7/2/2003: "Finger" of God

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't have a problem with most core faiths. My problem is with the religions and most often the people running them, that grow up around these faiths.
The Christian religions (I chose these because I'm most familiar with them) seem to be run by the most ruthless people I could imagine. These people would make Enron proud. Squeezing the peasants for their last peso to increase the already rich coffers or condoning if not encouraging racism. And the list goes on and on. Very contrary to what they purport to be the Christian message.
It certainly isn't limited to Christians. The world has seen all to well the Muslim clerics twist the faith to most unreasonable lengths. I doubt if any faith is unscathed in it's application. More people have been murdered and tortured in the name of (fill in god) than any political or economic goal.

[cynthian.]

joy's comments really created quite a stir. as a speech teacher i'd have to say she defended her arguement well.

Let's say 1/6 people are doing things the "right way", and will "go to heaven". That's insainly generous on my part, the 1/6 figure. Given the number, there are over six billion people on earth right this second. Doing a touch of basic math, gives us five billion people who just because they don't happen to believe the exact way that they're "supposed to", are going to be eternally tormented.

it sounds harsh doesn't it? if God does exist. if He did create us. if the Bible is correct that there is a heaven and there's a way to get there. logically, i'd have to agree with the "only one right way" idea.
we hold that idea in so many thing outside of religion. for example, marriage. here's a married couple. the wife cheats on the husband. he's outraged. she's shocked. "but your way of marriage just wasn't working for me." she says. yeah, i'm guessing that's not going to go over too well with the husband.
example2: putting a bike together: juniour wants a bike for chirstmas. you're up all night putting it together for him. the directions show the right way, you don't follow them. it's not going to be a happy night.
example3:directions to someone's house-you're going to a party at a house you've never been to. you're given directions but you toss them out the window and say "miami's only a few million houses-how hard can it be to find this one house?" you drive all night, never find it surprisingly. the party host sees you the next day and inquires about what happened. "did you not understand the directions? they were pretty specific." he says. "i thought i'd find your house on my own" he looks at you puzzled, "if you would have used the directions i gave you, you would have been to the house in 10 min. anyone who read the directions got here fine and we had a great party."
the point. if there's a God who is powerful enough to make a world and everything in it. i think He has the right to say-"this is the ONE way you come to heaven. follow the directions, they're simple. you follow the directions, you'll get the reward. you try your own way you're going to lose"
in addition, i would think that a God who claims to be holy/perfect has even more of a right to be angry than the husband who found out his wife was cheating on him. no doubt the husband, being non-perfect, made mistakes-he works late a lot, he raised his voice a few times, he can be impatient, etc-but he feels robbed nonetheless. he was faithful. he has a right to say, "okay, i'm divorcing you, i'm not going to provide for you any longer or protect you from harm."
i can't imagine God stooping so low as to give humanity the finger, that's like having an arguement with a 3 year old about the 1st ammendment. it's a waste of time. but i'd say He has the right to take all his gifts away. the earth might be considered one of those gifts. if He took that away all that would remain is hell. and i think divorce could considered be a small taste of that on earth.

aside from God's apparent right to judge and pass judgement. where's the love?
i love my students. if a student doesn't do their work or is unprepared for a speech, there's a pentalty. if i'm late for work, there's a pentalty, i'm assuming you can come up with another million examples of the same idea so i'll move on. punishing the student isn't because i hate him. it's because he didn't do what was required. the other students did. i can't reason, "oh, but carlos is such a cute kid-i'll give him a 100 even though he didn't do the assignment." because i love my students i reward the right and punish the wrong. and i hate putting a 0 in my gradebook. it hurts. but it wouldn't be fair to the kids who did the work.
if God created a heaven and hell and there's ONE way to heaven, he can't say "oh, but cynthian. is cute, i'll let her in too" because, 1. that would be imperfect, and i'm pretty confident that God calls Himself perfect. and 2.it would be unfair and unloving to those who came that ONE way. i would think it hurt Him too.

it's very logical. the question comes then, do i believe there is a God? or do i just like to analyze the logic of religions? do you believe in God? that's up to you. joydriven's remarks certainly made this a bit more colourful. i'd have to support her reasoning even if i didn't support her God.

[quzah]

Wow, some one went through a bitter divorce eh? You only mentioned the word fifteen times in that post. Likening it to hell? I take it you didn't do the dumping, or you feel "in the right"?

