Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Lon]

Got it Lon. Let's review for a moment:

* You've declared that you are so superior that we should accept your word instead of scripture.
* Peter spoke on Pentecost before the resurrection of Jesus.
* I'm a Sadducee for preaching the resurrection.
* Death is life, hell is Paradise, love is infinite cruelty, good is evil.
* Adam died twice and will die a third time.
* Anyone that uses the scripture as their authority is ignorant and should learn instead from theologians.

:think: This serve Him well does it? Nice! :up:
Thanks for being honest and truthful and treating the matters of God so surreptitiously.

:e4e:

 

[Rosenritter]

1. I don't have to assume that God is love. We are told plainly in the epistle of John, "God is love."

2. God tells us eternal torment is not a part of his future universe. It is written, "every knee shall bow" and "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

3. Nothing evil about relating a parable that prophesies the favor of the Jew and Gentile changing places.

4. It's not my decision to decide that Christ's stories were parables. The gospels tell us that ALL of Christ's stories were parables. You're arguing with scripture again, or at least choosing to ignore what it says straight out (again.)

5. "They are solid observations that I believe demand a hearing."

Lon, you haven't given an honest hearing to much of anything so far. But you deserve the same courtesy I said we should extend to Caino. What do you have here that you think needs hearing? Shall we list analysis side by side? Here's the topics we have so far that you haven't deemed to discuss so far:

For starters, we have the statement (twice) in the gospels that Jesus did not speak to the multitude without parable. It says "without a parable he spoke not unto them."

Second, it spoken in the context of other parables, each that start with the similar form of introduction.

Third, the symbols seem absolutely hand-picked for targeting the Pharisees such that it is hard to argue coincidence.

Fourth, the setting is obviously fictional, as it would contradict established scripture otherwise.

Fifth, were it not a parable then it preaches a very strange doctrine, that salvation comes from having received "bad things" during ones lifetime. A salvation by karma, not by repentance unto Christ.

If you can talk reasonably then yes, I'm willing to give your points a fair hearing. Don't expect me to chase about the internet for them. Say what you will say here, and I'll hear you out. But having "ten reasons" that you protect by not putting them out for analysis would seem somewhat suspect.

Incorrect. You 'assume' from your view of God and His love, that eternal torment cannot be a part of His universe. I, on the other-hand, think you are incorrect in your foundational premises. It has nothing to do with God being evil. Not a whit. Not an iota.

"How then can hell exist?"

1) I don't know, BUT I will not explain it away either. 2) The Lord Jesus Christ was ALL GOOD, even when He related Luke 16:19-31

He didn't balk. He didn't bat an eye and made NO QUALMS that the rich man was in torment, the exact kind of torment spoken of regarding hades in other places. You don't 'get' to relegate it to 1) a parable, it is not a parable, unlike most other stories 2) fiction.

All of the Lord Jesus Christ's parables were true: They had direct applications to our lives and were given for that purpose. You can Google this, but Luke 16:19-31 is very unlike a parable in at least 10 ways, that make many scholars doubt it is a parable at all, and I agree with them based on those objections. They are solid observations that I believe demand a hearing. The least of which is that the Lord Jesus Christ related that story with the rich man in constant anguish, in a fire. There is not softening that blow, imho. Again, I'm convinced it is not a parable. It does not make God a tyrant. We have no idea and casting blame as a first reactionary act, is what the Accuser does. I do not follow him any longer. My first action is no longer a knee-jerk reaction. God is good "WHETHER" I know it or not by my feeble traipses into morality. Therefore, my dissonance is rather over "what it looks like" rather than actuals. I don't care what 'seems' to be the case. Innocent until proven guilty, for you and I. God has no need for the court room. He is innocent. Period. Period.

 

[CherubRam]

CherubRam, does it say Adam and Eve will die in the day they eat of the tree, or that they should surely die? My King James, which does make use of the precise grammar between will and shall, chose "shall" for that passage.

