The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[mmksparbud]

As do we all.

 

[Neogaia777]

Infants and children live ungodly? So you don't have a problem with God killing men, women, children, infants, old and young with fire, which must have been agonizing. Your only objection is if it lasts a long time.

God has a different perspective on killing than we do, since they all return to him, I do not think any innocent or pure go to hell, and that includes perhaps all infants and children, and probably most women, only God knows their hearts and can judge... Killing a youth while they are young, could perhaps "save" them from hell, if God foresees that they are good pure and innocent now, but might not be in their future, for example...

God Bless!

 

[rjs330]

But He hasn't. There are too many other verses that state the opposite so then it is through God's character that we interpret the scriptures. He has told us He is just. So His hell has to be just and eternal torment is not.

There have been many scriptures shown to you that state there is eternal punishment. You just choose to ignore them. The other scriptures you think state otherwise don't. As you have been shown but you ignore that too. God is just and eternal punishment is just and right because God is.

 

[rjs330]

On the contrary, Sodom and Gamora is an example to all who live ungodly. Sodom and Gomora was destroyed by fire and these cities are not being tortured in an endless unquenchable fire today. In other words, the example of Sodom and Gomora is that it was destroyed (and not kept alive to burn for all time).


...

That's because eternal punishment is reserved for eternity not here and now. Just like the rewards of heaven are not given to us now but reserved for eternity.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ok, so the old heaven is done away with (destroyed) and re-created "anew" but "hell" is not...?

I didn't say that, I just asked for your scripture on that....

Would you agree that heaven is a spiritual place, and hell is also a spiritual place? That both are part of the "invisible", the "spiritual"... And, earth is part of the "visible", and that both what is visible and invisible, "all" of it/them will be done away with (destroyed) and re-created "anew"? Or not?

I am just asking you for the scripture, that is all...nothing more or less, we want to base the conclusion on scripture not our "superior thoughts"...

Is that easier/simpler?

You asked for a Biblical basis earlier as to how or why I believe this... Can I ask you for the same then, a Biblical basis why it is not? Or how or why or can you back up somehow why it is that most scholars disagree?

God Bless!

I am not saying either way at this point....I am simply asking for scripture to back up the side you are saying.

 

[Butch5]

Razzleflabben---I am speechless...showing scripture that directly states what I am saying is not inferring...seriously, I am totally speechless.

What Scripture plainly states and how you understand it can differ vastly.

I am addressing your argument as you gave it against what I said. I said that according to scripture man has three parts, the body (made of dust) the soul and the spirit. You argued that man only has two portions because of Gen. where God breathed into the flesh of man. Scripture clearly says that the soul and spirit can be separated as I pointed out and you refused to accept. Not sure what else you want me to say...of course God gave man the flesh, the soul, and the spirit, man is created that would be a duh kind of statement but that does not equal the soul and spirit being the one and same thing as you have been trying to claim nor does it suggest that the soul/spirit of man is not eternal by nature...eternal here meaning a ray not a line to use math terminology.

Nowhere did I say that the soul and spirit could not be separated. What I pointed out was your misunderstanding of the passage. You argument is that the Scriptures can separate the soul and spirit based on Heb 4:12. What I point out is that in that passage it is not the Scriptures that separate the soul and spirit, it is Jesus.

Again, I'll ask you if this is a straw man. How you possibly got that idea is beyond me. I have stated that a living soul consist of two things, the man (body) and the breath or spirit of life from God. Obviously the soul and the spirit cannot be the same thing if one is a part of the other. I have to ask if you're even grasping my argument?

actually that isn't what you said as far as your comments to me because if it was, you would have agreed with me not disagreed. You see how that works? If you agree that man has three parts not just two, you say, your right, man has three parts, you don't insist for pages that man only has two parts. It's really that simple.

It is what I said. Even your wording is against what Scripture says. This shows that you're imposing you belief on the Scriptures. You say a man consists of three parts, a body, soul, and spirit. Let's see what the Scriptures say.


7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)


Note what Moses said, God formed man from the dust of the ground. Take note that before there is any mention whatsoever of the spirit or the soul, the man exists. Please tell me how can the soul and spirit be part of man when man was created before either of them enter the equation??? The breath or spirit of life is from God, not the dust of the earth. Note also that the man and the breath or spirit of life "BECAME" a living soul. The word "BECAME" means to come into being. Please, tell me how it is possible that the soul could be a part of man when the man was created before the soul?


