Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

[cvanwey]

Who said it is debatable ?
I said it is not permitted by the RULES OF THIS SITE (look them up)
to say that there is no unending judgment.

Christian Members: To participate in this forum please read the sign-up thread and request access.
Non-Christian Members: Please read this sticky thread and follow the instructions before posting in this forum.

Christian Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with the rational defense of the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints. The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs. Christians may start threads to present an argument in support of the Christian faith. Threads that are started for the sole purpose of ridiculing Christians and Christianity will not be tolerated. Promoting faiths other than Christianity will also not be permitted.

As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue. Similarly, threads started by Christians should contain an argument why Christian beliefs are true and correct. All thread topics must contain an identifiable argument against or for the Christian faith. All participants should endeavor to support their arguments, and their rebuttals, with evidence.


Forum Guidelines

• Christian members must sign up for access to this forum. The sign up thread is located in the Christian Apologetics Center (viewable to Christian members only).
• Non-Christian members must have 100 posts and 5 likes to post in this forum.
• Non-Christian members must also read and agree with the rules of this forum (please make an "agreement" post in this sticky thread).
• Debate about Christian theology, beliefs, and practices between Christian members is discouraged.
• If Christians want to debate each other on a topic they should do so in the Christian Apologetics Center.
• Only Christian members (see our faith groups list) may answer questions about the Christian faith or defend the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints from non-Christian members.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Christian Members: To participate in this forum please read the sign-up thread and request access.
Non-Christian Members: Please read this sticky thread and follow the instructions before posting in this forum.

Christian Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with the rational defense of the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints. The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs. Christians may start threads to present an argument in support of the Christian faith. Threads that are started for the sole purpose of ridiculing Christians and Christianity will not be tolerated. Promoting faiths other than Christianity will also not be permitted.

As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue. Similarly, threads started by Christians should contain an argument why Christian beliefs are true and correct. All thread topics must contain an identifiable argument against or for the Christian faith. All participants should endeavor to support their arguments, and their rebuttals, with evidence.


Forum Guidelines

• Christian members must sign up for access to this forum. The sign up thread is located in the Christian Apologetics Center (viewable to Christian members only).
• Non-Christian members must have 100 posts and 5 likes to post in this forum.
• Non-Christian members must also read and agree with the rules of this forum (please make an "agreement" post in this sticky thread).
• Debate about Christian theology, beliefs, and practices between Christian members is discouraged.
• If Christians want to debate each other on a topic they should do so in the Christian Apologetics Center.
• Only Christian members (see our faith groups list) may answer questions about the Christian faith or defend the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints from non-Christian members.

"Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• "Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
• Open Theism
• Universalism
• ......"

 

[createdtoworship]

I would love to dive into much of what you just said, but it is so off topic, I'll let it die here. I was just curious, as you seem to bring up evolution from time to time.

However, me 'believing' or not believing evolutionary theory is true has not relevance or bearing on my separate belief, or lack-there-of, in the sciences.

On a side note, I'm no biologist, but your response leads me to think you may not have a clear understanding of what evolutionary biology proposes.

thats because evolutionary biology deal mostly in the micro evolution, it uses microevolution to gain it's grants and federal funding, then proposes that there are huge gaps in evolution (macro evolution) without scientific observation. It's not a real science. Because macro evolution has never been observed. Like I said, it seals it's funding from micro evolution, something creationists agree upon. Things like getting over a cold, spots on a fruit fly, etc. Things that don't make a fruit fly, a non fruitfly, or a human a non human. But you are right it's off topic. But the only reason why I brought it up initially in the argument for God thread was that it was coming up as a reason for our existence, and it absolutely is not that. As again it's unobserved and unrepeatable, and thus unscientific.

 

[Tone]

• Debate about Christian theology, beliefs, and practices between Christian members is discouraged.

• If Christians want to debate each other on a topic they should do so in the Christian Apologetics Center.

Ohhhh...you tried to get me caught up @cvanwey

 

[gaara4158]

Pigeon chess comes to mind.

I definitely posted an image of that a while back.

 

[cvanwey]

thats because evolutionary biology deal mostly in the micro evolution, it uses microevolution to gain it's grants and federal funding, then proposes that there are huge gaps in evolution (macro evolution) without scientific observation. It's not a real science. Because macro evolution has never been observed. Like I said, it seals it's funding from micro evolution, something creationists agree upon. Things like getting over a cold, spots on a fruit fly, etc. Things that don't make a fruit fly, a non fruitfly, or a human a non human. But you are right it's off topic. But the only reason why I brought it up initially in the argument for God thread was that it was coming up as a reason for our existence, and it absolutely is not that. As again it's unobserved and unrepeatable, and thus unscientific.

