Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
way 2 go
Well-known member
God is not torturing anyone , He is the judge
Joh_3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Mat_25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Lon
Well-known member
Genesis 3:1 "...did God really say...?" :think:
:doh: And you take comfort in that? That you are stubborn enough to question God??? :doh:
Ezekiel 18:23 Ezekiel 33:11 yet Matthew 25:46
Mark 9:47 You hate the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mark 12:27
You seek to usurp God and have us worship you and your righteousness over and above His.
You are better than God by your own beliefs. Sad stuff, always, Caino. You are your own grandpa and your own god.
Zeke
Well-known member
First resurrection is when you are born from above, until that happens you are dead spiritually, the second concerns the twinkling of an eye when you leave this body of corruption.
Lon
Well-known member
You don't even believe there is a "Jesus" :noway:
Rosenritter
New member
You're mistaken about the thief on the cross: the thief didn't ask to be in Paradise immediately, and Jesus didn't promise he would be there immediately either. You're likely confusing the grammar of the English translation (mixing up will and shall) but even then, notice that Jesus says that the thief would be with him.
Luke 23:43 KJV
(43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The today modifies the shall, assigning the sealing of the promise that very day. Even King Saul and Solomon spoke in this way, if you have been so used to hearing bad grammar that it sounds strange. See 1 Samuel 18:21, 1 Kings 2:37 & 42. Or if Kings of Israel aren't enough, God speaks this way to Adam in the garden, "The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (it tells us when Adam died, and it wasn't that day.)
Besides, Jesus wasn't in Paradise on that day, or the next, or the one after that either. Scripture confirms that Christ was in hell, not paradise.
Did Jesus tell the thief that he would be in Paradise? Yes - but the fulfillment is at the same time as everyone else. That's affirmed by further scripture, when Paul speaks of the saints, he assures us that although they have not yet received the promise, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40 KJV
(39) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
(40) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Besides Jesus himself assuring us that no man has ascended to heaven, we have a by-the-way confirmation that the saints of old were not in heaven on the day of Pentecost. That is, he specifically says that David, the psalmist, whom God calls a man after his own heart, is not in heaven.
Acts 2:34-35 KJV
(34) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
(35) Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
As such, I would say that "when people die they go to heaven" does contradict some scripture. It also destroys the gospel of the resurrection of the dead (why would it even be needed or desired?) as well as the problems that we've been laying out here as we go along: Christ contradicting scripture, destroying his own arguments as he gives them, Paul apparently not aware of this go-to-heaven doctrine as he instructs the churches, etc.
A question for you Lon: would you take a glance at this passage and make sure you're not reading it too quickly? I'll ask a couple questions after:
1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV
(18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
(19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1. By grammar and meaning, by which did Christ preach to the spirits in prison? a) by being put to death or b) by being quickened by the Spirit?
2. What does it actually say was imprisoned? a) men or b) spirits?
3. Does Peter make any other reference to rebellious or imprisoned spirits in relation to the time of the great flood?
There's enough loose ends in that arrangement to make a tangle of things pretty fast. If Jesus had to make a field trip to hell to give the saints an orientation, David must have slept through class or failed the exam. And there's still the problem Tyndale posed for us, that your interpretation requires that Jesus forgot entirely (within a sentence or two) that his point was to prove the resurrection. Other problems, such the word "perish" must now be interpreted as "preserve" and "death" means "truly alive in spirit" and the entire Bible now has to be read with a peculiar Orwellian Newspeak to preserve that foreign doctrine (which, as Tyndale says, "what not in the world at that time.")
The bigger problem is the elephant in the room that Caino continues to point out which few people really want to discuss. All those tricks and twists in order to prop up the old "Thou shalt not surely die" (from Genesis) also constructs a God that is either helpless to prevent untold agony or that truly enjoys the prospect of inflicting untold torment upon trillions of trillions, for no constructive or hopeful purpose, ever.
Paul comes straight out and tells us that we are not spirit, but remain flesh and blood until the resurrection, until we are changed. Given that he also tells us that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how does this put anyone in heaven now, without resurrection, without first being changed???
