Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

[holo]

it's not semantics the words infinite is not the same as eternal. They are literally different words, so you have no argument.

Then please explain the practical difference.

 

[holo]

now I am done with this, as this is somewhat circular at this point.

Sure. And you let me know if you ever plan to answer my questions.

 

[holo]

it's not semantics the words infinite is not the same as eternal. They are literally different words, so you have no argument.

*dude1 punches dude2*
dude2: stop punching me!
dude1: I'm not punching you, I'm hitting you
dude2: but that's the same thing!
dude1: no, they are literally different words, so you have no argument

 

[createdtoworship]

Then please explain the practical difference.

the english word for eternal can mean infinite, but not in greek.

For the sake of absolute accuracy, we would suggest that the Greek word aiōnios (αἰωνιος) which means “without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be”

Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader (Vol. 1, p. 78). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

so according to greek theologian wuest, it means "without beginning or end" . In other words outside of time.

another greek dictionary says this about aionios:
"When referring to eternal life, it means the life which is God’s and hence it is not affected by the limitations of time."

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

so my two best greek sources both confirmed that eternal, does not mean infinite (as in a lot of time), but it means outside of time all together.

 

[holo]

the english word for eternal can mean infinite, but not in greek.

For the sake of absolute accuracy, we would suggest that the Greek word aiōnios (αἰωνιος) which means “without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be”

Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader (Vol. 1, p. 78). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

so according to greek theologian wuest, it means "without beginning or end" . In other words outside of time.

another greek dictionary says this about aionios:
"When referring to eternal life, it means the life which is God’s and hence it is not affected by the limitations of time."

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

so my two best greek sources both confirmed that eternal, does not mean infinite (as in a lot of time), but it means outside of time all together.

Yes, but I asked about the practical difference.

(BTW, if it means without beginning or end, I don't see how it's applicable to spending eternity in hell, because that eternity begins when you die, right?)

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, but I asked about the practical difference.

(BTW, if it means without beginning or end, I don't see how it's applicable to spending eternity in hell, because that eternity begins when you die, right?)

the difference is plain, one means that there is excessive time (infinity), and the other means outside of time (eternal), and i showed how the greek prefers the later definition. And the Bible is in greek. To answer your other question, one may be placed into a timeless domain at an event. This is how the soul is created. But the soul, being in eternity already, simply exists in a domain of punishment instead of a domain of pleasure.

 

[holo]

the difference is plain, one means that there is excessive time (infinity), and the other means outside of time (eternal), and i showed how the greek prefers the later definition. And the Bible is in greek. To answer your other question, one may be placed into a timeless domain at an event. This is how the soul is created. But the soul, being in eternity already, simply exists in a domain of punishment instead of a domain of pleasure.

I'm surprised if you honestly didn't understand what I meant by practical difference, but to be crystal clear: For the soul in hell, does it make a practical difference if hell is eternal rather than infinite? And for that matter, does it make a practical difference to God?

In either case, the soul goes there, never to return, to suffer endlessly. I don't see how an eternal hell would be more just than an infinite one.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm surprised if you honestly didn't understand what I meant by practical difference, but to be crystal clear: For the soul in hell, does it make a practical difference if hell is eternal rather than infinite? And for that matter, does it make a practical difference to God?

In either case, the soul goes there, never to return, to suffer endlessly. I don't see how an eternal hell would be more just than an infinite one.

it's not endless. That is a technical problem. There is no beginning and no end, yes but it's not endless in the way that it's infinite. You are making the same assumption over and over again. you are thinking linearly, eternity is not linear. There is no time, which means that people won't be in hell for a long time, don't you get it. Your entire premise is that. And it's wrong. They will be beyond time, while in hell. time will not be a factor at all.

 

[holo]

it's not endless. That is a technical problem. There is no beginning and no end, yes but it's not endless in the way that it's infinite. You are making the same assumption over and over again. you are thinking linearly, eternity is not linear. There is no time, which means that people won't be in hell for a long time, don't you get it. Your entire premise is that. And it's wrong. They will be beyond time, while in hell. time will not be a factor at all.

