Why do some people think Hell isn't real?

[dollarsbill]

I don't.

 

[gord44]

Well at least you can admit you aren't sure. That's an admirable quality!

 

[Timothew]

I'm a 'literalist'. That's the only way the Bible makes sense.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

 

[dollarsbill]

Of coarse I admit it, when it comes to sourcing the bible. Otherwise I might subscribe to "pagan" belief that John wrote
John", or the Apostle John and the Prophet John are the same person.

People throw the word "Pagan" around as if it were a religion. It simply meant "Uneducated" or "Bumpkin".

There are two great periods of paganism in Christianity. The Black death that wiped out the centers of learning was one. The second will remain my secret lest I get thrown off the board

God has no problem keeping His Word, the Bible, in tact.

 

[dollarsbill]

Well at least you can admit you aren't sure. That's an admirable quality!

You misunderstood.

 

[dollarsbill]

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

God's people die but they still exist. And so, cease to exist is totally erroneous.

 

[Timothew]

Technically, Tim isn't a heretic (nor is anyone else in this thread so far as I can tell):

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (CCC)

He would be schismatic, or possibly apostate depending on how you define 'the Christian faith'.

I prefer the term "Bible Believing Christian". Thank you very much.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Again, I will not tell you what to believe.

Look, don't tell me that, Soulgazer: if you were so neutral you would not be here.

You are here to make converts, to display your superior knowledge, and to mock and ridicule Christians, the Bible, and the God of the Bible.

So don't try to come across as an "objective" observer that has no interest in leading men to...your truth.

Now, before you get the impression (again...lol) that I am upset, let me just say this: we are all like that,, Soulgazer...in regards to leading men to the truth.

We all at times try to show our superior knowledge, because if we did not think ours was superior...we wouldn't debate doctrine, right? lol

We all at times mock and ridicule the other guys "god." Not sure any of us can justify such behavior, not and fulfill the intent of that which scripture commands.

And we all seek to see men converted, or, in some cases, deconverted...lol.

So I am not taking a superior attitude or placing myself above you, Soulgazer, but what I will do is try to engage you in critical analysis of the basis of both of our belief systems. This is the inevitable result of discussion and debate. And debate, by the way, is not a bad word, lol.

I responded to your question as why I didn't believe it.

And I in turn am also responding. I hope you are not one of those that take a "I have spoken!" approach and then get upset when the other guy will just not shut up, lol.

Would you at least see the hypocrisy (and I use this in the biblical sense, not as an insult, lol) or at least the double standard you have provided for yourself by taking the position God can do what He wants except that which you yourself do not want to accept?

I find it futile to share what I know---

While I take comfort that serious bible students will present a futile audience for you, your efforts are not completely without effect, and I am sure you know that. There will be those, just as on atheist forums, that will readily embrace anything that sounds somewhat reasonable as an excuse for sin. And while you may not see a diminshed view of God's word as sin, I do.

For if we cannot trust God's word, we are left to take man's word for it, and my friend, I for one am glad He has moved me to belief in His word. And that belief is fortified through continued study.

If one wants to know how to identify a counterfeit, one must first know what is genuine. I know this may seem arrogant, but it isn't, it is simply a statement of faith in the veracity of God's word.

a person can only learn if they wish to learn the subject to begin with. If you wish to know what I know, you would have to spend your own money and time to receive the education to be convinced that it has any validity.

So you bought your faith?

(you should have known I wouldn't be letting that one slip by, right?)

You may not realize it, but what you are saying is "Only the educated can actually know the truth.

To use a quaint expression I think is a proper response...baloney.

The poor hold a special place in God's heart, and in fact it is usually the rich and the "educated" that fall under severe rebuke by the Lord.

Want to rephrase this? lol

So you see, I am not going to make any attempts to convince you about the origins of the bible, though I may state some knowledge if it clarifies why I don't believe something. Fair enough?

Fair enough. I will warn you, though, that you will simply be presenting, in my view, the opinions of men. And usually, godless men. Men who have thier own agendas and knowlewdge that allows them to do that which is right in their own eyes.

Now, I may not believe in the divinity of the men who selected the books for your anthology,

Only One Man can be said to have divinity, and that is Jesus Christ.

That man is indwelled by God is not the same as God manifesting in the flesh.

As far as the canonization process goes, I don't necessarily hold that they were all holy, but what I do know is that I have for myself come to believe that God Himself orchestrated the collective scriptures and that it teaches that I will be judged out of "those books." Because I do not look to other sources keeps me from a responsibility to accept them. As I said, I have more than enough in the 66 books I have, and if I get to the point where there is no more left to learn from them, perhaps I will do a more thorough analysis of other. What I have read so far in them lead me to agree with those that canonized the 66 books I do embrace, which is they are not acceptable based upon certain reasons.

Were they written by an Apostle or someone closely associated to one? Were they accepted in general by the early church. Do they contain error, whether historical or theological. That is a long discussion, friend, and one that for me takes a backseat to evangelical efforts that are best supported by a strong soteriology.