1 Corinthians 15:50-53 KJV
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
(51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
Luke 23:43 KJV
(43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The today modifies the shall, assigning the sealing of the promise that very day. Even King Saul and Solomon spoke in this way, if you have been so used to hearing bad grammar that it sounds strange. See 1 Samuel 18:21, 1 Kings 2:37 & 42. Or if Kings of Israel aren't enough, God speaks this way to Adam in the garden, "The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (it tells us when Adam died, and it wasn't that day.)
Besides, Jesus wasn't in Paradise on that day, or the next, or the one after that either. Scripture confirms that Christ was in hell, not paradise.
Did Jesus tell the thief that he would be in Paradise? Yes - but the fulfillment is at the same time as everyone else. That's affirmed by further scripture, when Paul speaks of the saints, he assures us that although they have not yet received the promise, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40 KJV
(39) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
(40) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Besides Jesus himself assuring us that no man has ascended to heaven, we have a by-the-way confirmation that the saints of old were not in heaven on the day of Pentecost. That is, he specifically says that David, the psalmist, whom God calls a man after his own heart, is not in heaven.
Acts 2:34-35 KJV
(34) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
(35) Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
As such, I would say that "when people die they go to heaven" does contradict some scripture. It also destroys the gospel of the resurrection of the dead (why would it even be needed or desired?) as well as the problems that we've been laying out here as we go along: Christ contradicting scripture, destroying his own arguments as he gives them, Paul apparently not aware of this go-to-heaven doctrine as he instructs the churches, etc.
A question for you Lon: would you take a glance at this passage and make sure you're not reading it too quickly? I'll ask a couple questions after:
1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV
(18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
(19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1. By grammar and meaning, by which did Christ preach to the spirits in prison? a) by being put to death or b) by being quickened by the Spirit?
2. What does it actually say was imprisoned? a) men or b) spirits?
3. Does Peter make any other reference to rebellious or imprisoned spirits in relation to the time of the great flood?
Spoiler
There's enough loose ends in that arrangement to make a tangle of things pretty fast. If Jesus had to make a field trip to hell to give the saints an orientation, David must have slept through class or failed the exam. And there's still the problem Tyndale posed for us, that your interpretation requires that Jesus forgot entirely (within a sentence or two) that his point was to prove the resurrection. Other problems, such the word "perish" must now be interpreted as "preserve" and "death" means "truly alive in spirit" and the entire Bible now has to be read with a peculiar Orwellian Newspeak to preserve that foreign doctrine (which, as Tyndale says, "what not in the world at that time.")
The bigger problem is the elephant in the room that Caino continues to point out which few people really want to discuss. All those tricks and twists in order to prop up the old "Thou shalt not surely die" (from Genesis) also constructs a God that is either helpless to prevent untold agony or that truly enjoys the prospect of inflicting untold torment upon trillions of trillions, for no constructive or hopeful purpose, ever.
Paul comes straight out and tells us that we are not spirit, but remain flesh and blood until the resurrection, until we are changed. Given that he also tells us that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how does this put anyone in heaven now, without resurrection, without first being changed???
1 Corinthians 15:50-53 KJV
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
(51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
Rosenritter
New member
Just pointing out that the scriptures you gave Caino have no evidence of God "torturing people in hell for eternity?" Ezekiel tells us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (but I guess it doesn't say anything about torturing the wicked after they are dead?) Matthew 25:46 speaks of the everlasting punishment of death, and unless this is one of the code words that we are supposed to swap, "Death" does not mean "Torment."
Now, is Caino questioning God? If he is, so did Abraham and Moses ... and God did hear them out. But I think it is more accurate that he is questioning you. If you claim to represent the Bible, and then you say that God is torturing more people than any dictator, but for an infinity.... you should be ready to give an answer when asked.
If you tell Caino that God is a mass torturer and he is not, and he believes you, and that belief in you causes him to stumble, then that would put you in a dangerous position.
Now, is Caino questioning God? If he is, so did Abraham and Moses ... and God did hear them out. But I think it is more accurate that he is questioning you. If you claim to represent the Bible, and then you say that God is torturing more people than any dictator, but for an infinity.... you should be ready to give an answer when asked.
