> "Genocide" Why not? It's a supposed action by the Christian God is it not?

No it's not. Any study of the text and any research into the background shows that genocide was not what was going on. The only way to come to that conclusion is to read the words superficially and draw a trivial conclusion. It is not the supposed action by the Christian God.

> I suppose all Christians don't see the events of the Bible as being historically accurate.

Oh, I see the events of the Bible as historically accurate, and I see the Flood as a historical event. It just wasn't global.

> I'm trying to say the amount of reward/punishment is what would ultimately matter as to the experience of Heaven/Hell and it's enjoyment/hardship.

Yeah, I get this, but the real and most important issue is "Where are you—in the presence of God or separated from Him?"

> if you earned your room in Heaven yet it was next to the noisy ice machine and you had to work at a job you disliked and God never spoke to you or gave you any mind, perhaps you wouldn't enjoy yourself as much as those in the VIP section with unlimited wine and games and fun.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but this is quite a false picture of heaven. This makes a at least a segment of heaven a place of discomfort, boredom, annoyance, meaninglessness, and envy. It's not fair to make this the situation. Then you speak of hell as if it's a better situation than the person in heaven.

> (Just an example and illustration, I'm not saying these are accurate descriptions of Heaven or Hell.)

Yeah, the example and illustration is so far off it can't be something we discuss as if it's one of the possibilities.

> One could then reasonably say (imo) that you earned your experience, and as such, your enjoyment/hardship, just not your initial ticket.

Yeah, the idea that I've been saying all along is that heaven is not earned by experience, nor is your enjoyment of heaven (it's described as a joyful, positive experience for all). But what level of reward you have there is totally fair, based on what you've earned. And hell is what a person chooses by rejecting God, just like the people way back in our conversation experience the awfulness of the storm because they refuse to get into the rescue helicopter. But beyond that, their experience is hell is totally fair, based on what they've earned. I don't see what's unjust about it.

> So what you're saying is that our killing 300 million in one century, it really wasn't as bad as other centuries when we killed 50 million, because there were so many other people on the Earth? Hmm. Sounds like skewed reasoning to me. If I wipe out a village of 100 people, is that more bloody than killing 10,000 in a town of 20,000? Not in my way of thinking.

This topic is irrelevant to our discussion anyway. I could agree the whole world is going down the tubes and that still wouldn't be evidence for Hell or God. If anything, one could make an argument that a benevolent God wouldn't allow such.

That aside, what I and the person who posted the answer I got that excerpt from is saying is, the higher percentage of people dying in wars, etc. is only possible because deaths by other causes such as disease are down (which is a perk of existence in this time that people living previously didn't have, i.e. things getting better). If everyone died of pneumonia, then they couldn't die in combat in war.

> Whoa whoa, whoa, don't just toss this out there casually, first of all.

Why not? It's a supposed action by the Christian God is it not?

> Second, it hasn't been anything we've been talking about.

If we're talking about genocides now compared to in the past, it does fall into what we were talking about.

> Third, it's not even true. The Genesis Flood was not a global event, but rather a regional one. That's a completely different discussion, though.

I suppose all Christians don't see the events of the Bible as being historically accurate. We don't have to discuss this in detail and perhaps it's not the time. Just an off the cuff idea I had about previous genocides.

> I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that to be in lesser punishment in hell is desirable to being in a lesser reward in heaven?

I'm trying to say the amount of reward/punishment is what would ultimately matter as to the experience of Heaven/Hell and it's enjoyment/hardship.

For example, if you earned your room in Heaven yet it was next to the noisy ice machine and you had to work at a job you disliked and God never spoke to you or gave you any mind, perhaps you wouldn't enjoy yourself as much as those in the VIP section with unlimited wine and games and fun. On the other hand, if your in the section of Hell where you're merely slapped on the wrist every so often, you're glad you earned that spot instead of the one where others are skewed on flaming hooks. (Just an example and illustration, I'm not saying these are accurate descriptions of Heaven or Hell.)

So what you earned could very well make a large difference in your experience, hypothetically. Actual details of this stuff aren't available to my knowledge and it's all supposed and guesswork anyway.

One could then reasonably say (imo) that you earned your experience, and as such, your enjoyment/hardship, just not your initial ticket.

