My message to Christians who are Questioning their Faith but fear the Threat of Hell

If the Christian God really loves you as much as the Bible says he does, why does he hold Hell over your head to make sure that you do what he says? That isn’t love, friend, that is sadistic abuse.  I know what you are going through:  while your brain may be questioning the inconsistencies of the Christian belief system, a small voice in your psyche repeatedly tells you to play it safe and obey the monster who calls himself your “loving Heavenly Father”.

He is not loving and he is not your father, friend! He isn’t even a “he”. It is an “it”…an evil, manipulative, imaginary, supernatural Boogeyman, a superstition, invented by ancient middle-eastern, scientifically illiterate goat-herders to make some sense of their chaotic world.

And Hell was invented by evil Christian Churchmen to control the ignorant masses of their day, using probably our greatest fear: being burned alive.   

Teaching this horrific concept to little children is criminal!  It is psychological child abuse.  Tell a child that Daddy is going to burn him if he misbehaves, and then tell him that over and over and over, his entire childhood, that child will never fully recover from that psychological damage.  That is what ex-fundamentalist Christians, ex-conservative Christians, ex-evangelical Christians, and ex-orthodox Christians who have grown up in this abusive system must deal with for the rest of our lives:  freeing themselves from the fear of our father burning us for not doing what he says.  What a sick belief system!  Let’s expose this superstition-based psychological abuse and prevent children in the future from ever having to fear being burned by an imaginary god!

The conservative Christian belief system is a baseless superstition that belongs in the Superstition Grave Yard along with Zeus and Jupiter.


18 thoughts on “My message to Christians who are Questioning their Faith but fear the Threat of Hell

  1. He'll was prepared for the devil and fallen angels and not for humans. God doesn't want anyone to perish, but some will choose to blaspheme God out of the hardness of their hearts, just as you are doing. It is simple Gary. You hate God because you want to sin. So the answer you have chosen is to deny Jesus Christ so that you can be free to pursue the evil desires of your heart. Stop blaming God and own up to your sinful will. You sound like a child mad at daddy for punishing them.


  2. If your holy book is true, your god created Hell knowing full well who was going to suffer there.

    The good news is that Hell is an invention of man. The idea of an afterlife did not appear in Judaism until after the Babylonian captivity and Hell did not appear until the Greek occupation. The Greeks called their place of eternal torment—Hades.

    It is an evil lie. You have been brainwashed. Get help, friend.


  3. Who's brainwashed here? The fool who says in his heart that there is no God. Namely, the fool rejecting Jesus is God come in the flesh for their salvation. You are that brainwashed fool! You are bleeting the words feed to you by the spirit of the world.


  4. Fools follow ancient superstitions instead of modern day science, reason, and logic, my friend.

    You have been brainwashed by your cult. I am here to help deprogram you when you are ready.


  5. Jesus “may” have been a real human, there is some evidence to suggest he might have walked the earth … but do you have any evidence to support your claim that he was “God come in the flesh for their salvation”?

    without evidence to back up your claim we can only conclude that jesus may have been a real human with a radical and unique philosophy.

    No need to fear, much less hate on, things that don't exist


  6. “…but do you have any evidence to support your claim that he was “God come in the flesh for their salvation”?”

    Unbelievers always retreat to “show me the evidence.” The moment you begin showing them from the Bible where it is taught that Jesus is God made flesh (see John 1), the immediate response is that the Bible doesn't count as evidence. Well, then where else will we find the “evidence” that Jesus is God, pray tell? Is there a repeatable test that can be performed in a lab somewhere which will demonstrate the deity of Christ? Oh gosh, that is pretty silly! Don't you think?

    Anyone, and I mean anyone, who rejects the historicity of Jesus has to be completely ignorant or high on drugs, or both. There is more evidence for the historic Jesus than there is for that of Plato, or Aristotle, but none of you question their historicity. Why? Probably because you would look like idiots for one. Do you also reject that there was a person in history named Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism?

    Gary what is a cult? I don't think that word means what you think it means.


  7. Just because Joseph Smith was a real historical person does NOT mean that the supernatural claims about him are true. You are making the same mistake with Jesus. Just because Jesus was a real historical person in the first century does not mean he walked on water or rose from the dead!

    We are not asking for proof of Jesus historicity, we are asking for proof that he is the living God, resurrected Lord of the Universe! Using your holy book as evidence to confirm the supernatural claims of your holy book, is no different than the Mormon using the Book of Mormon to confirm the supernatural claims of the Book of Mormon!

    Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

    If you told me that you saw a car on the highway yesterday, I would take your word for it. If you told me that you saw a spaceship full of Martians on the highway yesterday, I would demand video and audio to believe it. Understand? You have no good evidence for your extraordinary claim of the resurrection of a first century dead man other than four anonymous books and one vision-prone rabbi. You wouldn't believe a tale about a Martian spaceship with this weak evidence, so why should we believe your tale about a resurrected dead man?


  8. “Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.”

    Do tell how anyone would test a supernatural claim through natural means? As I alluded to in an earlier posting, such a call for testable evidence of the supernatural is nonsense. If you could test for something outside the natural world with natural means then you will have worked a miracle in itself.

    The whole bit about competing truth claims is really a nonstarter. You are comparing the BoM with the Bible when the fair comparison is between the BoM and L. Ron Hubbard's 'Dianetics.' Why? Because both books establish 'new' religions and both are fiction. At least Hubbard admitted his book was fiction.

    The problem I think you want to raise is one of competing truth claims among all religions. Why should a Christian's claim to truth be taken any more seriously than the claims of a crack pot on a street corner claiming he was visited by the Angel Methuselah and given the truth that 'God' is an ET? Whether or not a writing can be produced to support truth claims may lend credibility to the claims but that is besides the point. Right?

    What we do is evaluate the truth claims to see if they are plausible. Everyone approaches truth claims with a bias. Your bias is a materialistic world view and I also read a good amount of logical positivism in your blogs. Yes?

    Using your example of Mormons. Mormons claim that the BoM is an additional revelation of the New Testament. So how would I test the Mormon's truth claims in that case? I would examine the against the New Testament! Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the brother of Satan as do the Mormons? No. Does the New Testament teach that Jesus sits on a council of Gods with his father Elohim who is also on the same council? No. It follows necessarily from these contradictions between the Mormon teachings and what the New Testament tells us regarding the nature of Jesus and God that the Mormon claim the BoM is another revelation of the New Testament is a false claim.

    How else should we test the Mormon's claims?

    You quip I have no 'good evidence' for the resurrection of Jesus and I think I do. Yet, after perusing your polemics against the resurrection of Christ I am dead positive you will reject any evidence as insufficient because it can't possibly fit the criteria of being 'extraordinary evidence.' Again, such evidence would have to be a 'miracle' in itself for you. So you reject anything that doesn't meat your preconceived expectations. Using a paraphrase of Jesus' words, the dead could come and tell you that Jesus is Lord Almighty and you still wouldn't listen. Why? You have to take down the one who prohibits you from being 'free.' If Jesus is Lord (and He is) you aren't free to sin. You rail against Jesus to harden your heart so you can go after what you delight in. Except your machinations aren't working which is probably why you are turning to some psychologists who will tell you what a hurt little child you are and that religions are big meanies out there abusing people. Right? Let us know how the therapy works out for you!


  9. Some 2 billion muslims say you've rejected the last revelation from god by rejecting the quran. But that doesn't stop you from rejecting it out of hand and not losing a minute's sleep over your decision.

    The BoM could easily have been corroborated by producing the gold plates or the translation stone for testing … none the less, there are still ACTUAL paper affidavits of several people who swear they actually saw and touch those plate … this is STILL more evidence than christianity/jesus has and yet, you dismiss it as folly

    Judeo christian religion “could” have evidence … but alas, the arc of the covenant and the stones written on by the finger of god himself are conveniently “missing”. Where's Soloman's ring that he used to control the demons to build the temple? … yeah … “missing”. A sample of the mana from heaven? nope. how about any evidence of a whole community wandering the wastelands for 40 years … not so much as a camp site … there are tons of relics that could be tested to determine if some force beyond nature interacted with it … but mysteriously not a single item purported by the bible that god or jesus had any earthly interaction with exists today for analysis

    Cue the apologetics and excuses in 3 … 2 …. 1 ….

    WE barely have copies of copies of edited copies of translation of copies of translation of the original scriptures to form the basis for the bible … and I don't think a single one says the exact same thing as any other … curious that “god's inerrent word” would be SO easily degraded by time/elements and the corruption of humans … after all isn't god's “word” supposed to be “important”? So important that god relied on hundreds of different fallible humans to “jot it down” and pass it around …I mean. come ON! god wrote with his FINGER in a freaking MOUNTAIN and he's gonna leave his IMPORTANT message to the writing technology of the times and trust humans (who he knows are total screw ups – see, eden, garden of)?