Genesis 2:17 KJV
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Day X, God speaks to Adam and Eve and gives the warning.

Day Y, Eve thinks about the Tree. Does she take of it? No. Is she sentenced to death, shall she "surely die?" No. Will she die in the future? No reason why she should.

Day Z, Eve takes of the tree and eats of it. Is she sentenced to death? Yes. Shall she surely die? Yes. Is she dead? No. Will she now die? Yes, it's a surety because God has set the decree that very day.

I think a few people's philosophy about multiple deaths are misshaped through confusing the grammar. Were people willing to learn (though an impossibility for those who are wise in their own eyes) we could look to examples of how the grammar works from the bible itself.

1 Samuel 18:21 KJV
(21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.

How much time passed before David became Saul's son in law? Saul gave him a task to go on a military raid and to come back with 100 trophies as part of the bargain. What took place that day, the shalt (the decree) or the being (the effect?)

The word "DAY" is often used to mean an epoch of time.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

"Supposedly." See ya around Ritter. You are not ready for me today, and perhaps never. When you grow up, mature in Him a little more, Let me know. I'm done and will not be dragging my Lord and Savior through the gutter for your guilty pleasure. :wave:

You are dead wrong Lon.


LA

 

[Rosenritter]

I might be less sarcastic if you were at least honest in your accusations. Sadducee? Really? Or perhaps more forgiving of ignorance like "Pentecost happened before the resurrection" had you displayed less arrogance.

By the way, you do realize that Peter was speaking after the resurrection, and that sort of blows a big hole in your "saints are in heaven" theory, don't you?

:think: This serve Him well does it? Nice! :up:
Thanks for being honest and truthful and treating the matters of God so surreptitiously.

:e4e:

 

[Lon]

I might be less sarcastic if you were at least honest in your accusations. Sadducee? Really? Or perhaps more forgiving of ignorance like "Pentecost happened before the resurrection" had you displayed less arrogance.

By the way, you do realize that Peter was speaking after the resurrection, and that sort of blows a big hole in your "saints are in heaven" theory, don't you?

You are upset about being called a Sadducee? They just denied life after death, like you. That was it. You seem easily offended where no offense was intended. I called you one so you'd read Jesus' word 'as if' to you. :doh:

And Peter's sermon? YOUR inept conclusion. You are so inept, you make an accusation THEN ask later, if at all. YOUR retention problem. Not mine. I'm smarter than you. Always will be at this rate. Not happy about it, it just is what it is. I'd love for people to be smarter and better educated than I. You'd know more about what you are talking about instead of this mess.

1. I don't have to assume

Spoiler

that God is love. We are told plainly in the epistle of John, "God is love."

2. God tells us eternal torment is not a part of his future universe. It is written, "every knee shall bow" and "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

3. Nothing evil about relating a parable that prophesies the favor of the Jew and Gentile changing places.

4. It's not my decision to decide that Christ's stories were parables. The gospels tell us that ALL of Christ's stories were parables. You're arguing with scripture again, or at least choosing to ignore what it says straight out (again.)

5. "They are solid observations that I believe demand a hearing."

Lon, you haven't given an honest hearing to much of anything so far. But you deserve the same courtesy I said we should extend to Caino. What do you have here that you think needs hearing? Shall we list analysis side by side? Here's the topics we have so far that you haven't deemed to discuss so far:

For starters, we have the statement (twice) in the gospels that Jesus did not speak to the multitude without parable. It says "without a parable he spoke not unto them."

Second, it spoken in the context of other parables, each that start with the similar form of introduction.

Third, the symbols seem absolutely hand-picked for targeting the Pharisees such that it is hard to argue coincidence.

Fourth, it contains a prophecy which was fulfilled.

Fifth, the setting is obviously fictional, as it would contradict established scripture otherwise.

Sixth, were it not a parable then it preaches a very strange doctrine, that salvation comes from having received "bad things" during ones lifetime. A salvation by karma, not by repentance unto Christ.