> Psalm 5.5

Yep, that's exactly what it says: God hates sinners. Hebrew poetry is often written in parallelism (which is very common in David's psalms), which would indicate the second phase (you hate all who do wrong) is another way of saying the first phrase: "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence." God is in a state of enmity with those who do wrong. What David is saying is that sinners have no access to God's presence. The righteous, by contrast, will enter God's presence (Ps. 5.7).

> White here addresses...

So what you're saying is that our killing 300 million in one century, it really wasn't as bad as other centuries when we killed 50 million, because there were so many other people on the Earth? Hmm. Sounds like skewed reasoning to me. If I wipe out a village of 100 people, is that more bloody than killing 10,000 in a town of 20,000? Not in my way of thinking.

> Also, if we count the genocide of the entire world population sans a few people as recorded in the Bible as an actual historic event, perhaps that could sway this being the bloodiest century for wars and genocide.

Whoa whoa, whoa, don't just toss this out there casually, first of all. Second, it hasn't been anything we've been talking about. Third, it's not even true. The Genesis Flood was not a global event, but rather a regional one. That's a completely different discussion, though.

> And that's what would ultimately matter I'd say.

I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that to be in lesser punishment in hell is desirable to being in a lesser reward in heaven?

> This was to illustrate how God could easily pay off anyone's debt without their consent.

That misses the point of the analogy, which was to show how a free gift gets someone off the hook, that's all. Again you're changing the analogy to make it say what it was never meant to say. In the Bible, anyone's receipt of God's gift of salvation is what makes it efficacious. It hangs out there for anyone to take, but it only becomes valid when someone grabs it. There is no salvation by grace without faith. It's a love relationship. If, to go with your piece of the analogy, it's paid without consent, there's no love commitment. It's like me marrying an Internet Russian bride without meeting her. There's no love there. That's not how love works. Payment without consent, while technically possible in the financial world, misses the whole idea in the salvation world.

> If there's only ONE verse in the Bible that says God hates wicked people, we don't form a theology on one verse. It's a theological principle called "hapax legomena": we are wrong to create a theology based on a single reference.

Actually, I forgot about this one that gave me that idea to begin with: Psalm 5:5 which says: "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers"

> The 20th century was the bloodiest in history. Over 300 million people killed by wars, riots, and genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century#Wars_and_politics

Found an answer to this on this site: https://www.quora.com/Was-the-XXth-century-the-bloodiest-century-in-history

White here addresses one of the reasons why the higher percentage of deaths from war and oppression among deaths from all causes in the 20th Century, in comparison with the 19th and 18th centuries (3.7 % vs., respectively, 1% or 2% and 0.6%), does not necessarily mean that the 20th Century was more violent. The 20th Century is the first in history in which the total number of deaths was smaller than the world’s population at the end of the century (see my answer to the question Was 20th century the worst century in human history?), and countless millions were saved from premature deaths in the 20th Century by advances in medical and other science. For example: American biologist and humanitarian Norman Borlaug, "the father of the Green Revolution", is credited with having saved over a billion people worldwide from death by starvation

Under the conditions prevalent in previous centuries these countless millions would have died prematurely (mainly from infectious diseases, which were the main cause of human death before the 20th Century), and the percentage of deaths from war and oppression would accordingly be lower than 3.7 % for the 20th Century.

So basically, this is claiming that the reason there were more deaths from war is because everyone hadn't died from disease in the first place.

Also, if we count the genocide of the entire world population sans a few people as recorded in the Bible as an actual historic event, perhaps that could sway this being the bloodiest century for wars and genocide.

> It's not evidence for hell. It's was just my disagreement to your statement of "Life is getting easier compared to past generations and crime and murder rates are down across the globe."

Fair enough but the only reason I said that was because you brought up your list of problems in the world which seemed to be in your view evidence for their being a hell in the first place.

> After that, once you and I and everyone else are in heaven or hell, now the amount of reward or punishment is according to what kind of person we were and what we did.

And that's what would ultimately matter I'd say.

> The analogy is about someone else paying the debt for me even though I didn't earn it or deserve it. That's all. You can't go back and add to the analogy and change stuff to create a different point and change the nature of the analogy.

This was to illustrate how God could easily pay off anyone's debt without their consent.

