Why do some people think Hell isn't real?

[LutheranMafia]

Do you believe the dead are alive after they are dead? Why do you believe this? Do you eat with dead people? More importantly, do they eat with you? Do they talk with you? Do they dance? Do they sing? Can they mow my lawn? do they wash dishes? Do they watch TV? Can they drive my car? Do they breathe?

At death, people are dead. They remain dead until Jesus Christ returns to resurrect them. Then they are alive. Then they are judged and they either go to eternal life or the second death. I'm sorry if you don't like this answer. But this answer it not "shifty" at all.

Dude, spirit & soul? What happens to the SPIRIT and SOUL after the FIRST DEATH?

Why is it so hard to get you to address a simple question?

 

[Timothew]

Yeah, I don't think he is going to answer about what he thinks happens to the soul and spirit after the first death either. He has put too much effort into avoiding the question at all costs to give in now.

I answered the question every time. I don't think you are ever going to stop claiming that I havenm't answered the question even though I have answered the question.

Maybe the font is too small.

I have been answering the question. When a person dies, they remain dead until Jesus Christ returns to resurrect them. Then they are alive. Then they are judged and they either go to eternal life or the second death.

 

[Timothew]

Dude, spirit & soul? What happens to the SPIRIT and SOUL after the FIRST DEATH?

Why is it so hard to get you to address a simple question?

I have been answering the question. Why are you claiming that I haven't been?

 

[seeingeyes]

Is there a "Christian Dictionary"?

Fellowhipping: Eating

Sharing: Gossiping

Worshipping God: Singing

Being a good witness: not smoking in front of other people

Witnessing: Telling people who don't want to hear about how Jesus got you to quit smoking.

Reading through the bible in a year: Reading through the bible in two years.

Praying: Complaining to God about one's crummy job.

Stop! lol

 

[LutheranMafia]

I have not evaded any question. When a person dies, they are dead. They are a dead soul. Their spirit is dead.

Finally!! A direct answer. Hallelujah! But this is clearly contradicted by Matthew 10:28, which asserts that the soul cannot be destroyed in the first death.

So now let me ask you, do you believe that Matthew 10:28 is true or false?

 

[LutheranMafia]

I have been answering the question. Why are you claiming that I haven't been?

Because you kept doing things like switching to the second death rather than talking about the first like asked, or talking about death without making any reference to the soul or spirit. I believe that you worked so hard at avoiding being specific about the nature of the spirit and soul after the first death, because your answer so clearly contradicts Matthew 10:28. A conundrum that I am tempted to suspect you were consciously trying to avoid.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Stop! lol

Do you have any real theological thought to add, or are you just here to sneer at people?

 

[Timothew]

Finally!! A direct answer. Hallelujah! But this is clearly contradicted by Matthew 10:28, which asserts that the soul cannot be destroyed in the first death.

So now let me ask you, do you believe that Matthew 10:28 is true or false?

I've been giving direct answers all along. Mat 10:28 is true.
People can't destroy the body and soul, because God has control. But the body and soul are destroyed in the second death. If you kill me, God will resurrect me, and I will live. I am the soul that God resurrects. But if I die the second death, I will not be resurrected. I will forever remain a dead soul.

The hallelujah remark. I've been responding all along, so saying that doesn't make any sense.

So do you believe Mat 10:28 is true or false? It clearly contradicts the doctrine of an immortal soul that can't be killed.

 

[Timothew]

Because you kept doing things like switching to the second death rather than talking about the first like asked, or talking about death without making any reference to the soul or spirit. I believe that you worked so hard at avoiding being specific about the nature of the spirit and soul after the first death, because your answer so clearly contradicts Matthew 10:28. A conundrum that I am tempted to suspect you were consciously trying to avoid.

I've been giving clear and direct answers all along. You just didn't like them.

 

[Timothew]

Do you have an real theological thought to add, or are you just here to sneer at people?

I know that you are just trying to get me to say something that you can report. You don't have to do this to other people.

 

[Norah63]

Adding a little here, after reading these posts. It looks like a belief in something called 'soul sleep'. Can't remember what religion has this in it's tenets.
May be way off, just a thought.
There must be a reason for someone who wants to go to heaven to avoid any thought of an alternative.

 

[Timothew]

Adding a little here, after reading these posts. It looks like a belief in something called 'soul sleep'. Can't remember what religion has this in it's tenets.
May be way off, just a thought.
There must be a reason for someone who wants to go to heaven to avoid any thought of an alternative.

I'm just saying what the bible says.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by seeingeyes Stop! lol

Originally Posted by LutheranMafia Do you have an real theological thought to add, or are you just here to sneer at people?

I know that you are just trying to get me to say something that you can report. You don't have to do this to other people.

His post can actually be reported
But I am in a good mood today

..

 

[seeingeyes]

Do you have an real theological thought to add, or are you just here to sneer at people?

Sorry. No, I'm not here to sneer at people. (I do find 'christianese' funny though, I can't deny it. I am fluent myself. )

I find that Christ spoke to people where they were at, and the idea that we should not use 'atheist' definitions is inflammatory and useless.

If 'death' doesn't mean 'death', then it is the onus of the claimant to show why not. Not to point fingers at silly heathens for using words by their standard definitions.