This is getting long, so...

Continued...

 

[dollarsbill]

Look, don't tell me that, Soulgazer: if you were so neutral you would not be here.

You will find some here have disdain for the Bible and still profess to be Christians.

 

[Timothew]

I already have, in my view, but, nevertheless, I will focus on this central issue.

But first, I will address these statements, and then toward the end provide the scriptural basis for what seems to sound like a silly position.

So bear with me, lol.




But you are speaking of temporal death, Timothew. Consider, those you have known that have died...are they gone forever?

Do you not believe that those you believe were saved that have passed are with the Lord, and those that you are not sure about are in Hades? Awaiting judgment?

I asked you to keep these threads short so I could anser your objections. I won't read beyond the first few lines, and I will only respond to that.

My position is not silly. Dead people are dead, they are not alive. If you think they are alive, show me a dead person who is alive. Temporal Death? NO, I am speaking about death, we are talking about death. Death is the condition where you don't have life. So show me a dead person who is alive.

You ask "of those who are dead, are they gone forever." I'm quite sure we have talked about this many times before but I BELIEVE THAT THE DEAD WILL BE RESURRECTED WHEN JESUS CHRIST RETURNS. So no, those that have died do not remain dead forever. Those that die the second death as a result of the judgment on Judgment Day will remain dead forever. By dead, of course I mean "not alive".

You believe that dead people are really alive and not dead, but you call my position "silly"? You believe that dead people are alive and not dead, but I don't call your position silly. Of the 2 positions, yours is much more silly than mine, but I still don't call your position silly. So I'm asking you to have the same courtesy as I have.

 

[Soulgazer]

Quite fair, as long as you will accept that I will reject some of your assertions as based in superstition. I am an astronomer wanna-be, and a telescope is a time machine. I can look back several billion years.

I have heard that apologetic "How do you know God didn't create all the light already in place". I have to reject this, as none of us can say with any certainty that we weren't all created last Thursday, and everything we think we experienced is not an implanted memory

I am also educated in Mediterranean theologies, and have knowledge of several Christian beliefs that were held in the first two hundred years, as well as some non Christian beliefs. As well, I have good knowledge of the physical and natural sciences.

 

[dollarsbill]

I can look back several billion years.

Huh? I thought only God can do that.

 

[Timothew]

43

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.




Not...will have, but has everlasting life.

(deleted the rest of the post as promised)

Buddy! You have my position all wrong! I believe we have eternal life.
We get it from Jesus Christ. Those that perish do not have eternal life. They end up dead after the resurrection on Judgment Day.
So we sleep a little before Judgment Day! Big Deal, we have eternal life, Christ will come and wake us up.

 

[gord44]

You will find some here have disdain for the Bible and still profess to be Christians.

Since when is reverence for the Bible a prerequisite to be a Christian?

 

[Timothew]

If you like, but the smilies are not necessary.

In discussion we have a great opportunity to train ourselves in self-control. Really. The intent focus not to let people upset you will result in...people not upsetting you. Leaving you to respond in a more rational and reasonable way which hopefully will not end the conversation.

It is easy to turn a discussion into a slugfest, but what is gained? Either one truly wants to discuss scripture or they do not.

As for the jaw, take a handkerchief, wrap it worund your head so that...

Just kidding. Look, there are some points that have to be settled. For now, I suggest we focus on the Life of the believer as opposed to the death which all men are born with. If we can make a conclusion on this, the discussion may progress.

God bless.

After you have proven that the dead are not really dead, then I will concede the point. If you want we can go to a morgue and look at some dead bodies. Then you will have to concede the point that dead people are not conscious.(I can't believe we are even having a disagreement on this )

 

[Timothew]

God's people die but they still exist. And so, cease to exist is totally erroneous.

So much for the claim "I am a literalist"

 

[dollarsbill]

Since when is reverence for the Bible a prerequisite to be a Christian?

Since the Bible proclaimed itself "the word of God".

 

[P1LGR1M]

and I may not believe in the accuracy of the words or even verses, however I believe that thematically it is accurate enough for one to find "the perfect man" within.

But this in itself limits that which God's word teaches.

In the Old Testament, knowledge is limited, just as is the case with children. You tell a child not to talk to strangers, but you don't fully inform the child of all of the evil that can arise from it, right?

Under the First Covenant, the Covenant of Law, Israel was given basic instruction that would result in fulfilling the desire result of loving God and one's neighbor (which you constantly advocate the latter but I have not seen you mention the former, perhaps I have missed this).

In the New Testament, instruction for those under the New Covenant, who are perfect (which concerns positional sanctification) as to how they are to seek to perfect themselves (which refers to progressive sanctification)...is speaking of two entirely different things.

Believers are made perfect forever, but as they grow in Christ they are being conformed to the image of Christ, therefore are being made perfect.

Whereas you on the surface seem to find God limited to Justice,

Not sure how you conclude this: I try not to give standard answers, for, as you have said yourself most of the people I talk to have already heard that particular facet of God's character. I do not focus solely on one aspect, for to do this is to present a limited view.