> Found this on a Christian site:
> Psalm 11:5 puts it bluntly:

Yeah, I quite radically disagree with this. I wrote to you about Ps 11.5, and explained that's it's not about God hating wicked people down to the bottom of His soul. I certainly agree that He hates their sin, the evil they do, the lies they perpetrate, their false worship and their misguided actions, and all that stuff, but that's different from hating the person. If there's only ONE verse in the Bible that says God hates wicked people, we don't form a theology on one verse. It's a theological principle called "hapax legomena": we are wrong to create a theology based on a single reference.

> Prov. 6.19

You'll notice the verse is part of a sequence starting in v. 16: "There are six *things* the Lord hates." In other words, it's clearly talking about behavior, not the person.

* pride:orientation to self, lack of compassion for others, lack of accurate perception
* lying: lack of trust, lack of honesty, lack of justice, and doing wrong.
* A heart that devises wicked schemes: taking advantage of other people, deceitfulness
* feet that are quick to rush into evil: a person's weakness for a propensity towards being bad and doing wrong.
* A false witness: a specific reference to courtroom proceedings. False testimony in court ultimately leads to a complete travesty of justice and brings an end to the effectiveness of court and even the law.
* A person who stirs up conflict in the community: People who habitually generate conflict are detrimental to the community.

You can see that the text is talking about behaviors that break down a community and individuals. It's still not saying that God hates some people.

> You seemed to say salvation is granted to even God's enemies, yet I pointed out that unless they change to be God's friends salvation will not be given to God's enemies.

Then somehow, somewhere I miscommunicated. Salvation is not granted to God's enemies unless they stop being His enemies and become reconciled to Him.

> There's been wars and unrest probably since about the beginning of the human species. This isn't proof that the world is getting worse. There's been threat of nuclear disaster way before the current day. While it sounds horrible that 300 are killed in a month, there's been incidents that were far, far more deadly and atrocious.

The 20th century was the bloodiest in history. Over 300 million people killed by wars, riots, and genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_cent ... d_politics

> But again, even if I granted the world is getting worse, I don't see that as evidence for Hell at all.

It's not evidence for hell. It's was just my disagreement to your statement of "Life is getting easier compared to past generations and crime and murder rates are down across the globe." But I also added the upticks we see in supremacism, racism, and Anti-Semitism. There just seems to me to be a rise in hatred.

> You seem to be saying that by performing the action of accepting God...etc.

We don't earn our way to heaven, but we do earn the amount of reward we will receive there. So I'm not doing any special pleading, but only making a separation: We get to heaven by a gift, not by deserving, but what reward we receive once we get there is contingent on our actions.

> Then couldn't you at least reasonably say the amount and level of reward or punishment was earned by the individual according to their actions?

Yes, I would agree with this.

> This just seems like word play to avoid...

No, not a word play, but trying to help you understand the true dynamics of salvation. Salvation is a free gift, paid for by someone else (Jesus). We either choose to accept it or we don't. It has nothing to do with our deserving it or earning it. Whether we accept or reject it is what decides whether we go to heaven or hell.

After that, once you and I and everyone else are in heaven or hell, now the amount of reward or punishment is according to what kind of person we were and what we did. In this sense our eternal state is always fair. Good people who never received God's gift will be treated far better and differently than a Hitler or Stalin. And evil people who accepted God's gift on their deathbeds will be treated far worse than other people who end up in heaven.

> I'm sure the person who wants to pay your debt could contact the debt collection agency and pay it off on your behalf without you having to accept that or even have any knowledge about it.

Please don't take the analogy where it wasn't meant to go and doesn't pretend to apply. The analogy is about someone else paying the debt for me even though I didn't earn it or deserve it. That's all. You can't go back and add to the analogy and change stuff to create a different point and change the nature of the analogy.

Found this on a Christian site:

"Psalm 11:5 puts it bluntly: God hates wicked people. “The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence” (Psalm 11:5). He hates wicked people from his soul, from the very depth of his being. God hates their ways (Proverbs 15:9), their thoughts (Proverbs 15:26), their worship (Proverbs 15:8), their actions (Proverbs 6:18), and their evil deeds (Psalm 5:5). He singles out as a special object of his hatred the blasphemous deeds of the Nicolaitans, those who seduced God’s people with idolatry and sexual immorality. “Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6).

