Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

Yttrium · Jun 7, 2019

gradyll said:
Sir can you prove that because something is outside of time (not affected by time, and thus time is not necessary), that it cannot perform actions? This is an unproven assumption.

You are the one who proposed something unproven, that a soul outside time can perform actions. I was questioning your proposal.

createdtoworship · Jun 8, 2019

Yttrium said:
You are the one who proposed something unproven, that a soul outside time can perform actions. I was questioning your proposal.

Sir there is no reason logically to believe outside of time, nothing happens. Time is a dimension. Maybe if you understood how dimensions work a little, this will make sense. You have Height, width and length, three dimensions. But to a stick figure who only deals in two dimensions, three dimensions has more freedom, not less freedom. So logically it follows that a being that is in a dimension higher than the dimension of time, would have more freedom because they would lack the restriction that time proposes. Does that make sense. I hope that clears it up. Thus in conclusion the evidence that a soul can perform actions outside of time is the same evidence that a three dimensional being is more free than a two dimensional being.

Yttrium · Jun 8, 2019

gradyll said:
Time is a dimension. Maybe if you understood how dimensions work a little, this will make sense. You have Height, width and length, three dimensions. But to a stick figure who only deals in two dimensions, three dimensions has more freedom, not less freedom. So logically it follows that a being that is in a dimension higher than the dimension of time, would have more freedom because they would lack the restriction that time proposes. Does that make sense.

No, sorry. I only have a B.S. in physics, nowhere near an expert, so you clearly have a greater grasp on this than I do. I apologize if I'm being a little slow here. As you say, time is a dimension. It can be seen as a distance. The distance between events. If a soul can perform actions, then those actions are events. It might not be time as we know it, but one would need a sense of passage of something similar to time in order to experience endless suffering. I'm still not quite grasping your argument.

And I'm still not grasping your argument's relevance. All you seem to be doing is justifying a need for endless suffering. If you manage to firmly establish a need for eternal suffering, that doesn't actually deal with the contradiction.

I had a conversation about the contradiction with a Calvinist once. His approach was to dig into the scripture to support his positions. He worked hard to show that there was eternal suffering for the vast majority of people who ever lived, and to show that God was indeed fully loving. He couldn't seem to understand that I was pointing out a logical contradiction. He believed so strongly in both positions that he was unable to comprehend my arguments. From my perspective, it looked like he was unintentionally trying hard to disprove the Bible by verifying the existence of the contradiction. Of course, he would never intentionally do such a thing, and I was very skeptical of his scripture interpretations anyway.

I note that you haven't attempted to support the concept of a fully loving God in our discussion here, so there's that. If God's love has some limitations to it, then there's no contradiction.

createdtoworship · Jun 8, 2019

Yttrium said:
No, sorry. I only have a B.S. in physics, nowhere near an expert, so you clearly have a greater grasp on this than I do. I apologize if I'm being a little slow here. As you say, time is a dimension. It can be seen as a distance. The distance between events. If a soul can perform actions, then those actions are events. It might not be time as we know it, but one would need a sense of passage of something similar to time in order to experience endless suffering. I'm still not quite grasping your argument.

And I'm still not grasping your argument's relevance. All you seem to be doing is justifying a need for endless suffering. If you manage to firmly establish a need for eternal suffering, that doesn't actually deal with the contradiction.

Click to expand...

IF time is a dimension and modern physics believes it is. then a being that can access higher dimensions than the fourth dimension (time), will have more freedom. The simplest way to explain this is the difference between being stuck in a two dimensional world, and the freedom that one extra dimension provides, it's nearly endless freedom in that one extra dimension. A stick figure can only live say , on a sheet of paper. They can create houses in two dimensions, and a car, and a bike. But we, as three dimensional beings can put our finger right into their house, even if they lock their door. There is a good video of this. It's called flat lander, on youtube, I may post it for you. In fact I think I will.

anyway, that video shows how a being with access to more dimensions has greater freedom, not less freedom. So a being that is outside of time all together is not bound by infinity (or endless time), so that is why I believe in eternal damnation. Since the soul is outside of time, when the crime was committed, it must be also punished outside of time. That is all that eternal damnation means. They will never leave hell, but also it is important to know that being outside of time, the sensation of that may be way different than spending an infinity of time in a prison. If that makes sense. Time is not a factor, so the thought (I have been here a long time, won't even be a factor.)