Justice, grace, mercy, judgment, chatisement...all of the number of things we could discuss have to all end in a balanced conclusion or we end up not relaying the God of the Bible.

A god that is strictly all grace and mercy doesn't do it. One that is all judgment, as some view God in the Old Testament, won't cut it. Usually when one extreme or the other is reached, it is easy to conclude there is not a balance af all that is said of God in scripture.

I have learned that I can fully agree with ancient Christian sources that Justice is the product of wisdom without love. Mercy is the product of Love and wisdom without justice.

That's great. Charismatics can agree with the practice of Montanism, does that make it valid?

And where in the world, or better, why in the world, would you think this...

Mercy is the product of Love and wisdom without justice.

...represents the God of the Bible?

Justice has been served...on the person of Christ at Calvary. God has not failed to carry out justice, for sin's penalty has been fully exacted on His person.

That we do not receive justice (for we would all be erased from the earth if we did) does not negate that fact.

Therefore one may believe in a just God, like the Muslems or the Jews or the alternative, a merciful God as portrayed, at least thematically, by many Christian scriptures.

This is to say that the God of the Old Testament was not just. This view is based upon a faulty understanding of being just.

You mentioned in another post you threatened your son with a punishment that was not even real. I could view this as both lying to your son and mental abuse. That your actions were unjust.

You threatened something you never intended to carry out.

At least the God of scripture meant what He said.

And if that does not bring perspective to your view, I don't know what will.

Have you considered the mercy of God to those babies, that they did not grow up worshiping a false god like their murderers?

Well, that is an opposing perspective, and while because I know God to be just in His dealings with man and cannot view judgment as unjust, I can appreciate an different perspective.

But does your repartee indicate you did not give my point consideration?

Okay, going to have to get out of here soon, so, back to the rest of your other post...

 

[dollarsbill]

So much for the claim "I am a literalist"

So much for the false claim that death means 'cease to exist'.

 

[Soulgazer]

But this in itself limits that which God's word teaches.

In the Old Testament, knowledge is limited, just as is the case with children. You tell a child not to talk to strangers, but you don't fully inform the child of all of the evil that can arise from it, right?

Under the First Covenant, the Covenant of Law, Israel was given basic instruction that would result in fulfilling the desire result of loving God and one's neighbor (which you constantly advocate the latter but I have not seen you mention the former, perhaps I have missed this).

In the New Testament, instruction for those under the New Covenant, who are perfect (which concerns positional sanctification) as to how they are to seek to perfect themselves (which refers to progressive sanctification)...is speaking of two entirely different things.

Believers are made perfect forever, but as they grow in Christ they are being conformed to the image of Christ, therefore are being made perfect.








Not sure how you conclude this: I try not to give standard answers, for, as you have said yourself most of the people I talk to have already heard that particular facet of God's character. I do not focus solely on one aspect, for to do this is to present a limited view.

Justice, grace, mercy, judgment, chatisement...all of the number of things we could discuss have to all end in a balanced conclusion or we end up not relaying the God of the Bible.

A god that is strictly all grace and mercy doesn't do it. One that is all judgment, as some view God in the Old Testament, won't cut it. Usually when one extreme or the other is reached, it is easy to conclude there is not a balance af all that is said of God in scripture.









That's great. Charismatics can agree with the practice of Montanism, does that make it valid?

And where in the world, or better, why in the world, would you think this...



...represents the God of the Bible?

Justice has been served...on the person of Christ at Calvary. God has not failed to carry out justice, for sin's penalty has been fully exacted on His person.

That we do not receive justice (for we would all be erased from the earth if we did) does not negate that fact.








This is to say that the God of the Old Testament was not just. This view is based upon a faulty understanding of being just.

You mentioned in another post you threatened your son with a punishment that was not even real. I could view this as both lying to your son and mental abuse. That your actions were unjust.

You threatened something you never intended to carry out.

At least the God of scripture meant what He said.

And if that does not bring perspective to your view, I don't know what will.











Well, that is an opposing perspective, and while because I know God to be just in His dealings with man and cannot view judgment as unjust, I can appreciate an different perspective.

But does your repartee indicate you did not give my point consideration?

Okay, going to have to get out of here soon, so, back to the rest of your other post...

I considered it--- but that would presuppose that God is somehow fickle. That it can be ok to kill babies, and then not ok to kill babies. When is it going to be ok again?

Again, I believe that if an action is evil, it is evil of it's own accord. I find it more likely, that the God of Jesus did not ask anyone to kill babies, and that He abhors the very concept, and that Joshua was acting on His own accord. Being a major warlord with scribes recording his moves, they would say God was helping him, rather than God being appalled at his actions. If they wrote that, certainly they would soon be replaced?

Back atcha on the perspective




Interesting footnote: Because the entity was unable to defeat Iron, and some early Christians believed it was a demon posing as God, Iron came to be used in Exorcisms. This still crops up in stories of the supernatural.