"Clearly, God hates the thoughts, deeds, and desires of evil people. But further, in some way he hates the evil people themselves. His soul reacts to them with righteous revulsion as his arm extends toward them in holy fury. But who are the wicked? All of us. We are all wicked, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

The Proverbs 6:19 verse says God hates a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. These two being people and not actions.

I'm sure you will probably write it off by saying all of this hate isn't an emotion though.

> You do realize what an enemy of God is, I hope. It is someone who has set themselves against Him in rebellion and rejection. In our modern world it's called treason. And why should a rebellious traitor be granted salvation? I'm curious what your reasoning is.

I never said they should be granted salvation. I simply said that they won't.

You seemed to say salvation is granted to even God's enemies, yet I pointed out that unless they change to be God's friends salvation will not be given to God's enemies.

> That's what I'm talking about.

There's been wars and unrest probably since about the beginning of the human species. This isn't proof that the world is getting worse. There's been threat of nuclear disaster way before the current day. While it sounds horrible that 300 are killed in a month, there's been incidents that were far, far more deadly and atrocious.

But again, even if I granted the world is getting worse, I don't see that as evidence for Hell at all.

> No one goes to heaven because they've earned it, but only because they've accepted the free gift of God's love and responded with their love.

You seem to be saying that by performing the action of accepting God, the person then deserves reward in Heaven because of this action and will be further rewarded according to the other actions he/she has taken. Yet, still, none of their actions earned them anything (not the accepting which got them a ticket into Heaven in the first place and is the reason they deserve it, not any other action that they were rewarded solely because of). It seems to be special pleading sort of, in my opinion.

It's reasonable to say someone earned something if they did something and then deserved (and even received) a reward strictly and solely because of what they did.

> It is the DEGREE of reward or punishment after that juncture that is according to one's behavior.

Then couldn't you at least reasonably say the amount and level of reward or punishment was earned by the individual according to their actions?

> My action has made the gift effective for me. But to say I "earned" it or "deserved it" is a terrible misunderstanding. And yet at the same time, there was something I had to do.

This just seems like word play to avoid what seems clearly that the action one takes (accepting God) causes them to deserve a reward. In other words, the reward was earned by the individual taking the action. Individual doesn't take that action? They deserve punishment. Individual does? They no longer deserve punishment but reward based solely on their taken action.

> Suppose I owed you a $1 million. And suppose someone approached me and said, "I will pay the debt for you if you want." The offer is there, but I have to accept it. Otherwise the debt won't get paid (except by me, as if I ever could).

I'm sure the person who wants to pay your debt could contact the debt collection agency and pay it off on your behalf without you having to accept that or even have any knowledge about it.

> In other words, it's God who offers the gift and it's God who works in one to accept his gift, yet you seem to be saying God is not in control of the gift.

That's correct. He offers, invites, and plants the seed in us. But it is up to us to respond.

> I can provide verses saying God hates evildoers.

I can only think of one, but if you know more, I'll be glad to discuss them. Ps. 11.5 says, "...but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.” Even a simple and superficial reading of the psalm shows that what it speaks of is God's wrath on the wicked, not an emotion of hate. Read Jer. 20.12 for a similar thought. He examines the righteous and is pleased with integrity (integrity (1 Chr. 29.17; Ps. 17.3; Jer. 11.20). They will live in His presence (Ps. 11.7). He also examines the wicked and finds they are worthy of judgment (Ps. 11.6).

> And until his enemies reconcile to him, he will grant them damnation instead of salvation.

You do realize what an enemy of God is, I hope. It is someone who has set themselves against Him in rebellion and rejection. In our modern world it's called treason. And why should a rebellious traitor be granted salvation? I'm curious what your reasoning is.

> I don't see our world as getting worse and worse, even though I hear that narrative sometimes (especially from Christians it seems). Life is getting easier compared to past generations and crime and murder rates are down across the globe.

Fascinating.

* The US and Iran taunting each other in the Persian Gulf. Nuclear war could be the result.
* Impeachment activity against the President, which would be a historic first if successful.
* The US and North Korea taunting each other with the prospect of war.
* Close to 300 people killed by bombs in Sri Lanka last month
* 50 dead at a Christchurch, NZ, mosque shooting
* White supremacism alive and well in the US
* Racism on the rise in the US
* Anti-Semitism on the rise globally

That's what I'm talking about.

