Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[freelight]

Particulars.......

Particulars.......

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are saying we can figure out salvation on our own, yet at the same time we are beholden to some impersonal laws that figure it out for us.

God gave us reason to figure a lot of things out for ourselves. We come to know/learn universal laws and principles for our enlightenment and benefit....to live in harmony with them.

I can't but believe from what you are saying that you deny the existence of God. And if that's the case, then you "have no dog in this fight".

I explore 'God' in both 'personal' and 'non-personal' terms - such depends on context. I'm not engaged in a fight, so need no dog therein.

If you have rejected biblical authority, why do you care if we who haven't argue about what that authority says? I don't get it.

As a student of comparative religions and the Bible I naturally have an interest in the subject here and my own evolving views on it. I don't need to have a belief in the Bible as infallible or inerrant or that it's a final authority on matters to engage the discussion here, but include thoughts from other schools as well. The Infinite cannot be contained in a single book or limited to any one cult or tradition. Truth or wisdom is universal....and the one supreme Deity or Absolute is omnipresent. - everything else are but relative descriptions, facets, translations, interpretations of one original reality. That Alone is absolute, all else are but illusions, concepts, images, appearances.

Your "insanity" plea against ECT is a paper tiger, for you pit your morality and your definition of sanity against that of a God that doesn't exist.

My description of ECT as insane is a most sane and reasonable observation. The reality of existence itself may be greater than your or my concept of 'God'.....a characterization of 'God' that could be questioned. There is that

In your mind, you can't help but win.

I'm in nobody's contest, so winning or losing at anything here is an illusion. I am consciousness itself exploring/adventuring possibilities and potentials.

But you have to deal with more than is in your mind. You have to deal with truth, and you don't get to decide what is truth.

That's the playing-field......the mind. Truth is what IS. Only when you get into qualifying any truth does the temptation to define its terms come into being. In this sense beyond any theologizing, I find non-duality the most essential way to realize the most fundamental truth of existence.
Reality itself is primal, at the heart of all.

I hope Timotheus doesn't think you are helping his cause, because you aren't--unless his cause is to reject the authority of the bible. That's not what I get from his thread title.

Again, until you've read all my contributions to this thread or elsewhere to have a more complete over-view of such, you cannot judge the meanings or values that I've added to the discussion. A person truly interested will invest the time to discover such before making a judgment.

Also, you're coming from a presupposition of the Bible's authority, I do not so am free of such limitations or a dogmatic assumption that the Bible contains all the truth in the universe. It contains what men have written or allowed to be it's contents during certain time periods and cultural conditions, however inspired or embellished. Does this mean I reject the Bible's inspiration or value to mankind? Of course not, but recognize its limited context. Hence my research into the 3 eschatological views of the destiny of wicked (in a biblical-context) while considering viewpoints of other religious traditions on the matter as well for a more comprehensive synthesis or field from which to research.

If he does think you are helping.... Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Our friendship doesn't hinge on agreeing dogmatically over any particulars (unless we define those), as two persons being open to explore, research and consider what the Bible teaches, there's literal renderings and much figurative speech, and different translations. Hundreds of different sects use the Bible, and differ on doctrinal points, so someone saying "this is what the Bible teaches" is open to scrutiny.

I may be sharing more on 'conditional immortality' and see much passage support for such, biblically-speaking. Much here depends on the doctrine of immortality.....if a soul is innately eternal....or only conditionally so. The Church borrowed much from the neo-platonism and older schools assuming an 'immortal soul', as the Vedic school also assumes the 'atman' being eternal....while aspects of personality are temporary assumed during a given lifetime. But this is another subject trail.....aspects of reincarnation.

Still.....a 'God' submitting soul's to eternal suffering with no reprieve or relief is a cruelty and evil beyond measure. I don't care what religious book or assumed authority says otherwise.

 

[way 2 go]

way 2 go,
re: "Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

But the ECT advocates don't believe that. They think that everyone will be given eternal life.

the ECT deniers
deny spiritual death


Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

 

[Derf]

Honestly...

Honestly...

