Since the Bible specifically states that the wicked will be destroyed, I don't see what's wrong with believing that the wicked will, you know, Be Destroyed.
Since the Bible specifically states that the wicked will be destroyed, I don't see what's wrong with believing that the wicked will, you know, Be Destroyed.
Way to go! It's a good thing I am not one of those worshipers of the beast and its image, or one of those who receives the mark of his name. If I were, I would have no rest. Day or Night. And the smoke of my torment would go up forever. However, this still doesn't say that the torment goes on forever, just the smoke of the torment. And it doesn't say that the restless days and nights continue on forever. Do you think this passage is really solid enough to overturn passages which specifically state that the wicked will be destroyed? If God really does intend to torture some of the people He created forever, shouldn't there be solid evidence for this in the Bible? Shouldn't there be at least one verse in the Bible that clearly states in no uncertain terms that bad people go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead? We are talking about the character of God here. Shouldn't we be absolutely certain that He is an eternal torturer BEFORE he accuse Him of this? I wouldn't want to be the person to stand before God and accuse Him of eternal torture. Particularly if I had as little proof as the ECTists have for eternal torture. (And don't take offense at my calling being burned alive forever "torture". Only a sadist would not consider burning someone alive for all eternity to be torture.) Since the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, what would be wrong with me believing that the wicked will be, you know, Destroyed?
way 2 go
Well-known member
how you read it
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of where they were tormented goes up forever and ever, and they had no rest,for a day or a night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
how it is:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
if they are not there then it is not the the smoke of their torment
I don't think this passage is teaching eternal conscious torment in hell, (see my previous post) but if it were teaching that, don't you think it is a problem for your view that if God intended to torture people hell forever, he never got around to telling anyone about it until 80 AD when the Apocalypse of John was written? And even then God waited until He got 14 chapters into it before He brought it up. I'm not God, and I'm certainly not the god of eternal torture, but if I were, I would make sure everyone knew of the consequences of disobeying me from Day One. And I wouldn't use language that could be misunderstood like "you will certainly die" if I meant "certainly you will NOT die, but instead you will be tortured alive forever". Or is it perhaps part of the doctrine of ECT that God wanted to keep the torture a secret until He revealed it to John on Patmos? Maybe John wasn't meant to find out about the secret of eternal torture either! Maybe John let God's little secret out of the bag. Wouldn't THAT be a surprise?
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect when you tell me how I am reading Rev 14:11. It actually does say "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever..." which is exactly how I am reading it, and it actually does NOT say "And their torment continues forever". As evidence of eternal conscious torment, this passage is lacking. What it lacks is any mention of eternal conscious torment!
You have to read the message of the Bible as a whole, and not just take one verse from the (you have to admit) Highly Symbolic Book of Revelation (which as I have shown doesn't say what you want it to say) out of context. And the Bible as a whole says that the only way to get eternal life is by faith in God through Jesus Christ.
And since the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, what is wrong with believing that the wicked will be destroyed?
way 2 go
Well-known member
if they are not there then it is not the the smoke of their torment
when they ate of the tree they died that day
and that death was separation from God
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
way 2 go
Well-known member
and they have no rest, day or night
way 2 go
Well-known member
destroy does not mean annihilate
Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Stop the insanity.......
Stop the insanity.......
Figurative language, - don't forget that 'aion' and its derivatives indicate an 'age', and indefinite period of time, a dispensation, the word itself does not mean 'eternal' or 'unending' (ancient greek meanings meant 'age', a 'life span' and other nuances). Also, on moral grounds alone the doctrine of ECT in hell is illogical, unjust, unreasonable and insane.
