Be Warned & Believe what you Truly Will

[FurtherSuntime]

The organizing and thought is complete. It may be an idea to submit each of 3 parts separately
due to quantity and ease reading through.( daily I’m guessing) Thankyou for obvious patience.The following represents feedback with respects to understood given thoughts regarding pain only, and introduce’s the full reply

Part 1

Before I begin its noticed that my opinion is asked with respects to what God should do with the un-repentant sinner for eternity. In keeping with my already placed opinion on this matter, I believe consequence or due justice is a reality. Consequence in creation is how, all that we know has come to be. Fitting consequence is logical. The perspective will be along in the
final entry.

It would be organized I think to firstly have a look at the later portion of the post.The portion discusses pain as well possible experience in the thought process or manner, of the damned . Once complete, it will be possible to draft my perspective as asked with attention to all mentioned relative issues .

Tantum ergo:

"Now, a person getting a Brazilian wax may yell during the procedure. But she isn’t yelling ‘stop’, she’s reacting to the physical pain. But at the end she says, “Good job’ and she comes back again in a month or two”.

F Suntime:

The reason a women is allowing herself the dis-comfort in the procedure,is her opinion understands the end result will enhance her attractiveness in society. Her opinion is that she thinks the change will increase social acceptance. With greater acceptance, she believes a greater likelihood exists which will allow her to increase probability in her ultimate goal. An ultimate goal which allows her to contribute to society in a manner which she feels will fulfill her purpose, increasing meaning in life. Contribution is necessary for ego. Ego is necessary for stable human existence.

She may even enjoy the pain as the discomfort acknowledging the procedure out weighs the imagined discomfort being rejected by society. The pain “tells her” she has a better chance of approval, she then “approves” of the pain Rejection will eliminate contribution, and as explained above, the necessary ego.

Everything we know including nature itself endures irregular or non-conforming experience & is without question the fundamental in pain.(weather, climate, vegetation,virus in common cold)

Adaptation is adjustment. Extensive adaptation is strange to assumed bodily or vegetative operations causing required attention. The attention is what we perceive and know, to be pain. Even a tree can experience shock.

If the experience is survived the ultimate goal in contribution is strengthened. Pain serves a purpose directly associated to the enhancement of creation period. Including bodily degeneration, the occurrence promotes care within humanity. Are construction, includes compassion.

Genuine care for another inspires self worth by increasing purpose in contribution A positive & required noble ego is achieved, in self understood attribute. Pain promotes and strengthens life. Pain “serves” creation, as pain, serves reason.

Abject use of pain from one to another in order to afflict is hatred as it is clearly without pure reason & of course without God.

Pain is not a tool. It is a necessary part of Creation

Pain is not a tool that can be used for senseless affliction “without”… progress in reason qualifying purpose… and then remain in the hands of pure reason, the Hands of God.

…The Hands of Pure Reason can only effect progress, to reason…

Above is a comment in opinion replying to understood given thoughts, on pain only. Re Brazilion wax ect

 

[Shike]

I would think in other words that the subject would know very little of the available peace,love, ect of God . The Un-rep sinner would of had very little use for the idea of God, and would not know him at all…until the final end.

The final end in life unfolding the reality of creation for basically the first time

In opinion the invitations on behalf of God which you mention wouldn’t be items which simply pop up or suddenly come about. An un-rep sinner of the class I think we are speaking of would be a groomed expert in the anti-inspiration dept. Becoming an expert in anything takes time and practice. So in this light it seemed difficult to expand on the thinking and was left un-addressed.

When someone refuses to love his neighbor or transgresses the moral laws that are written on his heart (so-to-speak), then that person is rejecting God in a very concrete way. They may not realize all the details and profound consequences of their actions, but at one point they would know full well that what they were doing was wrong and contrary to God’s love (if not, then that person wouldn’t be morally culpable). You are right, it takes practice to deaden your heart to God’s promptings.

But so what, I fail to see the objection. The unrepentant sinner is not totally ignorant of God: he has to know Who he is rejecting to be morally culpable. Therefore my argument still stands, given the existence of a unrepentant sinner.