If you do not believe that God tortures people in hell forever, then you are okay by me. I don't know you, so I don't know if you are an ECTist or a Bible believer. I'm sorry if I presumed anything about you. I don't recall grouping you in with ECTists, if I have and you aren't an ECTist, I apologize. Nobody will want to be in that group on the day of Judgment.

That's quite the dichotomy (highlighted above). It appears you really don't want to discuss whether ECT is biblical or not, despite your thread title. What you really want to do is tell people that ECT is unbiblical. Ok, but be honest.

Going further, are you really saying you think ECT is unbiblical, or are you saying that ECT doesn't fit your system of morality, and you are using the bible to try to prove it? Be honest!

Your dichotomy screams of presupposition--that ECT is unbiblical because of the presumed immoral nature of it, and not that it is immoral because it is unbiblical. Is that how you feel? Be honest!

 

[Derf]

God gave us reason to figure a lot of things out for ourselves. We come to know/learn universal laws and principles for our enlightenment and benefit....to live in harmony with them.

Live in harmony with laws and principles? How does one live in harmony with a law? Doesn't that mean to "obey" the law? And if one is supposed to obey a law, doesn't that mean one needs to find out what the law is? And to find out what a law is, doesn't one need a source that is consistent? Relying on man's law-making abilities has not been consistent, unless by consistent you mean that it is always for the benefit of the one making the law.

I explore 'God' in both 'personal' and 'non-personal' terms - such depends on context. I'm not engaged in a fight, so need no dog therein.

But this thread is about the biblical nature of ECT. There are two sides to the debate (read "fight" if you please). One says "yes", and other says "no". You say "we can look at other sources to determine the reality of ECT", which means: don't look at the bible for your answer to the question, look somewhere else. Read the quote below for validation of my assertion.

As a student of comparative religions and the Bible I naturally have an interest in the subject here and my own evolving views on it. I don't need to have a belief in the Bible as infallible or inerrant or that it's a final authority on matters to engage the discussion here, but include thoughts from other schools as well. The Infinite cannot be contained in a single book or limited to any one cult or tradition. Truth or wisdom is universal....and the one supreme Deity or Absolute is omnipresent. - everything else are but relative descriptions, facets, translations, interpretations of one original reality. That Alone is absolute, all else are but illusions, concepts, images, appearances.

that's all very nice sounding, but it has nothing to do with whether ECT is biblical or not. It's a handwave of fancy-sounding terms that says: look at other sources besides the bible.

My description of ECT as insane is a most sane and reasonable observation. The reality of existence itself may be greater than your or my concept of 'God'.....a characterization of 'God' that could be questioned. There is that

still nothing to do with the subject of the thread...

I'm in nobody's contest, so winning or losing at anything here is an illusion. I am consciousness itself exploring/adventuring possibilities and potentials.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the thread.

That's the playing-field......the mind. Truth is what IS. Only when you get into qualifying any truth does the temptation to define its terms come into being. In this sense beyond any theologizing, I find non-duality the most essential way to realize the most fundamental truth of existence.
Reality itself is primal, at the heart of all.

Blah, blah, blah...we now return you to your regular programming...

Again, until you've read all my contributions to this thread or elsewhere to have a more complete over-view of such, you cannot judge the meanings or values that I've added to the discussion. A person truly interested will invest the time to discover such before making a judgment.

Must I read your EVERY contribution to this thread or elsewhere to determine if you are discussing the thread topic? If you have so severely misdirected from the thread topic just in answer to my posts, why would I think you had done better in other places. My point is that you are not discussing the thread topic--your focus is on directing others away from biblical authority and to other sources of information. These other sources may be useful or may not be, but if they either support or refute ECT on their own rather than from biblical authority, then they are not germaine to this thread.

Also, you're coming from a presupposition of the Bible's authority,

:duh:Let's read that thread title again, shall we: "Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?" I took the liberty of highlighting a significant word in the title, just in case you might have missed it. So I'd like to ask you: what should be our source of authority in determining biblicity of ECT? The bible or something besides the bible?????????????

