BRXII Battle talk

[red77]

I guess when your doctrine is completely debunked you can either accept it, or go in the other direction hoping that the more ridiculous, the more someone may believe it.

What sounds the more ridiculous, an almighty and loving God creating a world in which he can restore it all.....

Or an almighty and loving God who creates a world in which he retains a fraction of it and has the majority tormented for eternity for no purpose?

You have 'completely debunked' nothing AJ and merely believe God and his salvation to be limited to the parameters of your own belief system....

 

[ApologeticJedi]

What sounds the more ridiculous, an almighty and loving God creating a world in which he can restore it all.....

Or an almighty and loving God who creates a world in which he retains a fraction of it and has the majority tormented for eternity for no purpose?

Yet another bad argument already debunked.

A loving God forcing everyone to love Him against their will is the most ridiculous. If someone never wants to love God, why do you wish to rape him?

 

[Balder]

Yet another bad argument already debunked.

A loving God forcing everyone to love Him against their will is the most ridiculous. If someone never wants to love God, why do you wish to rape him?

These arguments get so tired after awhile ... mainly because it seems on a piece of the whole picture is ever shared at once.

If someone does not love you freely, do you throw them in a furnace? Do you give them indestructible bodies to ensure that they will suffer forever in that condition? What sort of person does such things?

 

[Balder]

Can't edit. Here's how it should have read:

"These arguments get so tired after awhile ... mainly because it seems only a piece of the whole picture is ever shared at once..."

Etc.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

If someone does not love you freely, do you throw them in a furnace?

Absolutely not. But it is acceptable in my opinion to remove your presence completely from them.

If that causes suffering, even physical, then that IS fair. I believe that our spirits actually suffer without the presence of our creator. I believe this suffering is real and what is communicated as "fire" in the Bible.

If I am right, I think it is unfair to demand that you don't want God in your life, and then complain when He actually takes his presence away. That's seems like a business partner quitting the company and then calls up and still expects weekly checks to help pay his rent.

Do you give them indestructible bodies to ensure that they will suffer forever in that condition?

God created spirits which are indestructible by nature. He gave you your spirit before he knew whether or not you would choose him.

 

[Balder]

Absolutely not. But it is acceptable in my opinion to remove your presence completely from them.

If that causes suffering, even physical, then that IS fair. I believe that our spirits actually suffer without the presence of our creator. I believe this suffering is real and what is communicated as "fire" in the Bible.

If I am right, I think it is unfair to demand that you don't want God in your life, and then complain when He actually takes his presence away. That's seems like a business partner quitting the company and then calls up and still expects weekly checks to help pay his rent.

There are several popular Christian perspectives on what eternal torment entails. Several people here think God literally tosses people into a burning pit, where they suffer forever in their newly resurrected (and now imperishable) bodies.

Would you agree that that scenario is truly monstrous and immoral?

God created spirits which are indestructible by nature. He gave you your spirit before he knew whether or not you would choose him.

As I mentioned above, the Bible reports that God raises everyone into new bodies. Some prominent Christians, such as Hank Hanegraaf, claim that these new bodies are indestructible. And several people on this thread appear to believe with this sentiment.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

There are several popular Christian perspectives on what eternal torment entails. Several people here think God literally tosses people into a burning pit, where they suffer forever in their newly resurrected (and now imperishable) bodies.

Would you agree that that scenario is truly monstrous and immoral?

I don't think it accurately describes the God of the Bible. The bible uses a lot of metaphors. One of them is that hell is a place of utter darkness (that's maybe the main description for hell). If it is utter darkness then obviously there is no fire. There are plenty of metaphors in the description of heaven too. Only the stones viewed as precious during Bible times are used to describe heaven. I think they are telling us something, rather than giving a literal description.

Do I think it is immoral? While God is a lover of our souls, I also recognize He is also like a king (only many times greater). As such if you are a traitor to the king, I'm not sure it is immoral to dispense with you in a horrid death. So with God to dispense with you that way, I'm hesitant to say it is immoral --- but I'd probably agree with "monstrous" and "unlike the character of God" (so we can have some common agreement there).

As I mentioned above, the Bible reports that God raises everyone into new bodies. Some prominent Christians, such as Hank Hanegraaf, claim that these new bodies are indestructible. And several people on this thread appear to believe with this sentiment.

I agree that we all get new bodies (at the least, believers do), and even that they are indestructible as well. However I think our spirits are also indestructible to a certain degree.

What I'm saying is whether God gave you a new body or not, you wouldn't be "ex sponged" in hell, your spirit would exist there forever.

