I cannot link you but please check this site first.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
To read a book literally that begins with talking animals and a water walkind immortal God who can somehow die is ridiculous.
It's obviously been a while since you've read the Bible. An immortal God isn't ridiculous - there's nothing wrong with the internal logic. What you really find ridiculous is that God exists. I just hope it's for better reasons than these. "The Bible" isn't a single book, it's a collection of books that contain all literary forms - myth and history (otherwise the field of 'biblical archaeology' would not exist), poetry and prophecy, laws and letters. You read them differently, you interpret them differently, but they will always say something that was important enough to someone to preserve for millennia.
You believe the Bible yet it can be shown in many ways to have unworkable laws and a genocidal God.
Would you follow Hitler for God’s sake? If not, what are you doing following the mythical O T genocidal fool?
"It can be shown..." Really? Scientifically?
What you're talking about is moral law, and without any authority to appeal to, no morality is more authoritative than any other. Your model of morality (based on English Common Law) might be incompatible with the Ancient Near Eastern model, which had Pharoahs and Kings far worse than Hitler to set the standard, but on what grounds is it more valid? 'Common sense' is obviously not set in stone. Our laws would seem foolish and unworkable to them as well.
Still, the Mesopotamians could recognise injustice and unfairness just as well as you. For them to say God represents a standard of justice impossible to find on earth is just as significant today as it was then.
If the above link does not make you think then try your morals on this.
Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.
Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.
Rightly so. "If the guilty are not punished, justice is not done". But you forget that "
an eye for an eye" was itself a milestone in penal law, and taking its existence for granted would be a mistake. The concept of retribution also underwent development, and Torah was already a very advanced legal system that still applies in many forms today.
But two wrongs don't make a right, and Jesus famously revoked any possibility of retaliation it might imply when he added "if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." The Golden Rule is still the benchmark for morality. You obviously regard it highly, despite your objections to 'biblical laws'.
The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.
Why not? The 'traditional view' might not be the proper one - which is what you're arguing. Or do you prefer a strawman? Regardless, an offence against God is bound to be different than an offence against a human being, and the consequences cannot BUT be final (eternal) at some point.
To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these simple question for yourself.
1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?
One possible argument would be that if you're still working with 'an eye for an eye', then it's God's eye, after all. Proportionate punishment would be unbearable - hence the concept of hell. Another point is that time has no meaning when death is no longer an option (since nothing 'decays' to a zero point). You're either there or not there, with nothing to measure the 'time' by. And if that's the case, "eternal" describes the quality of existence, not the quantity.
But I would ask you this: according to any alternative worldview, how long do you suppose you're dead for after living 120 years? Combine your answer with the fact that the grave was called
sheol in the Bible, and hell (Hades) was a Greek idea, and you'll see the alternative really isn't much of an alternative.
2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.
Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.
In
rehabilitative justice systems, yes - which aren't self-evident either. But as it happens, this is exactly why God reveals the reality of punishment and gives the opportunity to change. Railing against the "threat" as an excuse for not changing your ways is therefore literally counterproductive. The flood included in the Bible as an example. There was plenty of warning and even a way to escape. Would it be more acceptable if there was no substance to the warnings, no real prospect of actually "rotting in jail"?
I might digress as well, in the interest of comparing apples with apples: In the Epic of Gilgamesh of the Babylonians, their gods flooded the earth because the people were making too much noise. How's that for an alternative morality.
3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?
And since you have plenty of evidence of hell right here on earth, why
not change your attitude and actions? The doctrine of hell simply extends such a godless state of affairs eternally, fixed forever as 'life without God'. According to the Bible, the delay in justice is because God
is giving people the opportunity to turn to Him, away from sin. The point is, death will not allow criminals to escape justice, nor will it rob victims of justice (if all criminals committed suicide after the fact, would 'justice' be served?).
4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?
As I understand it,
death will be the torture. Energy cannot be destroyed. The alternative is life, and that's only available to those God gives it to (everyone), and restores it to (literally, those 'born again').
Is hell moral construct or not?
Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.
I believe hell - or punishment after death - was a logical conclusion for moral systems that suppose an objective separation between good and evil. It is a psychologically accurate term for what people experience where God (and justice) is absent; the other side of the divide. It might be an overstatement that does not apply equally to every person (everyone is judged according to his own life), but imagine living in a comfortable house on a hill with hell all around in the valley - even if you're not burning yourself, you'll still feel the heat.
And it provides a backdrop for the alternative: "Perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
