Apparently Christian apologist David Marshall discovered that one cannot rely upon C. S. Lewis to merely make up a nice sounding substitute damnation concept on behalf of canonical gospel Jesus’ psychotic eternal revenge fantasy aimed at most of humanity.
“Hell is not a pleasant subject. Add to that the fact that I know almost nothing about it, and I have two good excuses not to talk about the subject, if I can help it. […] I was foolish enough to challenge this fellow, Ben. […] Those who know more about hell, feel free to correct any misunderstandings I display:”
So go help him out. Tell him how Jesus doesn’t mean anything he says. And that Jesus certainly doesn’t mean it when he threatens humanity with fire over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. And Jesus doesn’t mean it when he says few will be saved (and again). And that hell would be like torture in first century prisons. Jesus is a good sheep. And certainly not the ferocious wolf in sheep’s clothing that he warned you about. Sheesh, there’d be some evidence of that.
Marshall also says:
“Now, though, our friend Hector Avalos has produced a book called The Bad Jesus in which he apparently argues that teaching on hell makes Jesus bad. No, according to one friendly reviewer, it reveals Jesus as a ‘moral lunatic.'”
Why would setting most of humanity on fire for all eternity make you a bad guy? Hmmm…
For the record Dr. Avalos in “The Bad Jesus” on pg. 104 says this:
“It is Jesus who emphasizes, more than anyone else before him, the idea that those who displease him should suffer an eternal torture. So the quality of the violence (burning) and the eternal duration of the violence are infinitely greater than almost any precedent I know.”
And on pg. 108 (in regards to the possibility that Jesus advocates annhilationism):
“Arguing that Jesus deserves a higher moral praise because he merely advocates destroying persons, rather than torturing them is like arguing that human beings who extinguish the lives of other human beings are somehow morally superior to those who toruture human beings. It is true that torture, as opposed to killing without torture, may lengthen the amount of temporal suffering, but neither act would remain morally unobjectionable. Both would be viewed as violent or impermissible acts by the United Nations.”
Jesus is king of the universe. He doesn’t listen to any petty human institution calling out the moral lunatics of history! Where’s your argument Dr. Avalos!?!
I’ve said it many times. Annihilationist Jesus is still worse than every 20th century genocidal dictator *combined.* Raising all of humanity from the dead merely to set most of them on fire even to burn them to non-existence is horrifically worse than anything all the worst bad guys of human history did.
David Marshall isn’t morally incompetant. He’s just hopelessly biased when it comes to Jesus. He knows these things are evil. At least when it comes to Islam:
“As for shame, I think anyone who calls Mohammed a prophet, half of the creed of Islam, should feel shame. Mohammed killed four times as many innocent people on a single day, as did these terrorists in Paris. And there was no one to comfort their families, who were made slaves and concubines. It is a shameful thing, to so highly honor a tyrant, a murderer, a torturer, and a slave-trader. (Though of course not a rare thing, in the West or here in China. Here’s looking at you, Chairman Mao.)”
What’s wrong with what Mohammed did? If Allah told him to, then it must have been just. See how easy that is? How dare Marshall compare the prophet to genocidal dictators for doing the same things they did! For shame!
Yes, David. Jesus meant the “good version” of setting billions of people on fire. Because it’s Jesus! C’mon! He loves double standards and pretending horrifically evil things are good when you know better.