Too bad it's such a money making conspiracy, otherwise, you might very well win a Nobel prize.

 

[createdtoworship]

"Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• "Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
• Open Theism
• Universalism
• ......"

so basically annihlationists cannot debate here, but athiests can. Thats what the rules say. And as long as athiests don't use theology to disprove eternal hell, they can still debate logically against hell. That's how I read that, but I could be wrong. They don't want christians dividing over the issue. Causing disunity.

But I do have a thread featured in the controversial christian theology section
(Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified)

in case annihilationists want to carry over this conversation

 

[createdtoworship]

Ohhhh...you tried to get me caught up @cvanwey

you can post here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

(it's in controversial christian theology)

 

[createdtoworship]

Too bad it's such a money making conspiracy, otherwise, you might very well win a Nobel prize.

sir, I don't try to have all the answers. But it should reveal something about it when professionals in the field cannot provide examples of macro evolution. It's is actually the largest conspiracy theory out there, if this is true (and probably the largest money maker,) so your not far from the truth here.

 

[Tone]

you can post here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

(it's in controversial christian theology)

Nah, thanks though, it's not something I like to debate about...I only responded here, because another user mentioned me twice. Shalom!

 

[createdtoworship]

Nah, thanks though, it's not something I like to debate about...I only responded here, because another user mentioned me twice. Shalom!

very well, take care.

 

[HitchSlap]

sir, I don't try to have all the answers. But it should reveal something about it when professionals in the field cannot provide examples of macro evolution. It's is actually the largest conspiracy theory out there, if this is true (and probably the largest money maker,) so your not far from the truth here.

Define macroevolution.

Then please explain why you use it in a way no biologist ever has.

 

[createdtoworship]

Define macroevolution.

Then please explain why you use it in a way no biologist ever has.

biologists primary function is not evolution. But I can define it for you as UC Berkley and other peer reviews define it. It is evolution at a higher taxa than species. Which makes sense. Species have ring species, and are not different animals entirely. A dog and a cat are different genra, and an ape and a human are different genra, basically it's evolution between mammals that cannot normally reproduce and create fertile offspring. When I get to a computer I would be more than happy providing scholarly artiest and peer review.

 

[holo]

Again, I still don't understand how you deem something to be good or evil. Do you personally think Anne Frank deserved to be gassed along with most of her family?

If you have a child and the kid tells a lie, do you think the child deserves to be beaten to death? If a guy lies to me, then why, morally speaking, shouldn't I burn him alive?

now let me answer your questions quickly as my lunch is over:

No, no and no.

I answered your three questions.

But our judgement is not the same as God's.

God is perfect, His judgement is right.

so comparing our judgment to his is a fallacy of biased sample.

So you don't really agree with God's judgment then. You think Anne Frank didn't deserve to be gassed, but God does. How do you determine that God's judgment is righteous then? I don't get it, and I don't get how you can hold two mutually conflicting ideas in your head at the same time.

On the one hand you say it would be wrong for me to burn a guy alive if he tells me a lie, on the other hand you say he deserves it. You're saying it would be morally wrong to do it, yet it will be morally right for God to do it.

 

[createdtoworship]

So you don't really agree with God's judgment then. You think Anne Frank didn't deserve to be gassed, but God does. How do you determine that God's judgment is righteous then? I don't get it, and I don't get how you can hold two mutually conflicting ideas in your head at the same time.

On the one hand you say it would be wrong for me to burn a guy alive if he tells me a lie, on the other hand you say he deserves it. You're saying it would be morally wrong to do it, yet it will be morally right for God to do it.

for me to do that without absolute knowledge and a perfect nature, is wrong.

obviously, to gas someone is wrong.

but for someone who has complete knowledge of every thought, and action, and for someone who is absolutely pure and perfect to make that kind of decision is different.

because I believe He is good and perfect, I believe that His justice is pure.

but like I said in the OP, there is a rational case that can be made, not just a faith based case for eternal hell, and I will repeat it here:

I feel that conscious eternal damnation in Hell is justified myself.

see if you had the ability to read every thought of every human, every lie, every deception, every angry word, every hate filled word, and the sheer number of them you would think twice about calling God unjust for eternal hell.

but my logical case for eternal hell is not based on one sin. My logical case for eternal hell is that God, who can read our thoughts and minds, and also who is perfect, can read our wickedness, and cannot forget every detail of every sin, so in an average lifetime, that is thirty thousand sins for an extremely moral person who only sins once a day. IF you do the math, 365 times eighty years, is a little under thirty thousand sins. So God is reminded of thirty thousand times you were angry, hated, lusted, looked at porn, masturbated, stole from work, cheated on taxes, etc, etc. And when you look at the holiness of God, every time you are angry that is like murder, and every time you lusted after someone on the internet, that was like adultery and fornication. So at the end of the day, thirty thousand mortal sins creates a situation where a physical prison does not meet up with the amount of sin. If a murderer is killed for one act of committing a serial murder (under capital punishment laws,) then thirty thousand angry thoughts, of murder is not paid for by a single death. It must be paid for by eternal misery.