My former posts with resource/study links expose ECT for what it is,...a doctrine of insanity -
1) Against the sentence of 'eternal punishment' or 'torment'
2) Matt. 25:46 on trial
3) Language issues
4) Video lessons on 'aion', 'aionion', 'aionios', 'olam'
While I lean towards universalism,...at least 'conditional immortality' (annihiliationism) rejects ECT (eternal conscious torment) for the 'de-struction/dis-integration' of the unrepentant wicked (mind you this only after a particular soul has utterly, completely and finally rejected life and embraced iniquity whole-heartedly enough to render that soul DEAD,...where it is truly destroyed, erased, ended, expunged as a living conscious personality). Such a 'death' term is extinction, all elements that make up that soul, are transenergized into 'no-thingness'....transmuted back into the primal elements, the OverSoul of creation. All truly valuable experience of that personality are absorbed back into the Spirit-consciousness of God (for 'God' is All There Is anyways), augmenting the over-all experiential value and fullness of the Totality,...but that individual soul itself would be disintegrated, no longer functioning as a living soul-unit. Its life-potential is ended,...the 'transformation' of death in such a case is final, although elements of that soul having eternal value and potential are re-integrated back into 'God',....naturally.
These are my observations so far, based on collective studies from various texts and schools on the subject,...of which I remain open to research and learn.
Stop the insanity.......
Figurative language, - don't forget that 'aion' and its derivatives indicate an 'age', and indefinite period of time, a dispensation, the word itself does not mean 'eternal' or 'unending' (ancient greek meanings meant 'age', a 'life span' and other nuances). Also, on moral grounds alone the doctrine of ECT in hell is illogical, unjust, unreasonable and insane.
My former posts with resource/study links expose ECT for what it is,...a doctrine of insanity -
1) Against the sentence of 'eternal punishment' or 'torment'
2) Matt. 25:46 on trial
3) Language issues
4) Video lessons on 'aion', 'aionion', 'aionios', 'olam'
While I lean towards universalism,...at least 'conditional immortality' (annihiliationism) rejects ECT (eternal conscious torment) for the 'de-struction/dis-integration' of the unrepentant wicked (mind you this only after a particular soul has utterly, completely and finally rejected life and embraced iniquity whole-heartedly enough to render that soul DEAD,...where it is truly destroyed, erased, ended, expunged as a living conscious personality). Such a 'death' term is extinction, all elements that make up that soul, are transenergized into 'no-thingness'....transmuted back into the primal elements, the OverSoul of creation. All truly valuable experience of that personality are absorbed back into the Spirit-consciousness of God (for 'God' is All There Is anyways), augmenting the over-all experiential value and fullness of the Totality,...but that individual soul itself would be disintegrated, no longer functioning as a living soul-unit. Its life-potential is ended,...the 'transformation' of death in such a case is final, although elements of that soul having eternal value and potential are re-integrated back into 'God',....naturally.
These are my observations so far, based on collective studies from various texts and schools on the subject,...of which I remain open to research and learn.
Last edited:
Actually, "annihilate" does mean destroy.
Dictionary.com has this definition:
"to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly".
It is interesting that "destroy utterly" is part of the definition of Annihilate because the definition for the word translated "destroy" in the Bible (ἀπόλλυμι, apollumi) is "destroy, destroy utterly". Literally the SAME words are used in the definition of apollumi and annihilate.
Concerning Romans 14:15, this is not evidence that destroy does not mean annihilate. Look at what Paul said "Do not destroy the one for whom Christ died". Since the lost are destroyed, what Paul says makes perfect sense from the Conditionalist Perspective. Paul is saying that the brother sees you in what he considers a sin and rejects God because of it. Since he rejects God, he will be destroyed along with everyone else who rejects God. Paul's words make no sense if the lost are not destroyed. Does Paul say "Do not cause the brother to go to hell where he will never be destroyed but will be tortured alive forever"? No, Paul says destroyed.
But you said "destroy doesn't mean annihilate". Aside from your definition error (destroy actually DOES mean annihilate), your argument has another error. I never said "Since the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, why shouldn't I believe that the wicked are annihilated". No, what I said was "And since the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, what is wrong with believing that the wicked will be destroyed?" And since the Bible says that the wicked will be "destroyed utterly" what is wrong with believing that the wicked will be "destroyed utterly"? The word Paul uses in Romans 14:15 is ἀπόλλυε, and the definition of this is "destroy, destroy utterly. This is not surprising, since apollue is translated as destroy in nearly every English translation.