 

[Balder]

I don't think it accurately describes the God of the Bible. The bible uses a lot of metaphors. One of them is that hell is a place of utter darkness (that's maybe the main description for hell). If it is utter darkness then obviously there is no fire. There are plenty of metaphors in the description of heaven too. Only the stones viewed as precious during Bible times are used to describe heaven. I think they are telling us something, rather than giving a literal description.

Do I think it is immoral? While God is a lover of our souls, I also recognize He is also like a king (only many times greater). As such if you are a traitor to the king, I'm not sure it is immoral to dispense with you in a horrid death. So with God to dispense with you that way, I'm hesitant to say it is immoral --- but I'd probably agree with "monstrous" and "unlike the character of God" (so we can have some common agreement there).

It seems Christians tend to choose one or two metaphors out of any number of them when deciding on what hell, or ultimate damnation, is "really" like. Those who strike me as more "morally" mature often choose metaphors like darkness, isolation, and so on; whereas those who are more vindictive choose the fiery, physically painful ones. Some view damnation mostly as "granting the wishes of those who refuse to love," not as actively punitive and vindictive; others see damnation as eternally inflicted, punitive torment.

I find the views of those who choose the former of the two options to be less objectionable than the views of those who embrace the latter.

But on the whole, I find the idea of eternal punishment for temporal crimes or failures to be morally problematic. According to Buddhism, individuals may wander for unimaginable lengths of time in samsara, but the "door" to salvation is never closed. Mercy isn't arbitrarily "turned off" at the end of a short span of years. I find this to be a more charitable, compassionate view.

I agree that we all get new bodies (at the least, believers do), and even that they are indestructible as well. However I think our spirits are also indestructible to a certain degree.

What I'm saying is whether God gave you a new body or not, you wouldn't be "ex sponged" in hell, your spirit would exist there forever.

Would you agree that it would be a bit sadistic to first give people indestructible bodies before tossing them into a furnace, as some folks (like PastorK and Aimiel) here believe?

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[ApologeticJedi]

It seems Christians tend to choose one or two metaphors out of any number of them when deciding on what hell, or ultimate damnation, is "really" like. Those who strike me as more "morally" mature often choose metaphors like darkness, isolation, and so on; whereas those who are more vindictive choose the fiery, physically painful ones. Some view damnation mostly as "granting the wishes of those who refuse to love," not as actively punitive and vindictive; others see damnation as eternally inflicted, punitive torment.

Well I think with something like hell or heaven, which are a spiritual places and thus probably hard for God to explain to us, we should especially expect metaphors to be present. God will have to describe to us using concepts we can relate to . It helps when it is obvious what a particular metaphor would mean ie ... darkness = absence of God's goodness; fire = torment, etc.

I find the views of those who choose the former of the two options to be less objectionable than the views of those who embrace the latter.

But on the whole, I find the idea of eternal punishment for temporal crimes or failures to be morally problematic.

I do think hell will be far worse for those that commit worse crimes or worse sins, but I don't think it is meant as punishment. In the Bible God says hell wasn't even meant for humans.

According to Buddhism, individuals may wander for unimaginable lengths of time in samsara, but the "door" to salvation is never closed. Mercy isn't arbitrarily "turned off" at the end of a short span of years. I find this to be a more charitable, compassionate view.

Unless they turn around and use that mercy to hurt more people, then the view just becomes naive. At some point people have to be expected to make up their minds, else we turn heaven into hell. Imagine entering your paradise only to have someone let in who commits crimes against you. :doh:

In the Christian world view it isn't "arbitrarily" turned off at all, it is specifically turned off at a certain place and after a certain age.

As for Buddhism, there are some specific problems I have with buddhism and some of the contradictions within it, but this isn't the thread for that I suppose.

Would you agree that it would be a bit sadistic to first give people indestructible bodies before tossing them into a furnace, as some folks (like PastorK and Aimiel) here believe?

Maybe the bodies make the pain more bearable? Perhaps the bodies are actually a mercy? It's too difficult to determine without knowing more.

1) I don't believe hell is a literal furnace as
2) I'm not entirely certain unbelievers will get a new body (but I am willing to concede this to PastorK and Aimiel).

It would definitely be sadistic if the reason for giving them spiritual bodies was so that God could torture them more.

 

[logos_x]

Yet another bad argument already debunked.

A loving God forcing everyone to love Him against their will is the most ridiculous. If someone never wants to love God, why do you wish to rape him?

Why is salvation continually portrayed as raping someone?
Is salvation so undesirable that it must be forced upon someone as if raping them?