Since your argument contradicts what we find in Genesis if shows that it's wrong. It's wrong based on a misunderstanding of the word soul. The word is used in two different senses in the Scriptures and if one doesn't see this it's easy to misunderstand what is being said. In this case it's the idea that the soul is one of three parts of a man, it's not.

Now your back to confusing things...I also previously said many times over that the soul/spirit of man is that which makes the man who he is, you know, the part of man that we would recognize as his personality. this was also mentioned by other posters here who agree that according to scripture man has three parts, flesh, soul, and spirit...something you have repeatedly disagreed with.

I'm not the one confusing. I've been consists throughout. It doesn't matter if you say the soul is the personality of a man because the Scriptures don't. Feel free to post Scripture telling us that the soul is a man's personality.


I'm quite aware of what others have said. They too have given inference base on a misunderstanding of the word soul. As I said above it's used in different senses.

wow, just wow...you now change your story to agree with what I and other have said and pretend you aren't changing it....just wow. Did someone else spoof your computer and type in posts in your name?

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, I'm being to wonder if you're not just playing games. I find it very hard to believe that you're not understanding this. It's really, really, simple. I've not changed anything. That you think I'm agreeing with you suggests to me that either you're playing games or that you simple don't understand what my argument is. That so many others here have no problem understanding my argument leads me to believe you're playing games.


You're welcome to post Scripture that teaches us that man is three parts. The key here is teaches. Your inferences are not Biblical teaching

Huh? I show how Gen. and Heb. compliment each other and confirm what you have been told and you make these accusations. here is a hint for you...false accusations of another poster is inflammatory and against forum rules. How about you stop trying to flame me and just accept that you now agree with what I have said or, if you still disagree actually tell us what you disagree with instead of repeating what I said and calling it disagreement.

No one is flaming you. I'll show exactly why you're imposing you theology on the text. I posted Gen 2:7 which states plainly that the man and the breath or spirit of life "BECAME" a living soul. You made the argument that man consists of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. To support that argument you posted Heb 4:12


For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12 KJV)


From this passage it has been "INFERRED" that the soul and the spirit are parts of man. It's an "INFERENCE" because it is not stated in the text. These two along with the body would make three. then it is "CLAIMED" that this harmonizes with Gen 2:7.


Firstly this passage says nothing about the body. It says nothing about the soul or the spirit being a part of man. Therefore it's an "INFERENCE". it's then claimed that this harmonizes with Gen 2:7. Gen 2:7 doesn't say that the soul is part of man. According to Gen 2:7 the man existed before the soul. So there is no way that Gen 2:7 harmonizes with the "INFERENCE" your argument assumes from Heb 4:12

wow, see what you said above...above you say that the soul/spirit can be divided, thus two separate things, here you revert back to the claim that they are one and the same...you are a confusing bloke.

You'd do well to read our conversation from the beginning. It's obvious you've missed something as I've never claimed the soul and the spirit were the same thing.

and yet I quoted scripture...seems to me that quoting scripture and showing the consistency through common literary comprehension rules is more than just an opinion, but have at it, nothing you are saying in this post resembles anything of value to the discussion instead it's just full of grand standing and insults. Moving on...

Quoting Scripture doesn't make your point unless the Scripture actually says what you claim it says. Saying man consists of three parts and then quoting Heb 4:12 does absolutely nothing to advance your argument. The passage doesn't speak of the parts of man.

actually it is just the opposite...the passages we have shown directly show that man has some form of consciousness...where as the other passages infer a lack of consciousness....but that doesn't really amount to a hill of beans if you don't even know if the soul and spirit are two separate things as Heb. tells us or not.

Again, if you read the conversation from the beginning you'll find that I never say they were the same things. No offense, but if you're not even understanding my argument why would accept your understanding of the Scriptures?