If you tell Caino that God is a mass torturer and he is not, and he believes you, and that belief in you causes him to stumble, then that would put you in a dangerous position.
Genesis 3:1 "...did God really say...?" :think:
:doh: And you take comfort in that? That you are stubborn enough to question God??? :doh:
Ezekiel 18:23 Ezekiel 33:11 yet Matthew 25:46
Mark 9:47 You hate the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mark 12:27
You seek to usurp God and have us worship you and your righteousness over and above His.
You are better than God by your own beliefs. Sad stuff, always, Caino. You are your own grandpa and your own god.
Rosenritter
New member
for those who reject God death is the eternal consequence.
Mark 12:27
You seek to usurp God and have us worship you and your righteousness over and above His.
You are better than God by your own beliefs. Sad stuff, always, Caino. You are your own grandpa and your own god.
What Caino said there actually is backed up by scripture. In fact, he practically quoted scripture.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now, I think it is obvious that it means "eternal death" and not "temporary death" here... so how is his taking the passage in Romans at face value usurping God? Have I missed something?
Rosenritter
New member
Glorydaz, can you answer William Tyndale for us then? If Abraham was alive and aware, at that time when Jesus spoke, then how did he prove the resurrection? As much as I've asked that question to quite a few people, I have never yet seen anyone answer. They all dodge, and evade, and pretend it wasn't asked.
Rosenritter
New member
You've made an assumption that men can live (and think, and be aware) without benefit of a living body. We already have a handful of passages (some of which I provided Lon already) that tell us that they do not.
By the way, even greater than that, where did you get the impression that the soul of man does not die? Is it not written, the soul that sinneth, it shall die?
Ezekiel 13:19 KJV
(19) And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
Ezekiel 18:4 KJV
(4) Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze 18:20 KJV
(20) The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Revelation 16:3 KJV
(3) And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
"Soul" is a synonym for the whole man, the living, thinking, breathing man that is aware that he is. Yes, souls die. Where does it say that souls do not die? and the corresponding question is why should anyone think that one would continue to live as a spirit if they were slain? We aren't called spirits. Spirits are called spirits. Psalm 104:4 "Who maketh his angels spirits; his minsters a flaming fire:"
By the way, even greater than that, where did you get the impression that the soul of man does not die? Is it not written, the soul that sinneth, it shall die?
Ezekiel 13:19 KJV
(19) And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
Ezekiel 18:4 KJV
(4) Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze 18:20 KJV
(20) The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Revelation 16:3 KJV
(3) And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
"Soul" is a synonym for the whole man, the living, thinking, breathing man that is aware that he is. Yes, souls die. Where does it say that souls do not die? and the corresponding question is why should anyone think that one would continue to live as a spirit if they were slain? We aren't called spirits. Spirits are called spirits. Psalm 104:4 "Who maketh his angels spirits; his minsters a flaming fire:"
Lon
Well-known member
Luke 16:24 What do you think about that verse AND anybody like myself that assumes the Lord Jesus Christ is telling a story that has a man, in an actual place, tormented????
:think:
Luke 16:24 Go ahead. Ask. The Lord Jesus Christ didn't balk. Neither will I.
In the end, know this: I DON'T CARE what man thinks or that he wants to accuse God. Sure, men of God wrestled with God in the past. That isn't between you and I, that is between you and God very God. UNTIL you get an answer from Him, I'd suggest you are remiss to participate in this thread. Me? Job 13:15 I'd rather 'my' mind be obliterated by things too much for me, than to make it ever that God should bow to me and my whims, against His nature. Whatever His nature, 1) I assume He is the definition of Good, not me 2) That ANY adjustment is on my side.
:doh: If you want to go Urantian and forget the Bible, do so. Caino has no intention of supporting anything in the Bible UNLESS it is found in U-rant-a-lot. That is his book of authority. I'd help if you knew who was saying what and when and using what source, and etc. I am not embarrassed about Luke 16:24. He is. Are you?
Rosenritter
New member
If Way 2 Go ever raises a valid point, will someone bring it to my attention? I blocked him a long time ago, but if he ever manages an observation or conclusion of consequence I'm willing to answer it.