Your logic is horribly flawed. Assuming an all powerful being which has the ability to do whatever he/she/it(HSI) wants, consider the following:

We didn't ask to be created. HSI decided that on a whim, because they were supposedly lonely, they'd create a single source of entertainment. Earth. HSI decides then to populate it with animals. Being bored with the animals, because they were just "lower life forms", HSI then decides to put "superior beings" on said hunk of earth.

HSI then, because apparently they were still bored, made a single solitary source of "the ability to fuck posterity over for ever and ever and ever"(TATFP) in the middle of their house. Next, HSI tricks the "superior beings" into going out and using TATFP.

No, I suppose you'll say it wasn't HSI that did it, it was TOEB(the other evil being) that tricked the superior beings into fucking over all future generations.

Well ok, let's examine TOEB for a second.

At some point in time, either before HSI created earth, or after, HSI decided that they would give TAFY(the ability to fuck yourself) to all of his angels. Angels by the way, are something else HSI created, but apparently they aren't smart, good, whatever enough to be company for HSI, which is apparently why earth was made.*

So, one of the angels decides(since they were given TAFY by HSI) that they're tired of living in the greatest spot in existance, so they'd rather go off and wander around forever, outside of the glorious site of HSI.**

Thus we now have a created being given TAFY so basicly they can then go do so, just for ... no reason at all!

Take the above sentence and now we apply it to humans. They quickly rush to TATFP with eagerness. Suddenly, they realize how stupid they were, because HSI comes down to tell them.

"Hey guess what! You're all toast now unless you do these one specific set of rules! Now break up into your little tribes and scatter around the world forming your own take on these rules, so that I can have a handfull of you with me, and the rest can burn in hell with the rest of my creations!"

Now does that really sound like love? Come one now. There are billions of people, each with their on belief of what to make of life, and all those who don't walk the perfect line, are fucked. Just because HSI was lonely and had nothing better to do.

Consider the following:

I have the ability to create something. I know that if I create this item, as soon as I do so, it will be destroyed. I can do one of two things: I can create said item, or I can not create said item.

If I create it, am I really giving it a choice of not being destroyed?

"Oh", but you say, "it's just an object. It has no free will of its own". Thank you. I thought you'd agree.

"Well that's rather harsh", you say, "putting words into my mouth"!

Well consider the explanation, partially given already above:
I am an all powerful being. I know everything that is, everything that was, and everything that ever will be, because I am a being of infiniteness. I am everything. I span space and time. I am greater than the sum of everything that will ever be. Everything that is, I made.

Given that I know everything, how in the hell can there be freedom of choice? Given that if I, being all powerful and in control of everything****, if I create something, I know every possible combination of everything that will ever occur with said thing.

If someone goes to hell, HSI knew it would occur before ever creating said item. Now that's a damn shame. I really don't call that love.



Quzah.
end of post








footnote
*See above. HSI created humans because they were apparently lonely. Go on, look it up. Trust me, it's there.

**See above. I've often heard it remarked that people will be so awe struck by the presence of HSI, that all they will want to do is fall down in awe and spend all eternity worshiping HSI. Ok, two points here:

a) Why on earth would the angels for no reason at all decide to give that up? Jealousy? Well who created jealousy? If HSI is the creator of all things, then HSI created jealousy. If not, then HSI is not the creator of all things. If that is the case, who did? If they did, then HSI gave them the ability to do so, thus, creating actually being the creator. If not, then HSI is not the supreme being, because the other creator would have done something without HSI wanting it to be so. If HSI wanted it to be so, ask yourself, why would HSI create things like jealousy?

b) If the angels were around being struck by awe and worship, how was HSI lonely, why could HSI create lonelyness(see point A above), and how are we so different that an all powerful all knowing being could be entertained or comforted(befriended) by such insignificant beings.***

***How on earth are animals not significant to provide comfort/friendship, but us "superior beings" are? Both are creations and as such are not even remotely close in nature. Seriously, compare infinity to 1. Ok, now compare it to 1,000,000. They are exactly the same.