    If it was SO “evident” which books, letters, writings belonged in the bible, why was it so hard to determine which writing belonged at which did not? why wouldn't god just “enlighten” humans to “know” … yet there's still controversy to this day as to what is and what is not suppose to be in the bible as evidenced by the many different versions.

    You have ZERO evidence outside the bible, which conveniently proclaims that it IS evidence. If that's the standard, then we should let all the “innocent” people out of prison … you know, the ones that actually CLAIM they are innocent … they say they're innocent, right, so they MUST be


  10. Here we go! Your response is a good example of what I point out earlier. You demand natural evidence for the supernatural. You exclude the supernatural with your materialistic worldview and then harp on the Christian (or anyone with a religion) for not producing evidence which in itself would be a miracle. How convenient, huh?

    I already explained how one would deal with the BoM. Its truth claims would be checked against the New Testament and if it contradicted the words of Christ there, then it couldn't possibly be another truthful revelation of Christ as they claim. The same method could be used for the Quran. What does the Quran say about Jesus? It claims that Jesus is one of several prophets and that Mohammed is the final prophet. But that isn't what the New Testament teaches about Jesus. John 1 is clear that Jesus is God come in the flesh, something the Quran rejects wholesale. It stands to reason then that anyone with half a working brain cell would understand that the Christian is going to reject the Quran on the basis of what it teaches concerning Jesus when compared with their own scriptures. This isn't rocket science.

    But as you opine, “You have ZERO evidence outside the bible…” which is of course a false assertion. Anyone with a precursory understanding of the historicity of the Bible knows that there is supporting historical evidence that corroborates its claims. Heck, archaeologists in Jerusalem have recently uncovered many artifacts further establishing the reliability of the Bible. Yet, none of that matters to you, because you want miraculous evidence to establish the truth claims of the Bible and you don't think that is unreasonable. Of course you don't! But as I told Gary a dead man come back to life could appear to you and tell you Jesus is Lord and you would still reject Jesus.


  11. Just a couple more points addressed to your polemic against the reliability of the Bible. Your bald assertions are unconvincing. As an example you opine there is no evidence of the Jews in the wilderness. What you seem to be missing is that there is little evidence of the Bedouin tribes that have wandered the same area for thousands of years. Yet we know these tribes have existed there for some time. So we are back to your call for miraculous evidence.

    You talk about the attestation of the Bible as if you know something and it is evident you don't. The Bible has more copies of ancient texts than any other book in antiquity. For you to be consistent you would also have to reject the reliability of the texts of all other ancient writings from Plato to Cicero. You won't do that since you don't want to look like a idiot. Instead you will balk that none of those texts make extraordinary truth claims and that would be a mistake.

    The rest of your polemic is really juvenile. Why can't God drop a pristine copy of His books on our laps? Sure why can't God just use telepathic powers to tell me what He wants me to know and while He's at it how about He give me the winning power ball numbers too?! Gosh I can't roll my eyes hard enough at such nonsense!


  12. Of course my “assertions” are “unconvincing” to you and your ilk. You begin with a presupposition that the bible is unquestioningly true and ANY evidence contrary MUST be rejected. And that's fine – just say so (which you basically have) but that still leaves you with a whole bunch of unsolved problems … for starters, if god ever “decided” to actually “drop a book of his word in our lap” (which would go a long way to giving his existence credibility), how would you and your ilk ever be able to accept it as truly his word if ANY aspect of the “new” book in any way varies from, amends, corrects, updates, enhances etc. anything the “original” book says? You've effectively painted yourself in a corner with such an unyielding approach and rigid belief in the bible as it stands, that god himself could not even modify or in any other way add to it. Of course it's no coincidence that god has been mysteriously silent since the bible has coalesced to it's relative current form. Not a single prophet (since you reject muhammed) … sorry, I find it hard to believe that a meddling god like yahweh could just say “Oh, they finally cobbled together a book that says EXACTLY what I want … my work is done” and quit all contact and interference with human affairs cold turkey.