Rosenritter
New member
Anyone in Christ's audience would have recognized the "Abraham's Bosom" and the Greek Hades as being completely fictional settings (just as if I started a story that began with Santa's Toyshop at the North Pole.) Granted that you are a couple thousand years (and a few hundred theologians) removed from that background, but you've also been offered solid scriptural references to not only prove what Christ and his audience would have as assumed givens, but also showing the details in the symbols Christ chose ... straight from the books of Moses, even.
So grouping yourself with any random person isn't really a fair comparison. A random person usually trusts their pastors and tradition to tell them straight and doesn't have the benefit of additional information. On the other hand, you have the benefit of education and specific scripture. And someone willing to talk about it that accepts the scripture in total. It's the part where you didn't question or acknowledge the "precept upon precept" part that has me not sure what to think.
Isaiah 28:13 KJV
(13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
What I think is that it is quite possible that you will think whatever you want to think, likely based upon the traditions you have chosen. If contradictions are created, you won't think about them, and if the resulting theology makes God a monster, you'll try not to think about that too much also. You may lash out at someone that notices the discrepancy between "God is love" and "God has more hatred then any being in existence" ... which is a defense mechanism because you don't have another way of dealing with it.
But you're not willing to make adjustments on your side. You're showing that now. You have preconceived ideas and aren't willing to consider that you may be mistaken. When your notions make Jesus plainly contradict Jesus, make him upset his own arguments as they are being made, that should be a flag that maybe there should be an adjustment on your side.
But Caino hasn't said anything about Urantia on this topic. He quoted something that sounded like the epistle to the Romans practically word for word, and it sounded like you trashed him in response to that. If Caino wants to abide by Romans, I'm all for that. You should be too.
Lon, I don't dislike you, but I want to expect better of you on this. You aren't answering the questions or acknowledging points, you're skipping past hoping they'll be forgotten. Even one contradiction should raise a red flag...
So grouping yourself with any random person isn't really a fair comparison. A random person usually trusts their pastors and tradition to tell them straight and doesn't have the benefit of additional information. On the other hand, you have the benefit of education and specific scripture. And someone willing to talk about it that accepts the scripture in total. It's the part where you didn't question or acknowledge the "precept upon precept" part that has me not sure what to think.
Isaiah 28:13 KJV
(13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
What I think is that it is quite possible that you will think whatever you want to think, likely based upon the traditions you have chosen. If contradictions are created, you won't think about them, and if the resulting theology makes God a monster, you'll try not to think about that too much also. You may lash out at someone that notices the discrepancy between "God is love" and "God has more hatred then any being in existence" ... which is a defense mechanism because you don't have another way of dealing with it.
But you're not willing to make adjustments on your side. You're showing that now. You have preconceived ideas and aren't willing to consider that you may be mistaken. When your notions make Jesus plainly contradict Jesus, make him upset his own arguments as they are being made, that should be a flag that maybe there should be an adjustment on your side.
But Caino hasn't said anything about Urantia on this topic. He quoted something that sounded like the epistle to the Romans practically word for word, and it sounded like you trashed him in response to that. If Caino wants to abide by Romans, I'm all for that. You should be too.
Lon, I don't dislike you, but I want to expect better of you on this. You aren't answering the questions or acknowledging points, you're skipping past hoping they'll be forgotten. Even one contradiction should raise a red flag...
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: He quotes Urantia against Him Crucified and does not apologize for anything He says.Originally Posted by Caino
for those who reject God death is the eternal consequence.
What Caino said there actually is backed up by scripture. In fact, he practically quoted scripture.
Assumptions. You are assuming one kind of death, I the other. Matthew 25:46 "Death" does not mean, by ANY necessity, cessation of the soul.
Because Caino doesn't believe scriptures UNLESS they support his Urantia book. That is the same way with every cult. Again, learn who the players are. A VAST majority of those who agree with you in this thread are cultists that do not at all support Biblical inerrancy. IOW, you cannot go 'protecting' or 'supporting' heretics without being seen as sympathetic to cults and heresy (damnable ones).