> The storm we would need saving from is the threat of Hell.

You misunderstand hell. Hell is the biblical image for God judging people properly and fairly. Everyone gets exactly what they should get. It's no threat, but only justice at work in an ideal sense.

> What's the difference between a system that gives either reward or punishment in varying degrees based on one's actions and a system that gives people what they earn based on their actions?

Think of it this way: Whether you spend your life in freedom or in jail depends on whether you've committed a crime or not. So the first level is: freedom or jail. But then the degree of punishment is suited to the depth of crime. People who default on debts get fined, but the amount of fine is commensurate with the offense. People who commit crimes go to jail, but the amount of jail time is commensurate with the crime.

No one goes to heaven because they've earned it, but only because they've accepted the free gift of God's love and responded with their love. That's the first level. Those who are in heaven accepted the gift, those who are in hell refused it. But after that there's another understanding: the people in heaven get rewarded fairly according to their actions, and the people in hell get punished fairly according to their actions. No one gets treated unfairly.

You are making one foundational and huge mistake: you assume or have concluded that there is something about hell that is unfair. But since we're talking about the Bible, the one thing we can say for certain is that God is just and will do exactly what is fair for each person.

> Is your definition of "earn" something close to "gain deservedly in return for one's behaviour or achievements."? So in the system of Christianity, one obtains reward or punishment deservedly in return for one's behavior, correct? Yet you contend that they didn't earn this supposed reward or punishment?

No. Incorrect. In the system of Christianity, one obtains reward or punishment in return for whether one accepted the free gift of God's love or rejects God's love. Period.

It is the DEGREE of reward or punishment after that juncture that is according to one's behavior.

> The difference I see between the Bible and any other document (well, any other document besides perhaps a small amount of other holy books) is the Bible is said to have the greatest mind ever devised behind it and is said to be there for Divine guidance on the text. Yet, we still don't see people agreeing about the text.

God can't write a book that isn't subject to interpretation. Any communication has three parts: the giver (and the intent) of the message, the message itself, and the receiver (and therefore interpreter) of the message. You can something as clear as clear can be and still be interpreted wrongly by someone who sees you differently and hears your message the way he or she wants to hear it. It is impossible to give communication that is above interpretation. We are thinking, free agents, and our interpretations are no reflection on the quality of the messenger or the message.

> He could alter our brain structure to fully and completely understand it.

It seems you want God to make you a robot with regard to His revelation. It's something He'll never do. His invitation is that you come to Him by choice, out of love, not because He twisted your mind into forcing you to acknowledge Him. It's a repulsive thought.

> I never went into specifics about Hell. I said only that it was "torment" and there's Bible verses saying such. I think it safe to say it's not a pleasant place and "torment" seems a fair description to me.

God is trying to warn you that rejection of him will be far from a pleasant experience. He would be remiss not to warn people. If people got to hell and it was awful, but they had never been told or warned, they could rightly say, "Hey, this isn't fair. Somebody should have told me." But now that you've been warned, you are still saying, "Hey, this isn't fair. Why should it be awful?" It's awful because you are finally seeing the actual quality of your soul without any rose-colored glasses.

> I said in the title and the beginning of the OP that this was addressed to: "those who think salvation is through God alone without the individual earning it and that think all deserve Hell". If you don't think everyone deserves Hell, you weren't the target audience.

Well, see, this is a triple statement.

* "those who think salvation is through God alone." This is true, to an extent. Salvation is through God alone, but we must respond by faith. God doesn't save people without their responding to Him in love.
* "...without the individual earning it." Right. According to the Bible, earning salvation is impossible.
* "...and that think all deserve Hell." It depends what you mean by this. All communication has to be interpreted. Do you mean that we're all evil? (No, we're not.) Do you mean by this that earning salvation is impossible? (Yes, it is.) Do you mean that the system is unjust? (No, it's not.) Does it mean that salvation is like winning the lottery? (No, it's not.) Does it mean that some are chosen seemingly at random to receive it? (No, it doesn't.) Does it mean that "Would it not be more in line with justice to simply give people what they deserve based on their actions?" (No, this is salvation by works [by earning it] that is contrary to justice. Justice necessarily has to include mercy.)