I do not so am free of such limitations or a dogmatic assumption that the Bible contains all the truth in the universe. It contains what men have written or allowed to be it's contents during certain time periods and cultural conditions, however inspired or embellished. Does this mean I reject the Bible's inspiration or value to mankind? Of course not, but recognize its limited context.

Thus you are not able to use the bible to determine if ECT is biblical or not? However much you might accept or deny the inspiration or value of the bible, it has NOTHING to do with whether ECT is biblical or not. The bible is the ONLY authority on biblicity. But it seems like you relish the opportunity to show your preference for other sources (see next quote).

Hence my research into the 3 eschatological views of the destiny of wicked (in a biblical-context) while considering viewpoints of other religious traditions on the matter as well for a more comprehensive synthesis or field from which to research.

Hence my point about you preaching another gospel

Our friendship doesn't hinge on agreeing dogmatically over any particulars (unless we define those), as two persons being open to explore, research and consider what the Bible teaches, there's literal renderings and much figurative speech, and different translations. Hundreds of different sects use the Bible, and differ on doctrinal points, so someone saying "this is what the Bible teaches" is open to scrutiny.

Absolutely! That's why this is a valuable thread! But it's value is significantly diminished when someone suggests a different source for biblicity than the bible. Truth, perhaps, but not biblicity.

I may be sharing more on 'conditional immortality' and see much passage support for such, biblically-speaking. Much here depends on the doctrine of immortality.....if a soul is innately eternal....or only conditionally so. The Church borrowed much from the neo-platonism and older schools assuming an 'immortal soul', as the Vedic school also assumes the 'atman' being eternal....while aspects of personality are temporary assumed during a given lifetime. But this is another subject trail.....aspects of reincarnation.

as opposed to your other subject trails, I suppose?

Still.....a 'God' submitting soul's to eternal suffering with no reprieve or relief is a cruelty and evil beyond measure. I don't care what religious book or assumed authority says otherwise.

This is really the meat of your argument (oh, wait, you're not arguing. I forgot), which you've presented multiple times in answer to me and in your other posts in this thread (yes, I've read several of them). That if anything does not meet with your personal approval, then it can't be true. Thus you've set yourself up as universal judge and jury--you are the final authority on the truth of the doctrine of ECT. :bow: And no so-called God (often written as 'God' in your posts) can tell you otherwise.

 

[rstrats]

way 2 go,
re: "the ECT deniers deny spiritual death"

I don't see your point with regard to being given eternal life.

 

[Timotheos]

He's described as more than that

did He meet your criteria for "good" when he killed every single man woman and child (and infant) in the Flood, save 8?

did He meet your criteria for "good" when he burned to death with molten sulfur every single inhabitant of sodom and Gomorrah - man, woman, child and infant?



you have a child's concept of "good" timmy

The question is "Does God torture people forever and ever in Hell?"
The second question is "IF He does, can He still be called good?"


You have a weird definition of "good" if it includes torturing people.
I have a Biblical concept of "good". I have the true concept of "good". Only a sadist would think that eternal torture is "good".


Yes, God meets "my" definition of good when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. Notice that God did not torture the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah for all eternity. Also, please take notice of the fact that the Bible says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of what will happen at the final judgment. The wicked will be destroyed, just as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Just like the Government does a good thing when it puts mass murderers to death by lethal injection, God does a good thing when He destroys wickedness. Just as it would be immoral for the state to torture prisoners, it would be immoral for God or anyone else to torture people, and much worse to torture them forever. It is beyond bizarre to call this torture "good". It is sick and twisted to call eternal torture "good".

Go ahead and insult me, but the fact remains that I agree with God on this, and you do not.

 

[Timotheos]

That's quite the dichotomy (highlighted above). It appears you really don't want to discuss whether ECT is biblical or not, despite your thread title. What you really want to do is tell people that ECT is unbiblical. Ok, but be honest.

Going further, are you really saying you think ECT is unbiblical, or are you saying that ECT doesn't fit your system of morality, and you are using the bible to try to prove it? Be honest!

Your dichotomy screams of presupposition--that ECT is unbiblical because of the presumed immoral nature of it, and not that it is immoral because it is unbiblical. Is that how you feel? Be honest!