Furthermore, my argument talks about the necessity of the existence of hell based upon the nature of human choice and God’s love. You can argue all day about what the experience of hell might be like in detail, I’m not concerned; I don’t think the Church is particularly concerned in that regard either (someone please correct me if I am wrong). But what does matter, the existence of hell and eternal punishment, they still requires a good argument from you, that is if you want to say that hell is not eternal and doesn’t exist. But before you can give a positive argument, you should still properly address my positive argument. Or perhaps you can agree with the conclusions and, by doing so, agree with the Church.

As for your response regarding consciousness, I cannot comment because I cannot understand your sentences.

I think one general problem that I’m noticing might be that you are too attached to a psychology outlook. Psychology has its place, but what I have been talking about have been mostly logical conclusions that are more basic then psychology.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

When someone refuses to love his neighbor or transgresses the moral laws that are written on his heart (so-to-speak), then that person is rejecting God in a very concrete way. They may not realize all the details and profound consequences of their actions, but at one point they would know full well that what they were doing was wrong and contrary to God’s love (if not, then that person wouldn’t be morally culpable). You are right, it takes practice to deaden your heart to God’s promptings.

But so what, I fail to see the objection. The unrepentant sinner is not totally ignorant of God: he has to know Who he is rejecting to be morally culpable. Therefore my argument still stands, given the existence of a unrepentant sinner.

Furthermore, my argument talks about the necessity of the existence of hell based upon the nature of human choice and God’s love. You can argue all day about what the experience of hell might be like in detail, I’m not concerned; I don’t think the Church is particularly concerned in that regard either (someone please correct me if I am wrong). But what does matter, the existence of hell and eternal punishment, they still requires a good argument from you, that is if you want to say that hell is not eternal and doesn’t exist. But before you can give a positive argument, you should still properly address my positive argument. Or perhaps you can agree with the conclusions and, by doing so, agree with the Church.

As for your response regarding consciousness, I cannot comment because I cannot understand your sentences.

I think one general problem that I’m noticing might be that you are too attached to a psychology outlook. Psychology has its place, but what I have been talking about have been mostly logical conclusions that are more basic then psychology.

Ciao,
Michael

Here is the quote or arguement I believe you are referring to above:

Shike
God wants to make us saints. A saint is one who is fully alive and loves like God loves. A saint is also someone who loves God. God, because He is love, won’t force someone to love him. God respects our choices, because that is the only loving thing to do (in the end at least). So if someone after repeated invitations to love God, still refuses God and that someone makes up his mind that he never wants God to bother him ever, ever, ever, again and wants to make his decision final… then God just might respect that person’s decision. Eternal separation from God is hell. Whether it is a spatio-temporal reality or not might still be up for speculation. Regardless, it is a “place” (whether spatio-temporal or not) of extreme suffering. So the conclusion from all this is, strangely enough, that the existence of hell is necessitated by God’s love and the nature of free-will.

F Suntime:

The above description assumes that the unrepentant sinner is “not” insanely testing God-Creation consciously or otherwise. I’m afraid you may be required to re-arrange the bulk of your thread entries description of the damned, in order to negate suggested possibility without illogical contradiction.

There would be implications in your imagined final assessment.

If you read my previous post , it would be clear that my thinking does not deny consequence as
it is expressly stated.

The concept of "eternal"damnation, is obviously my focus and will be discussed in detail .Hell as we know is defined as an eternal torture of endless &severe, bodily pain. (torment)

I will patiently wait until tomorrow then , in continuing the reply to Tantum ergo.

 

[Shike]

The above description assumes that the unrepentant sinner is “not” insanely testing God-Creation consciously or otherwise.

If the person is insane, then I’d assume that the degree of mental illness would affect the culpability of the person to some degree in future actions. That is only because they wouldn’t have full control of their mental faculties.

However, we are not talking about the exception but about the norm. And don’t try to argue that only insane people can go to hell. Satan had full use of his mental faculties when he disobeyed God and chose hell. My argument doesn’t require analyzing the state of the person once he is in hell, instead it merely shows that someone can go there. And given that we are endowed with immortal souls, it stands to reason that hell is eternal.

I agree that disobeying God is a kind of “insanity”, but only metaphorically and not in the strict mental illness sense, but in the twisted will sense.

I fail to see the relevance of the “insanity” card.

ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

If the person is insane, then I’d assume that the degree of mental illness would affect the culpability of the person to some degree in future actions. That is only because they wouldn’t have full control of their mental faculties.