If you can talk reasonably then yes, I'm willing to give your points a fair hearing. Don't expect me to chase about the internet for them. Say what you will say here, and I'll hear you out. But having "ten reasons" that you protect by not putting them out for analysis would seem somewhat suspect.

Equal disdain, I'm sure. I truly believe you a young ignorant pup, no matter your pronounced prowess. Me? Master's Degree and intelligent. I know my stuff.

Again, equally we disdain and I don't find you the collegiate master you'd purport yourself to be. Worse? YOU resort to ad hominem faster than I ever will. It shows spiritual immaturity. There you have it: I find you lacking academically and spiritually and scripturally and resorting to ad homs when you are outclassed. Grow up little man. Be a better person, servant of Him, and astute scholar. You've impressed me with nothing. See you around. :wave:

 

[Rosenritter]

That is true. Day can be used to denote an epoch of time, such as the "Day of the Lord" but isn't this usually reflected in the context?

1 Kings 2:36-37 KJV
(36) And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither.
(37) For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

For example, if I read Solomon's statement here, it seems to me that "day" means the standard day that means the here and now. I suppose it wouldn't exclude "in that epoch that thou goest out" but it would seem like an unusual way of speaking.

The word "DAY" is often used to mean an epoch of time.

 

[Rosenritter]

You were answered with scripture for authority (not Uranta nor emotional argument) invited to discuss the reasons that you said "demand a hearing" and you respond with more smack talk?

Is this what they taught you with the degree that you said you paid for?

Equal disdain, I'm sure. I truly believe you a young ignorant pup, no matter your pronounced prowess. Me? Master's Degree and intelligent. I know my stuff. Again, equally we disdain and I don't find you the collegiate master you'd purport yourself to be. Worse? YOU resort to ad hominem faster than I ever will. It shows spiritual immaturity. There you have it: I find you lacking academically and spiritually and scripturally and resorting to ad homs when you are outclassed. Grow up little man. Be a better person, servant of Him, and astute scholar. You've impressed me with nothing. See you around. :wave:

Acts 4:13 KJV
(13) Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

P.S. Perhaps you might want to look up the meaning of "ad hominem" if you're going to be tossing that term about. You haven't been the targets of personal attacks or name calling. If you need examples, you might look in that quoted text above.

 

[glorydaz]

You are upset about being called a Sadducee? They just denied life after death, like you. That was it. You seem easily offended where no offense was intended. I called you one so you'd read Jesus' word 'as if' to you. :doh:

And Peter's sermon? YOUR inept conclusion. You are so inept, you make an accusation THEN ask later, if at all. YOUR retention problem. Not mine. I'm smarter than you. Always will be at this rate. Not happy about it, it just is what it is. I'd love for people to be smarter and better educated than I. You'd know more about what you are talking about instead of this mess.

Equal disdain, I'm sure. I truly believe you a young ignorant pup, no matter your pronounced prowess. Me? Master's Degree and intelligent. I know my stuff.

Again, equally we disdain and I don't find you the collegiate master you'd purport yourself to be. Worse? YOU resort to ad hominem faster than I ever will. It shows spiritual immaturity. There you have it: I find you lacking academically and spiritually and scripturally and resorting to ad homs when you are outclassed. Grow up little man. Be a better person, servant of Him, and astute scholar. You've impressed me with nothing. See you around. :wave:

:doh:

 

[Lon]

Perhaps you might want to look up the meaning of "ad hominem" if you're going to be tossing that term about. You haven't been the targets of personal attacks or name calling. If you need examples, you might look in that quoted text above.

:doh: You first.

You shouldn't have to 'herald' that you've 'been with Jesus' or that you are 'ignorant' that one would marvel, either. :doh:

:doh:

Okay, I'm going.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] , @Lon

I will simply state my raw perspective.

I believe in the immediate presence of the saved in Christ, with Christ, upon "death" ... in this life.