Imho, 1) you are not much of a heretic nor desire to be 2) you don't need to be giving heretics a glimmer of hope that in any way, ruins the words of God that they already decided on their own, is NOT His words. IOW, don't give them a reason to go their merry way to judgment. You are actually harming them, not helping a whit.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Rather Jesus was "proving" the dead have not ceased being...just because their body is dead. The fact that He is their God shows they have being. In fact, Luke says, they live unto Him.
Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
In Luke chapter 16, Jesus gives us a beautiful look into the place of the dead. Hades, Paradise, Abraham's Bosom, Sheol....those all speak of the place of waiting.
Lon
Well-known member
No Conservative Evangelical Fundamental believer will side with you on this. It may surprise you, and I hope it does, that you are in an extreme minority regarding this passage as far as Christians. As far as the world? Yeah, you are among good company. The question: Who are you willing to compromise? God or men. It must lean toward biblical revelation or toward men's sensibilities. NonChristians are very happy with the idea of annihilation. Atheists are resigned to it. Your 'sensitive' gesture, one way or the other, never makes more converts to Christianity, just 'more comfortable' rejecters. Think about that long and hard (please).
And I showed you, point-blank, the Sadducees were wrong. The Pharisees got it right on this one.
Others might be better educated (doubtful) but I'm reasonably intelligent and fairly confident. Appeals to authority or to someone supposedly 'smarter' aren't going to work.
Snippets, most often out of context, never ever bother me. Everyone who has EVER tried to talk me out of a belief, tends to never have the credential integrity for it. An internet search doesn't help much. I've been over study on this doctrine many times. I am sympathetic toward annihilationists BUT I am unconvinced of anywise a superior intellect, study integrity, or strong history of appeal. So 1) You can believe as you desire and have some little scriptural confidence, but to me, it doesn't look right. BECAUSE I am unmovingly convinced Luke 16:19-31 Luke 17:1-4 as a warning, only convinces me further that it is not just a story. You can 'assert' opposed, but that's all you've got. I believe you are wrong and can defend a reasoned response to why it is more likely true, not just a story, than not.
Yep.
You can read through the thread. I've given a number of scriptures in it. It is awfully long now, with a lot of banter. It is all buried now. Often times, these forums are rather clearing houses of information, than reasoned and well thought and argued demonstrations.
Correct. I have a 'sense' of moral right and wrong. It came from somewhere. Logically, regardless of 'what happens next,' and seriously, none of my or your business, God is must be the source of that moral goodness and MUST necessarily possess it in perfection. "I" am the finite creature. As smart or wise as I think I am (and I do
), I am not God. My standards are not 'THE' standards. His are. Lest you protest, don't. We all assert our own sense of morality. It is part of our self-will and make-up. Mine HAS to be remolded. 1 John 3:2 :nono: I rather believe God is good and that I don't 'have' to be the one to defend Him. He has rocks for that, among other things. Rather, I'm only concerned (only) with being biblical, not 'emotional' or subjective.
Goes both ways. ▲ Read ▲ Deference to a pagan does not make less pagans. There is no real sense you are helping them at all and may very well be hurting them. I did not come to Christ fearing eternal torment. I came because love drew me. Those without Christ are, imho, already living in this hell. If it weren't for saints and the presence of God, it'd be unbearable. In the end, hell will be all of us removed. It is already happening in society. Those flames, whatever they may be, may very well be flames of their own making and desire.
God does NOT have to annihilate one who was created otherwise. You are making a condition upon God before you'd accept Him. I have no such condition. Job 13:15
Not at all, I am sympathetic, and would be an annihilation proponent if I believed I could with any biblical integrity.
All of this he said/she said, goes both ways. You are actually more entrenched than I. I would believe what you believe in a moment if I felt it was biblically supported. I do not.
:nono: I'm not for pick'n'choose theology. I'm for truth.
As much as I care for people, I cannot and will not seek your approval foremost. I will rather seek God foremost. Allowing a nonChristian (by his own rejection of us), to dictate what the bible says to you, is a grave mistake. They may occasionally side with us, but we have nothing in common. 2 Corinthians 6:15
I think I'm actually better at this than you, simply because you don't line-item your responses like I do. :think:
Glad to hear it. Luke 16:19-31, imho, contradicts you. Let's talk about the Bible instead of our mercurial sensibilities.
