BRXII Battle talk

[Aimiel]

Mine is arbitrary?

Ok...let's see.
Just how did Jesus reveal the Father? As one who cares for sinners, and not as the Pharisees believed.

Am I wrong?

If what Jesus said were to be taken figuratively, the stewards never would have gotten wine. They would have said, "I know what He means by, "water," since I'm so smart, and have my degree in Universalism, He means spirit. Now, how are we supposed to put our spirits in the jars?" You're not letting The Word settle your understanding, you're matching The Word to your own understanding, when it should be The Word giving you understanding.

Now...I don't think Jesus was too interested in torturing people at all...more interested in having them reconciled to God, in healing them, and even sacrificed Himself...cut off from God in the process...to have THAT happen.

He set about doing good, healing all that were oppressed of the devil, but not those who were satisfied with him, as you seem to be.

You say that Jesus taught that the Father has created, or will create in the future, an eternal Auschwich from which no deliverance and reconcilition is even possible, and people enter that upon physical death.

No, The Word of God says that, you say that it doesn't mean what it says.

Can Jesus raise the dead?

Indubitably.

Does He, not Satan, have the KEYS to Hell AND DEATH?

Amen.

Does this mean all death...even the second death?

It doesn't say that.

If not, why not?

You're second-guessing The Word of God, again, instead of reading It. He said that those whose names aren't written in The Lamb's Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire. He meant it. It isn't a school or a potter's wheel, it is torment, forever.

Show me a scripture that says Jesus is NOT victorious, and that ALL the works of the Devil are NOT destroyed, Aim.

There isn't a Scripture that says that Jesus isn't victorious, but He cannot force Himself upon men, that isn't His Nature. He is Holy. He doesn't force His Will, if He doesn't have to. He did under The Old Covenant, because it was necessary to get the ball rolling to build The New Covenant, but He is able to reconcile men to His Will now without force. He takes residence inside those who call upon Him to do so.

I don't believe God would consider an eternal torment is even remotely a good thing. I therefore don't think He would even think of creating such a thing. Is that arbitrary?

Yes. You're second-guessing God, and judging Him without knowing all the facts. No one has ever appointed you his judge.

 

[Balder]

You say that Jesus taught that the Father has created, or will create in the future, an eternal Auschwich from which no deliverance and reconcilition is even possible, and people enter that upon physical death.

No, The Word of God says that, you say that it doesn't mean what it says.

So, you admit (and believe) that the Bible says God has built an eternal Auschwitz?

 

[logos_x]

Aimiel..I'm not second guessing God.
I am not a believer in eternal torment. I don't believe the Bible, in the Hebrew and the Greek...the languages the Holy Spirit used in revealing God...teaches eternal torment. That is it.

I'm not saying God forces himself on anyone. And I, like you, believe that He is able to reconcile men to His Will without force. In fact, that is one of the reasons I don't believe in eternal torment.

Now...when I compare what Jesus taught us to be like with the doctrine eternal torment and what He says God is like with that theological construct then I see a lot of problems. I see so little evidence that God created or will create an eternal Hell that I see no reason to assume that He did.
As far as I'm concerned...He is innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think enough evidence has been provided that He has or will make an unending literal fire from which no one can escape. I think I'm being quite reasonable in questioning that God intended or intends to do so.

 

[logos_x]

Aimiel...or anyone else interested...

The major arguments for eternal torment are as follows.:

1. God created man with a naturally immortal soul.
2. The gift of aionion life is never-ending (supposedly) , therefore aionion chastisement must also be never ending.
3. "eternity" begins at physical death and there is no opportunity for reconciliation to God once one has died.
4. There is no scriptural reference (supposedly) of anyone "getting out" of eternal torment. (which, of course, assumes that eternal torment was the teaching of scripture and this idea is not a translational inaccuracy)
5. The apaokatastsis of all things does not mean all things.
6. God all in all means something other than what Christian Universalists think it means.
7. At the dispensation of the fulless of times all things in Heaven and Earth are not gathered together as one in Christ.
8. Death, the last ememy to be destroyed, holds billions in it's grip forever.
9. The "elect" are the only ones to ever be saved, forever.
10. The aion or aions of chastisment never end.

All of which are unproven, and evidence from scripture has been provided that proves otherwise. The arguments surrounding these points have been based on interpretation using eternal torment as an axiomatic and absloute truth being used as an interpretive grid while reading scripture. How can I possibly think there has been a compelling reason to believe God will create eternal torment?