I had a conversation about the contradiction with a Calvinist once. His approach was to dig into the scripture to support his positions. He worked hard to show that there was eternal suffering for the vast majority of people who ever lived, and to show that God was indeed fully loving. He couldn't seem to understand that I was pointing out a logical contradiction. He believed so strongly in both positions that he was unable to comprehend my arguments. From my perspective, it looked like he was unintentionally trying hard to disprove the Bible by verifying the existence of the contradiction. Of course, he would never intentionally do such a thing, and I was very skeptical of his scripture interpretations anyway.

Click to expand...

I note that you haven't attempted to support the concept of a fully loving God in our discussion here, so there's that. If God's love has some limitations to it, then there's no contradiction.

Yes I have two methods for proving hell, one is the theological case for hell, and I put that in the OP, but I started out with the logical case for eternal hell. And if you didn't get a chance to read it, I will post it here.

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 inappropriate content, 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?

I note that you haven't attempted to support the concept of a fully loving God in our discussion here, so there's that. If God's love has some limitations to it, then there's no contradiction.

I view the topic of love in the case of eternal hell, like talking about hocky during a basketball game. Thats just me, so I don't take note of it. If I am in a court trial, I don't look at if the judge loves me, I look at the case that is being made.

Yttrium · Jun 8, 2019

gradyll said:
I view the topic of love in the case of eternal hell, like talking about hocky during a basketball game. Thats just me, so I don't take note of it. If I am in a court trial, I don't look at if the judge loves me, I look at the case that is being made.

And thus the contradiction goes away. Thank you for your lengthy explanation on the eternal suffering logic.

createdtoworship · Jun 8, 2019

Yttrium said:
And thus the contradiction goes away. Thank you for your lengthy explanation on the eternal suffering logic.

I hope all that made sense, if it did not. By all means ask away. I could not tell if you were fully satisfied, or if you were joking around. So please by all means, we can further talk about this. (sorry about the graphic details of that post, I haven't read it in a while, I was just like, wow! that is down to the nitty gritty.)

Yttrium · Jun 8, 2019

gradyll said:
I hope all that made sense, if it did not. By all means ask away. I could not tell if you were fully satisfied, or if you were joking around. So please by all means, we can further talk about this.

I understand your argument. My main purpose here was to discuss the contradiction I ran into in some versions of Christianity, and we've successfully dealt with that. I also wanted to understand your point of view on the topic, and I think I have a good handle on that now.

createdtoworship · Jun 8, 2019

Yttrium said:
I understand your argument. My main purpose here was to discuss the contradiction I ran into in some versions of Christianity, and we've successfully dealt with that. I also wanted to understand your point of view on the topic, and I think I have a good handle on that now.

good, Godbless you sir.

Now the logical case for eternal hell is not the same as the theological case, there are some differences. See with eternal hell theologically speaking someone needs to have more of an understanding on the Holiness of God. For example in that situation, it's not 30,000 sins that give us hell, but a single sin. So that changes the logic of it.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 8, 2019

gradyll said:
The fact that you are questioning the plain reading of the Bible brings serious questions as to the tactics you use. You make the assumption that God didn't mean what He said in the bible, which is a dangerous position. For example if God said, we are saved by grace through faith, and your hermeneutic means that we are not to take the bible literally, then our very salvation is in jeapordy, as one could question the very words of the Gospel. For example if I say to you that there is a literal eternal hell described in the Bible, and you say it's not literal. That what it to keep the skeptic browsing this thread from saying, "if Hell isn't literal, then why is heaven literal?" I am sorry if I don't even view that as a valid form of hermeneutics.

What you're saying here could seem sensible, but in the case of comparing Heaven and Hell and so forth, you're assuming some kind of simple interpretive matrix---a simplistic conceptual matrix of "what you see is what you get"--that you apparently think exists in the construction of the biblical ideas of Heaven and Hell.

The truth is, after one has made at least some strong effort to work through the biblical semantics and thereby posit an interpretation of the Scriptures, even of those passages which seem to treat of the subjects of Heaven and Hell, one can come to see that each of those instances in the Scriptures where we think we find these concepts aren't necessarily conveying a straightforward description of either one.

Do you see the asymmetry in your refutation which you've attempted to mount against me?

You're essentially saying that a literal eternal hell is the opposite of a non-literal hell. Do you see the problem here in your evaluation? Yes, there is a problem here in your comparative assessment of these terms; they're not opposites. The opposite of a literal eternal hell is a non-literal eternal hell.

Moreover, I never said that Hades is not-literal. I do believe that it either has been, or that it is, a literal place for the holding of souls. In the biblical parlance, Hades has been dubbed as "Hell" through the matrix of Greek thought (with mass confusions between it and the other Greek concepts of Gehenna and Tartarus, etc.)