However, we are not talking about the exception but about the norm. And don’t try to argue that only insane people can go to hell. Satan had full use of his mental faculties when he disobeyed God and chose hell. My argument doesn’t require analyzing the state of the person once he is in hell, instead it merely shows that someone can go there. And given that we are endowed with immortal souls, it stands to reason that hell is eternal.

I agree that disobeying God is a kind of “insanity”, but only metaphorically and not in the strict mental illness sense, but in the twisted will sense.

I fail to see the relevance of the “insanity” card.

ciao,
Michael

F Suntime.

I will approach differently for understanding,

Shike :

The unrepentant sinner rejects God, and his love.The unrepentant sinner is not totally ignorant of God: he has to know Who he is rejecting to be morally culpable.

F Suntime.

If the unrepentant sinner rejects God & his Love, then he knows who God Is.

If he knows who God Is, then he cannot reject God by virtue of believing God exists.

He can only ignore God…

If he is ignoring God then he has a relationship with God by virtue of knowing to be ignoring, that which he knows exists.

The unrepentant sinner is ignoring the Creator, of his or her life.

If one ignores the Creator who is known to be responsible for ones life, then one does not appreciate the value of given life. Therefore the rejection of God represents a complaint in the understood circumstance of life. The complaint is expressed through a material obstinate will in direct violation of God., unquestionably suggesting a challenge to God.

A challenge or test in order to express dis-agreement by ignore. A test in returning felt or understood illogical indifference,in attempt to hurt God.

When the ignore fails to control God , in effecting satisfactory circumstance’s, the un-repentant sinner becomes more aggressive in the efforts to hurt God.by increase of the obstinate material will, expressing ignoral to God by direct violation The initiative if not repented becomes hate of all that is, in efforts to show absolute rejection to Gods Creation, as the illogical unrepentant sinner attempts to “control the known God”

Above is why in opinion we are not to test the Lord our God. It express’s an attempt to control God by trying to hurt Him. A most shameful and illogical ( stupid-insane) thing to do.
…
If it is said that the unrepentant sinner does not believe a God by whole definition exists, then the premise for the argument is void and cannot be assumed into the discussion without
defined notice and appropriate development.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Correction 4th paragraph from bottom.

…A challenge or test in order to express dis-agreement by ignore. A test in returning felt or understood illogical indifference,in attempt to hurt God.

Correction…no time to edit, “delete illogical” above ( somewhat misplaced,. am suggesting the above test itself, is illogical)… obviously but must be careful

 

[Shike]

If it is said that the unrepentant sinner does not believe a God by whole definition exists, then the premise for the argument is void and cannot be assumed into the discussion without
defined notice and appropriate development.

Yes, but in order for someone to be an unrepentant sinner in the first place requires a rejection of God which requires some kind of knowledge of God.

Rejecting God is a crazy thing to do… it is just that the person who is mortally sinning recognizes what he is doing is crazy and does it anyway. And that person prior to mortally sinning could be in full possession of his mental faculties, as the case of Adam and Eve point out.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Good, everything above the dotted line in my post, there was no objection or argument.

Is the general idea above the bottom line acceptable? Is there anything what so ever which
is not in step? You have made no objection. ( post #85)

If you or Tantum including anyone, can find a problem in the thinking, I need to know.
Will give two days I suppose or any amount of time requested in order to discover a
misuse of wording , phrase, idea and so on Thankyou, we may have progress.

 

[ddarko]

Good, above the dotted line in my post, there was no objection or argument.

Is the general idea above the bottom line acceptable? Is there anything what so ever which
is not in step? You have made no objection. ( post #85)

If you or Tantum including anyone, can find a problem in the thinking, I need to know.
Will give two days I suppose or any amount of time requested in order to discover a
misuse of wording , phrase, idea and so on Thankyou, I believe we have progress.

In all that you have written, you have still not made it clear what happens to those who unrepentantly engage in sin and die.

Are they going to end up in heaven? If not, then this some other place, is it not hell?

Because if God is going to make them end up in heaven after they chose sin, then God is really not loving. He hasn’t given them what they want. He has forcefully made them end up with him who they all hate.

How would you feel if your wife decided to forcefully marry you even after you’ve made it clear that you hate her? Do you think she is loving to do so?

So no, God does not force anyone to be with him. He lets us choose. Those who choose to love his ways, end up in heaven. Those who chose to hate his ways, end up in hell i.e. absence of God/fully cut off from God.