So seriously, Since the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, what is wrong with believing that the wicked will be destroyed? I'm asking you this. (IOW, this is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what is wrong with believing what the Bible says. When did believing the Bible become a heresy?)
For pete's sake. "They have no rest, day or night" is NOT the same thing as saying "they will be tormented alive day and night forever".
I have insomnia, so I have no rest, day or night. Does this mean that I am tormented for all eternity? Obviously not. You are reading your doctrine INTO the passage that you are attempting to use to prove your doctrine. You can't first assume that your doctrine is correct, and use that assumption as proof of your doctrine. The verse you are using to prove that the wicked will be tortured alive day and night for all eternity simply does not say that the wicked will be tortured day and night for all eternity. Why don't you try to find a different verse that says what you want the Bible to say? Surely if what you are saying is true, God would have said it long before John wrote the Apocalypse.
The Bible says that the wicked will be no more. What is wrong with believing that the wicked will be no more? Especially since there is not a single verse in the Bible that says that the wicked will be given eternal life in hell in order to be tormented or tortured alive forever.
That's your opinion, but it is not supported by what the Bible says. The same language is used in the Bible for the destruction of Edom. They are destroyed, and the smoke of their destruction rises forever.
No, Adam and Eve did not die the day that they ate the fruit.
You can read in the Bible when Adam died, in Genesis 5:5. Adam was 930 years old when he died, so he did not die the day he ate the fruit. The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve died the day they ate the fruit, and the Bible does not say "that death was separation from God".
Sorry, this does not say that death is separation from God.
Do you know that you are using the same ECTist arguments and passages, and the exact same wording that all ECTists use? Is there a ECTist handbook somewhere that you guys use? Can I have a copy of it? I know, I know, you will say "that handbook is the Bible". The trouble is that the Bible doesn't support ECTism. Can I at least see the ECTist dictionary that says "destroy doesn't really mean destroy when destroy is written in the Bible, destroy means "will never be destroyed but will exist forever in hell being tortured alive forever".
1 John 3:8 tells us that Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. If ECT is true and the wicked will be placed in hell and kept there forever, then Jesus Christ failed to destroy the works of the devil. Evil would still exist forever, apparently tucked away in a fiery corner of God's creation that ECTists call hell.
The Bible says that God created the world and then rested, and called His creation good. According to ECTism, God also created Hell. Did God also call Hell good? He must have called Hell good, if He actually did create Hell. So then if there is eternal torture in Hell, then God must also have called eternal torture good. Are you ECTists claiming that God thinks that torture is good? And if torture is good, why don't we all torture one another? Let us torture one another so that the goodness of God can be spread throughout the world. Let's take turns, I will torture you for 5 minutes, then you can torture me for 5 minutes. Then we will switch, "round robin style". I probably shouldn't joke like this, because I know that at least one ECTist really does think that torture is good, and has said to someone on TOL, "I will enjoy watching you burn in hell". Perhaps I should have started by saying "torture is bad".
way 2 go
Well-known member
not opinion sentence structure
if they are not there then it is not the the smoke of their torment
smoke of their annihilation :nono:
smoke of their destruction :nono:
spiritual separated from God
how you read it:
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
but one with God
way 2 go
Well-known member
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
smoke of their torment = their in torment
no rest, day or night = conscious
smoke of their torment goes up forever= their torment is forever
Are you still working to put all your opponents to tortured in never ending fire for eternity?
Loving God would not approve of your preaching, friend.
A loving God would save more than 144,000 people, and yes a loving God would remove all those people who corrupt with their sin, from those who recognize that His way is the best way.
way 2 go
Well-known member
not only does Jesus approve but also taught the same
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
But wait, the same word is used in both cases, so that means if one is only temporal and it doesnt mean what it says, then the other one says we dont have eternal life :think:
Dont know why they dont get it.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Because a non denoted period of time wouldn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be 'eternal' perhaps, or even that the notion of eternity itself might not even matter?
Would a loving God burn people for any amount of time as we understand it for no constructive purpose?