The Insanity Machine (and the Notion of God)

[Undeceived]

And not only do Christians use hell as leverage, they see it as an ethical imperative to do so. They don't feel like they're doing their jobs unless they frighten someone with the idea of hell.

1. It sounds like you're suggesting Judaism and Islam have no leverage. Only Christianity has a punishment for not serving God, and therefore it must be man-made (I'd like an explanation for that leap). You would then proceed to provide other, unrelated reasons why Judaism and Islam are man-made--making the criteria for insanity different for each religion.
2. Have you met many of this kind of Christian, or are you projecting popular culture? All of the Christians I know would never use hell to frighten. They use it because they believe its the truth. If a tidal wave is coming to wipe out New York and you knew about it, wouldn't you tell every New Yorker you find?
3. All (Biblically) well-read Christians should know that the threat of destruction does not save, a heart open to God's forgiveness saves. The Bible makes it clear that one must have faith to escape hell. The people who watched Noah build the ark were warned of the coming Flood, but the warning accomplished nothing without faith in the God who would send the Flood. Faith saves, threats do not. The Bible is crystal-clear about this, so it has no true author-intended threat power. Thus, your kind of proselytizers would have to ignore the Bible in order to justify their actions. It is not logical for anyone to fabricate a religion that has to use false doctrine to scare people into joining.

---

Common pattern on atheist forums:
Atheist: “The church taught (insert universally-condemned practice).”
Theist: “On the contrary, Jesus taught the opposite. And the church bases its beliefs on Jesus’ words.”
Atheist: “You must first prove Jesus exists.”

Can we stay on topic?

Atheist: "Prove that the church bases its beliefs on Jesus' words. For that, you must first prove that he existed. Then establish an independent authority on what his actual words were - the only authority you have now is the church. Then show all of the Church's beliefs can be based on those words. We provided evidence for our claim - you do the same. And currently, you fail at the first step."

It is universally accepted that the church bases its beliefs on Jesus' words. This is evident in the Apostles and Nicene creeds. I do not have the burden of proof because tradition overwhelmingly holds in my favor. There are third-party sources as well as eyewitness accounts of Jesus. If the Gospels were written thirty years earlier, would you then call them proof? What do you define 'proof' as? Be careful not to make all of history unprovable (well, I guess you could, but that would get us nowhere).