> if we don't earn our way to Heaven, as you say, how is it deserved? We don't deserve it outright based on nothing we've done, do we?

It is only deserved in the sense that I have responded to God's gift by accepting it and by responding to His love by my love in return. Therefore I have taken action that makes the gift effective (I took it, "opened" it, was happy to get it, said thank you, and then lived with the joy of that gift). My action has made the gift effective for me. But to say I "earned" it or "deserved it" is a terrible misunderstanding. And yet at the same time, there was something I had to do.

> If salvation is not earned, and sinners deserve Hell, what is it exactly that makes the saved not deserve Hell anymore and instead deserve Heaven?

Suppose I owed you a $1 million. And suppose someone approached me and said, "I will pay the debt for you if you want." The offer is there, but I have to accept it. Otherwise the debt won't get paid (except by me, as if I ever could). So I agree and the debt gets paid. Woo-hoo! Now, do I deserve to get thrown into prison because I didn't pay the debt? No. It's true that I didn't pay it, but it's also true that I accepted the offer for someone to pay it on my behalf. Therefore I don't deserve punishment any longer, but it wasn't because of anything I did. All I did was accept a gift, and it changed the whole situation. That's what makes the system just.

> Yes it does. But don't be fooled: it says God is working through EVERY individual, compelling EVERYONE to come to Him. Every single person is getting the invitation (Jn. 12.32).

> In none of us is faith of our own initiative. It's a gift from God (Eph. 2.8). But don't lose track of the fact that the gift of faith is offered freely to all (Rom. 5.15), but only becomes effective for those who accept the gift (Rom. 5.17).

In other words, it's God who offers the gift and it's God who works in one to accept his gift, yet you seem to be saying God is not in control of the gift.

> John 3.16 says that God loves the whole world—each and every person.

I can provide verses saying God hates evildoers.

> Therefore, there's nothing accurate about this stuff. God is inviting even his enemies to be reconciled to Him.

And until his enemies reconcile to him, he will grant them damnation instead of salvation.

When one becomes saved, they follow and are friends with God. Until then, and if they die having not made friends with God, they will be punished.

> Watch the news any evening, just pick one. The wickedness of people and their capacity for deceit and harm is on every night. And you don't need a meteorologist to tell you things are getting worse, and we may be closer to civil war, nuclear war, global environmental catastrophe, and just a whole lot of mutual antagonism and hatred that any of us would have thought possible in our lifetimes. And you don't see a storm on the horizon?

I don't see our world as getting worse and worse, even though I hear that narrative sometimes (especially from Christians it seems).

Life is getting easier compared to past generations and crime and murder rates are down across the globe. I can provide statistics on this if you'd like.

The storm in this case wouldn't necessarily be the world having more and more problems anyway. The storm we would need saving from is the threat of Hell. I don't see the state of affairs on earth as evidence or implication that Hell exists or is a threat.

> "Earning" has nothing to do with it. But for those in heaven, there will be degrees of reward based on what they have done (Lk. 19.15-19). For those who are not in heaven, there will be degrees of punishment for what they have done (Lk. 12.47-48).

What's the difference between a system that gives either reward or punishment in varying degrees based on one's actions and a system that gives people what they earn based on their actions?

Is your definition of "earn" something close to "gain deservedly in return for one's behaviour or achievements."? So in the system of Christianity, one obtains reward or punishment deservedly in return for one's behavior, correct? Yet you contend that they didn't earn this supposed reward or punishment?

> Any writing (ANY communication) is subject to interpretation. The Mueller report said Trump was not guilty of collusion, but other people interpret that differently. Economists are looking at the data, and some are predicting more economic growth while others are predicting a recession from the same data. People are looking at the same evidence in the Jussie Smollett case, and some think he's innocent and others guilty.

The difference I see between the Bible and any other document (well, any other document besides perhaps a small amount of other holy books) is the Bible is said to have the greatest mind ever devised behind it and is said to be there for Divine guidance on the text. Yet, we still don't see people agreeing about the text.

I would think if the greatest mind ever conceived (God) was truly behind and inspiring a text, he could somehow devise it to be perfectly understandable. He could alter our brain structure to fully and completely understand it.