God Bless

 

[FurtherSuntime]

In all that you have written, you have still not made it clear what happens to those who unrepentantly engage in sin and die.

Are they going to end up in heaven? If not, then this some other place, is it not hell?

Because if God is going to make them end up in heaven after they chose sin, then God is really not loving. He hasn’t given them what they want. He has forcefully made them end up with him who they all hate.

How would you feel if your wife decided to forcefully marry you even after you’ve made it clear that you hate her? Do you think she is loving to do so?

So no, God does not force anyone to be with him. He lets us choose. Those who choose to love his ways, end up in heaven. Those who chose to hate his ways, end up in hell i.e. absence of God.

God Bless

The questions above are similar if not the same as Tantum ergo’s. I have planned and organized a reply which will be submitted in three separate entries. Part 1, is already posted a page or so ago and discusses pain. Pain was included in Tantums questions. I felt that the order of questions was important.

Fellow Member Shike was interested in feedback in some area’s which he and I were discussing. I felt attending to Shike and his thinking was very important. I’m looking forward to criticism once all three Parts are submitted. General theme in Post #85, ( everything above the dotted line) may be referred to in the upcoming 3 part discourse.
Therefore, we need to discover whether or not there is error , in post #85, above the dotted line
Shike has made no objection thus far. Two days or longer if neccesary in order to deconstruct
Once this issue is resolved, the requests will be met.

 

[ahs]

If the unrepentant sinner rejects God & his Love, then he knows who God Is.

If he knows who God Is, then he cannot reject God by virtue of believing God exists.

He can only ignore God…

According to whom? How can you say, that if a person believes God exists, he cannot reject God? There are many who believe God exists and reject Him by living a life of sin. They reject His Love by turning away from it and clinging to the sinful pleasures that God forbids, and thereby reject God.

In fact, if I may be so bold, one could deduce from this thread that YOU believe in God, yet YOU reject Him by virtue of rejecting the teaching of His Church and rejecting the truth of His creation of Hell, thereby rejecting His Perfect Love that goes hand-in-hand with His Perfect Justice. A prime example of knowing God, yet rejecting Him.

…When the ignore fails to control God , in effecting satisfactory circumstance’s, the un-repentant sinner becomes more aggressive in the efforts to hurt God.by increase of the obstinate material will, expressing ignoral to God by direct violation The initiative if not repented becomes hate of all that is, in efforts to show absolute rejection to Gods Creation, as the illogical unrepentant sinner attempts to “control the known God”

Above is why in opinion we are not to test the Lord our God. It express’s an attempt to control God by trying to hurt Him. A most shameful and illogical ( stupid-insane) thing to do.

Yet you still suggest there is not Hell? I doubt that every act of ignorance or aggression leads to damnation, because there are graces along the way. But that may be a whole separate topic. Also, this “stupid-insane” state of hate for God, or a desire to control Him, isn’t the only road to damnation. There are many who just reject God because they love the pleasures of the world. It may not be hatred to God that drives them, rather love of unGodly things…they become absorbed with themselves and with self-worship (the "me-me-me…I want what pleases me regardless of God). They love the world and the pleasures of this world so much that they don’t want to give those things up for God.

ahs

 

[FurtherSuntime]

ahs;8172569]According to whom? How can you say, that if a person believes God exists, he cannot reject God? There are many who believe God exists and reject Him by living a life of sin. They reject His Love by turning away from it and clinging to the sinful pleasures that God forbids, and thereby reject God.

F Suntime,

If a person believes God exists, he cannot reject “the existence of God as a truth, in creation”
Therefore one can only ignore the God that he knows exists.

F Suntime.

In fact, if I may be so bold, one could deduce from this thread that YOU believe in God, yet YOU reject Him by virtue of rejecting the teaching of His Church and rejecting the truth of His creation of Hell, thereby rejecting His Perfect Love that goes hand-in-hand with His Perfect Justice. A prime example of knowing God, yet rejecting Him.

Thank you:

If a very devout person has “difficulty understanding & believing God truly forgives them” and wants to discuss… is that person subject to above…?

Is this person rejecting God…? How is this reception possible?