[b]****[b/]As per all-powerful above, if there is something else that is uncontrollable, then HSI is not all powerful. Otherwise, said item would be controlled.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Cynthian, welcome to the Cellar! It's nice to have intelligent life forms join in the festivities.
Question- On the first day of school you decide your students must write a poem with specific parameters to pass your class. Wouldn't you make it clear to all the students rather than tell one student to pass the word?
Surely you've played the old game of tell the first person and have them whisper it to the second and so on down the line to the last person. It never comes out right.
Well, over thousands of "whisperings" not to mention language changes and cleric interpretations, what we have is a bunch of conflicting stories. Look how many different bibles we have today.
You do an admirable job of defending Joydriven's chain of logic but the problem is her basic premis is flawed.

[cynthian.]

quzah - i'm not divorced. i see divorce a lot as a teacher, from both the parents' side and the kids' - it's horrible. yes, i have some strong opionions of divorce.
your abbriviations were interesting. and the one sided conversation you had with you and you (as me) that was fun.

the truth is though that i don't know that there is a free will.
and now God looks even more horrid.
here's where our logics divide from one another: you describe God as creating all these things because he (or HSI) was bored. i have trouble agreeing with that. a engineer/mechanic thinking person didn't create the first computer because he was bored-there was an ultimate purpose behind it. eli whitney didn't invent the cotton gin because he had nothing to do on the farm one day. he had a reason. if we, as people-reasonably far lesser beings than a God-create and invent for a purpose, i would have to believe that God had a reason in making the world and all creation.
He declairs his purpose as to bring glory to Himself. How vain! How arrogant! but if He is God and there is NO higher, He has that right. working with clay on a potter's wheel, my clay has never said to me "why are you making me a bowl?!?!?! how dare you!" and after the bowl is fired and glazed and fired again, it doesn't sit in a show window complaining that i, the potter, am getting the compliments for it's beauty. i'm the potter, i'll do what i want with the clay. God compares himself to a potter-hence the example.
so, if God's purpose in creation is to bring glory to Himself, how does he accomplish this. (get ready, it's story time)

israeli history says God called this nation apart. you've got abraham way back there being told that God will make him the father of a chosen people-eventually this would become israel. moses comes along centuries later to lead this people out of egypt to their "promise land." He, God, chose a small group of people (and they weren't perfect people, some weren't the kind of people you'd want living next door to you...) but this minority of people were set apart to bring God glory. why not ALL the world? why only a fraction of the population? here's the pot complaining to the potter again.
jesus christ enters the picture. the rejected messiah. His life would appear to be a failure except for the fact that his teaching, even after his humiliating death, changed the world. but, now in the modern world, God's blessing of heaven is the same story as it was with israel. it's only going to be a fraction of the population that is in that "right" way to heaven. is God unfair to choose only a small populas acceptable for heaven? if i believed in God and believed that "right" path to heaven-i'd feel pretty priledged, i'd probably thank God every day for choosing me, i'd read His Bible, worship Him, bring Him glory. and that's His purpose. if i didn't believe in God or in that "right" way-because it's so narrow minded, i'd hate God-maybe i wouldn't voice that opinion but i'd be angry. why only some? i'm just a clay pot. i can't understand His thoughts. (then why do you write so much cynthian.? )
have you ever walked though a maze of hedges or a cornfield maze? on ground level, walking though, it's hard. it's confusing, it makes no sense. from a helecopter in the sky it's very clear. my understanding of God's ways are down here on ground level-it's confusing at times and makes no sense. God's understanding is up there in the helecopter-it's very clear.

such is what i've learned of God's purpose and plan. why is it so offensive to have only one way to heaven? you've got to have a ticket to get into a concert, that's really the only way in. (legally). is the hosting centre (God) unloving not to let everyone who wants to come to the concert? no. they didn't all have tickets. what if i have a ticket for another concert-same band (same God)-but different city? (i'm trying for heaven with islam and God wants faith in jesus Christ) yeah, that's not going to work either. but i really want to go. i'm sincere. it's still the wrong ticket. no show.

is the why is it so hard to accept that one way? if i have cancer and there's only one thing that will cure me why would i try all the other non-working methods first? if God declaired there's only one way to heaven, why wouldn't i believe Him? why try another way and hope for the best when there's a guarenteed way?

i don't normally write this much. that might be hard to believe right now....who would have thought that picture would have created such an outpouring of opinions....interesting blog crew.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by joydriven

> Please don't get the impression that I place stock in "my version" of God. If the God of the Bible is real, it does not matter what my perception of Him is. It does not matter what I think or say, nor what you think or say. God is very absolute in the Bible--...........