There is no presuppostion, Eternal Conscious Torment IS unbiblical.
It is true that eternal torture doesn't fit my "system of morality" (Be honest, is torture part of YOUR morality?), but I am willing to look at any evidence anybody has that ECT is Biblical. If God really does torture people alive forever in hell, and if the Bible really does say that, I really do want to know about it.

Honestly, my main reason for rejecting Eternal Conscious Torment is that the Bible does not support ECT. My feelings about it are secondary.
Be honest, isn't the only reason you accept ECT (If you do accept eternal conscious torment) is because that is what you have always believed? Be honest. It isn't because there is so much support in the Bible for eternal torture. Be honest.

ECTists always assume that anyone who rejects their hideous doctrine rejects it on moral grounds. Why is that? Certainly, a person would be justified to reject eternal torture on strictly moral grounds, but this thread was made for the purpose of investigating what the Bible actually has to say about eternal conscious torment. Honestly, if you were to show me a verse from the Bible that said that bad people go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever, and if you also showed me a verse that said "Remember all those times I said that the wicked would be destroyed? That isn't true", then I would accept the doctrine of eternal conscious torture.

Now be honest, if I were to show you a verse that said that the wicked will be destroyed, would you accept that the wicked really will be destroyed? Be honest.

 

[Derf]

There is no presuppostion, Eternal Conscious Torment IS unbiblical.

Hahahahahahaha!:doh:
But kidding aside, shall we investigate that statement?

It is true that eternal torture doesn't fit my "system of morality" (Be honest, is torture part of YOUR morality?), but I am willing to look at any evidence anybody has that ECT is Biblical. If God really does torture people alive forever in hell, and if the Bible really does say that, I really do want to know about it.

The first issue I see is that you interchange "torment" and "torture" freely. These two are not exact synonyms, at least in the noun form. "Torment" the noun is focused on the misery being endured, while "torture" focuses on the action of inflicting the misery. These are subtle distinctions, but it might help to keep them separate.

Are you really willing to look at ANY evidence that ECT is biblical? You've been given quite a bit. The second issue I see is that you are showing a preference for one type of verses (the ones that talk about "perishing" or "destruction") over the other type (the ones that mention eternal destruction. And you have in mind a meaning for "perishing" and "destruction" that doesn't allow for anything "eternal". (This is a presupposition, by the way.) I'm not judging the presuppositions, just pointing them out.

Honestly, my main reason for rejecting Eternal Conscious Torment is that the Bible does not support ECT. My feelings about it are secondary.

Good.

Be honest, isn't the only reason you accept ECT (If you do accept eternal conscious torment) is because that is what you have always believed? Be honest. It isn't because there is so much support in the Bible for eternal torture. Be honest.

Honestly? ECT is what I've always been taught, but I've been going through quite a few presupposition wrenchers recently, so I'm willing to consider the other side. I appreciate your assertion that "destroy" and "perish" can't allow for everlasting consciousness.

ECTists always assume that anyone who rejects their hideous doctrine rejects it on moral grounds. Why is that?

Because of the passages that seem to reflect their view. If the bible really does support ECT, then the very best (and possibly only) reason for rejecting it is for moral reasons. Is that too hard to understand? Apparently you agree, based on your foowing comment.

Certainly, a person would be justified to reject eternal torture on strictly moral grounds, but this thread was made for the purpose of investigating what the Bible actually has to say about eternal conscious torment. Honestly, if you were to show me a verse from the Bible that said that bad people go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever, and if you also showed me a verse that said "Remember all those times I said that the wicked would be destroyed? That isn't true", then I would accept the doctrine of eternal conscious torture.

You've continued your equivocation between "torment" and "torture".

But beside that, can you tell me why somebody suffering forever is morally unacceptable? If you say it is acceptable to reject on "purely moral grounds" (meaning that biblicity is not a factor), where would you get these extra-biblical morals to reject it? Sounds like your morals are trumping your bible at this point.

Now be honest, if I were to show you a verse that said that the wicked will be destroyed, would you accept that the wicked really will be destroyed? Be honest.