It takes a good bit of time writing out these posts. If you're not going to follow the conversation I'm not going to invest the time. I

I am speechless...showing scripture that directly states what I am saying is not inferring...seriously, I am totally speechless. I am addressing your argument as you gave it against what I said. I said that according to scripture man has three parts, the body (made of dust) the soul and the spirit. You argued that man only has two portions because of Gen. where God breathed into the flesh of man. Scripture clearly says that the soul and spirit can be separated as I pointed out and you refused to accept. Not sure what else you want me to say...of course God gave man the flesh, the soul, and the spirit, man is created that would be a duh kind of statement but that does not equal the soul and spirit being the one and same thing as you have been trying to claim nor does it suggest that the soul/spirit of man is not eternal by nature...eternal here meaning a ray not a line to use math terminology. actually that isn't what you said as far as your comments to me because if it was, you would have agreed with me not disagreed. You see how that works? If you agree that man has three parts not just two, you say, your right, man has three parts, you don't insist for pages that man only has two parts. It's really that simple. Now your back to confusing things...I also previously said many times over that the soul/spirit of man is that which makes the man who he is, you know, the part of man that we would recognize as his personality. this was also mentioned by other posters here who agree that according to scripture man has three parts, flesh, soul, and spirit...something you have repeatedly disagreed with. wow, just wow...you now change your story to agree with what I and other have said and pretend you aren't changing it....just wow. Did someone else spoof your computer and type in posts in your name? Huh? I show how Gen. and Heb. compliment each other and confirm what you have been told and you make these accusations. here is a hint for you...false accusations of another poster is inflammatory and against forum rules. How about you stop trying to flame me and just accept that you now agree with what I have said or, if you still disagree actually tell us what you disagree with instead of repeating what I said and calling it disagreement. wow, see what you said above...above you say that the soul/spirit can be divided, thus two separate things, here you revert back to the claim that they are one and the same...you are a confusing bloke. and yet I quoted scripture...seems to me that quoting scripture and showing the consistency through common literary comprehension rules is more than just an opinion, but have at it, nothing you are saying in this post resembles anything of value to the discussion instead it's just full of grand standing and insults. Moving on... and yet Gen. also says man is flesh, you know dust....wow, how hard was that....? lol actually it is just the opposite...the passages we have shown directly show that man has some form of consciousness...where as the other passages infer a lack of consciousness....but that doesn't really amount to a hill of beans if you don't even know if the soul and spirit are two separate things as Heb. tells us or not.

 

[razzelflabben]

It does mean the same thing. Take a look at both of the dictionary links provided:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torment

I quoted, as in cut and pasted the websters dictionary to prove to you they are not the same word as other have too...maybe you need to reread the dictionary entries rather than just proclaim something that is not true.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, God is not disagreeing with Himself----our interpretations are.

which is exactly the point...if we have the right understanding all the passages will be reconciled into one understanding. If we have to throw out certain passages, we are pretty sure that is a wrong understanding or God is a liar which is something I am not willing to go along with. That is exactly why I keep asking people to reconcile the passages that show both extremes

 

[Butch5]

I appreciate your imput, Butch5, but it can be shown just from Genesis that man is body, soul, and Spirit.

Body and soul:
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [literally soul].
(Genesis 2:7 NASB)
Spirit:
And they were a grief of spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah.
(Genesis 26:35 LITV)
Now in the morning his spirit was troubled, so he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all its wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh.
(Genesis 41:8 NASB)

It is true that God gives and sustains life, but it appears that He sustains life even in the 2nd death... I don't think scripture states it explicitly, but it is implied by the descriptions of the existence of the wicked dead in Revelation.

Hi food4though,

Note the word "implied". That right there tells you it's not taught in Scripture. By saying something is implied, one is saying they are inferring something. What if what is being inferred is wrong? If Scripture doesn't state something how does one know whether their inference is correct or incorrect. Let me give you an example. I wake up in the morning and I see that it is cloudy outside and that the grass is wet. I see those two "Facts" and I infer that it rained. So, I go through the day telling everyone that it rained overnight. When I get home in the evening my daughter tells me that she got up early this morning and watered the lawn. So, because it didn't have a piece of information I have drawn an "incorrect" inference. I've spent the day telling people something that wasn't true. I thought it was true, but I didn't have all of the information, I was missing a fact. This is why it's so dangerous to form doctrines based on inferences. In my example, if I had had that third fact I would not have misled those people all day.

This is why I keep asking for people to give passages that plain state what they claim, and not passages from which they infer their claim. Notice my argument that a living soul consists of man and breath or spirit of life from God is stated plainly in Gen 2:7. There is no inference in my claim.

From your argument here it appears to me that you believe spirit is a living being. The Greek and Hebrew words that are translated spirit mean breath or wind. The word spirit is a metaphorical translation of the words. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe a spirit is a living being and as such see these passages as speaking of spirits as living beings.