 

[LutheranMafia]

People can't destroy the body and soul

People can't destroy the body? Maybe you should put some more thought into these messages before you send them, you couldn't possibly have ment to say this.

because God has control. But the body and soul are destroyed in the second death. If you kill me, God will resurrect me, and I will live.

Now you sound evasive again. Only the body can be destroyed in the first death, according to the Bible. But you claim, contrary to the Bible, that the soul and spirit are destroyed in the first death as well. Making reference to the resurrection does not make a claim of first death destruction of the soul and spirit somehow less contrary to the Bible.

I am the soul that God resurrects. But if I die the second death, I will not be resurrected. I will forever remain a dead soul.

Now you are circuitously denying the second death. Instead of it being an actual death, you now claim that it is simply not being resurrected, with no actual extra death involved. But that still leaves you in the lurch when it comes to your claim that the first death destroys the soul. It does not matter whether it is temporary or permanent, if you claim that the first death destroys the soul then you are directly contradicting Matt 10:28.

So do you believe Mat 10:28 is true or false? It clearly contradicts the doctrine of an immortal soul that can't be killed.

I have repeatedly denied the immortality of damned souls directly to you. Are you paying any actual attention when we have these debates? Why do I bother, it is like talking to a brick wall.

What I have always said is that I believe that SPIRITS are immortal, not souls. This has come up half a dozen times over the last year. Why are you continually getting so confused about what my stated beliefs are?

 

[LutheranMafia]

I find that Christ spoke to people where they were at, and the idea that we should not use 'atheist' definitions is inflammatory and useless.

The idea that Christians should adopt atheistic definitions of spiritual terms is entirely an oxymoron. It is not inflammatory, it is an objective fact. It is only "inflammatory" you want to adopt atheistic ideas while claiming to hold on to a vestige of religion.

If 'death' doesn't mean 'death', then it is the onus of the claimant to show why not. Not to point fingers at silly heathens for using words by their standard definitions.

Why do you think that the word death should be defined by atheists? They only make up 5% of society. If they were 50% your statement would make since that atheistic definitions should be adopted as the norm. But as a Christian it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that a tiny majority should be given the final say on spiritual definitions entirely in contradiction to Christian norms.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sorry. No, I'm not here to sneer at people. (I do find 'christianese' funny though, I can't deny it. I am fluent myself. )

I find that Christ spoke to people where they were at, and the idea that we should not use 'atheist' definitions is inflammatory and useless.

If 'death' doesn't mean 'death', then it is the onus of the claimant to show why not. Not to point fingers at silly heathens for using words by their standard definitions.

Considering also, that a lot of atheists are ex-Christians

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I gave an answer. I answered the question. Why do you say "good luck getting an answer as if he had not gotten an answer?

Do you believe the dead are alive after they are dead? Why do you believe this? Do you eat with dead people? More importantly, do they eat with you? Do they talk with you? Do they dance? Do they sing? Can they mow my lawn? do they wash dishes? Do they watch TV? Can they drive my car? Do they breathe?

At death, people are dead. They remain dead until Jesus Christ returns to resurrect them. Then they are alive. Then they are judged and they either go to eternal life or the second death. I'm sorry if you don't like this answer. But this answer it not "shifty" at all.

Making comical jabs about the physical world not applying to the afterlife and building a strawman of the opposing view from that when the opposing view is speaking of the spiritual world does not further your case.
Believe it also to be an attempt to distract from the fact that there was NEVER any answer given to what the differences would be in your view prior to the resurrection of the dead and the state of those "annihilated". The ONLY thing EVER offered (and not sure it was you initially but you echoed it) was simply that in the later case they can never "come back".

I believe human souls still exist after death and with that some level of awareness. Spirits do not have bodies. So until resurrection for Judgment the one of the physical aspects attempting to be used here to mock the opposing view or "demonstrate" that the dead are "just dead" NONE of that would apply to the human spirits of the departed.

So we still wait for some explanation, since the dead are "just dead" of how the departed still "exist" in this view since the claim was made before that there is a difference between this state and the non-existence after annihilation.

Or is the ONLY difference is that in the later they never come back. And not because they cannot because this view assumes they could because they do for the Judgment, but just that God would no longer re-create them ever again.

 

[Fascinated With God]

You know, I have to agree with LutheranMafia and DrBL, you do seem somewhat evasive on the issue, Timothew. It sounds to me like you are trying to assert that the first death destroys the soul, but are dancing around the issue in an inconsistent manner.

 

[seeingeyes]

The idea that Christians should adopt atheistic definitions of spiritual terms is entirely an oxymoron. It is not inflammatory, it is an objective fact. It is only "inflammatory" you want to adopt atheistic ideas while claiming to hold on to a vestige of religion.

You are the one who brought up atheists. Anyone who doesn't agree with your definition must be using an 'atheist' definition:

The problem is that your interpretation is based on assuming that atheists are right about death being annihilation. Adopting an atheist's definition of death does not make the Bible suddenly come alive for most people.

So yes, it is inflammatory. There's nothing 'objective' about it. It advances nothing.

At any rate, this is all entirely off-topic, because the question was "why do some people think hell isn't real", not "why is Timothew so wrong".