So, the real difference between you and me ISN'T so much in whether we both think 'Hell' is real or not, or literal or non-literal. Our difference is in our interpretive measures that lead us to think that hell will either be eternal or of a limited duration.

createdtoworship · Jun 8, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
What you're saying here could seem sensible, but in the case of comparing Heaven and Hell and so forth, you're assuming some kind of simple interpretive matrix---a simplistic conceptual matrix of "what you see is what you get"--that you apparently think exists in the construction of the biblical ideas of Heaven and Hell.

The truth is, after one has made at least some strong effort to work through the biblical semantics and thereby posit an interpretation of the Scriptures, even of those passages which seem to treat of the subjects of Heaven and Hell, one can come to see that each of those instances in the Scriptures where we think we find these concepts aren't necessarily conveying a straightforward description of either one.

Do you see the asymmetry in your refutation which you've attempted to mount against me?

You're essentially saying that a literal eternal hell is the opposite of a non-literal hell. Do you see the problem here in your evaluation? Yes, there is a problem here in your comparative assessment of these terms; they're not opposites. The opposite of a literal eternal hell is a non-literal eternal hell.

Moreover, I never said that Hades is not-literal. I do believe that either has been or could be a literal place of holding of souls, which in the biblical parlance has been dubbed as Hades through the matrix of Greek thought.

So, the real difference between you and me ISN'T so much in whether we both think 'Hell' is real or not, or literal or non-literal. Our difference is in our interpretive measures that lead us to think that hell will either be eternal or of a limited duration.

I am sorry anyway that refers to "symetry" and "matrix" within the Bible is not simply just reading the Bible and believing what it says. It's not hard, just pick up a Bible and read it, like a child would read it. And believe it. It's faith. It's powerful. It's the same substance that saves us. Anyway, I think I am done talking about this with you. If I see you butting in to my conversations I will address those posts, but I feel I have made enough of a refutation for now. I don't like debating other christians in apologetics area's it's not a good witness.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 8, 2019

gradyll said:
I am sorry anyway that refers to "symetry" and "matrix" within the Bible is not simply just reading the Bible and believing what it says. It's not hard, just pick up a Bible and read it, like a child would read it. And believe it. It's faith. It's powerful. It's the same substance that saves us.

No, not so fast! The actual fact, good sir, that the Bible is replete with epistemological indices that ...just as it sounds..."indicate" to US......................the readers.......................that both the acts of reading and understanding the bible, along with the follow up of accepting and affirming the bible, are fraught with epistemological complications.

You sir are guilty of trampling upon the Scriptures by a simplistic reading; a simplistic type of overly straight-forward reading that isn't too far short of that which some folks in the 'name it and claim' group are guilty of. It's strange that you try to wriggle your way out of this problem by just claiming your position without backing it up, especially when any Seminary or Theological school today that is worth its Gospel salt will require a student to take a course on biblical hermeneutics, none of which is simple. If the act of interpreting the Bible were as simple as you seem to imply that it is, NO ONE would ever, ever need to take a course in Hermeneutics whatsoever.

createdtoworship · Jun 8, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
No, not so fast! The actual fact, good sir, that the Bible is replete with epistemological indices that ...just as it sounds..."indicate" to US......................the readers.......................that both reading and understanding the bible, let alone following this up with acceptance, are fraught with epistemological complications.

You sir are guilty of trampling upon the Scriptures by a simplistic reading; a simplistic type of overly straight-forward reading that isn't too far short of that which some folks in the 'name it and claim' group are guilty of. It's strange that you try to wriggle your way out of this problem by just claiming your position without backing it up, especially when any Seminary or Theological school today that is worth its Gospel salt will require a student to take a course on biblical hermeneutics, none of which is simple. If the act of interpreting the Bible were as simple as you seem to imply that it is, NO ONE would ever, ever need to take a course in Hermeneutics whatsoever.

sorry brother, I don't see the difficulties in reading the Bible, I read it every day. No commentaries, no podcasts, no study aids, just me and the scripture. And you know what? God does an amazing Job at simply revealing His will for my life. I highly recommend it. Anyway, like I said I don't debate christians in the apologetics forum, (athiests can use this as a reason to mock christianity) if you wish to keep talking about this you can message me. But I doubt you will see eye to eye on this. It is my experience with theologians, that they like their commentaries and lexicons, but don't like the simple word of God. Again: the golden rule of interpretation as presented my many hermeneutics classes: if the plain sense, makes sense, seek no other sense.