 

[Butch5]

Your 'theory' is pretty accepted, but just not supportable to me for a number of reasons. One being based upon scripture, but another one being based upon one schooled in medical physiology. I'd like to know how your 'theory' explains the autorhythmic phemonenon of the heart. If it could, then we might have some talking points, but it doesn't. Unless you know something I don't, that is. So tell me, how does your view support the physiological law established of God that a human heart starts beating even before the brain (soul) has begun to function? My spirit, soul, body POV does explain it.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking based on your post. In this post you indicate that the soul is the brain. I don't find that anywhere in Scripture. What I find is that God created the man and the man was lifeless. God then breathed into him the breath or spirit of life and the man became a living soul.

 

[Butch5]

Actually, making an inference is not circular reasoning. Homicide detectives make inferences all the time. It's how they go about solving murders. They take the evidence and facts surrounding a murder and infer - or deduce - from them how and why the murder occurred. The lack of an eyewitness or a "smoking gun" in support of their theory about who did the murdering and why does not necessarily mean that their conclusions are in error or that they are guilty of circular reasoning.

I don't mind addressing posts but please read them carefully. I did not say the argument was a logical fallacy "BECAUSE" there was an inference. The argument contains an inference which leads to a logical fallacy.

As for Genesis 2:7:

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

This verse tells us what Man is; it is does not tell us what he is not. Ron Rhodes in his book "Reasoning From the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses" writes,

"It is true that in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for soul (nephesh) can be used in reference to a living being. Genesis 2:7 is clearly an example of this. But because the word can be used in this sense does not mean that it is limited to this sense, or that man does not have an immaterial nature...Indeed, Genesis 2:7 is telling us what man is (a living being), not what he is not. In other words, while Genesis 2:7 affirms that man is a living being, it does not deny in any way that man has an immaterial nature." ("Reasoning from the Scriptures" by Ron Rhodes. pg. 308)

It turns out that you are the one who has been inferring! As Ron Rhodes explains, Genesis 2:7 does not explicitly state that man is only a "living being." That is something you are inferring - without good warrant - from the verse.

Selah.

Let me say that just because Ben Rhodes said it, that doesn't make it so. Now, I've not inferred anything. What I claim is stated plainly in Scripture. Now to address what the passage doesn't say, He is correct when he says, "But because the word can be used in this sense does not mean that it is limited to this sense, or that man does not have an immaterial nature."

However, in order to prove that man is more than what Gen 2:7 states one "MUST" provide the evidence from Scripture. Please feel free to show me Scripture that states that man is more that what Gen 2:7 states. You won't find anything is Scripture that states that man is anything more that what is found in Gen 2:7 Therefore, what I've said is not an inference.

 

[razzelflabben]

What Scripture plainly states and how you understand it can differ vastly.



Nowhere did I say that the soul and spirit could not be separated. What I pointed out was your misunderstanding of the passage. You argument is that the Scriptures can separate the soul and spirit based on Heb 4:12. What I point out is that in that passage it is not the Scriptures that separate the soul and spirit, it is Jesus.

hum...so where I say word/Jesus I am not saying word/Jesus I am saying scripture....and since scripture is the "word" of God and Jesus is the Word of God, they couldn't possibly both be able to divide the spirit from the soul as I clearly stated...interesting...I think that you have just demonstrated how many people proof text the issue instead of listening and reconciling all passages....it's called, not reading for comprehension...based on some of the responses in this thread, some of you all seem to be pros at not reading for comprehension.

Again, I'll ask you if this is a straw man. How you possibly got that idea is beyond me. I have stated that a living soul consist of two things, the man (body) and the breath or spirit of life from God. Obviously the soul and the spirit cannot be the same thing if one is a part of the other. I have to ask if you're even grasping my argument?

So, you now change your argument...cool.....you could have done so with a lot less false accusations, and just for the record, others called you out on it to.

It is what I said. Even your wording is against what Scripture says. This shows that you're imposing you belief on the Scriptures. You say a man consists of three parts, a body, soul, and spirit. Let's see what the Scriptures say.


7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

now reconcile that with I Thess. 5:23 which you have repeatedly been asked to do but refuse to do so...then add Hebrews 4:12 ...I'll be waiting..Your claim is that Gen. says there are only two parts to man...these two passages say there are three...I'm seriously looking forward to you reconciling them rather than simply dismissing them as not important to the discussion.

