seems you're accusing God of something He hasn't done, in a situation that's not realistic, but then you wonder how it pertains to what the Bible says. Perhaps a clearer question more focused to your point would help.

Would there be anything wrong with God creating a world identical to ours full of humans and sending every human who sins to hell?

I used to be a Christian but now am an atheist.

I do not see how it would be moral of God to create humans and send everyone who sins to hell, but I also do not see how you could say it would he immoral of God to do this without disagreeing with what the bible says.