The evidence points to a theological position of punishments eminating from one theological school...in Rome...imposing upon the entire church it's belief system that "punishment" is never ending and enforcing that view after over 600 years of the majority believing Jesus really is the Savior of the world. Most of the writings in enforcing the veiw of eternal torment were directed at people that believe what I do about Jesus Christ drawing all men unto Himself. The doctrine of eternal torment makes it impossible, in men's minds, for Him to do that.

You won't be able to produce any compelling reason to believe otherwise...because such evidence, I doubt, exsists.

“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge by Schaff-Herzog (V 12, pg 96)

Can we be so sure that the one theological school in Rome was the only one that was correct? They based their theological system on a Latin translation of the Bible..and were lucky to find any who could even read Latin. The other schools used Greek as their primary language. Who should we think was right about this issue?

 

[red77]

Balder, a minor disagreement amongst men about a detail doesn't save you from the Lake. Only Christ can do that.

And since your same post was deleted over there, let me issue your first warning over here

Hardly a "minor" disagreement about a "detail" though is it? For ET to hold true one of the BASIC fundamentals would have to be for the 'bodies' to be imperishable - otherwise your stance would be veering towards annihilationism......

 

[Nineveh]

So, Nineveh, since you do not agree that the bodies of unbelievers will exist forever in the Lake of Fire, but may "burn up" or "rot away," then you apparently believe in the Greek (rather than Hebrew) notion of a disembodied soul which is inherently immortal?

You can put "greek" to it, but the greeks got the idea somewhere. Even pagans yearn for life.

And a question I would add to that is, If the bodies that unbelievers are given are going to burn up anyway, what is the point of resurrecting them and giving them new bodies?

I guess God could judge a pile of ashes. I don't think He will though. Simply resurrecting a physical body for judgment doesn't seem like it would be too taxing.

So, you admit (and believe) that the Bible says God has built an eternal Auschwitz?

Men create their own torment in the lake. I wonder how long it will be before you actually try to address this idea.

 

[Nineveh]

Hardly a "minor" disagreement about a "detail" though is it?

Yep, sure is.

A major doctrinal disagreement would be like... :think: believing everyone will have forever to repent beyond what the Bible tells us.

 

[red77]

Yep, sure is.

A major doctrinal disagreement would be like... :think: believing everyone will have forever to repent beyond what the Bible tells us.

No it isnt Nineveh - and you know it, how can you expect to try and convince others about ET when one of the most basic aspects of your doctrine would have to be imperishable bodies? furthermore you and the pastor are at odds about the interpretation of the LOF, you believe it to be symbolic and he does not, why? Why is it not crystal clear regarding something of the uttermost importance as eternal SUFFERING?????? I agree with you in as much as the LOF could hardly be a literal place - especially given the chapter of the Bible in which its mentioned - but you're really not very convincing if even after all this time you arent even sure yourself about your belief in ET and whether 'people' actually 'burn up' or eventually 'rot' as you said earlier.......

 

[red77]

You can put "greek" to it, but the greeks got the idea somewhere. Even pagans yearn for life.

Aside from the superior tone regarding 'pagans' (which in your own words encompasses anyone who isnt Christian) Balder had made a very pertinent point, why have you been defending the pastor who's made it blatantly clear that he believes in a literal burning lake of fire that people will suffer for all eternity when up to this point you've never believed it to be literal at all??! And that people wont have IMPERISHABLE bodies which they would have to have to suffer through eternity????????

I guess God could judge a pile of ashes. I don't think He will though. Simply resurrecting a physical body for judgment doesn't seem like it would be too taxing.

It seems as though you're guessing rather a lot on this issue....

Men create their own torment in the lake. I wonder how long it will be before you actually try to address this idea.

There would have to be a "lake" to begin with Nineveh - which men would not have created, perhaps you could address that point....

 

[Balder]

You can put "greek" to it, but the greeks got the idea somewhere. Even pagans yearn for life.

I know a number of conservative Christians who would say the Greeks didn't get the idea from the Hebrew God. I'll leave it to you all to sort out what your religion teaches.

I guess God could judge a pile of ashes. I don't think He will though. Simply resurrecting a physical body for judgment doesn't seem like it would be too taxing.