Note what Moses said, God formed man from the dust of the ground. Take note that before there is any mention whatsoever of the spirit or the soul, the man exists. Please tell me how can the soul and spirit be part of man when man was created before either of them enter the equation??? The breath or spirit of life is from God, not the dust of the earth. Note also that the man and the breath or spirit of life "BECAME" a living soul. The word "BECAME" means to come into being. Please, tell me how it is possible that the soul could be a part of man when the man was created before the soul?

HUH? God made all of man, all three parts, I have no clue what you are even trying to argue, something about God not creating man or something???? I don't know...

Since your argument contradicts what we find in Genesis if shows that it's wrong. It's wrong based on a misunderstanding of the word soul. The word is used in two different senses in the Scriptures and if one doesn't see this it's easy to misunderstand what is being said. In this case it's the idea that the soul is one of three parts of a man, it's not.

In the famous words from the movie the Princess Bride, "you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it does." IOW's what I am telling you fits exactly, perfectly, without flaw into Gen. Yet you insist it contradicts so either you don't have a clue what you are arguing about with me or you don't know what contradiction means. Either way I know better than to challenge the problem because doing so if apparently a violation of forum rules because it would be unflattering to you and apparently that is what flaming means, unflattering truth....

I'm not the one confusing. I've been consists throughout. It doesn't matter if you say the soul is the personality of a man because the Scriptures don't. Feel free to post Scripture telling us that the soul is a man's personality.

naw, you apparently don't even have a clue what I am saying and you have consistently claimed scriptures weren't provided that were...is someone else who is willing to look at scripture wants me to they can ask and I will jump right on it. But with you, it's just a colossal waste of time and energy...but thanks for asking.

I'm quite aware of what others have said. They too have given inference base on a misunderstanding of the word soul. As I said above it's used in different senses.

feel free to educate us all about what the difference between the soul and spirit are using scripture....that will be fun I am sure.

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, I'm being to wonder if you're not just playing games. I find it very hard to believe that you're not understanding this. It's really, really, simple. I've not changed anything. That you think I'm agreeing with you suggests to me that either you're playing games or that you simple don't understand what my argument is. That so many others here have no problem understanding my argument leads me to believe you're playing games.

actually there are others who have posted that they are understanding your words as I am and that they are contradictory and confusing at best...but by all means educate us all about how the soul and spirit are one thing but two different things when you are caught by scripture....

You're welcome to post Scripture that teaches us that man is three parts. The key here is teaches. Your inferences are not Biblical teaching

where scripture lists three different parts of man and says that the spirit and soul can be separated by the "word"...there isn't a lot of inferring to be done now is there?

No one is flaming you. I'll show exactly why you're imposing you theology on the text. I posted Gen 2:7 which states plainly that the man and the breath or spirit of life "BECAME" a living soul. You made the argument that man consists of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. To support that argument you posted Heb 4:12

see previously given passages, they are clearer than you are pretending they are.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12 KJV)


From this passage it has been "INFERRED" that the soul and the spirit are parts of man. It's an "INFERENCE" because it is not stated in the text. These two along with the body would make three. then it is "CLAIMED" that this harmonizes with Gen 2:7.

hum....so being able to separate the soul from the body is not saying they are not one and the same thing...because if I say I can separate the ice from the pop I am really saying that the ice and pop are one and the same thing not two different things that mingle together....interesting analogy but I will stick to what scripture says when it says that they are two different things that are closely knit together thank you for the other option though. BTW you might want to look at the definition for inferring it seems from your claims here that you don't know the meaning of the word.

Firstly this passage says nothing about the body. It says nothing about the soul or the spirit being a part of man. Therefore it's an "INFERENCE". it's then claimed that this harmonizes with Gen 2:7. Gen 2:7 doesn't say that the soul is part of man. According to Gen 2:7 the man existed before the soul. So there is no way that Gen 2:7 harmonizes with the "INFERENCE" your argument assumes from Heb 4:12

I'm going to ignore much of this until you are able to address some of the many problems with what you are saying to me on this topic.

You'd do well to read our conversation from the beginning. It's obvious you've missed something as I've never claimed the soul and the spirit were the same thing.

Quoting Scripture doesn't make your point unless the Scripture actually says what you claim it says. Saying man consists of three parts and then quoting Heb 4:12 does absolutely nothing to advance your argument. The passage doesn't speak of the parts of man.

Again, if you read the conversation from the beginning you'll find that I never say they were the same things. No offense, but if you're not even understanding my argument why would accept your understanding of the Scriptures?