Responding or rejecting the truth is our privilege, but we will be held accountable for our choices.

Well, your perception does matter if it effects the way you behave in society. Suicide bombers, for example, impose their religious and political beliefs on those around them. As long as when you say 'held accountable', you mean by G-d himself, then there is no problem.

On the other hand, the truth of the Bible is by its own nature offensive to people because of their own nature.

The truth of the Bible is not offensive in itself, it is only offensive in its interpretation and delivery by a significant number of people (hopefully only a minority) who use it to denigrate and criticize the choices and beliefs of those around them.

> You're correct. The Bible says itself that it's impossible for a regular Joe who says there is no God to be able to understand the things of God. The only reason I have any inkling what I'm talking about is because I've submitted to the Bible's authority as absolute truth and am trying to learn about God from it.

Personally, I'm not sure about that. I can appreciate sitting in a comfortable chair without knowing that it was built by a master carpenter.

As far as the Bible's authority being absolute, please remember to take Leviticus with a large grain of salt. I'd hate to see you go to jail for burning fortunetellers, even 'Miss Cleo'. And since the ranks of adulterers now includes one US President, I'd keep the stones in my pocket if I was you.

> You think it's ok to lightly mock my God. I think it's ok to lightly mock your favorite soda. What slays me is how it is fine for you to indicate I'm impossible to please and foolish for placing my faith in a source which, in your limited perception, based upon your limited knowledge and experience, is an inadequate/unworthy object of anyone's faith. If you'll note, I wasn't mocking atheism/agnosticism. I wasn't knocking free speech. I wasn't seeking to convert anyone. I wasn't even trying to rain on anyone's parade. So I fail to see why you see a need to launch an attack like the above. The inconsistency of expected tolerance levels blows my mind.

I agree that it is rude to mock one's beliefs, but we (and I include myself here) are a rude bunch. And one favorite sport is taking potshots at absolutists on any topic. The statement "____ is the one true ____" is like waving a red flag, whether the subjects are Christianity/faith, Apple/computer, Libertarianism/party. In the Cellar, dogma puts you in the doghouse. Even I, in my misspent youth, have flamed and been flamed in return.

Speaking of flames, one reason that there is an undercurrent of hostility towards the New Testament (and sometimes Old Testament), is that there are Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and pagans (Pagans?) on this board, and our ancestors have gotten burned (literally) in the past by people holding a bible in one hand and a torch in the other. I personally believe that G-d is love, but there is a definite mean streak in his disciples which has never really been addressed. In fact, the words 'act of faith', which can mean giving to charity or an act of benevolence, when translated as 'AUTO DA FE', have a terrible definition. If you do not know it, I recommend that you look it up.

I wish you well in your journey, I count among my friends many who consider themselves devout in the traditional sense. I have discussed religion with Muslims, Jews, Chiristians, and pagans (Pagans?). My personal belief is that no living human has all of the answers about G-d and creation, but that that does not mean we should not seek them.

BTW, I recommend
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History. I still have not finished it, but I would be happy to discuss it with someone.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And since the ranks of adulterers now includes one US President, I'd keep the stones in my pocket if I was you.

ONE??? Bwahahahahahaha.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

ONE??? Bwahahahahahaha.

One confirmed. Even most ancient religions were concerned about proof before they stoned or beheaded the perpetrator. Personally, when I heard that FDR may have been having an affair, I didn't know whether to be appalled or cheer.

Have you noticed that the president's associated with rumors of infidelity were the most popular ones?

[bjlhct]

Think some Christians can be annoying? Try Scientologists. Bleah.

Anyway, I had a religious experience once. I was just sitting around and over a couple seconds I got this INTENSE feeling that there's some Supreme Being and everything in the world is "HSI"'s and that there is a "final" in the philosophical sense. And then about 10 minutes later it went away. Meanwhile, me being me, I was watching what was going on and now I can feel religious any time I want to.

Thus I concluded it was just my brain playing tricks on me.

[juju]

Originally posted by cynthian.
joy's comments really created quite a stir. as a speech teacher i'd have to say she defended her arguement well.

She compared murder to making fun of someone. And then, when people questioned her statements, she chickened out and left. How exactly do you figure that running away constitutes "defending your argument well"?

