EB, I don't think you need to go even there.  Just point out that his question is flawed.  God did appear to a lot of people at once on a number of occasions.  You have God publically inflicting plagues on the Egyptians, God appearing as a pillar of cloud and fire for the Israelites, God appearing on the mountain in the sight of millions of Jews with Moses, God bringing down Jericho in full sight of both sides, and a goodly number of events with smaller amounts witnessed- but at least still more than one.  Then when you move to the New Testament of course the whole premise is that God incarnated and appeared to everyone.  Many of Jesus' miracles occurred in the full sight of all the people.  For example the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 2,000, numerous healings and such.  Then after the resurrection we are told that Jesus appeared- resurrected- before 500 people at one time.

So the premise of Stathei's question is simply wrong.

Stathei.  Open up your Bible and actually read it.  I know you don't have one from previous conversation.  I'd be happy to send you a copy.  No charge.

I should have said, "often speaks to one person". I assumed from the post title you would know what I was talking about.

Z, I don't think he has ever spoken to anybody, if that answers your question.

I just wondered what the Christie explanation was. I thought it was a simple question, but I should have known better. For people who think that they are going to heaven, you really aren't very pleasant. At least I have an excuse.

I'm just sensitive in my new love fest phase...

He's got at least one...

What do you care?  It isn't like you believe it.  If you did believe it, you'd know that the same message of condemnation is followed immediately with a message of hope and promise.

You're argument is pretty absurd, I'm afraid.  It would be like being offended that you couldn't go to a concert unless you had to first buy a ticket, ignoring the obvious fact that tickets are cheap and available.  Your argument would only amount to something if it was maintained that you can't go to the concert without buying a ticket but then no tickets were made available.

Incidentally, you object to the standard of 'belief' as being the 'ticket.'  Just out of curiosity, what would you prefer?  Do you think that it would be more divine if God required you to sacrifice your oldest son as an offering?  He should only save people if they give 90% of their income to charity?  From where I stand, merely requiring 'belief' is pretty generous, like the concert giver giving the tickets away.  Your attitude seems to be captured by imagining you standing outside while the concert is going on, pissed that to get in you had to have a ticket at all, even if it was free.

Or you just think that if God is divine he shouldn't have any 'requirements' at all.  So, even if a person was a hostile jackass who hated God and everything he stood for and didn't want any part in God (all that violent backstory you abhor), God should just let him in.  In other words is your contention that God should give you paradise on your terms and on your terms alone?

I have trouble coming up with any way to consider your objections here as being even slightly rational.  The best shot would seem to be on the argument that a person can't be blamed if they've never heard about the 'concert' at all, nor that they needed tickets- even if they are free.

But as challenging as that objection might be, it doesn't apply to you.  You, clearly, are aware of the terms, and reject them.

SJ, you can simply choose to buy a ticket - you can only choose to believe if you want to in the first place.

It's more like requiring someone to like olives. I don't like olives no matter how much you extol their virtues, I can't help it - and it is irrational of you to wonder why I don't like them.

So, what if my children turn out not to like olives? Eternal torture by flame?

You're right, I don't care because it's a complete crock - I am just illustrating yet another ridiculous aspect of your faith. Why on earth should not believing deserve the fires of hell? I suppose it is to be expected, from a god whose first four commandments insist, somewhat petulantly, on worship.

Funny how you are able to choose what parts of the bible are metaphoric depending entirely on your own opinion. I can do it too - I choose to make the entire bible "essentially metaphoric".

Ahem (with thanks to Google and cut & paste),

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.

Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." The reference to fire is repeated three more times in the passage for emphasis.

Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.

Revelation 20:13-15: "...hell delivered up the dead which were in them...And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Brimstone is sulphur. In order for sulphur to form a lake, it must be molten. Thus, its temperature must be at or below 444.6