I committed a habitual sin the other week. I had been real good for months, then I just messed up. And you know what? God was merciful. But I noticed one thing, I was angry at God the next day. My heart was hard like a rock! I realized this because just a day earlier, my heart was pliable and soft the day before (compassionate). At least for me it was. I can always do better though. But I noticed one sin, made my heart angry at God. Imagine never having forgiveness for your sins, and bearing the guilt of 30,000 sins. How angry would you be at God? Yes, when we see the whole picture, we realize that man hates the idea of God, and he loathes God in his normal condition. Man would rather be in hell than be in heaven with God, he hates God so much. So God gives them what they want. But it is when they actually feel the heat, like lazerus... that they start being sorry. But then it's too late. Now I used to teach that the Bible taught eternal torment, not eternal torture. But that is just semantics. Those words are synonymous. One sounds better yes. But if the Bible was written in modern terms, I don't see a single problem with it mentioning torture. Because of the above information. It changes your perspective doesn't it?

here is another modification to the original:

hell logically is punishment for the sin of the soul. Prison only punishes physical crimes. Sins of the soul by definition are eternal because the soul is eternal. In order not to be eternal a soul must have mass. Time affects mass. According to general relativity. if prisons punished in a truly just way, knowing all of our thoughts, then they too would have longer sentences for crimes of thought. That is if the government was a moral government, that's a big IF.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

see if you had the ability to read every thought of every human, every lie, every deception, every angry word, every hate filled word, and the sheer number of them you would think twice about calling God unjust for eternal hell.

If I were able to do that and still determined that no one deserved eternal torture, does that that make me more merciful than the Christian god?

 

[holo]

for me to do that without absolute knowledge and a perfect nature, is wrong.

So if you knew everything and had a perfect nature, it would be right to burn someone alive for telling a lie?

The question is whether or not he deserves it, and that's where you seem to disagree with yourself.

obviously, to gas someone is wrong.

Why? It's nothing compared to what God is doing to her as we speak. If your view is right, she's probably wishing she was back in the concentration camp right now.

but for someone who has complete knowledge of every thought, and action, and for someone who is absolutely pure and perfect to make that kind of decision is different.

Why? The better you know your children, the less you can forgive them?

because I believe He is good and perfect, I believe that His justice is pure.

Why do you believe that?

but like I said in the OP, there is a rational case that can be made, not just a faith based case for eternal hell, and I will repeat it here:

I feel that conscious eternal damnation in Hell is justified myself.

see if you had the ability to read every thought of every human, every lie, every deception, every angry word, every hate filled word, and the sheer number of them you would think twice about calling God unjust for eternal hell.

No. There's no amount of sin that would justify eternal suffering.

but my logical case for eternal hell is not based on one sin. My logical case for eternal hell is that God, who can read our thoughts and minds, and also who is perfect, can read our wickedness, and cannot forget every detail of every sin, so in an average lifetime, that is thirty thousand sins for an extremely moral person who only sins once a day. IF you do the math, 365 times eighty years, is a little under thirty thousand sins. So God is reminded of thirty thousand times you were angry, hated, lusted, looked at porn, masturbated, stole from work, cheated on taxes, etc, etc.

Poor God...?

It must be paid for by eternal misery.

Why?

I committed a habitual sin the other week. I had been real good for months, then I just messed up. And you know what? God was merciful. But I noticed one thing, I was angry at God the next day. My heart was hard like a rock! I realized this because just a day earlier, my heart was pliable and soft the day before (compassionate). At least for me it was. I can always do better though. But I noticed one sin, made my heart angry at God. Imagine never having forgiveness for your sins, and bearing the guilt of 30,000 sins. How angry would you be at God?

I don't see why I would be angry at God for sinning. Well, I could of course object to him judging me when it is he who created me as a sinner, but if I wrong someone and they don't forgive me, I don't get mad at them. Do you?

Yes, when we see the whole picture, we realize that man hates the idea of God, and he loathes God in his normal condition. Man would rather be in hell than be in heaven with God, he hates God so much.