I can post the direct quote in a PM if you want. But this is my last post to you.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 8, 2019

gradyll said:
sorry brother, I don't see the difficulties in reading the Bible, I read it every day. No commentaries, no podcasts, no study aids, just me and the scripture. And you know what? God does an amazing Job at simply revealing His will for my life. I highly recommend it. Anyway, like I said I don't debate christians in the apologetics forum, (athiests can use this as a reason to mock christianity) if you wish to keep talking about this you can message me. But I doubt you will see eye to eye on this. It is my experience with theologians, that they like their commentaries and lexicons, but don't like the simple word of God. Again: the golden rule of interpretation as presented my many hermeneutics classes: if the plain sense, makes sense, seek no other sense.

I can post the direct quote in a PM if you want. But this is my last post to you.

Alright then, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the interpretive side of things and agree on that which we agree on (i.e. all of that doctrinal stuff that is somewhat summed up by the Nicene Creed). I'll leave it here with you in the meantime, brother. Carry On!

Ken-1122 · Jul 14, 2019

gradyll said:
I was asked to move this thread, so that atheists could reply so here it is:

Some people can makes sense of annihilation. But when it comes to hell fire, and reading the sheer number of verses in the Gospels (by Christ himself) about "where the worm never dies, and the smoke of their torment." It can be alot to take in initially. I sympathize with that viewpoint. But as we show here, it would be the wrong viewpoint.

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 inappropriate content, 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? (I apologize already for the length of this first post) please bear with me.

(this is part one, the logical reason for eternal hell)
Part two and three are the Biblical reasons for Hell.

"SINCE THE BIBLE IS A HIGHLY SYMBOLIC BOOK, HOW CAN WE BE SURE THAT HELL IS A LITERAL PLACE?"

The premise that the Bible is a symbolic book, much less a “highly” symbolic one, is a false premise. Yes, the Bible offers some symbolism, as do most writings of men, but Satan has deceived people into over-emphasizing Biblical symbolism. Most of the Bible deals with history—the history of man’s relationship to his Creator. Within that recorded history one can learn of many things about God and His plan. As He reveals these things to us, He sometimes uses symbolism, but this doesn’t make the Bible a symbolic book. It is simply a book that contains some symbolism.

In November, 1993, evangelist Billy Graham told Time magazine that he didn’t believe in a literal burning hell. He said that the Biblical hell was “possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be—not fire, but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.” Graham had no Scriptural authority for making such an assumption. A preacher’s duty is to preach all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27), not speculate about things that might “possibly” be an “illustration.” To make matters worse, Graham “air conditioned” hell by describing it as merely a “thirst for God,” something that wouldn’t move any sinner to repentance. Why didn’t Jesus describe hell this way, rather than leaving its occupants smoking with fire and brimstone? Graham’s symbolism is unscriptural symbolism, as is that of many other preachers.

When the Bible uses symbolism, it is quite obvious. Jesus once said, “I am the door.” (John 10:9) That statement cannot possibly be taken literally, so it must be taken as symbolism. He also said, “I am the good shepherd.” (John 10:14) Jesus wasn’t literally a shepherd, His followers aren’t literally sheep, and literal wolves (John 10:12) are not a threat to Christians. Those are symbolic terms because they can’t be literal.

Hell, on the other hand, can be literal. Is it possible that a Christian can be a sheep with four legs in a pasture? No, that’s not possible. Is it possible that a literal lake of fire can exist somewhere? Yes, just open any standard text book on physical science, and you can see a lake of fire. For that matter, just run an Internet search on “earth’s core,” and you’ll see plenty.

The term “hell” occurs 54 times in the Bible, and never once is it impossible for the word to be taken literally. Every time hell fire is mentioned in the new testament or old, the literal greek or hebrew word is literal fire. Take the first occurrence, for instance, which is Deuteronomy 32:22: “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.” To say that “hell” in this verse is symbolic would demand further comment regarding the earth and the mountains. Are they symbolic as well? “Maybe they are,” one might suggest. Well, if they too are symbolic, then convenient symbolism becomes the standard by which men read and understand the Bible. If that’s the case, then why bother reading it at all? Everything in the Bible could mean anything, and no one would know anything for certain. There must be a safe standard by which we can distinguish symbolism from literal application. The safest standard is the possibility standard: if it’s possible that a given passage can be literal, then it is literal. If it’s impossible, then it’s symbolic (“I am the door,” etc.) Anyone who seeks a lesser standard is not a Bible believer and is not worthy of your attention.