> One is a rich and generous person of blessing, and you make the example of a cold-blooded killer scamming the system to manipulate an acquittal. How is that even CLOSE to the situation?

The serial killer in the example is not supposed to be Jesus or God, if that's what you're saying. It is anyone who thinks that wrongdoings deserve punishment pretty much.

I was using that as an example of someone who's done wrong and says "I deserve to be punished for my actions."

Also, the killer is not trying to manipulate the system or manipulate anything for that matter. He is desiring to go through with the punishment he feels he deserves.

> I think maybe you misunderstand hell. The images of hell we are given (fire, darkness, separation, weeping) are no more literal than the images of heaven (golden streets, harps, etc.) What we are meant to think when we talk about hell is the judgment of God that is dished out fairly (both in form and degree) to those who deserve it. The idea is that He knows how to do what is perfectly fair, and that's what He'll do.

I never went into specifics about Hell. I said only that it was "torment" and there's Bible verses saying such. I think it safe to say it's not a pleasant place and "torment" seems a fair description to me.

> This is exactly what the Bible teaches.

I said in the title and the beginning of the OP that this was addressed to: "those who think salvation is through God alone without the individual earning it and that think all deserve Hell". If you don't think everyone deserves Hell, you weren't the target audience.

That aside: if we don't earn our way to Heaven, as you say, how is it deserved? We don't deserve it outright based on nothing we've done, do we?

If salvation is not earned, and sinners deserve Hell, what is it exactly that makes the saved not deserve Hell anymore and instead deserve Heaven?

> don't many say that it is only God working through an individual that compels that individual to follow God and have faith?

Yes it does. But don't be fooled: it says God is working through EVERY individual, compelling EVERYONE to come to Him. Every single person is getting the invitation (Jn. 12.32).

> In other words, in this view, even the act of having faith or following God isn't (or may not be) truly the work of the individual.

In none of us is faith of our own initiative. It's a gift from God (Eph. 2.8). But don't lose track of the fact that the gift of faith is offered freely to all (Rom. 5.15), but only becomes effective for those who accept the gift (Rom. 5.17).

> Also, in the helicopter analogy, the pilot isn't telling everyone they all deserve to die like we see in Christianity.

Please don't push the analogy further than it was intended. It's not an allegory where every element has a parallel meaning. Every analogy fails when pushed too far. The point is that rescue is available to all who will climb aboard. That's all.

> I don't think the need for salvation is as plain as a helicopter rescue.

Then please spend about 2 minutes reading Romans 3.9-20.

> No weather station is broadcasting the evidence for the supposed incoming storm.

Watch the news any evening, just pick one. The wickedness of people and their capacity for deceit and harm is on every night. And you don't need a meteorologist to tell you things are getting worse, and we may be closer to civil war, nuclear war, global environmental catastrophe, and just a whole lot of mutual antagonism and hatred that any of us would have thought possible in our lifetimes. And you don't see a storm on the horizon?

> It seems like it's only extended to God's followers and personal friends.

Then you have not read the Bible or have terribly misled. John 3.16 says that God loves the whole world—each and every person. Romans 5.8-10 says that Jesus died for ALL sinners—including even his enemies. Romans 5.15 says that God is extending His grace to all. Colossians 1.20 says that God wants to reconcile the whole world to himself.

> We wouldn't see that as justice on earth. For example, if a judge on earth said "Since my friend Tim here does what I tell him and trusts in me, I will not sentence him to a prison sentence for the murder which he is clearly guilty of. He is free to go, and instead, I will reward him with a brand new car."

Therefore, there's nothing accurate about this stuff. God is inviting even his enemies to be reconciled to Him.

> Now this would seem to point towards a reward being earned, to me. Their works decide their reward in these verses. In other words, do good works and you have earned yourself a reward.

Salvation is not earned, but the extent of your reward or punishment is. Salvation is a free gift that you either accept or reject. "Earning" has nothing to do with it. But for those in heaven, there will be degrees of reward based on what they have done (Lk. 19.15-19). For those who are not in heaven, there will be degrees of punishment for what they have done (Lk. 12.47-48).

> The confusing part to me is not all Christians agree on these matters. Some would say something like, "works don't earn you anything and the reward of Heaven is always undeserved."