I'm sure it's easy for an omnipotent being to resurrect a physical body. The point is, why bring back someone from the dead just to kill them? Seems pretty cruel. If the person's fate is to be a disembodied soul cut off from God, why go through the trouble of giving them another body? Is the intent to inflict unimaginable physical pain on them?

Men create their own torment in the lake. I wonder how long it will be before you actually try to address this idea.

I have no problem believing that there are consequences for behavior. I believe in karma, after all. My problem is with the extreme and rather sadistic nature of the consequences (according to proponents of ET).

 

[Nineveh]

No it isnt Nineveh - and you know it, how can you expect to try and convince others about ET when one of the most basic aspects of your doctrine would have to be imperishable bodies? furthermore you and the pastor are at odds about the interpretation of the LOF, you believe it to be symbolic and he does not, why? Why is it not crystal clear regarding something of the uttermost importance as eternal SUFFERING?????? I agree with you in as much as the LOF could hardly be a literal place - especially given the chapter of the Bible in which its mentioned - but you're really not very convincing if even after all this time you arent even sure yourself about your belief in ET and whether 'people' actually 'burn up' or eventually 'rot' as you said earlier.......

We disagree, it is a literal place, outside of God's presence.

PK and I merely disagree on whether it is eternal physical & spiritual torment or merely the majority of spiritual torment after the unredeemed flesh rots. I don't see where anyone in history has been called a heretic over either idea.

Aside from the superior tone regarding 'pagans' (which in your own words encompasses anyone who isnt Christian) Balder had made a very pertinent point, why have you been defending the pastor who's made it blatantly clear that he believes in a literal burning lake of fire that people will suffer for all eternity when up to this point you've never believed it to be literal at all??! And that people wont have IMPERISHABLE bodies which they would have to have to suffer through eternity????????

You have no idea what I am even arguing.

It seems as though you're guessing rather a lot on this issue....

I am not accustomed to adding to the Word of God to prove a point, unlike you.

There would have to be a "lake" to begin with Nineveh - which men would not have created, perhaps you could address that point....

Huh?

I never claimed men created the lake of fire. What on earth are you going on about? Do you even know? Or is this another attempt at another fruitless convo?

 

[Nineveh]

I know a number of conservative Christians who would say the Greeks didn't get the idea from the Hebrew God. I'll leave it to you all to sort out what your religion teaches.

It was God who put the Tree of Life in the garden, not the greeks. But I didn't limit the longing to just the greeks.

I'm sure it's easy for an omnipotent being to resurrect a physical body. The point is, why bring back someone from the dead just to kill them?

That's not what happens though is it? They are judged.

Seems pretty cruel. If the person's fate is to be a disembodied soul cut off from God, why go through the trouble of giving them another body? Is the intent to inflict unimaginable physical pain on them?

At this point you will have to ask PK. I believe their flesh will rot away eventually. The torment they will suffer will be from the unrepentant sins on their own souls. They can not be forgiven, there is no hope.

Something else you don't seem to consider is the conscience can inflict far more pain than a mere wound to the flesh.

I have no problem believing that there are consequences for behavior. I believe in karma, after all. My problem is with the extreme and rather sadistic nature of the consequences (according to proponents of ET).

I can see where you would shudder to think you would actually have to pay the price for your sins. I know I did, that's why I turned to Christ.

Once again however, what you fail to address is men's own conscience that does the tormenting. You are right to see it as cruel, however you misplace the blame for that cruelty. Men commit the sin, men don't repent, men are judged for that sin, men live forever with that guilt.

 

[red77]

We disagree, it is a literal place, outside of God's presence.

PK and I merely disagree on whether it is eternal physical & spiritual torment or merely the majority of spiritual torment after the unredeemed flesh rots. I don't see where anyone in history has been called a heretic over either idea.

Then make your mind up, is the LOF symbolic of separation or a literal fiery lake separated from God? You arent sure what the heck it is judging by recent comments, are you saying that people physically burn for a set period and then suffer spiritual torment after the body has withered away? If so why and what back up do you have to have believed this up to this point? How could the LOF as a physical entity exist both as literal and symbolic? What credibility can you have if you're not even sure on the basic fundamentals of your doctrine yourself?? Is this just yet more inconsistency on the matter of ET when personal interpretation plays a part, both you and the pastor cant be right on this - and yet you SHOULD be in total agreement on an issue of such crucial importance!!!!!! Why would the Bible leave the issue clouded??!