I believe that there are two resurrections to come.
1) The Resurrection of the TRUE ELECT ... Israel of biology
2) The Unsaved

I believe this all plays out in "The Day of the Lord".

I believe that those "in Christ"... "bypass" judgment... as they are "rooted in mercy".

I believe that Israel of biology will be used in a mighty way... on the day of the Lord.

I know that literal battle will take place, but I don't know exactly how it will all go.

The final state of those that "die the second death"... is somewhat of a biblical mystery.

I accept whatever Jesus knows to be right as the correct decision.

ECT or Soul Annihilation are God's call and God's call... alone. The Jewish understanding of destruction is much different than the "Christian... traditional..." understanding of destruction.

There are supporting verses for both sides... but the verses that suggest Total Annihilation of the wicked soul are actually greater... than the verses that suggest ECT.

I speak this now... because the 3 of you are my friends and you are all True Believers in Jesus... that preach Him correctly.

I will confess that I cannot acknowledge the other parties contributing here that are not binding their arguments to "all scripture".

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] and I were discussing this... as well as [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] .

They are excellent at utilizing scripture and I was much enjoying this debate. I would be very happy if this thread opened up again and all posturing was removed... in search of finding what scripture actually says... towards both sides.

Please know... every individual who's name I dropped here is recognized by myself as a valid voice in this topic... because each of you bind to scripture alone, and place the progressive revelation of scripture... above your own perceptions.

It would be wonderful if we could all cite the various scriptures on this matter and find a closer account of what scripture says... than any form of posturing. [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] and I were void of posture and we were discussing this in a way that went extremely deep... with the acknowledgment that we let scripture mold our view... and not allow our views and posture to mold our view.

All Love in Christ and Respect as well,

- EE

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You are upset about being called a Sadducee? They just denied life after death, like you. That was it. You seem easily offended where no offense was intended. I called you one so you'd read Jesus' word 'as if' to you. :doh:

And Peter's sermon? YOUR inept conclusion. You are so inept, you make an accusation THEN ask later, if at all. YOUR retention problem. Not mine. I'm smarter than you. Always will be at this rate. Not happy about it, it just is what it is. I'd love for people to be smarter and better educated than I. You'd know more about what you are talking about instead of this mess.

Equal disdain, I'm sure. I truly believe you a young ignorant pup, no matter your pronounced prowess. Me? Master's Degree and intelligent. I know my stuff.

Again, equally we disdain and I don't find you the collegiate master you'd purport yourself to be. Worse? YOU resort to ad hominem faster than I ever will. It shows spiritual immaturity. There you have it: I find you lacking academically and spiritually and scripturally and resorting to ad homs when you are outclassed. Grow up little man. Be a better person, servant of Him, and astute scholar. You've impressed me with nothing. See you around. :wave:

So you have been appointed a place on a message board?

Some education result.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

[MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] , @Lon

I will simply state my raw perspective.

I believe in the immediate presence of the saved in Christ, with Christ, upon "death" ... in this life.

I believe that there are two resurrections to come.
1) The Resurrection of the TRUE ELECT ... Israel of biology
2) The Unsaved

I believe this all plays out in "The Day of the Lord".

I believe that those "in Christ"... "bypass" judgment... as they are "rooted in mercy".

I believe that Israel of biology will be used in a mighty way... on the day of the Lord.

I know that literal battle will take place, but I don't know exactly how it will all go.

The final state of those that "die the second death"... is somewhat of a biblical mystery.

I accept whatever Jesus knows to be right as the correct decision.

ECT or Soul Annihilation are God's call and God's call... alone. The Jewish understanding of destruction is much different than the "Christian... traditional..." understanding of destruction.

There are supporting verses for both sides... but the verses that suggest Total Annihilation of the wicked soul are actually greater... than the verses that suggest ECT.

I speak this now... because the 3 of you are my friends and you are all True Believers in Jesus... that preach Him correctly.

I will confess that I cannot acknowledge the other parties contributing here that are not binding their arguments to "all scripture".