Also, I feel that analogies are a <b>terrible</b> way of trying win a logical argument. You can make up some story about anything. It never proves anything, and it rarely convinces anyone. How about just arguing the facts?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Have you noticed that the president's associated with rumors of infidelity were the most popular ones?

Before Nixon (he was too busy screwing everyone) the oval office and the press had a gentlemans agreement not to print the extracurricular activities of the prez.
If you do some digging you'll find LBJ, JFK, Ike, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Taft, Coolidge and Hoover all had their groupies.
I'm not for stoning or beheading anyone that's a consenting adult. It's good to be the king.

[joydriven]

She compared murder to making fun of someone. And then, when people questioned her statements, she chickened out and left. How exactly do you figure that running away constitutes "defending your argument well"?

My electricity is restored now after a few days' outage due to some local twisters (I live in the Chicago area and wind tends to be a problem). My apologies for the apparent absence and neglect of valid replies.

I stated that my analogy was deliberately exaggerated. The perfect analogy is an impossibility, since points of similarity cannot be drawn for every element. If you had points of similarity for every element, the analogy device would be irrelevant. I agree that it was an imperfect analogy. I wasn't trying to tie up all the loose ends--the goal was to make a point, not an afghan.

If you would prefer, I could, without hopefully offending anyone, reduce my analogy from the murder exaggeration one to a lesser and perhaps more universally-understandable offense.

For instance, say I am at a black tie party with some publishers and authors. I am standing at the table and spill caviar on my blouse. I am standing at the table and spill caviar on the host's carpet. I am standing at the table and spill caviar on my favorite author's lapel. These actions would all be bad, but certainly different levels of bad. The consequences would be different. The greatest degree of outcry, public embarrassment, and personal kicking of self would probably come from the caviar spill on the author.

On the human level, I fight temptations to treat people differently and understand many fundamental equalities that are often overlooked. I strive to be tolerant of other viewpoints and believe I am successfully impartial when it comes to looks, background, race, philosophical beliefs, other factors that distinguish one person from another. However, there are some people we honor above others automatically, at least one facet of them if not all--for example, a Queen or our parents or a favorite author. And some people carry (by virtue of their earned or not-earned positions) a certain amount of clout and authority that allows them to make a bigger fuss or enforce more dire consequences against offenders.

So to make a once-short analogy even longer and longer,

All I'm trying to say is it's simply a bigger deal to make fun of a bigger person. God is (by virtue of his earned position as creator/owner of other persons) the bigger person. It is a bigger deal to make fun of him.

The statement "____ is the one true ____" is like waving a red flag, whether the subjects are Christianity/faith, Apple/computer, Libertarianism/party. In the Cellar, dogma puts you in the doghouse. Even I, in my misspent youth, have flamed and been flamed in return.

Yes, I would definitely admit I'm an absolutist on this front. I posit God as the creator of the universe. Not so much because I want to posit that as absolute truth, but because I see no other viable alternative and simply must.

I don't understand people who say THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES.
In itself, that is an absolutist statement. Why should I swallow that as absolute truth to the exclusion of all other options that contradict it?

If the Cellar gang went to Paris and agreed to meet at the Eiffel Tower but refused to look in its direction and each bought pewter replicas for our pockets as individual "compasses" and found our "own ways" to the Eiffel Tower, we would likely never rendezvous.

I confess to you that I have chosen an absolute truth, and I do filter all other things that claim to be truth THROUGH my God-colored lenses. You may not agree--what I call "absolute truth" may look like a pewter trinket to you, and you might wish I would just keep it to my own pocket. But can you acknowledge that an absolute source of truth is feasible? Why else would we even want our own personal pocket versions of it?

[juju]

All I'm trying to say is it's simply a bigger deal to make fun of a bigger person. God is (by virtue of his earned position as creator/owner of other persons) the bigger person. It is a bigger deal to make fun of him.

Our president is made fun of every night on the Tonight Show, and I can't say that many people think it's that big of a deal.

[novice]

QUZAH-For hsi's sake, your specious refutations only lend more weight to the absolute truth that we, the devout, have always known.
HSI moves in ways far too mysterious for mere creations to understand.:p

[quzah]

Originally posted by cynthian.
here's where our logics divide from one another: you describe God as creating all these things because he (or HSI) was bored. i have trouble agreeing with that. a engineer/mechanic thinking person didn't create the first computer because he was bored-there was an ultimate purpose behind it. eli whitney didn't invent the cotton gin because he had nothing to do on the farm one day.