You have no idea what I am even arguing.

It doesnt seem as though you're sure what you're arguing so no I dont have much idea, most of your recent posts have been mere supposition on your part and I'd already assumed - given the actual title of the battle royale - that you totally agreed with the pastor given the nature of your posts! Its more than just a "little minor detail"

I am not accustomed to adding to the Word of God to prove a point, unlike you.

I dont nor have attempted to have added to the word, if your argument rests soley on the idea that there is no verse that people get out of whatever you believe the LOF to be then verses have already been supplied that are already there - I'm sure you know the ones......the ones that cant "mean what they say".....

Huh?

I never claimed men created the lake of fire. What on earth are you going on about? Do you even know? Or is this another attempt at another fruitless convo?

Answer Balder's point, for a place of torment aka an "eternal Auschwitz" it has to be created....! Obviously not by MEN, thats pretty straightforward! Thats why it was asked if God had crated a place of suffering which you seem to have no idea what it actually is yourself anyway..........

 

[red77]

It was God who put the Tree of Life in the garden, not the greeks. But I didn't limit the longing to just the greeks.



That's not what happens though is it? They are judged.



At this point you will have to ask PK. I believe their flesh will rot away eventually. The torment they will suffer will be from the unrepentant sins on their own souls. They can not be forgiven, there is no hope.

Something else you don't seem to consider is the conscience can inflict far more pain than a mere wound to the flesh.



I can see where you would shudder to think you would actually have to pay the price for your sins. I know I did, that's why I turned to Christ.

Once again however, what you fail to address is men's own conscience that does the tormenting. You are right to see it as cruel, however you misplace the blame for that cruelty. Men commit the sin, men don't repent, men are judged for that sin, men live forever with that guilt.

You believe their "flesh will rot away eventually", just how durable are these bodies then exactly? heck - you have no scriptural back up for this belief of yours and you're hardly doing the doctrine of ET any favours really (which obviously is a good thing) but you're doing what you accuse those who believe that ET is false of doing - using your own judgement....! Suplly the verses that say that physical burning torment is of limited duration please - otherwise what the heck have you been try to preach on this thread?

 

[Balder]

It was God who put the Tree of Life in the garden, not the greeks. But I didn't limit the longing to just the greeks.

I'm not sure what the Tree of Life has to do with believing in the eternal existence of a disembodied soul (which is not a Hebrew idea). Also, didn't God prevent Adam and Eve from eating of that tree so they wouldn't live forever in their bodies?

That's not what happens though is it? They are judged.

An omnipotent being would have the power to judge every sinner as she died the first time. Dragging them all back to life and then killing them again to express your displeasure with them seems excessive and rather pointless to me.

At this point you will have to ask PK. I believe their flesh will rot away eventually. The torment they will suffer will be from the unrepentant sins on their own souls. They can not be forgiven, there is no hope.

I think your version of the fate of sinners is relatively less cruel than Pastor Kevin's.

Something else you don't seem to consider is the conscience can inflict far more pain than a mere wound to the flesh.

As a Buddhist, I believe a great deal of our suffering is in fact self-generated, and arises due to our own impurities (such as ignorance, ill will, and greed). So, I agree with you that suffering, as opposed to mere physical pain, has its origins in the heart and mind.

But I disagree with you about the ultimate fate of human beings, because I do not believe that humans are of such a nature that the majority of them are incapable, for whatever reason, of realizing their error and/or feeling genuine remorse or repentance, especially if given an unlimited amount of time. This is why I think the Buddhist perspective is both more realistic and morally more sound: there is nowhere compassion and the potential for transformation and salvation doesn't reach, even in hell.

 

[red77]

Romans 3:5-8

5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

TO SPEAK LIKE A MAN: TO SAY THAT GOD IS UNJUST IF HE INFLICTS WRATH IN JUDGMENT!

To speak the word: "Mercy Triumphs Over Judgement"

 

[Nineveh]

Then make your mind up, is the LOF symbolic of separation or a literal fiery lake separated from God?

The Lake of Fire is the literal second death, that is seperation from God. Really. Do we need to go over this again?

are you saying that people physically burn for a set period and then suffer spiritual torment after the body has withered away? If so why and what back up do you have to have believed this up to this point?

