"If the Gospel is not good news for everybody, then it is not good news."

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's a plainly true statement that is only remotely controversial if you use it to imply universalism. The Gospel is good news for everyone in the sense that everyone was damned under the law but now has the chance to be saved. It's not good news for everyone in the sense that everyone will be saved, and the Bible is pretty clear about that.

"Love God so that He will save you from what He will do to you if you don't love Him"

This reductive statement is as valid as saying the message of marriage is "Love your wife so she'll spare you what she'll do if you don't lover her." It is technically valid, in a bare minimum sort of way, but also precisely backward.

You think that logic is valid? That's the foundation of an abusive relationship. Although ultimately, I suppose that's what Christianity is-- an abusive relationship with an ever-absent father figure who only shows up every few years on pieces of toast.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the gibberish you wrote because it sounds like something a patient would scrawl on the wall of their cell in a mental institution.

That isn't a very convincing response to what RI wrote, even as I suspect our understandings of Hell and eternal punishment might differ in some fundamental ways. Even so, you're better than this, and you're smart enough to know you've deliberately misrepresented what RI said by picking out four words and ignoring just about everything else.

But it self-evidently is valid. A marriage lacking in love is obviously not a marriage at all even if the state says it is. So with this analogy, the threat of a divorce is pretty meaningless if that is the consequence of a loveless relationship. That is not abuse.

Also, the fact that you sum up the God of Christianity as "an ever-absent father figure" pretty clearly shows you don't understand the basic underpinnings of Christianity, because to the Christian (unless said Christian is a deist), God is ever-present. But you are apparently convinced that any alternative understandings of God to your own are the thoughts of an insane person, so you've essentially rendered any dialogue impossible.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's a plainly true statement that is only remotely controversial if you use it to imply universalism. The Gospel is good news for everyone in the sense that everyone was damned under the law but now has the chance to be saved. It's not good news for everyone in the sense that everyone will be saved, and the Bible is pretty clear about that.

"Love God so that He will save you from what He will do to you if you don't love Him"

This reductive statement is as valid as saying the message of marriage is "Love your wife so she'll spare you what she'll do if you don't lover her." It is technically valid, in a bare minimum sort of way, but also precisely backward.

You think that logic is valid? That's the foundation of an abusive relationship. Although ultimately, I suppose that's what Christianity is-- an abusive relationship with an ever-absent father figure who only shows up every few years on pieces of toast.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the gibberish you wrote because it sounds like something a patient would scrawl on the wall of their cell in a mental institution.

That isn't a very convincing response to what RI wrote, even as I suspect our understandings of Hell and eternal punishment might differ in some fundamental ways. Even so, you're better than this, and you're smart enough to know you've deliberately misrepresented what RI said by picking out four words and ignoring just about everything else.

But it self-evidently is valid. A marriage lacking in love is obviously not a marriage at all even if the state says it is. So with this analogy, the threat of a divorce is pretty meaningless if that is the consequence of a loveless relationship. That is not abuse.

Saying that you should do something for me out of fear for what I will do to you if you don't is a threat, plain and simple. It's not a valid reason for staying in that relationship.

We practically operate on fear every day of our lives. If we don't show up to our jobs, the boss gets mad and cans us. If we don't show up to tomorrow's test, we receive a failing grade. If we're not kind to our parents, you can expect to get the cold shoulder at minimum.

I can't speak for RI on his views regarding Hell, but if we continue with RI's marriage analogy, then fear of divorce is perfectly valid if we're not staying faithful or loving our spouses. Then the relationship dissipates, as one does between really any religious believer and their creed.

Also, the fact that you sum up the God of Christianity as "an ever-absent father figure" pretty clearly shows you don't understand the basic underpinnings of Christianity, because to the Christian (unless said Christian is a deist), God is ever-present. But you are apparently convinced that any alternative understandings of God to your own are the thoughts of an insane person, so you've essentially rendered any dialogue impossible.

Seriously, your argument is that "Christians say God is ever-present, thus God is ever-present"?

I'm not making an argument, I am literally stating what the Christian belief on God is. Your characterization of an ever-absent God is an alien one to all but a minority of Christians, especially among the practicing.