    Ever since I was a child this absence of god in ANY aspect of the world was vexing. Why would god completely shun mankind after spending so much time and effort creating and “perfecting” man and/or the world? Answer: because god never existed

    But if god DID try to interact with humanity after jesus – like the muslims assert he actually DID – what mechanism do you have to “know”?

    And why we “believe” in the bedouins and Plato – because they don't make supernatural claims to their existence so they remain plausible based on the scant evidence for them that remains (never mind that bedouins still wander the deserts today). FYI Israeli scientist did their level best to try to find evidence for the exodus – if anyone was motivated to find evidence it's the Israelis – they came up empty and concluded the event never happened. On top of which, recent excavations in Egypt conclude that it was NOT a “slave workforce” that built many of the Egyptian landmarks but rather a skilled and well cared for and provisioned workforce. I know, I know … how “juvenile” of me to “believe” the evidence.

    Yes, some historical locations and people in the bible have been independently corroborated, that's hardly evidence for the supernatural events that supposedly occurred at those locations or to those people. And you cannot seriously believe that god can do all this interaction on this planet and not leave one single trace of a supernatural interaction.

    You call it “juvenile” (ad hominem) to think god is somehow soo “above” us, that we're not “worthy” of evidence to his existence. I think you just don't have an answer – or a god – to even supply a hint of an answer as to why there in no evidence and why god has gone MIA – (hint: he was never there)


  13. To robert hall: You sound unbelievably bitter. What happened to you that the Christian God leaves such a bad taste for you? You try to figure this out with your thinking but not doing too well. Your posts are remarkably miserable mr. hall. It's amazing the peace that you lack in trying to convince others that God doesn't exist.


  14. Robert you have certainly missed some crucial points. Yes, I accept the infallibility of the Bible and that by faith. That's not being “painted into a corner” but accepting the Word of God as the truth. And you are right in saying that I reject any additions to the Bible, since the scriptures themselves tell me that God has chosen to speak to us in these last days through His Son Jesus Christ. That also means I reject Joseph Smith and Mohammed as prophets. So what's the problem with that? Oh, right, it is 'faith' something you reject and why? Because of your materialistic presuppositions. Remember those?

    As for this alleged “absence of God” you insist upon, you are flatly wrong. God isn't absent. For that matter anyone but the fool can see from the world around us that God is creator and very present. He did send His Son to the world so fools such as yourself could reject Him, but also so that others could come to faith and receive the forgiveness of sins.

    It is very simple Robert. You HATE God. Period. You're not interested in evidence but in your own 'freedom.' You want to sin and can't stand the thought of being under God's wrath, so you get rid of God, read philosophers and psychologists who tickle your ears. I can only pray that you and your “ilk” will repent of your sins and receive Jesus.


  15. Robert opines: “And why we “believe” in the bedouins and Plato – because they don't make supernatural claims to their existence so they remain plausible based on the scant evidence for them that remains….”

    Not quite. My earlier assertion was regarding “extraordinary truth claims.” Claims such as Plato's insistence that universals exist as real entities in another dimension of reality. That is a fairly “extraordinary” claim but I don't see you or Gary grinding your axes against Plato. Besides you have completely missed the point I made. The Bible is at least a historical document and as such is reliable. That alone doesn't mean the supernatural claims of the Bible are true but it should cause any reasonable person to refrain from tossing the book out as one of mere fairy tales as you have unreasonably done.


  16. I don't think we have tossed the Bible out as being all fairy tales, but neither do we accept it as 100% historical fact, nor do we accept it as the inerrant Word of the Creator.

    The Bible is a masterpiece of ancient literature. It contains historical facts, allegories, parables, and probably a lot of myth, legend, and outright fiction. The key to reading the Bible is figuring out what is historical fact and what is not.


  17. Gary, you might not have 'dumped' the Bible as a mere books of tales but I can assure you that many of your atheist cohorts have done so. Read Dawkins or the late Hitchens. But you did assert “If your holy book is true…” implying the whole of it is not true. Glad to see you back off from that claim.


  18. “If your holy book is true…”

    Almost every scholar, writer, critic etc. of the bible will and has conceded that certain detail are veritably true. At the same time, none of the supernatural, miracle claims or claims of deities, demons, angels, talking snakes etc – which is the MAJOR focus of the whole book – are either veritably false or evidentially unsubstantiated. So while there may be historical facts that are true, that doesn't make the books main point true. Since the “point” of the book is god (and not say, geography) … the book fails to meet the standard as “fact based”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s