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
life or death....really comes down to these in their ultimate sense.......
life or death....really comes down to these in their ultimate sense.......
The very concept of ECT is horrendous, yet some actually believe in such a 'god', which must reflect on some aspect of their own conscience, disturbed or twisted to believe such as 'just', while this also challenges other aspects of ethic and principles. My expounding of the inconsistencies of ECT (mostly on principle and other problems) were shared earlier in this thread here (blog portal on many posts addressing the subject), - my view remain basically the same.
Also important as we've covered are the ultimate conditions of 'life' and 'death', when considered, speak of a 'conscious existence' or one that is dis-integration of conscious existence, so that we see that 'death' defined in some passages speaks of a state of non-existence (extinction). In this view, we have the 'soul-death' concept, that a soul actually 'dies', as a full consequence of the total embrace of iniquity (the final harvest of willful and persistent sin, open rebellion), and that truly the wages of sin is 'death'. - this 'death' is not a prolonged or ceaseless state of eternal suffering, anguish or torment in a lake of fire, or anywhere. It is extinction of individual existence, the disintegration of the soul itself. The soul disintegrates and the energies and essences of the soul are absorbed back into the OverSoul of Creation, all elements return to their Source. That personality, that soul-unit is NO MORE. It DIES. So, a main 'crux' in this debate is what 'death' is, and HOW it is defined.
In any case,...as a spiritualist, I sometimes bounce from a form or universalism, to the 'soul-death' (annihilation) concept, but certainly CANNOT acccept the traditional concept of ECT in hellfire for all eternity, which is repugnant to all the virtues and values of 'God'.ECT is insanity, and its no wonder a good share in insane asylums have been so tormented by false religious teachings such as ECT in hellfire heaping coals of fire upon guilt ridden souls that they would as soon committ suicide, but still be consigned to the fires of hell, for such an act as well, so its a no-win situation.
In any case,...what passes off as 'religious truth' is a stench in the nostril of divine Love, and an affront to wisdom, let alone real justice which has within it mercy, forebearance, forgiveness and long suffering virtue which grants to all the space and time needed for a soul to choose repentance, before allowing such a soul to choose a final death or fate of non-existence (to say nothing of eternal torture in hellfire)
My former commentary stands,...and this is pretty much the same circle of wagons, not covering too much new ground except in spirals. Its still circular beyond what terms, meanings and values we can actually identify, relate, and conclude in a rational context.
Granted, there are other schools among spiritualists and spiritists that have spirit-communications which fill in the blanks that traditional schools lack or do not seem to resolve, so the Bible is NOT the only religious book or source that has truth or knowledge on these subjects. There is MUCH info. out there and research in these fields, soul-life, the afterlife, NDE's, OBE's, spirit-communications, mediumship, etc. While exploring these dimensions there are some things I dont know, some still speculating on/researching, and some principles that seem just, right, loving and universal in nature concerning soul progress and destiny. Its an awesome subject. Revelation is progression but some laws and principles are both universal and eternal. If a doctrine or dogma violates some basic principle or law, it much be questioned and challenged, since truth will not violate logic, reason or conscience.
life or death....really comes down to these in their ultimate sense.......
The very concept of ECT is horrendous, yet some actually believe in such a 'god', which must reflect on some aspect of their own conscience, disturbed or twisted to believe such as 'just', while this also challenges other aspects of ethic and principles. My expounding of the inconsistencies of ECT (mostly on principle and other problems) were shared earlier in this thread here (blog portal on many posts addressing the subject), - my view remain basically the same.
Also important as we've covered are the ultimate conditions of 'life' and 'death', when considered, speak of a 'conscious existence' or one that is dis-integration of conscious existence, so that we see that 'death' defined in some passages speaks of a state of non-existence (extinction). In this view, we have the 'soul-death' concept, that a soul actually 'dies', as a full consequence of the total embrace of iniquity (the final harvest of willful and persistent sin, open rebellion), and that truly the wages of sin is 'death'. - this 'death' is not a prolonged or ceaseless state of eternal suffering, anguish or torment in a lake of fire, or anywhere. It is extinction of individual existence, the disintegration of the soul itself. The soul disintegrates and the energies and essences of the soul are absorbed back into the OverSoul of Creation, all elements return to their Source. That personality, that soul-unit is NO MORE. It DIES. So, a main 'crux' in this debate is what 'death' is, and HOW it is defined.