This is most confusing. Is this the feedback such a person is expected to endure ?
And then… in defence of "eternal"Hell? ( both are teachings)

ahs:

Yet you still suggest there is not Hell? I doubt that every act of ignorance or aggression leads to damnation, because there are graces along the way. But that may be a whole separate topic. Also, this “stupid-insane” state of hate for God, or a desire to control Him, isn’t the only road to damnation. There are many who just reject God because they love the pleasures of the world. It may not be hatred to God that drives them, rather love of unGodly things…they become absorbed with themselves and with self-worship (the "me-me-me…I want what pleases me regardless of God). They love the world and the pleasures of this world so much that they don’t want to give those things up for God.

F Suntime
There are no items which you are objecting to which I am concerned with , I will continue patiently awaiting possible objection.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Correction…Above paragraph

(this is ahs comment…not F Suntime)

In fact, if I may be so bold, one could deduce from this thread that YOU believe in God, yet YOU reject Him by virtue of rejecting the teaching of His Church and rejecting the truth of His creation of Hell, thereby rejecting His Perfect Love that goes hand-in-hand with His Perfect Justice. A prime example of knowing God, yet rejecting Him.

F Suntime:

Thank you…ect

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Formal Apology:

I apologize ahs, for resorting to drama in defence of my Faith.

 

[ahs]

If a person believes God exists, he cannot reject “the existence of God as a truth, in creation”
Therefore one can only ignore the God that he knows exists…

No, that person can believe in God, and ignore or not ignore God, and still reject Him by rejecting God’s authority, love, justice, etc… Rejecting any aspect of God is a rejection of God. A person cannot accept only the parts of God the he/she likes and reject the rest.

…If a very devout person has “difficulty understanding & believing God truly forgives them” and wants to discuss… is that person subject to above…?
Is this person rejecting God…? How is this reception possible?
This is most confusing. Is this the feedback such a person is expected to endure ?
And then… in defence of "eternal"Hell? ( both are teachings).

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. You aren’t defending the existence of Hell, you are saying it does not exist. Have you changed your mind?
And I am not judging you, I am saying that when a person reads this thread, it can be deduced that you are rejecting God’s Justice, because Hell is part of God’s Justice. And as I stated above, you cannot reject any part of God without rejecting God. I did not accuse you…I said this can be deduced by someone reading this thread.

*ahs:

Yet you still suggest there is not Hell? I doubt that every act of ignorance or aggression leads to damnation, because there are graces along the way. But that may be a whole separate topic. Also, this “stupid-insane” state of hate for God, or a desire to control Him, isn’t the only road to damnation. There are many who just reject God because they love the pleasures of the world. It may not be hatred to God that drives them, rather love of unGodly things…they become absorbed with themselves and with self-worship (the "me-me-me…I want what pleases me regardless of God). They love the world and the pleasures of this world so much that they don’t want to give those things up for God.*

There are no items which you are objecting to which I am concerned with…

Why are you not concerned with that statement? I am stating that Hell is the result of more than just hatred to God, that people choose Hell. And God will not force them to love Him or to accept Him. What is God to do with those peolpe?

As to your apology, I did not see any drama from you, there is no need for an apology from you.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

ahs;8173530]No, that person can believe in God, and ignore or not ignore God, and still reject Him by rejecting God’s authority, love, justice, etc… Rejecting any aspect of God is a rejection of God. A person cannot accept only the parts of God the he/she likes and reject the rest.

F Suntime.

If a person believes a God exists… he cannot reject the fact… that it is so.

Therefore, he can do what ever he likes with above belief that a God exists, correct?

Given the definition of God, the greatest abdication in the comprehension of God , outright ignoral. The unrepentent sinner who knows God exists can do no more than ignore, all that God represents. You can use any wording you like, even if hate is introduced. The hate remains to be ignoring, an ultimate ignoral of the known God the creator, to be Love.

He cannot deny that he believes God exists, therefore he cannot reject the understanding, acknowledging that God exists “because” he knows God exists.

( you havn’t dis-agreed because your wording does not target my suggestion, maybe this will help )

ahs

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. You aren’t defending the existence of Hell, you are saying it does not exist. Have you changed your mind?
And I am not judging you, I am saying that when a person reads this thread, it can be deduced that you are rejecting God’s Justice, because Hell is part of God’s Justice. And as I stated above, you cannot reject any part of God without rejecting God. I did not accuse you…I said this can be deduced by someone reading this thread.

