ECT,....the right to reject a doctrine on principle.....
ECT,....the right to reject a doctrine on principle.....
This post cuts very close to drawing an infraction. I am going to let the final decision on this rest with Knight. I am going to ask you to tone down the polemic. This is a traditional Christian forum where you are posting.
Hi Sherman,
We might note meshak's English vocabulary is somewhat limited, but shes just tying to communicate that a 'god' in her mind that tortures souls
forever is a 'monster'. Perhaps that's 'strong' language, but 'God' has been called
worse, and note its just a concept or image of 'God' that is being described. I think a 'God' that torments a soul(angel or man)
endlessly is
worse than a 'monster'.
I myself openly and unabashedly reject ECT(eternal conscious torment) and write extensively why in my commentaries about it
here and
elsewhere. I deem it 'insane', and I explain
why on many different levels that are problematic, if you're going to assume 'God is love' and is wholly both just and merciful. I've been here over 10 years holding my own, engaging in 'creative dialogue' and constructive discussion wherever its being enabled. While respecting the forum rules, lets not forget our 1st amendment rights as well,...the key is recognizing both and finding 'common ground' to engage.
Whether souls burning forever in 'hell' (wherever or whatever that is...opinions vary) is '
traditional' or not who knows? (remember what Jesus said about man's
traditions), - certainly one can have the intellectual freedom to question/challenge a 'doctrine' or 'belief' in an open forum (biased or not), where fair grounds for 'discussion' exists. You'd have to establish a criteria for judging what is 'blasmphemous' or not, or worthy of an 'infraction' that is reasonable and not just presumptuous.
Different, opposing, or alternative views on doctrine, beliefs, points of view... are essential and healthy in a discussion forum, although I do grant there is a way of sharing your propositions and opposition to a doctrine or concept, without it being 'blasphemous', although I might sometimes challenge a moderators 'judgement' on what 'deem' is 'blasphemous' or not, but that's another stew-pot. (I could throw more seasoning on that, but will hold the salt).
I think with the language issues regarding proper interpretation of the text, within context (shared earlier with resources for study), and the
moral/philosophical problems alone with souls being held in a conscious state of torment or suffering
forever and ever (TO NO END, resolve or purpose) is insane. Since it is, in my view, questioning it on principle, original language use, translation-issues, is germane to having a debate or discussion about it, which few here seem to have accessed since they are hell-bent on 'eternal punishment', which reveals a somewhat sick mentality.
Anyways,...meshak and I approach it differently from different knowledge-backgrounds, cultural-contexts, etc. but at least she can see how horrible and terrible ECT is as its presented in a traditional-orthodox Christian belief-system, but you might know that many liberal and progressive Christians are re-thinking the doctrine of both 'hell' and 'ECT'. I think that's commendable as we progress into a new age of reason, intellectual freedom, spiritual liberty and sanity.
lain:
