Annihilationism

[Timothew]

Stan, since the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, that is what I'm going to believe.

You can believe whatever hell you want, and whatever the hell you want.

 

[Alithis]

Destroyed means destroyed. It doesn't say "Destroyed from the flesh". Why must you read your infernal doctrine into every passage of scripture? If the wicked continue to exist in hell in some kind of spirit form, then they have not been destroyed. Concerning Isaiah 66:24, I assumed that it was common knowledge that Jesus in Mark 9 was quoting Isaiah. I forgot that not everyone has the same level of Bible knowledge. I apologize for that.

Jesus was quoting Isaiah 66:24 when He said "the worm does not die". Since the passage in Isaiah speaks of worms eating dead bodies, and Jesus did not say that the worms were eating living people, the passage in Mark (AND Isaiah) do not prove the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell.

You should have already known this. You really need to do your homework.

when an enemy king sits defeated at the feet of his conqueror -powerless to do anything.. he is destroyed .
he does not have to cease to exist to be destroyed .
please dont infer the word of god is an infernal doctrine
there are those that read it and accept it
There are those that refuse it and argue in opposition to it

 

[Alithis]

It certainly doesn't say their spirits are tormented alive forever. It says they are destroyed forever and it is only the stupid and the foolish who can't know or understand this. Which are you? Stupid or Foolish?

it is the fullness of the heart that comes forth from the mouth .
very telling .

 

[Timothew]

when an enemy king sits defeated at the feet of his conqueror -powerless to do anything.. he is destroyed .
he does not have to cease to exist to be destroyed .
please dont infer the word of god is an infernal doctrine
there are those that read it and accept it
There are those that refuse it and argue in opposition to it

You are reading your doctrine into scripture when it isn't there. The context of the passages I gave you do not indicate a defeated enemy king. They indicate a dead person. Re-read Isaiah 66:24.
Does it indicate a living person who has been defeated? No, it indicates dead people who have been slain.

When I said the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is the infernal doctrine, I meant that is the doctrine of the infernal world, the underworld. The Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed, the wicked will perish, the wicked will be no more, they will be burnt to ash, etc. I believe that the wicked will be destroyed precisely because the Bible specifically says that the wicked will be destroyed.

 

[expos4ever]

I can tell you been inculcated, I can't really tell that you have studied because people that study rightly divide the word of Truth.

You, of course, have no evidence at all as to the degree I have been inculcated. Why do you insist on speculating about things you cannot possibly know anything about?

As a veteran of various Christian forums, I have a theory about you are up to: you know the evidence is not going your way and you seek to turn this into an insult festival in order to get the thread locked by the moderators, thus getting yourself off the hook. I am not saying I know this is what is going on; it's only a theory.

Please debate the texts and leave speculations out of it.

 

[expos4ever]

If you actually read and understand it you would know. I'm not going to continually give you pertinent information so that you can ignore it and ask more inane questions.

Oh this standard evasion - you post a lengthy link and then expect others to do your homework by distilling out the content that supports your position.

Well, I read the link and I see nothing in it that supports your position.

But, please, prove me wrong in front of all these people - tell us where in that link there is material that comprises a supported argument in favor of eternal torment.

 

[Timothew]

Stan, I'm putting you on ignore since you don't have anything good to say and you are only trying to cause trouble.

Goodbye. Have someone PM me when you want to discuss this like a reasonable Christian.

 

[StanJ]

This is a common false argument - implying that those who disagree with the view of a poster are using "faulty human reasoning". A grade 7 student will know the problem with this argument - it can just as easily be directed at you.
Clearly, we all use our minds in interpreting scripture, so please drop this demonstrably invalid argument.

I was not dealing with your interpretation I was dealing with your sensibility or maybe lack thereof. Scripture has already been interpreted and translated for us all we have to do is read and accept it. Assigning personal viewpoints to scripture is called eisegesis and is not the proper way to read scripture. When one learns to properly exegete scripture and they usually don't have a problem understanding it or relaying it. The only thing I see demonstrably invalid are you own attempts at rationalizing your false teachings.

The fact that you - for now anyway - have not completed the sentence strongly suggests that you cannot do so precisely because to complete the sentence would demonstrate the clear contradiction between the view that Luke 16 is a literal account and what Paul writes in Romans 2.

The fact that I did answer you and you didn't recognize it just goes to show the extreme inculcation process you've gone through. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

 

[StanJ]

Stan, I'm putting you on ignore since you don't have anything good to say and you are only trying to cause trouble.
Goodbye. Have someone PM me when you want to discuss this like a reasonable Christian.

Your definition of a reasonable Christian and mine are two different things so obviously that will never happen. Funny I didn't know that Christians were to run away from supporting their beliefs?

 

[StanJ]

Not the point. Paul clearly lays out a future judgment scenario at which all human beings are judged and, in the case of the lost, punishment meted out.

This is in the future. Do you deny this?

Well, if this punishment is meted out in the future, why is the rich man from Luke 16 already in torment?

You need to answer this question. Yes, Paul is writing to the living in Romans 2. But he still describes a judgment that applies to all:

- those who have died at the time Paul wrote Romans 2;
- those who are alive at the time Paul wrote Romans 2;
- those not yet born, like you and me, when Paul wrote Romans 2.

Judgment is meted out in the future, punishment is meted out as soon as we die if we die as unbelievers. The judgement just verifies the punishment that the unbeliever is already receiving. That God has certain ways of doing things is his right as our creator. To say that doesn't make sense and I won't accept it is exactly what Satan does.

 

[StanJ]

Oh this standard evasion - you post a lengthy link and then expect others to do your homework by distilling out the content that supports your position.
Well, I read the link and I see nothing in it that supports your position.
But, please, prove me wrong in front of all these people - tell us where in that link there is material that comprises a supported argument in favor of eternal torment.

Well either you didn't read the link and you're just stating this or you did read the link and you didn't see it. Either way there's no use saying anything more because you just want to accept it. You know the old saying about pursuing an untamed ornithoid?

 

[expos4ever]

On this issue of "the wages of sin is death":

This text, of course, never explicitly declares that it is specifically physical death that is at issue. If you are going to suggest this is really the intended meaning, you can say pretty much anything. You could say, for example, that this text could refer to death of one's hopes, or one's friendships, or one's career. To say that the wages of sin is death and yet really mean that it is only an outer physical shell that dies while the "real you" lives on strikes me as obviously taking way too many liberties with language.

Imagine if I said "Fred died yesterday" and what I really intended to say was "Fred's sense of inner peace" died yesterday". This is directly analogous to taking the concept of "death" and arbitrarily restricting its application to one aspect of the human person - their body. I simply do not see how this is a legitimate interpretation.

 

[expos4ever]

Stan, I'm putting you on ignore since you don't have anything good to say and you are only trying to cause trouble.

Goodbye. Have someone PM me when you want to discuss this like a reasonable Christian.

Hey man, been trying to PM you but I think your settings prevent this.

 

[StanJ]

On this issue of "the wages of sin is death":

This text, of course, never explicitly declares that it is specifically physical death that is at issue. If you are going to suggest this is really the intended meaning, you can say pretty much anything. You could say, for example, that this text could refer to death of one's hopes, or one's friendships, or one's career. To say that the wages of sin is death and yet really mean that it is only an outer physical shell that dies while the "real you" lives on strikes me as obviously taking way too many liberties with language.

Imagine if I said "Fred died yesterday" and what I really intended to say was "Fred's sense of inner peace" died yesterday". This is directly analogous to taking the concept of "death" and arbitrarily restricting its application to one aspect of the human person - their body. I simply do not see how this is a legitimate interpretation.

When death is used metaphorically in the Bible it is always very apparent in the context in which it is used otherwise death always refers to the death of the body. You go ahead and show me otherwise.

 

[expos4ever]

Well either you didn't read the link and you're just stating this or you did read the link and you didn't see it. Either way there's no use saying anything more because you just want to accept it. You know the old saying about pursuing an untamed ornithoid?

Look: I read the link and did not find anything to support eternal torment (at least nothing beyond mere assertions).

Your abject refusal to tell us all where that link makes your case is about as clear evidence as one could ask for that the link does not, in fact, make that case! If it did, you would be all too willing to rub my nose in it.

Your silence speaks volumes.

 

[StanJ]

http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

 

[StanJ]

Look: I read the link and did not find anything to support eternal torment (at least nothing beyond mere assertions).

Well based on my experience with you in the dictionary exercise I can't say I'm very surprised but as you refuse to be succinct or detailed and just vague about what the issues are and there's not much I can help you with. You seem like a reasonably bright person so figure it out for yourself.

 

[expos4ever]

When death is used metaphorically in the Bible it is always very apparent in the context in which it is used otherwise death always refers to the death of the body. You go ahead and show me otherwise.

At last, a post without an insult or other cheap shot.

Now then, I am not sure what you mean by death being used "metaphorically" - can you explain? Either way, can you make a case as to why we should read "death" in Romans 6:23 as only referring death of the body? You appear to be essentially "defining your position to be correct" in asserting that "death refers to the death of the body" with the implication that the "soul" goes on living. How do you know this? How do you know that Paul does not mean death in the very normal sense of "body dies and its lights out for the 'soul'"?

I cannot imagine how you could make that case precisely because it would seem exceedingly odd for Paul to list the death of body as the penalty for sin and forget to also mention the obviously much worse consequence - eternal torment for the soul!

You essentially have Paul saying this:

"the wages of sin is death of the body"

while believing this:

"the wages of sin is death of the body plus everlasting awful torment for the soul"

What kind of person would omit the bit about the eternal torment.

Seem like a helluva an oversight (pun intended).

 

[expos4ever]

You seem like a reasonably bright person so figure it out for yourself.

Obviously you have no idea if and how the link makes your case. Otherwise, you would make the relevant argument yourself.

Either way, it is not my job to make your case for you! You provided the link, you need to explain how it makes your case.

 

[expos4ever]

http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

Oh please. You found a link, posted it, and expect us to do your homework.

If this link actually supports eternal torment, it is clearly your job to make that case.

Do I post lengthy links? Do I ask others to make my case for me? When you start seeing people posting a lot of links and evading expressing the relevant arguments in their own words, the index of suspicion is justifiably raised as to whether they (1) have read the links; (2) know whether the arguments presented in the links are valid.