I'm going to debate this with PK on another thread if you don't mind. I'd rather not debate the topic on two threads.

...so no I dont have much idea...

That happens when you assume.

I dont nor have attempted to have added to the word...

This thread bears witness.

You believe their "flesh will rot away eventually", just how durable are these bodies then exactly?

How durable does God promise they will be? It merely says they will be gathered for judgement. Shall we assume God reconstitutes their bodies, or shall we assume they stand in judgement as piles of ashes or globs of goo? Or shall we assume they are granted immortal bodies like the believers are? Which of these assumptions are you going to be dogmatic about?

heck - you have no scriptural back up for this belief of yours and you're hardly doing the doctrine of ET any favours really (which obviously is a good thing) but you're doing what you accuse those who believe that ET is false of doing - using your own judgement....!

I didn't hide the fact some of this is quesswork on my part. Unlike some who actually add to the Scriptures in the case of other resurrections and judgements past Rev.

Suplly the verses that say that physical burning torment is of limited duration please - otherwise what the heck have you been try to preach on this thread?

Don't you wish there was a single verse that limited the torment of lake of fire.

: laughing : You must have forgotten what thread you are on. Anyway, shall we get back on topic? You still need to prove there is a limit to the lake. What I'm preaching is folks need to repent and accept Christ.

 

[Nineveh]

Also, didn't God prevent Adam and Eve from eating of that tree so they wouldn't live forever in their bodies?

Why yes, He did.

An omnipotent being would have the power to judge every sinner as she died the first time. Dragging them all back to life and then killing them again to express your displeasure with them seems excessive and rather pointless to me.

When you are able to address my point, let me know.

I think your version of the fate of sinners is relatively less cruel than Pastor Kevin's.

Most likely because you haven't really thought about how sin stains a person's soul.

As a Buddhist, I believe a great deal of our suffering is in fact self-generated, and arises due to our own impurities (such as ignorance, ill will, and greed). So, I agree with you that suffering, as opposed to mere physical pain, has its origins in the heart and mind.

Try replacing your list with being found guilty of real sin, like hating the Creator who offers you salvation, or murder, or rape, or stealing, or sexual immorality and all the guilt associated with those sins. That's what folks take with them to the lake.

But I disagree with you about the ultimate fate of human beings, because I do not believe that humans are of such a nature that the majority of them are incapable, for whatever reason, of realizing their error and/or feeling genuine remorse or repentance, especially if given an unlimited amount of time. This is why I think the Buddhist perspective is both more realistic and morally more sound: there is nowhere compassion and the potential for transformation and salvation doesn't reach, even in hell.

No one is stopping you from holding on to your false hope.

 

[Balder]

When you are able to address my point, let me know.

I did. Not sure why you can't see it.

Most likely because you haven't really thought about how sin stains a person's soul.

Now, I'm not sure if you got my point. I was saying that I think believing "hell" consists of self-generated psychological torment is relatively less cruel than thinking people are given imperishable bodies and then burned in them forever as a form of punishment.

Try replacing your list with being found guilty of real sin, like hating the Creator who offers you salvation, or murder, or rape, or stealing, or sexual immorality and all the guilt associated with those sins. That's what folks take with them to the lake.

All of those various activities can be shown to have their roots in ignorance, hatred/ill will, and greed.

No one is stopping you from holding on to your false hope.

No, but some people are "preaching" sadistic myths in order to scare people into line, and end up depicting God to be excessively cruel and vindictive in the process.

 

[Nineveh]

Now, I'm not sure if you got my point. I was saying that I think believing "hell" consists of self-generated psychological torment is relatively less cruel than thinking people are given imperishable bodies and then burned in them forever as a form of punishment.

"Now, I'm not sure if you got my point." Most likely because you haven't really thought about how sin stains a person's soul.

All of those various activities can be shown to have their roots in ignorance, hatred/ill will, and greed.

People aren't damned because of hate or ignorance, they are damned for unrepentant sin.

No, but some people are "preaching" sadistic myths in order to scare people into line, and end up depicting God to be excessively cruel and vindictive in the process.

And no one is trying to take away your false hope the Creator God is lying to you about being judged on your own merit.

Once again, the cruelty you see is being misplaced. Men sin, men do not repent, men are judged guilty, men take that guilt with them into their eternity. Is it that you just can not understand that point or is it you don't want to?