In any case,...as a spiritualist, I sometimes bounce from a form or universalism, to the 'soul-death' (annihilation) concept, but certainly CANNOT acccept the traditional concept of ECT in hellfire for all eternity, which is repugnant to all the virtues and values of 'God'.ECT is insanity, and its no wonder a good share in insane asylums have been so tormented by false religious teachings such as ECT in hellfire heaping coals of fire upon guilt ridden souls that they would as soon committ suicide, but still be consigned to the fires of hell, for such an act as well, so its a no-win situation.
In any case,...what passes off as 'religious truth' is a stench in the nostril of divine Love, and an affront to wisdom, let alone real justice which has within it mercy, forebearance, forgiveness and long suffering virtue which grants to all the space and time needed for a soul to choose repentance, before allowing such a soul to choose a final death or fate of non-existence (to say nothing of eternal torture in hellfire)
My former commentary stands,...and this is pretty much the same circle of wagons, not covering too much new ground except in spirals. Its still circular beyond what terms, meanings and values we can actually identify, relate, and conclude in a rational context.
Granted, there are other schools among spiritualists and spiritists that have spirit-communications which fill in the blanks that traditional schools lack or do not seem to resolve, so the Bible is NOT the only religious book or source that has truth or knowledge on these subjects. There is MUCH info. out there and research in these fields, soul-life, the afterlife, NDE's, OBE's, spirit-communications, mediumship, etc. While exploring these dimensions there are some things I dont know, some still speculating on/researching, and some principles that seem just, right, loving and universal in nature concerning soul progress and destiny. Its an awesome subject. Revelation is progression but some laws and principles are both universal and eternal. If a doctrine or dogma violates some basic principle or law, it much be questioned and challenged, since truth will not violate logic, reason or conscience.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yet you don't hear what Jesus said quite clearly that God is not the God of the dead but of the living? How can you not understand what is so clearly stated. :think:
I can understand your confusion. Not only is man a living soul, but he is triune with a spirit, soul, and body. When Paul says forty souls were lost at sea, he is speaking of their physical life. The "breath of life" belongs to the body. It is the body that dies and it's the body that is resurrected.
If souls sleep after death, how is it that they can cry out with a loud voice?
Revelation 6:9-10
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
The soul is the who of us....our thinking our emotions and our reasoning. Our spirit is the means with which we communicate with God. Those in Christ will never die (although our body will....unless the Lord comes first and we are changed). Otherwise, our bodies will be resurrected. As Paul says, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Don't you believe that?
Lon
Well-known member
▲There you go ▲ Rosenritter (just above Glory, she beat me to 'submit'). It is your call from pagans to abandon the scriptures and the harsh God of the Bible.
According to them, as I said, He cannot be trusted or followed. Your 'deference' to them causes them to disdain Him
"comfortably" imho. Between the two of us? They reject us both BUT hope you will join them. That is the only difference,
I believe, you are making. To me, it only leads to confusion. The only ones I'm interested to talk with about these discussions
for the most part, are Christians. The lost are merely looking for 'yet another excuse' to follow their flesh and interests of those bits of flesh.
According to them, as I said, He cannot be trusted or followed. Your 'deference' to them causes them to disdain Him
"comfortably" imho. Between the two of us? They reject us both BUT hope you will join them. That is the only difference,
I believe, you are making. To me, it only leads to confusion. The only ones I'm interested to talk with about these discussions
for the most part, are Christians. The lost are merely looking for 'yet another excuse' to follow their flesh and interests of those bits of flesh.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh dear. You honestly think our Lord Jesus Christ would repeat a story akin to Santa?
No, He specifically was revealing a great and wonderful truth...one that had been under a cloud for thousands of years. He was clarifying the fact that Abraham was not gone...just waiting until he would join our Lord in His kingdom. What a shame you don't see that. Soul sleep is one all cults insist on....because they refuse to accept the great hope of eternal life. :sigh:
What about Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration? Was that just an illusion?