I have the same problem you do--that I have to somehow make the two concepts play together--that there are some verses that say the wicked will be destroyed and some that say their worm will not die nor their fire quenched. Is it possible for both to happen? Seems to me that both have to happen for the bible to be true.

So to get beyond our presuppositions, you need to question your definition of destruction/perish, and I need to question my definition of "will not die" or "worm". Is it possible for someone to perish but their "worm" still doesn't "die"? Does it make sense that the dead are "resurrected" just so they can be "annihilated"?

 

[rstrats]

Derf,
re: "Does it make sense that the dead are 'resurrected' just so they can be 'annihilated'?"

That's a legitimate question just as is the one of asking how it makes sense to torment folks for eternity simply because during their fleeting few years of life they didn’t or couldn’t meet the supreme being's requirements nor develop or have the potential to develop the right character needed to spend eternity with this supreme being.

 

[Derf]

Derf,
re: "Does it make sense that the dead are 'resurrected' just so they can be 'annihilated'?"

That's a legitimate question just as is the one of asking how it makes sense to torment folks for eternity simply because during their fleeting few years of life they didn’t or couldn’t meet the supreme being's requirements nor develop or have the potential to develop the right character needed to spend eternity with this supreme being.

I think you're using the same equivocation Timotheos uses--That there is an act of tormenting that is being perpetrated on them.

You also should know that the whole point of the law, according to Paul, is to show us that we "didn’t or couldn’t meet the supreme being's requirements nor develop or have the potential to develop the right character needed to spend eternity with this supreme being" and to drive us to Christ. And that the whole point of the gospel is that Christ meets God's own requirements, and His meeting of them is ascribed to our account, if we believe in Christ Jesus, His death, and resurrection.

 

[rstrats]

Derf,

re: "And that the whole point of the gospel is that Christ meets God's own requirements, and His meeting of them is ascribed to our account, if we believe in Christ Jesus, His death, and resurrection."


And what do you say happens to a person that doesn't believe in the Messiah, His death, and resurrection?

 

[Derf]

Derf,

re: "And that the whole point of the gospel is that Christ meets God's own requirements, and His meeting of them is ascribed to our account, if we believe in Christ Jesus, His death, and resurrection."


And what do you say happens to a person that doesn't believe in the Messiah, His death, and resurrection?

"He that doesn't believe is condemned already" (John 3:18)? I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[rstrats]

Derf,
re: "'He that doesn't believe is condemned already'"

And what does that condemnation eventually result in with regard to the person's future?



re: "I'm not sure I understand your question."

Welcome to the club. It seems that I get a lot of that with respect to a number of my questions.

 

[Timotheos]

Hahahahahahaha!:doh:
But kidding aside, shall we investigate that statement?

Yes, Let's do that, investigating from the SCRIPTURES, not from "You must only WANT eternal torture to be false".

The first issue I see is that you interchange "torment" and "torture" freely. These two are not exact synonyms, at least in the noun form. "Torment" the noun is focused on the misery being endured, while "torture" focuses on the action of inflicting the misery. These are subtle distinctions, but it might help to keep them separate.

I can see why ECTists wouldn't want 'being burned alive forever" to be called torture. But is there really any logical reason to not call burning someone alive torture? Have we become so jaded that we can look at one person burning another person alive and say "that's not too bad, that isn't torture. Let's see if this gets bad enough to call it torture." If you saw a boy burning a dog alive, wouldn't you at least say "Hey, you shouldn't torture that dog"?

Are you really willing to look at ANY evidence that ECT is biblical?

Yes.

You've been given quite a bit.

Not really, admit it. I've seen quite a bit of scriptures that do not say that the unrepentant will experience eternal torment, and I've seen the claims that they mean this, but no real Scripture proof. You have to admit that. And you've seen plenty of proof directly from scripture that the wicked will perish and will be no more, and only those in Christ will receive eternal life. Are YOU really willing to look at the evidence? You seem more willing than others to consider what the Bible really says.

The second issue I see is that you are showing a preference for one type of verses (the ones that talk about "perishing" or "destruction") over the other type (the ones that mention eternal destruction. And you have in mind a meaning for "perishing" and "destruction" that doesn't allow for anything "eternal". (This is a presupposition, by the way.) I'm not judging the presuppositions, just pointing them out.