Flawed analogy. These items were created out of need. "I need to process more cotton." "I need to play a computer game.:P"

What exactly does an all powerful being NEED?

Ok, scratch need. These items were created out of a desire for efficiencty.

Well, that doesn't work either. How can an all powerful being be inefficient? Efficiency is a measure of work/time. Time has no meaning to something that always was and always will be. Said being created time.

Your analogy doesn't hold up here. Good effort though.

he had a reason. if we, as people-reasonably far lesser beings than a God-create and invent for a purpose, i would have to believe that God had a reason in making the world and all creation.

He declairs his purpose as to bring glory to Himself. How vain! How arrogant! but if He is God and there is NO higher, He has that right. working with clay on a potter's wheel, my clay has never said to me "why are you making me a bowl?!?!?! how dare you!" and after the bowl is fired and glazed and fired again, it doesn't sit in a show window complaining that i, the potter, am getting the compliments for it's beauty. i'm the potter, i'll do what i want with the clay. God compares himself to a potter-hence the example.

Sure he does. But did he give the clay the ability to first have comprehension? No. Clay is not alive. I've heard this parable used before, and it hardly holds water. Forgive the pun.

israeli history says God called this nation apart. you've got abraham way back there being told that God will make him the father of a chosen people-eventually this would become israel.

Well then, I guess you know who to blame for all of the trouble in the middle east huh? No such thing as tollerance here. "We are on the way to the Promise Land(TM). Kill everyone you can along the way, hide from those you can't. (Read the OT if in doubt. They killed everyone they could and ran from the rest.)

world? why only a fraction of the population? here's the pot complaining to the potter again.

Why indeed.

if i believed in God and believed that "right" path to heaven-i'd feel pretty priledged, i'd probably thank God every day for choosing me, i'd read His Bible, worship Him, bring Him glory. and that's His purpose. if i didn't believe in God or in that "right" way-because it's so narrow minded, i'd hate God-maybe i wouldn't voice that opinion but i'd be angry. why only some?

No you wouldn't. You'd have a superiority complex like everyone else like you, and you'd feel it your duity to go up to people and tell them they're fucked. "Hey guess what! You're fucked and I'm not!"

That is my problem with the Christian religion.

such is what i've learned of God's purpose and plan. why is it so offensive to have only one way to heaven?

Because it's evil. Might I ask a question: How did you come to believe this way? Were you raised that way? Say you weren't, because personally I don't care, I do know that a great many people get their belief systems from how they were raised.

That being said, if I tell you your entire life that X is the truth, and then out of the blue one day, some one else comes up to you and says everything you've understood about X is not true, and that you're going to be eternally punnished for believing the way you do, what would you do?

What if your belief in X was that X would be bringing you everlasting happieness? What if most of everyone you've ever come in contact with believed the same way.

See where I'm going with this?

Why in the hell should I give up belief X just because you say so? People always say "Well you're never truely happy if you don't know Christ!"

Yeah? You've never met people at peace with their beliefs I guess. I suppose all of the Hindu who practice their religion and find comfort in it aren't really finding comfort. All of the Buddists, all of every other fragment of every religion or belief out there is wrong, and you just happened to find The Right One(TM).

Well luck you. How about you go spend your afternoons outside a Buddist temple telling them they're all going to suffer eternally then. No? Why not? It's your duity. You shouldn't want people to suffer. Should you?

Well why shouldn't you? I mean seriously, why else would god only pick one set of people and fuck the rest over?

How about hundreds of years of Inca, "American Indian", African, Chinese, and a thousand other varieties of people who for thousands of years didn't "believe the right way". Well they're all fucked too. That's pretty loving isn't it?

is the why is it so hard to accept that one way?

See above. That is why it's so hard to accept that one way. Because I refuse to spend my eternity in the presence of that kind of being. That is blatantly heartless and cruel, and I see it no other way.

If it is the way you say it is, I want only one thing: To not be "awe struck" so bad that I cannot express the above to said being. Because it is blatently cruel and hateful.

One final thought, regarding freedom of choice:

Exodus 9:12
"But the Lord hardened Pharo's heart and he would not listen to Moses an Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses."

Quzah.