See...here is another leap of logic. The less of God one has in their lives, the more "thirsty" one becomes spiritually. Would, as an act of kindness, offering a drink of water (another apt discription of God) to one who is thirsty be compared, normally anyway, to rape?

The torment, I believe, is in reality a description of being far away from God and being forsaken by all that can be called good...in other words, God removing His presence. The lowest place anyone can be in this regard is, by definition, "hellish"...using English as the means to describe it, at least.

Any mitigation of such a condition must be a relief...and therefore even thinking of discribing it as "rape" betrays a deep misunderstanding of what "damnation" certainly is.

If anyone is discribing a scenario that could be compared to rape it would be the ones saying that "punishment" must continue without end and does not have any purpose at all except causing pain...and then saying "there is no way out" and "there is nothing that can be done to change it"...which is precisely what eternal torment says. And some go even further, saying it is inflicted upon immortal people in literal flames and never leads to anything but more of the same...day in and day out...forever and ever.

It's amazing to me that Jesus Christ saving all men is compared to "rape", while eternal torment is called "loving".

Talk about "doublespeak"...this makes the book 1984 look like Sunday School.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Why is salvation continually portrayed as raping someone?
Is salvation so undesirable that it must be forced upon someone as if raping them?

To some it is undesirable yes.
And so that is the question to you.... is it not rape to try to force someone to love you?

See...here is another leap of logic. The less of God one has in their lives, the more "thirsty" one becomes spiritually.

Besides being unbiblical, that is also untrue. The further Saul drifted away from God, he did not suddenly desire more of God - just the opposite. Usually the further people get from God, the more hardened towards God they get.

But I do agree that that is another leap in logic. :chuckle:

It's amazing to me that Jesus Christ saving all men is compared to "rape", while eternal torment is called "loving".

That's because you haven't thought your ideas through to conclusion (as PK pointed out quite abundantly and made more obvious than some of us could bear for the entire debate).

 

[logos_x]

To some it is undesirable yes.
And so that is the question to you.... is it not rape to try to force someone to love you?

Rape has nothing to do with love at all.

The question is, does God force someone to love Him, or does He drive home just how much we need His Love?

In law enforcment...there is something called a "use of force continuum", which says you can use whatever "force" that is one step above that which is used against you..up to and including "deadly force".

Does this apply? Perhaps it does.

God can "arrest" us...but always with the purpose of our own salvation.
The question is, are His judgements meant to keep us from being saved...or to affect our being saved.

If eternal torment is true, then the former is true as well. If Hell is not merely punitive, but also in line with Gods purposes to save all men, then the latter is true.

Besides being unbiblical, that is also untrue. The further Saul drifted away from God, he did not suddenly desire more of God - just the opposite.

I think it can be said that his spirit certainly desired more of God. It also is not true to say that Saul will always be drifting away from God...we are talking about eternity after all.

Also...there is another Saul in the Bible...one who hunted down and arrested Christians, and I think it would be fair to say he had no intention of becoming one. But Jesus "arrested" him instead, and He was changed and responded...and he became the Apostle Paul.

That's because you haven't thought your ideas through to conclusion (as PK pointed out quite abundantly and made more obvious than some of us could bear for the entire debate).

I have thought it through...fully. God gets to be all in all and the whole universe is in subjection to Jesus Christ. There are no unbelievers, and no one is "forced" into it as though "raped".
Have you thought yours through? Billions are without any hope at all for all eternity, even though God loves them. It's absolutely nonsensical!

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The question is, does God force someone to love Him, or does He drive home just how much we need His Love?

You are avoiding the question. What happens if I never want to have God over me? Do I get forced or not.

I think it can be said that his spirit certainly desired more of God.

You could say it, but you’d be in error.

It also is not true to say that Saul will always be drifting away from God...we are talking about eternity after all.

That just means that Saul will drift further and further away from God. When someone shoots an error if they are off by a few degrees, it doesn’t get closer to the target as it is infinitely extended. Actually it gets further and further away the longer it goes on.

The more men sin, the more comfortable in that sin they become. Pretty soon they are arguing that it is their right to sin.

I have thought it through...fully.

Obviously not. That's why you were throughly debunked.

 

[logos_x]

You are avoiding the question. What happens if I never want to have God over me? Do I get forced or not.

Is it forcing you when it is giving you what you need?

You could say it, but you’d be in error.

Would I?

That just means that Saul will drift further and further away from God. When someone shoots an error if they are off by a few degrees, it doesn’t get closer to the target as it is infinitely extended. Actually it gets further and further away the longer it goes on.

Unless the course is corrected...

The more men sin, the more comfortable in that sin they become. Pretty soon they are arguing that it is their right to sin.