I don't think that's true at all. Why would someone ever choose eternal misery of they're free to choose eternal bliss? Why would anyone ever hate God if he is good?

here is another modification to the original:

hell logically is punishment for the sin of the soul. Prison only punishes physical crimes. Sins of the soul by definition are eternal because the soul is eternal. In order not to be eternal a soul must have mass. Time affects mass. According to general relativity. if prisons punished in a truly just way, knowing all of our thoughts, then they too would have longer sentences for crimes of thought. That is if the government was a moral government, that's a big IF.

That makes no sense at all. What's a "sin of the soul" as opposed to "sin of the body"? And how is a "sin of the body" not "eternal"? Does the sin disappear when the body dies? Can you give some examples of these different types of sin?

 

[createdtoworship]

So if you knew everything and had a perfect nature, it would be right to burn someone alive for telling a lie?

The question is whether or not he deserves it, and that's where you seem to disagree with yourself.Why? It's nothing compared to what God is doing to her as we speak. If your view is right, she's probably wishing she was back in the concentration camp right now.Why? The better you know your children, the less you can forgive them?Why do you believe that?
No. There's no amount of sin that would justify eternal suffering.Poor God...?
Why?I don't see why I would be angry at God for sinning. Well, I could of course object to him judging me when it is he who created me as a sinner, but if I wrong someone and they don't forgive me, I don't get mad at them. Do you?I don't think that's true at all. Why would someone ever choose eternal misery of they're free to choose eternal bliss? Why would anyone ever hate God if he is good?That makes no sense at all. What's a "sin of the soul" as opposed to "sin of the body"? And how is a "sin of the body" not "eternal"? Does the sin disappear when the body dies? Can you give some examples of these different types of sin?

I will adress the first part of this post first.

because you are not a thiest, I won't give the theological argument for hell, which you are asking about.

so I resort to my logical case for hell, that of 30,000 sins in a typical moral life.

a person who commits that many illegal actions, needs more than imprisonment or a simple death.

imagine if someone was angry 30,000 times, without cause. According to holiness of God this is murder. So in many states a legal punishment for murder is capital punishment. But how to you commit capital punishment on someone who does it 30,000 times or more. A simple prison does not suffice, nor does putting him out of his misery through lethal injection. That is not true justice. We cannot hypothesize what it is like to be someone who records all thoughts of every wicked person, forever. our souls are eternal, and the thoughts of the soul are recorded in eternity. So every angry thought is forever recorded with God. Only through Jesus's sacrifice is those sins forgotten, never to be remembered. but the typical human is not saved, so those sins remain.

 

[holo]

I will adress the first part of this post first.

because you are not a thiest, I won't give the theological argument for hell, which you are asking about.

so I resort to my logical case for hell, that of 30,000 sins in a typical moral life.

a person who commits that many illegal actions, needs more than imprisonment or a simple death.

imagine if someone was angry 30,000 times, without cause. According to holiness of God this is murder. So in many states a legal punishment for murder is capital punishment. But how to you commit capital punishment on someone who does it 30,000 times or more. A simple prison does not suffice, nor does putting him out of his misery through lethal injection. That is not true justice. We cannot hypothesize what it is like to be someone who records all thoughts of every wicked person, forever. our souls are eternal, and the thoughts of the soul are recorded in eternity. So every angry thought is forever recorded with God. Only through Jesus's sacrifice is those sins forgotten, never to be remembered. but the typical human is not saved, so those sins remain.

Even if it were true that an angry thought should be punishable by death, which it obviously isn't, there would still be a limit to the punishment. Let's say for the sake of argument that an angry thought was worth a billion whip lashes. If you do the math, you simply won't ever get to an infinite number of lashes. You're basically saying that any sin must be punished infinitely. It doesn't matter how many sins there are in total.

And you're portraying God as simply unable to forget or forgive. That doesn't fit with the idea of God being almighty. Who or what is forcing God to punish anybody for anything? If God is judging righteously, then his punishment must be righteous as well, meaning that people get what they actually deserve. And nobody deserves eternal suffering, because they don't sin eternally. That doesn't fit with any idea of justice. It's the opposite of justice. It's like you hitting me once and me hitting you back an infinite number of times, because your first offense of hitting me didn't "disappear". It's not fair or logical by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks more like you (against your will and reason, I presume) believe that God will torture most of us forever, and so you're trying to devise a way in which that can make sense. But it can't. You can't say that God is both almighty and unable to forgive, or that he's going to torture people infinitely while at the same time judging righteously.

 

[holo]

But how to you commit capital punishment on someone who does it 30,000 times or more. A simple prison does not suffice, nor does putting him out of his misery through lethal injection.

And yet, you don't think Anne Frank deserved to be gassed, do you?