It takes a good bit of time writing out these posts. If you're not going to follow the conversation I'm not going to invest the time. I

see above....

 

[razzelflabben]

Let me get my word in, I guess. </3 If "God", does punish those to Eternal Fire, Torture, Misery, then what kind of God is that? If there is a being that wishes that, then I can't call "it", not him her, but a "it", a God. At least not a loving God. God is all-loving, no matter your "sin", no matter what you believe, no matter what you have done. You will not be punished to Eternal Fire. This was taking from other Religions, and was not taught by Jesus' original message. This is my view, and I'm sure it is your view too if you look deep within your Heart, at least that is how I eventually came to the conclusion after 3 years of radically preaching "Hell Fire".

two things....1. according to scripture and most people, punishment is part of loving...consider a child who needs corrected
2. I have been talking about the consequence of hell not some punishment and no one yet has told me how a consequence is somehow contrary to God's nature since a consequence exists because of HIs nature.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes--seen those countless times. It is your right to believe whatever you want. There are about 25 verses listed for what seems to imply annihilation, and I think there were about 11 for what seems to imply eternal torment. I can't remember. Like I said, you can browse through this thread and get about all of them for both sides, and then some. And there are many, many other threads on the subject over the years on here. You can also search them out under the search segment up on the upper right corner. In over 50 years, I've never seen any new argument on either side.

how does the number of passages show a reconciliation of all passages?

 

[RAnonUS19B]

two things....1. according to scripture and most people, punishment is part of loving...consider a child who needs corrected
2. I have been talking about the consequence of hell not some punishment and no one yet has told me how a consequence is somehow contrary to God's nature since a consequence exists because of HIs nature.

There is a flaw in your statement, "Punishment is part of loving", if the torture is Eternal, then how is it loving, how would someone be corrected? Punishing them forever would not correct them, but cause them to rebel, and to hold a very great hate for God. There is no love in that. Well if there is a consequence for doing something that is Human Nature, then oh well... I guess the Ratcoon's stealing food or similar at camp, won't have a consequence, just Humans? (I wonder if God applies those rules, and "punishments", to all his creations, and not just one? Interesting to think about.

 

[Butch5]

hum...so where I say word/Jesus I am not saying word/Jesus I am saying scripture....and since scripture is the "word" of God and Jesus is the Word of God, they couldn't possibly both be able to divide the spirit from the soul as I clearly stated...interesting...I think that you have just demonstrated how many people proof text the issue instead of listening and reconciling all passages....it's called, not reading for comprehension...based on some of the responses in this thread, some of you all seem to be pros at not reading for comprehension.

In post 574 you said, "Scripture says that scripture is sharp enough to separate the two but nothing about them requiring one another to exist...."

I'm done playing games. My time is more valuable.

 

[Gabriel Anton]

Peace be with you.

I could be standing in front of my car and I could say, "I am happy in this car." and still be grammatically correct in saying that.

"I am happy with this car." is more accurate if you are standing in front of this car.

"I am happy in this car." would imply you are happy inside this car.

I could be standing in front of a burning building that was on fire and I could say, "I am tormented in this flame." because of the intense heat of it.

If you were standing in front of a burning building that was on fire producing intense heat, you would say, "I can feel the intense heat of these flames burning the building."

If you were in a burning fire in a building that was on fire producing intense heat, you would say or scream out, "I am being tormented in these flames."

God bless you.

 

[RAnonUS19B]

Did I miss something, or why are you debating over grammar? Interesting.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is a flaw in your statement, "Punishment is part of loving", if the torture is Eternal, then how is it loving, how would someone be corrected? Punishing them forever would not correct them, but cause them to rebel, and to hold a very great hate for God. There is no love in that. Well if there is a consequence for doing something that is Human Nature, then oh well... I guess the Ratcoon's stealing food or similar at camp, won't have a consequence, just Humans? (I wonder if God applies those rules, and "punishments", to all his creations, and not just one? Interesting to think about.

Not sure what you are saying about consequence but as to punishment, that would be evidence of what I am saying, now wouldn't it?!

 

[razzelflabben]

In post 574 you said, "Scripture says that scripture is sharp enough to separate the two but nothing about them requiring one another to exist...."

I'm done playing games. My time is more valuable.

so your whole beef with me is that I didn't say they could exist apart from one another, or that they could or ???????????????? I don't know, you still are contradicting yourself and asking me to follow along as if I could read minds.