Until they are saved...

Obviously not. That's why you were throughly debunked.

When was I thoroughly debunked?

 

[Nineveh]

Truth heals, Nin. Honestly. God's truth heals.

Yes, it does, so where do we find the Truth in this matter? From dave miller who has no clue, or from Paul the apostle to the gentiles?

Again with the control freak thing. Where did you get these silly ideas? God carries the only authority. All we can do is hope to serve, and even then, it is not we who serve, lest
we boast, but rather it is Christ working through us.

What a lame attempt to cover your obvious inability to be the shepherd of a flock. "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required..."

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Is it forcing you when it is giving you what you need?

Yes. It is still forcing. Everyone needs love, but it is wrong to try to force that on someone.

Unless the course is corrected...
Until they are saved...

Again, what if I never want God over me? Notice that you have no answer for this other than "that's not possible" to which the naivety and lack of reality of your position is exposed. Most people will never want God.

When was I thoroughly debunked?

Hard to put an exact beginning on it. Pretty much from the third post on.

 

[PKevman]

PK, you've thrown out this pathetic line numerous times, and for someone who professes to be a "pastor," that has to be one of the most "anti-christ-like" attitudes I've ever encountered. :vomit:

Here's a few passages for you to consider before you "throw up" that despicable line again...

Romans 10:14c - And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Acts 8:31b-32a - "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How could I, unless someone guides me?"

Redfin, you need to go back and read the context of the conversation that I was having with Dave Miller before you jump the gun. The question that was asked was not even directed at me, it was directed to Dave Miller and he has steadfastly refused to address the Scriptures that speak about how the church is to handle sexually immoral people within the congregation. My statement was why should I have to answer the question for Dave? He should KNOW those Scriptures himself Redfin.

In your hypocritical derision of me, why have you not also derided Dave Miller who professes to be a pastor?

The funny thing is that if Dave were being honest and would say he has no clue what verses Nin was talking about, then I and many others would be glad to point him in the right direction. But it is obvious that he is just avoiding the topic altogether and Nineveh has been trying for page after page to get him to address how HE AS A PASTOR would deal with sexually immoral members in the church.

So please, deride away, and show those Universalist fruits. Defend the pagans and bash those who stand for truth and what the Bible says.

 

[PKevman]

Really? Crystal clear enough so that all those who believe in ET would be in complete agreement as to what the lake of fire is? Pastor Kevin and Knight havent been.....
:think:

Red you have been instructed on this time and again by myself and Knight, and you continue to try to make an argument based upon a fallacy. Slight differences in opinion do not change what the Bible says. There are even bigger seeming differences in opinion within the Universalist camp on what the Lake of Fire actually is, but we don't use that to try to disprove the doctrine, that is silly.

 

[logos_x]

Yes. It is still forcing. Everyone needs love, but it is wrong to try to force that on someone.

The kind of love we are talking about is self sacrificing.
It also NEVER FAILS.

It is not forcing people to love you when you love them. They, However, are much more likely to respond in love to you when you love them

Again, what if I never want God over me? Notice that you have no answer for this other than "that's not possible" to which the naivety and lack of reality of your position is exposed. Most people will never want God.

Well, let me make an attempt to explain better, then.

Nobody "wants" God over them....that is until they understand that it is a very GOOD thing if God is over them. In fact, they have a devilish disposition toward God...thinking God is only holding out on them and denying them what they want. They want to sin...and God says no.

The reality is that God isn't holding back anything good. And when you discover that God is good, and that He IS love...then you will begin to see that what He wants for you is all good. Then you come to Him because you know that the reason you are a sinner is because you are trying to fill a God shaped hole in yourself with all the wrong things, and the reason you didn't want God over you was wrong headed and wrong hearted.

That is when a sinner is saved. And even your very desire is redeemed and made right. You begin to welcome the remoulding that is working in your life by the Grace of God. You realize that you could not have done it on your own, no matter how hard you might have tried.

Salvation changes everything...including your will. It meets the need.

And, Jesus' death, burial and resurrection is far, far more effective than Adam and Eve eating a piece of fruit.

Hard to put an exact beginning on it. Pretty much from the third post on.

And why do you think that?
Probably because you thought eternal torment was true to begin with. It's what you were taught, after all...so why wouldn't you think that? What I'm saying goes against your plausibility structure...and would work in the same way as telling someone that believes the Sun revolves around the Earth that the opposite is true.

 

[logos_x]

Paul and sexual immorality in the church...

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
(1Co 5:1-6 KJV)

This should settle the issue for Dave and everyone else.