Any writing (ANY communication) is subject to interpretation. The Mueller report said Trump was not guilty of collusion, but other people interpret that differently. Economists are looking at the data, and some are predicting more economic growth while others are predicting a recession from the same data. People are looking at the same evidence in the Jussie Smollett case, and some think he's innocent and others guilty.

> serial killer

It's just fascinating to me that in the situation of a beneficent ruler who offers free gifts to all, what comes to your mind is an analogy of a serial killer who does cold-blooded murders. Already I just have this feeling that you're off on the wrong foot with your analogy. One is a rich and generous person of blessing, and you make the example of a cold-blooded killer scamming the system to manipulate an acquittal. How is that even CLOSE to the situation?

> I don't think that every human deserves torment in Hell personally,

I think maybe you misunderstand hell. The images of hell we are given (fire, darkness, separation, weeping) are no more literal than the images of heaven (golden streets, harps, etc.) What we are meant to think when we talk about hell is the judgment of God that is dished out fairly (both in form and degree) to those who deserve it. The idea is that He knows how to do what is perfectly fair, and that's what He'll do.

> I would find a system of justice dealing with such matters only just if the system gives the people what they truly deserve.

This is exactly what the Bible teaches.

> Letting the guilty off from punishment they truly deserve does not seem to be perfect justice.

Mercy is a necessary part of any fair judicial system. The judge is always supposed to take into account things like motives, environment, mental state, mitigating circumstances, and the whole context. That's why, for instance, a woman who has been brutally beaten for years by an alcoholic, abusive jerk of a husband, who kills him one of the times he attacks her, has her sentence suspended. We all get that it would be wrong to convict her for this crime. Of course she's guilty, but it wouldn't be right in this case not to let the guilty off from punishment. A wise judge knows how to walk this fine line of justice, fairness, and mercy.

> You can see, this is not unfair, nor is it like the lottery. The rescue is accessible to any who will take it, but they have to take it.

I'm sure not all Christians hold to this idea, but don't many say that it is only God working through an individual that compels that individual to follow God and have faith? In other words, in this view, even the act of having faith or following God isn't (or may not be) truly the work of the individual.

Also, in the helicopter analogy, the pilot isn't telling everyone they all deserve to die like we see in Christianity. The pilot probably thinks everyone deserves to be saved from disaster and that they don't deserve what they get if they stayed on the island.

Also, I don't think the need for salvation is as plain as a helicopter rescue. In the case of Christianity, the helicopter (or means of salvation and the one doing the saving) is invisible and dwells in another realm that is not earth or even in the same dimension. No weather station is broadcasting the evidence for the supposed incoming storm.

> If forgiveness were only for the rich, the educated, the powerful, or the good, we could justifiable cry out "That's not fair!" But if it's extended freely to all, hey, there's even hope for me!

It seems like it's only extended to God's followers and personal friends. We wouldn't see that as justice on earth. For example, if a judge on earth said "Since my friend Tim here does what I tell him and trusts in me, I will not sentence him to a prison sentence for the murder which he is clearly guilty of. He is free to go, and instead, I will reward him with a brand new car."

> and all will be rewarded according to their works (2 Cor. 5.10; Rev. 20.13).

Now this would seem to point towards a reward being earned, to me. Their works decide their reward in these verses. In other words, do good works and you have earned yourself a reward.

The confusing part to me is not all Christians agree on these matters. Some would say something like, "works don't earn you anything and the reward of Heaven is always undeserved." in my experience, if I'm recalling my interactions correctly.

> But the invitation to be SAVED is the same for all. It's an open door. Who would begrudge that?

While I can see why it seems like a "why are you complaining for a free gift?" situation, I don't think it's that simple. Suppose a serial killer knows he can pull some strings and get away with his cold blooded murders because he has connections. The individual in question may not pursue that avenue as he may think it is only fair and just for him to do the time since he did the crime, so to speak.

I don't think that every human deserves torment in Hell personally, but if I did, I would find a system of justice dealing with such matters only just if the system gives the people what they truly deserve. Letting the guilty off from punishment they truly deserve does not seem to be perfect justice. I'm not crazy about some penalties of law that are currently happening on earth (such as the death penalty for example). However, if there was a way for me to determine that an individual in question did truly deserve death for their actions, then having them escape that punishment isn't justice.