"What if you're wrong?"

     Christians like to invoke Pascal's Wager and say that if they are right and their god exists they have won everything and that if nonthing exists beyond this world they have lost nothing. In essence they ask non-christians "what if you're wrong?" In my own case, I will at least know that I refused to serve an evil being. But they are applying a false dichotomy. It is not necessarily the case that one or the other of those two considerations is true.
     What if, after this life, we are judged by a being other than the christian god? What if the christian god is considered such a dangerous monster that all his followers are exiled -- for the well-being of the general spiritual population? What consolation do you have if you find that you lost such a bet that you thought you could not lose? I don't see how you could object that that would be unfair treatment. After all, you openly assert that you "deserve" hell.

The christian concept of hell:

     I would like to talk about the christian concept of hell. First, it should be noted that there is no single christian idea of hell. If you ask ten christians you likely get twelve different answers.
     The concept of hell is important because it is the second most preferred method to turn people into christians. (The most preferred method is, of course, to raise their children into christianity, not allowing them awareness of the outside until they are completely shackled to it.) Now, the concepts can generally be divided into two groups, a simple separation from the christian god or a setting in which the god or some demons or whatever are engaging in torture. The considerations for each of the possibilities are different. I shall address them separately.
     If hell is simply a separation from the christian god, I can find no fault with it. But in such a case, I have no cause for alarm. Did you know that I have been separated from the president of the United States and from queen Elizabeth of England for my entire life. It hardly bothers me any more.
     On the other hand, if there are active tortures, regardless of who is doing the direct torturing, any god (or any other being, for that matter) who would send people there for all time is wicked. Does he delight in suffering? It matters little when people say it was only meant for Satan and his angels. The question is still the same. Does this god delight in suffering? If he does, he is a wicked monster and not worthy of worship.

How to be a christian leader

     This is based on my own observations of Ray Comfort.
     Misrepresent the beliefs of non-christians (preferably with something completely ridiculous -- like expecting a monkey to give birth to a cat.) Explain to your followers that the bible is trustworthy because it says so right there in the bible and they know the bible is trustworthy. Take snippets of what non-christians say to make it look like they hold a position that they do not -- some scientists are so verbose that whole paragraphs could be lifted out of context. When outsiders correctly point out the strawmen, circular reasoning, and quote mining, respectively, insist that that's what they do when presented with "credible evidence for god."
     Remember your target. You are not trying to convince outsiders. In fact, if they think critically at all, that would be impossible. You are trying to make outsiders look unreasonably stubborn to your followers.
     Use claims like "creation proves a creator." Never admit that the claim that the world is a creation is in dispute.
     When an outsider points out an obvious lie, ignore it. Do not even acknowledge he said anything. Your followers will quickly forget.
     Claim that people who committed attrocities were not True Christians™. Keep your definition of christian sufficiently vague that you can always exclude someone at convenience.
     Tell your followers that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing. Never acknowledge the possibility of a judge other than the christian god. If someone professes deism, pretend that is an endorsement of christianity.
     Tell your followers that you need money for your ministry. The donation should flow. Never mention the mansion or the Rolls Royce. [Editor's note: I am speculating on the actual expenses.]

So, anyone want to try to defend hell as just?

     Some ground rules: I think that the god described in the bible is cruel, spiteful, malevolent, and unjust. Claiming that he said that hell is just will completely unpersuasive here. (I also consider the bible to be fictional, thankfully; but that is another matter.) I can picture wicked god constructing a sham "law" to brand everyone as "guilty" as an excuse to send people unjustly to a hell on his whim. If you wish to defend hell as just, you will need to provide evidence that does not fit that.

Why the threat of hell?

     I often see christians claim that their god wants voluntary love and worship. They correctly assert that forced love is not real. But then, why the threat of hell. If you worship this being because of a threat of eternal torment if you don't, it is forced worship and so, not real. In an apparent attempt to get around this difficulty, christians will point out that human societies have and enforce laws. This, of course, destroys the initial claim. In order to keep society running smoothly, I desire that people not steal. It makes little difference to me whether they refrain from theft because theft is wrong or because they want to stay out of prison. The important thing is that they refrain from theft.
     There is something intrinsicly not right about the christian concept of god. If he simply has this great desire that we fawn all over him, he should just show up -- and in a manner that is unmistakeable. That shouldn't be too hard for a supposedly omnipotent being, should it? The claim that he "showed up as Jesus" does not fit the criterion. Jesus (even assuming the stories are true) looked very much like a normal human -- i.e. not a god. Showing up in disguise so that people will think it's a fake doesn't count. On the other hand, if this god wants voluntary worship, he should remove the threat of hell. All it is is an ultimatum; and ultimata are not conducive to voluntary worship.
     There are a few possibilities I see regarding the state of affairs of christian worship. First, it could be a complete fiction. There might not be any god corresponding to the bible. Second, there could be a god that actively desires to send people to hell but has to convince some superior being that he gave people a chance. This would account for the fact that he seems to go to great lengths to make the message look false. Perhaps he wants people to reject it. Lastly, the god in question may be limited. Perhaps he simply has no power over those who do not give their lives to him. In such a case, hell is an empty threat, as he has no such power. He could be using a fear tactic to prevent people from thinking clearly and to ensare them.

I saw another letter to the editor by an abortion-rights advocate.

     Why is it that they always seem to avoid the word "abortion" and claim that it is only about a woman "controlling her own body"? It seems highly dishonest to me. (I grant that it is possible that the paper simply doesn't publish the honest ones.) At issue is another living being. Now, perhaps they don't think this being deserves any protection and that killing this being on a whim should be considered okay. I afford no protections to roaches. When I find a roach, I make it a dead roach. But this brings me to my point. I have no need to play games like calling it "controlling my own shoe" or saying that roaches are only "potential life." There is just something in the way I see the case for abortion rights presented that seems to suggest that the advocates don't really believe it's okay. It looks like they feel a need to conceal something, even from themselves.
     I don't really want to single out abortion-rights advocates. I'm sure that abortion-rights opponents are just as capable of dishonesty. But the only case I see presented (other than my own) comes from people quoting their holy book. I have every confidence that there are non-theists who are also opposed to abortion. But somehow, they aren't heard.

Ray is lying again. In other news, some dogs were found barking.

     This time he states that the quotes he has in his banner were "in context." People have pointed the actual context of the quotes and the meaning is different from Ray's representation. Of course, his followers will never question him. That man is so dishonest, I would expect even John Hagee to shun him to avoid tarnishing his reputation.