The Bible says they perish, this doesn't mean they don't perish. The Bible says they are destroyed, this doesn't mean they aren't destroyed. And all of these scriptures agree with the scriptures that talk about eternal destruction. I don't believe that the lost are "temporarily destroyed" or that they "perish for only a little while". These things are permanent, so they are eternal. You seem to be grasping at straws in a vain attempt to misunderstand what I am talking about. That's how it seems to me. Are you really sure you aren't an ECTist?

Honestly? ECT is what I've always been taught, but I've been going through quite a few presupposition wrenchers recently, so I'm willing to consider the other side. I appreciate your assertion that "destroy" and "perish" can't allow for everlasting consciousness.

Good

Because of the passages that seem to reflect their view. If the bible really does support ECT, then the very best (and possibly only) reason for rejecting it is for moral reasons. Is that too hard to understand? Apparently you agree, based on your foowing comment.

You have to admit that is a big IF. But if the Bible really does support the destruction of the lost, then the other side is NOT willing to accept it because of their traditions. which way is better?

But beside that, can you tell me why somebody suffering forever is morally unacceptable? If you say it is acceptable to reject on "purely moral grounds" (meaning that biblicity is not a factor), where would you get these extra-biblical morals to reject it? Sounds like your morals are trumping your bible at this point.
I have the same problem you do--that I have to somehow make the two concepts play together--that there are some verses that say the wicked will be destroyed and some that say their worm will not die nor their fire quenched. Is it possible for both to happen? Seems to me that both have to happen for the bible to be true.

So to get beyond our presuppositions, you need to question your definition of destruction/perish, and I need to question my definition of "will not die" or "worm". Is it possible for someone to perish but their "worm" still doesn't "die"? Does it make sense that the dead are "resurrected" just so they can be "annihilated"?

More later, out of time

 

[Derf]

Derf,
re: "'He that doesn't believe is condemned already'"

And what does that condemnation eventually result in with regard to the person's future?

That's the big question of this thread. But you might notice that the way out is provided, free of charge. And I believe it is offered to all men. Thus the assertion that God is forcing someone to undergo everlasting torment, assuming ECT is true, is false.

Why are we all condemned already? My understanding is that we are guilty of disobeying God, corporately, as descendants of Adam (who sinned while we were yet in his loins, similar to Levi tithing to Melchizedek while still in Abraham's loins--Heb 7:9-10), and individually, in that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

So at least we understand that we all are condemned to "die". And that condemnation is just, right? I'm pretty sure Timotheos is in agreement, and if you are holding to biblical authority, then I presume you are in agreement, too.

Now we know that Adam and Eve were threatened with "death" in the day that they ate of the wrong tree. But they didn't "die" in the sense we understand (or if they did, then it wasn't in the timeframe that we understand when we say "day"). So what does "die" mean in that case? Is it the same as "perish"? The reason I'm asking is that Jesus said those who believe in Him would not "perish" but have everlasting life. But if the reason for Jesus needing to come to the earth and die in our place is because of the sin of Adam, through which he was doomed to "die", then Jesus must be talking about the same kind of "death" when He says "perish" as Adam was subjected to through the eating of the tree.

Was Hebrews also using the same connotation for "death" and "die" when it says, "It is appointed unto man once to die, and then comes judgment."?

If so, then judgment comes after "perishing", in which case "perish" doesn't mean annihilation, but something that allows some kind of consciousness afterward. That's why I asked the question about why would God raise someone from the dead in order to annihilate them.

re: "I'm not sure I understand your question."

Welcome to the club. It seems that I get a lot of that with respect to a number of my questions.

Maybe because you aren't communicating your intentions very well when you ask a question. Try explaining why you are asking the question. You don't have to explain all your motivations, as you may need to find out something before you use the information in your argument. But if your questions are too ambiguous, people don't understand what question you are really asking.

 

[ok doser]

The question is "Does God torture people forever and ever in Hell?"
The second question is "IF He does, can He still be called good?"