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] and I were discussing this... as well as @Way2Go .

They are excellent at utilizing scripture and I was much enjoying this debate. I would be very happy if this thread opened up again and all posturing was removed... in search of finding what scripture actually says... towards both sides.

Please know... every individual who's name I dropped here is recognized by myself as a valid voice in this topic... because each of you bind to scripture alone, and place the progressive revelation of scripture... above your own perceptions.

It would be wonderful if we could all cite the various scriptures on this matter and find a closer account of what scripture says... than any form of posturing. [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] and I were void of posture and we were discussing this in a way that went extremely deep... with the acknowledgment that we let scripture mold our view... and not allow our views and posture to mold our view.

All Love in Christ and Respect as well,

- EE

The scripture is simple.

Men pay a lot of money and waste a lot of time learning how to change it.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

LA

 

[Rosenritter]

The Sadducee denied that there was angel or spirit, and they denied the resurrection.

"Really living while still dead without needing resurrection" doesn't even enter into this equation. When speaking to them, Jesus went out of his way to prove the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. His proof was dependent on their mutual acceptance that the dead are truly dead, in every meaning of the word, unless by means of a future resurrection. By the terms of Christ's proof, to even assume that the dead are alive now denies the resurrection.

Seeing that is is obvious that I believe in both angels and spirits, and that like Paul I agree that the resurrection of the dead IS the gospel and upon which our eternal life depends, that's hardly an on-target accusation. If you want to use a label, next time choose a label that is at least slightly accurate.

You are upset about being called a Sadducee? They just denied life after death, like you. That was it. You seem easily offended where no offense was intended. I called you one so you'd read Jesus' word 'as if' to you. :doh:

Since you say you meant no offense, I'll believe that and defuse my indignation. I would like to get to the part where we look at this whole thing fairly and constructively. I'm hoping that can be soon.

 

[Lon]

The Sadducee denied that there was angel or spirit, and they denied the resurrection.

"Really living while still dead without needing resurrection" doesn't even enter into this equation. When speaking to them, Jesus went out of his way to prove the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. His proof was dependent on their mutual acceptance that the dead are truly dead, in every meaning of the word, unless by means of a future resurrection. By the terms of Christ's proof, to even assume that the dead are alive now denies the resurrection.

Seeing that is is obvious that I believe in both angels and spirits, and that like Paul I agree that the resurrection of the dead IS the gospel and upon which our eternal life depends, that's hardly an on-target accusation. If you want to use a label, next time choose a label that is at least slightly accurate.



Since you say you meant no offense, I'll believe that and attempt to defuse my indignation. I would like to get to the part where we look at this whole thing fairly and constructively. I'm hoping that can be soon.

I appreciate love of brothers and assume you are getting body ministry to you as well. Let me take a moment, not to belabor, but to own up to my end and give you my end as well. I was going to post this to EE for answer in thread after I found I couldn't PM you:

EE,
Started here. If he didn't mean to be condescending and producing ad hominem (attack the person, not the content), he surely wouldn't have had to try harder to purposefully offend:

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.

From here on, it is 'his way' or the highway:

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.

Arrogant underhanded comment. He really doesn't have the prowess to have said it.

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 he became, upon his own insistence, the protectorate of Urantia folk who eschew the scriptures as errant and just the words of men, not God. Perhaps 'kinder to sinners than God' in the process. Good heart, misplaced head.

Worse? It is an attack on me that starts here and gets worse as we go. He drew first blood.

If your definition of "Conservative Evangelical Fundamental" means "believing the dead are alive" then your definition is clearly circular. Not that it actually matters

It isn't an attack, but is a hasty assessment that is inaccurate.

I guess you didn't deem William Tyndale as Evangelical enough - he was martyred for translating the bible and distributing it illegally in England... seems to me that you've adopted the circular definition method. A method, I might add, which is meaningless regardless. What happened to "scripture only" rather than "let's take a poll and make sure we have approval of our fellows?" Who is it trying to please men here?