F Suntime

Ive answered this question many times already. Please read the thread.

*ahs:

ahs

Yet you still suggest there is not Hell? I doubt that every act of ignorance or aggression leads to damnation, because there are graces along the way. But that may be a whole separate topic. Also, this “stupid-insane” state of hate for God, or a desire to control Him, isn’t the only road to damnation. There are many who just reject God because they love the pleasures of the world. It may not be hatred to God that drives them, rather love of unGodly things…they become absorbed with themselves and with self-worship (the "me-me-me…I want what pleases me regardless of God). They love the world and the pleasures of this world so much that they don’t want to give those things up for God.*

Why are you not concerned with that statement? I am stating that Hell is the result of more than just hatred to God, that people choose Hell. And God will not force them to love Him or to accept Him. What is God to do with those peolpe?

F Suntime

Because there are no concepts or idea’s which you introduce which are relevent or connected with my approach.

ahs

As to your apology, I did not see any drama from you, there is no need for an apology from you.

F Suntime

Good , yesterday was a travel day and very busy.

 

[Shike]

So what is the point or what are the points that FurtherSuntime is arguing for?

Can someone sum it up in 2 sentences or less?

 

[catholic1seeks]

@FurtherSuntime:

Hi,
I haven’t read through all of the posts, so I don’t know what’s been addressed. But I’d like to say a few things.

1. The Church teaches and has always taught in the existence of hell. Jesus came to teach the truth—the whole truth. And to ensure the truth would be maintained, he established his Church on Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against this Church, which is the pillar of truth (see Mathew 16:18-19 and 1 Timothy 3:15).
2. The Bible—and Jesus Himself—clearly teaches the existence of hell. See the many articles here at Catholic.com for more answers. Just go to the homepage and type in “hell” on the search bar.
3. Most people object to hell because it seems to conflict with out understanding of God as LOVE. Well, God is love. Yet he gave us free will, and he won’t make us be with him. The truth is, if there’s free will, then hell logically follows.
4. It is important to note that we do not have to believe, as Catholics, that hell has literal fires or is some physical torture chamber. These images can causes us to have the wrong ideas of hell. However, hell is horrible and painful for the damned. But this is due to the person’s choice; “hell is locked from the inside.”

 

[ahs]

So what is the point or what are the points that FurtherSuntime is arguing for?

Can someone sum it up in 2 sentences or less?

I thought I understood the basics until now…now I can’t tell if he believes in Hell or not. But, here is what I understood up to now:

Furthersuntime does not believe that there is a Hell (Hell as he feels the Church refers to it…eternal damnation and torture of the soul in perpetuity), because Hell does not fit into the picture of God’s Perfect Love, and because torture/pain cannot exist for eternity because eventually whatever is being destroyed will cease to exist.

Again, that is what I thought I understood from all this…but now I can’t tell because he keeps speaking in circles and instead of giving an answer that would clarify, he says that I am not addressing points that he feels are important to his position.

 

[ahs]

He cannot deny that he believes God exists, therefore he cannot reject the understanding, acknowledging that God exists “because” he knows God exists.

Yet he can still reject God’s Love, God’s Mercy, etc…and in doing so rejects God while still knowing God exists, still acknowledging God exists, etc…

Maybe I’m not speaking philosophically enough for you. I am not a philosopher, so I don’t know how else to communicate the facts to you.

*ahs:

Yet you still suggest there is not Hell? I doubt that every act of ignorance or aggression leads to damnation, because there are graces along the way. But that may be a whole separate topic. Also, this “stupid-insane” state of hate for God, or a desire to control Him, isn’t the only road to damnation. There are many who just reject God because they love the pleasures of the world. It may not be hatred to God that drives them, rather love of unGodly things…they become absorbed with themselves and with self-worship (the "me-me-me…I want what pleases me regardless of God). They love the world and the pleasures of this world so much that they don’t want to give those things up for God*.

Why are you not concerned with that statement? I am stating that Hell is the result of more than just hatred to God, that people choose Hell. And God will not force them to love Him or to accept Him. What is God to do with those peolpe?

F Suntime

Because there are no concepts or idea’s which you introduce which are relevent or connected with my approach.

It doesn’t matter if it’s relevant to your approach or not. It is a relevant argument to your claim that Hell does not exist. So again, What is God to do with those people I have described above?