I've been asking these questions for a while now, but there has been no answer beyond the basic surface theology that I, being a Christian, already know. So I am asking these questions again, but in this forum this time.
I'd like to warn you that few that attend CF are capable of answering your questions, few have the study / education, and fewer still have the time. Your questions are indeed above basic, but asking for above basic questions @ CF is generally pointless. A better forum would be TWeb, and I can give you a few names to look for there. Nevertheless, I can almost guarantee that to get
satisfactory answers, you will need to go to the scholars and hit the books. My goal for this post is just to point you in some directions. I do not have the time to compose satisfactory answers, though I'd like to. Please excuse the numerous unsupported and ungrounded assertions.
Why is the smallest sin deserving of eternal punishment in hell?
We need to look at "what" sin is, and more specifically, "who" sin is done against. We may say that a sin is an offense against God. Then we look at how severity factors out, and severity factors out in terms of status. If you offend a low-status player in a culture, the offense is not considered that bad (i.e. hitting a slave in ANE times). But if you offend a higher status player, the offense will be considered worse. A pretty clear example is if you were to spit on a king (again, ANE times). You would be killed, your family would be killed, and probably your livestock mutilated and property burnt down and everyone whom you know threatened or worse. The offense rises with the status of the offended.
Then we look at "who" is being offended, who is being sinned against. God, simply. What's God's status? God is of infinite status--and thus each sin, while having its own outworkings, is of infinite offense.
What does burning in hell for eternity accomplish?
We first need to address some of the assumptions being made here--and even if not, some of the connotations and images that go with "burning in hell". For example, Dante, I believe it was, envisoned numerous graphic images, such as women impaled on hooks, hanging by named parts of their body. There is some quality discussion
here regarding what hell is and so on.
After that, when this question is placed within the context of the previous question, 'hell' is a place of disgrace and shame (keep in mind that not all punishments are done with deterrance in mind!), and a place for punishment.
Why did God need Jesus to suffer and shed blood as a prerequisite to forgiving us humans for our transgressions? Why couldn't God have forgiven us without any pain or suffering or blood or death?
There are a number of good answers, and it'll take a little time to gather all those good answers and see how they are coherent. One answer is that God does so out of personal integrity. God is infinite (I'm using the theological term here, not the philosophical infinite), and consequently, justice needs to be dished out.
However, this brings into the question of mercy. It is a very interesting one, usually because it is such an illuminating discussion--it reveals a whole host of presuppositions about what people think 'should be' and 'shouldn't be' and 'what God would/should do' and so on. But consider this: God is both a God of justice AND mercy.
I'll take you right to the cross for this. The cross is a symbol of both justice and mercy--justice, because God's wrath (please see here for what
wrath really is) was being satisfied. The price was paid by another, so that the offender could go free. It was mercy, too, because it was completely undeserved and unearned. Justice was demanded--and all the sinners would die--but justice was fulfilled, as Christ died instead. Read more
here.
If we're all doomed to hell, why did God give us such a fragile means of finding out such an eternally-important fact about our destinies: the Bible? The Bible's geocentric model has been disproven, it contains errors and contradictions, and is scientifically flawed if meant to be taken literally. We can't trust it. And on top of that, not all people in the world have a Bible. They only have an innate desire to believe in the existance of a god, and not specifically the Christian God. So, they are not really without excuse at all.
Let me first address a number of illicit assumptions you have made. "the Bible" is not a 'fragile means' as many suppose today. In terms of medium, the written word carries the most authority; even though images carry the most influence. If you stand up to do your doctoral dissertation, they want your previous degrees in writing.
Second, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, from which several key pieces of data come from the NT, is perhaps the most powerful argument possible for any religion or philosophy. If you have not heard of scholars such as N. T. Wright, Craig Blomberg, Ben Witherington, and I could name several more, I don't blame you for thinking certain things about the Bible, but I do note that because you have not done your homework, I cannot give you any credibility when it comes to matters about the Bible.
Third, the Bible does not give a geocentric model. See
here for more.
Fourth, I can well assure you, on the basis of your age and the level of your questions, that the Bible has a lot less problems than you think.
Fifth, using the term "literally" without qualification is severely misleading. I can supplement decent illumination on this part later.
Sixth, according to some models of salvation (i.e. Molinism), God commits Himself to give enough grace to every single person, that, if they were to respond to Him, they would be effectually saved. You will need to study a lot more to see the strengths of certain models and so on.
How do we know that the Christian religion is the most accurate expression of God's revelation to humankind? If we had been born in the Middle East, for example, we would be making the same arguments for Allah and the Quran. So why is our religion different? What makes Christianity the "true" religion?
Through archaeology, Biblical criticism, textual criticism, etc, etc. You are basically asking for reasons to believe that Christianity is true, and extensive, sophisticated textual data is the strongest, but most difficult starting point. Among other points, these will need to be proven: 1) the various Bible documents have not changed drastically since their composition, 2) Jesus rose from the dead, 3) Jesus is the Son of God (aka, Jesus is who He claimed to be)...
Why do we trust the Bible as authentic/inspired/true?
Start reading
here. Glen Miller (
www.christian-thinktank.com) also has extensive content regarding this.
I just need lots of input from other people. These are the questions that have been swimming in my head since age 13, and I have not asked them until just in the past few weeks. I need to get past this and establish some solid answers.
You need good, mature, intelligent, and informed input, not "lots" of input.
You'll be far better off considering informed views, rather than uninformed views. But props for taking the time to address these questions.