Comes across snarky and insincere mixed with incredulous

But as you say, you've chosen to make up your mind regardless of what anyone has to say on the matter. Even Matthew, Mark, and the prophet.

Accusatory absurdity AND an ad hominem regarding my character and adherence to scripture.

I don't think you believe God is actually good

Might be a true assessment in his mind. With all the above and the rest of the thread, it amounts to slander as well.

I can keep going, but this is enough. I'm more than ready to bury this, but you may need to give some of your side, that we can truly bury it.

 

[Caino]

The so called parable of "The Rich Man and the Begger" was actually an olden Nazarite allagory often given by John the Baptist. In the coarse of their public teaching it was actually Peter who recounted this parable publicly not Jesus. Peter pointed out that it was not consistent with their gospel but it did never the less contain a leasing. At times Jesus was asked about the alligory but as was his custom he refused to opine on matters we are supposed to figure out ourselves.

 

[glorydaz]

[MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] , @Lon

I will simply state my raw perspective.

I believe in the immediate presence of the saved in Christ, with Christ, upon "death" ... in this life.

AMEN....to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. It can't be any clearer. Our body is merely our temporary TENT. When we put it off, we will still not be found naked for God will supply another with which we will be clothed, and at the Resurrection of the Just, we will receive our new spiritual body...as Paul explains in 1 Cor. 15:38, 44

2 Corinthians 5:1-8
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.​

I believe that there are two resurrections to come.
1) The Resurrection of the TRUE ELECT ... Israel of biology
2) The Unsaved

I believe this all plays out in "The Day of the Lord".

I believe that those "in Christ"... "bypass" judgment... as they are "rooted in mercy".

Those IN CHRIST will still be resurrected. Resurrection is of the body....we, too, shall have a resurrected body just as our Lord did.

There are supporting verses for both sides... but the verses that suggest Total Annihilation of the wicked soul are actually greater... than the verses that suggest ECT.

I tend to avoid these discussions because I'm torn on this issue.

 

[glorydaz]

The so called parable of "The Rich Man and the Begger" was actually an olden Nazarite allagory often given by John the Baptist. In the coarse of their public teaching it was actually Peter who recounted this parable publicly not Jesus. Peter pointed out that it was not consistent with their gospel but it did never the less contain a leasing. At times Jesus was asked about the alligory but as was his custom he refused to opine on matters we are supposed to figure out ourselves.

Nope.....not true.

 

[CherubRam]

Plato's Myth of Er depicts disembodied souls being sent underground to be punished after death.The word "Hell" is not in the original text of the bible. Hell is a Pagan belief of life immortal in a place of punishment. Where the serpent says to Eve, "you will not surly die;" that is what I call the serpent's doctrine of life immortal.

 

[Lon]

The scripture is simple.

Men pay a lot of money and waste a lot of time learning how to change it.

See, that's an ad hominem and slight. You 'think' you are more intelligent because of what 'you' see. :nono: Not at all. It is arrogance at its worst, uneducated and ignorant arrogance that cannot possibly know any better. There is no way, to be this dogmatic, on this issue, from the scriptures. The majority has always believed torment. There are 'some' scriptures that suggest otherwise, but not enough to topple anything.

The angry tenor and accusatory doesn't help at all and never will. I see, incredibly well, the problem that others see. However, it is in my assessment shallow and hasty theology. Nobody asks OR they attack any explanation before it is out of the gate. Your comment here pushes the agenda without sensitivity or interaction. How could I possibly prove otherwise? I can. Nobody wants to hear that. Like Rosenritter said, there'd be no listening anyway. At least I'm balanced enough to know there is some weight to your side of the issue. That concession is never returned. To me? Looks like a lack of honest dealing with scriptures. Worse? It isn't a dire necessity that it should be this way.

]Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

LA

Great, so there is hope for the saved. No need to belabor the other. You don't have to yell 'shark!' as much as 'hold on to the life-ring.'