For the soul who is in hell, will it make any difference whether it's technically eternal or infinite?

 

[Uber Genius]

The premise that the Bible is a symbolic book, much less a “highly” symbolic one, is a false premise.

Enjoy your approach to identifying logical mistakes. Here you properly engage the misrepresentation of "The Bible," defined narrowly as "highly symbolic," which serves as a strawman in order to facilitate a modus poems argument:

P1 The Bible is highly symbolic
P2 Passages about hell are in the Bible
A Therefore passages about hell are highly symbolic

he term “hell” occurs 54 times in the Bible, and never once is it impossible for the word to be taken literally

This statement seems best argued from positive exegesis of the textual data as your point above could be true and yet the original authorial intent was in every case symbolic.

The idea that in every case hell is described with the following attributes (then list them) would be sufficient enough it seems to make the point.

You will actually get conflicting answers from theists on this belief. As a matter of fact, I'm speaking to @Tone at present, in the topic God is Good (post #30). He would seem to disagree with you.

Since the Bible IS truth, the answer should be quite simple. So, is hell eternal, or finite?

I would like to see you two engage, to 'square' the details. Because as far as I'm concerned, it would appear God is 'the author of confusion'.

These are just rhetorical tricks. We have a collection of writing covering 13-16 centuries by 40 authors from a dozen different countries and a wide range of cultural and societal backgrounds. Your are reducing that writing to a math formula.

We do have to argue for why God is good and in fact the standard of goodness and still creates hell, or engages in genocide. But here you claim, "The answer should be quite simple," is just prima facia false.

It's true that quantum theory has only one model that is true and so resolving the disputes over which of the dozen or so quantum models is true, "should be quite simple," is a similar example.

"God should have written a book that our culture understands easily," is your hidden premise.

But it is not at all clear that knowledge leads to trust.

We see in James 2 that the demons beleive in God, but they don't want any relationship with Him!

So too atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have made the statement that even if they new God existed they would never bow the knee to him. So it is not knowledge that is the barrier, rather the will.

And no one argues that these are easy questions. They argue that we have enough data to make reasonable inferences to the best explanation.

If one were to require no disagreement in order to count something as knowledge your method would destroy ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE ACROSS HISTORY.

Let's engage the discussion and argue for the best explanation of the textual data in the fashion of Der Alter's analysis above, and avoid these logical tricks.

I'm sorry but anyone who actually believes that eternal torture in hell fire is justified is on the same level as ISIS.

And anyone who teaches this to children should be charged with child abuse.

great appeal to emotion. Let's poison the wells to any look at the textual data and just claim God of the Bible is a meanie, therefore we should reject the inference without inspection.

Unfortunately, we can run to logical fallacious easy escapes. Our emotions about certain features of the external world hardly provide us with warrant for how that world is. We can punt on the big questions of life such as where we came from, how should we live our lives, how do we find meaning in our life, how do we engage with God if he exists and is personal, and finally where will we go when we die? Sooner or later these questions will bubble back up to haunt us.

The problem of hell, and the related theological cousin of whether eternal consoius torment is in view, or annihilation, or some universal salvation is in view are intellectually tough problems that deserve careful investigation. They can't or at least shouldn't be set aside with bumper-sticker appeals to emotion.

 

[holo]

great appeal to emotion. Let's poison the wells to any look at the textual data and just claim God of the Bible is a meanie, therefore we should reject the inference without inspection.

"Meanie" doesn't begin to cover it. Personally, I can't imagine anything more unjust and purely evil than to torture someone without end. Like I said to gradyll, it's what I'd expect satan, not God, to do. This is in fact really, really simple: one cannot claim that God will both judge righteously, AND that he will torment someone forever. One of those statements must be false.