You have a weird definition of "good" if it includes torturing people.

you don't think an infant being burned to death with molten sulfur is being tortured?

Go ahead and insult me...

ok

you're a retard

 

[Derf]

Yes, Let's do that, investigating from the SCRIPTURES, not from "You must only WANT eternal torture to be false".

I can see why ECTists wouldn't want 'being burned alive forever" to be called torture. But is there really any logical reason to not call burning someone alive torture? Have we become so jaded that we can look at one person burning another person alive and say "that's not too bad, that isn't torture. Let's see if this gets bad enough to call it torture." If you saw a boy burning a dog alive, wouldn't you at least say "Hey, you shouldn't torture that dog"?

But you're not talking about burning someone alive, you're talking about burning someone alive forever. Is it ok to burn someone alive, just not forever? How does "forever" change the morality of the situation?

Not really, admit it. I've seen quite a bit of scriptures that do not say that the unrepentant will experience eternal torment, and I've seen the claims that they mean this, but no real Scripture proof.

I've seen other conversations like this, where someone provides scriptures that say a certain thing, and the other person claims "but that's not 'proof'". I guess you probably need to define what you consider would be proof, since you've obviously disregarded the scriptures others have suggested apply. Otherwise you are wasting other people's time.

You have to admit that. And you've seen plenty of proof directly from scripture that the wicked will perish and will be no more, and only those in Christ will receive eternal life. Are YOU really willing to look at the evidence? You seem more willing than others to consider what the Bible really says.

The Bible says they perish, this doesn't mean they don't perish. The Bible says they are destroyed, this doesn't mean they aren't destroyed. And all of these scriptures agree with the scriptures that talk about eternal destruction. I don't believe that the lost are "temporarily destroyed" or that they "perish for only a little while". These things are permanent, so they are eternal.

I think what you are saying is that "perish" = "destruction" = "annihilation"= "completely gone, with no spirit, soul, or body left in earth, heaven, hell or any other place. Am I correct? Then let's talk about "perish", for starters. Here are some verses that use the word "perish" (abbreviated "P", below). I'll comment on the meaning of P, and you can respond.
[Deu 26:5 KJV] 5 And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish [was] my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous: P seems to indicate that Jacob was old and about to die. Or do you think he was about to be annihilated?
[Deu 28:22 KJV] 22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. In this case, P is an immediate successor to the Lord's smiting with a bunch of things, which seem to cause the P-ing. If P means annihilation, then that means that annihilation occurs because of the physical things that were listed, i.e., either P doesn't mean annihilation, or it doesn't leave any interval between physical death and annihilation. Iow, there's no room for the judgment promised by Heb 9:27.
[1Sa 27:1 KJV] 1 And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul... David is apparently in fear that Saul will annihilate him and keep him from heaven.
[Est 3:13 KJV] 13 And the letters were sent by posts into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day,... The king commanded that all of the Jews were to be annihilated, body, soul, and spirit
[Est 4:16 KJV] 16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which [is] not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish. c'est la vie--if the king annihilates me, then he annihilates me
[Est 8:11 KJV] 11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which [were] in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, [both] little ones and women, and [to take] the spoil of them for a prey, And now the Jews get to return the favor, eliminating body, soul, and spirit.
[Job 34:15 KJV] 15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. Whoops, I hope you don't die and turn to dust before Jesus comes back, or there goes your chance for salvation, too bad.
[Psa 9:18 KJV] 18 For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall [not] perish for ever. The added "not" was done so to make the translation make sense, and I'm not sure this one helps without it, but it seems to be saying that there IS an aspect of P-ing that is not forever.

My point is that you have latched onto a definition of "perish" that doesn't fit with how a number of verses use it: which is as a synonym of "die". If it is a synonym of "die", then you have to account for the idea that nobody seems to die "forever", at least not the first time, but are resurrected to either life eternal or the other alternative, which is called the "second death" in Rev 21:8. If "perish" is the same as "die" then "second death" could be called the "second perishing", right? But that makes no sense if "perish" (including the first "death") always means to be completely annihilated, body, soul, and spirit.

You seem to be grasping at straws in a vain attempt to misunderstand what I am talking about.

maybe you're not coming across as clear as you think you are.

That's how it seems to me. Are you really sure you aren't an ECTist?

Does it help to label me as such? It seems that as soon as you label someone as "ECTist" then you completely disregard what they say. I'm willing to engage in the conversation, because it's an interesting conversation--because I'm open to questioning my presuppositions. Are you? If not, then your thread title is a farce.

Good

You have to admit that is a big IF. But if the Bible really does support the destruction of the lost, then the other side is NOT willing to accept it because of their traditions. which way is better?

I think the bible DOES support the destruction of the lost. And I don't know any ECTist that don't believe that. But the two parties appear to have a different idea of what "destruction" means. Maybe that should be our focus: to determine what "destruction" and "perish" mean.

More later, out of time

ok

 

[ok doser]

But you're not talking about burning someone alive, you're talking about burning someone alive forever. Is it ok to burn someone alive, just not forever?

apparently :idunno:

 

[Timotheos]

you don't think an infant being burned to death with molten sulfur is being tortured?




ok

you're a retard

haha funny

No. I do not think that if an infant falls into molten sulfur, it is tortured in it. I think that infant would perish. Are you saying that you think that I believe that God will punish infants in the last judgment by putting them into molten sulfur? The Bible does not say that. I only believe what the Bible says about this.

 

[Timotheos]

But beside that, can you tell me why somebody suffering forever is morally unacceptable? If you say it is acceptable to reject on "purely moral grounds" (meaning that biblicity is not a factor), where would you get these extra-biblical morals to reject it? Sounds like your morals are trumping your bible at this point.

Not at all. My morals are not trumping what the Bible says. My morals and what the Bible says agree. I do not reject eternal suffering on "purely moral grounds", I also reject eternal suffering on Biblical grounds. In fact, I mainly reject eternal suffering on Biblical grounds, since the Bible specifically states that the wicked will be no more. They can't possibly be tortured alive forever (or tormented alive forever by being set on fire and not allowed to die), since they will be no more.

I have the same problem you do--that I have to somehow make the two concepts play together--that there are some verses that say the wicked will be destroyed and some that say their worm will not die nor their fire quenched. Is it possible for both to happen? Seems to me that both have to happen for the bible to be true.

The verse you are quoting does not say that the wicked will never die. Read it for yourself. (You are really reading from the ECTist handbook, are you really sure that you are not an ECTist?)
Isaiah 66:24 ESV says "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh". This doesn't say that living dead people are being tortured (or tormented) alive by endless fire and immortal fireproof worms. It says that wicked who are dead are being eaten by worms and burnt by fire. Only an ECTist could look at that verse and come to the conclusion that the dead person is actually alive and conscious and will remain alive and conscious forever being eaten alive and burned alive. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what the verse actually says. Do you understand this?

But I have no problem whatsoever reconciling this passage with my view that the wicked will perish. It is what the verse says.

So to get beyond our presuppositions, you need to question your definition of destruction/perish, and I need to question my definition of "will not die" or "worm". Is it possible for someone to perish but their "worm" still doesn't "die"?

Yes, it is certainly possible for someone to die and their corpse be eaten by worms. It is absolutely possible for a worm to live while the corpse it is eating is dead. The passage doesn't say that the person IS the worm.

Does it make sense that the dead are "resurrected" just so they can be "annihilated"?

Yes, It makes perfect sense. Why do you think it doesn't make sense? It makes perfect sense for the wicked dead to be resurrected so that they are able to stand before God for judgment. And since the wages of sin is death, it makes perfect sense for God to carry out the judgment by destroying them. It makes perfect sense, and it is also exactly what the Bible says WILL happen.
But since you are basing your belief on what makes sense to you rather than on what the Bible actually says, Does it make sense that the dead will be tormented in hell when they die, and then resurrected and judged, and then sent BACK to hell for more torment? Under this scheme, the dead are first tormented alive BEFORE they are even judged by God. Then they are sent back to hell for more torment. That doesn't make any sense, and it is contrary to what the Bible says.