But like you say, there are more options than eternal torture. Annihilation, for example, and as far as I can tell, it's not too hard to justify that view based on the bible. By the way I don't think "hell" is mentioned in the bible at all. There's Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire etc, and to me at least, it doesn't seem obvious that they are the same thing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am not sure it will hold their attention. Just saying.

For a certain type of person it will. I found your video to be pretty unwatchable, but perhaps it’s just me.

You should take a poll to see if your video is convincing to any non believer.

 

[cvanwey]

These are just rhetorical tricks. We have a collection of writing covering 13-16 centuries by 40 authors from a dozen different countries and a wide range of cultural and societal backgrounds. Your are reducing that writing to a math formula.

No sir. No 'trick'. I asked if hell is eternal or finite? It IS a dichotomy. Meaning, does hell last forever, or does it have an end? The answer is simple, in the sense that the Bible should elude to one clear answer. However, believers appear divided, as believers seem divided on many other seemingly simple and straight forward conclusions.

So which one is it? Using the Bible, do the recipients, which are cast to hell reside there for eternity, or is there an ending point (complete death)?

 

[createdtoworship]

For the soul who is in hell, will it make any difference whether it's technically eternal or infinite?

I have answered this many times its not linear, so yes it will matter. It's not the same as existing in time for years and years. It does not have time, so there will be no sensation of "I have been here for hundreds of years"

 

[createdtoworship]

For a certain type of person it will. I found your video to be pretty unwatchable, but perhaps it’s just me.

You should take a poll to see if your video is convincing to any non believer.

It was not for non believers. I know you think it was, but it was for Christians on the edge, to hear a compelling gospel message. Nothing I do here is for non believers. I do it all for those of the faith, to give them reason to keep going.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It was not for non believers. I know you think it was, but it was for Christians on the edge, to hear a compelling gospel message. Nothing I do here is for non believers. I do it all for those of the faith, to give them reason to keep going.

Even though you’ve said you want to push those on the edge away to weed out the bad ones? Quality over quantity I believe you said.

If I were to guess, I’d say you’re doing a better job on that front.

 

[createdtoworship]

Even though you’ve said you want to push those on the edge away to weed out the bad ones? Quality over quantity I believe you said.

If I were to guess, I’d say you’re doing a better job on that front.

no the specific quote you said regarding this was that it was a "win win for me" because if people deconvert, it's a cleansing of the church, and if people convert it's an expansion of the church, and that I would agree with. So I don't desire to push people on the edge away, that is not my job. In fact I am here to help those people. But if there are people who think that they can be christian yet cheat on their spouse, or be christian and yet have homosexual sex, then it's those people that need weeding out. Not those who have doubts. Those who have doubts are savable. Those who want to live a lifestyle of sin, and want the best of both worlds, to be a christian, get heaven, yet get the pleasure of sin in this life too, well those hypocrites need exhortation. Proverbs 3:33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.

 

[holo]

I have answered this many times its not linear, so yes it will matter. It's not the same as existing in time for years and years. It does not have time, so there will be no sensation of "I have been here for hundreds of years"

I don't see how that would make a difference practically. In either case it will boil down to "I'm here, and I will never ever get out." Or do you really think the soul will have a different experience of it if it's eternal as opposed to infinite? Which would be worse?

 

[holo]

I have answered this many times its not linear, so yes it will matter. It's not the same as existing in time for years and years. It does not have time, so there will be no sensation of "I have been here for hundreds of years"

What or who is forcing God to torture someone endlessly (or eternally or infinitely)?

What do you mean by "sin of the soul"?

If satan had all the power, what do you think he would do to people?

How is it fair to punish something that was done in time, outside of time (infinite punishment for finite crime)?

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't see how that would make a difference practically. In either case it will boil down to "I'm here, and I will never ever get out." Or do you really think the soul will have a different experience of it if it's eternal as opposed to infinite? Which would be worse?

see you are still using words that describe time: "never" etc. That is not what eternity is.