(part three is a section answering some critics of eternal hell)

Is Hell Forever? (definition of aion, aionion)

Universalists and Jehovah's witnesses state that Hell is not eternal because aion means age not forever. Many state that because Aion can mean temporary period of time in greek and not forever that aion ALWAYS means temporary! Wrong! . That is the fallacy of committing illegitimate totality transfer. Just because aion means temporal in one instance does not mean it means that in every instance.

if aion universally means temporary then matthew 25:46 states that eternal life is only temporary because it's the same word for both.

Secondly,

"just because a root means age does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time. For example, consider this verse that is speaking about God:

who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen, (1 Tim. 6:16)"- Matt Slick at Carm.com

If and only If aion means temporary there would be aspects of God that would be temporary because the same greek word is used for God (aion)

The glory of God is temporary (contradicts: 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 22:5, Jude 1:25, Matthew 6:13, Galatians 1:5, Romans 1:23 and Philippians 4:20)

The righteousness of God is also temporary, which is implying that God is a sinner! (contradicts: 1 Timothy 1:17, 1Timothy 6:16, 1 Peter 1:23, Jude 1:25, John 12:34, John 14:16 and 2Corinthians 9:9)

God lives only temporarily, God eventually dies. (contradicts: 1Timothy 1:17, 1Timothy 6:16, 1Peter 1:23, Jude 1:25, Revelation 10:6, and Matthew 6:13)

God's Kingdom is temporary, (contradicts: Revelation 22:5, Daniel 7:18, Jude 1:25, Matthew 6:13, and Ephesians 1:21)

God is only wise temporarily, God is apparently unwise later on. (contradicts: 1Timothy 1:17, Romans 16:27 and Jude 1:25)

God is incorruptible temporarily, (contradicts: 1Timothy 6:16, 1Peter 1:23, 2Corinthians 9:9 and Romans 1:23)

God is not immortal, God eventually dies. (contradicts: 1Timothy 1:17, 1Timothy 6:16, 1Peter 1:23, Jude 1:25, Revelation 10:6, and Matthew 6:13)

God abide's only temporarily, (contradicts: 1Peter 1:23, John 12:34 and John 14:16)

ABOVE SECTION BY DON HEWEY OF Temporarily Disabled

DEFINITION OF "aionion" IN OUR VIEW OF HELL

BELOW SECTION BY Matt Slick of carm.org

Universalism is the teaching that God will ultimately bring all people, in all times, and all places to a state of reconciliation with Him. In other words, everyone who ever lived will be saved. Consequently, universalism cannot allow the possibility of an eternal hell as a realistic biblical teaching.

To get around the problem of the English Bibles translating Greek words into "eternal," "forever," and forevermore" when describing fire (Matt. 18:8) or torment (Rev. 20:10), the universalists go to the Greek. The Greek word that is translated into eternal is greek aionion"aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age." This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root "aion," are what the universalists use to attempt to show that "aionion" does not always mean "eternal" but can refer to a finite period of time.

The truth is, they are right. It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later.

With the claim that "aionion" can be translated into something temporal and that its root means "age," the universalist then says that any reference to "eternal fire," "eternal torment," or "eternal punishment" is not really eternal. Instead of "eternal torment," it is "aionion torment." Instead of "eternal punishment," it is "aionion punishment." That way, to the universalist, there is no eternal hell, no eternal punishment, and no eternal damnation. Everyone will be saved.

This approach by the Universalists can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand Greek, and that is part of the reason that Universalism has followers. It is true that the root "aion" means age. But just because a root means age does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time. For example, consider this verse that is speaking about God:

who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen, (1 Tim. 6:16)

The context is obviously dealing with God's eternal nature. The word in Greek for "immortality" is "athanatos." The Greek word for death is "thanatos." The "a" in front of the word is the negator -- without, non, etc. It means that God is deathless; hence, immortal. This is an eternal quality of God. Likewise, the verse states that God has eternal dominion. The word for "eternal" is "aionios" which is derived from the Greek root "aion" which means age. But, God is not immortal for only an "age," nor is His dominion temporal. The word "eternal" is absolutely the best way to translate the Greek "aionion" because God is immortal and eternal. Therefore, it would be wrong to translate the verse by stating that God has "aionion" dominion. Rather, He has eternal dominion.

How is "aionion" used in the New Testament?

The following two sections are verses that contain the word "aionion" which is translated as "eternal." Notice how using the word "eternal" in the first group is no problem. But, it is the second group with which the Universalists object. Nevertheless, the same word is used in both. See for yourself.

John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life.

John 10:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."

Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal (aionion) life believed."

Romans 2:7, " to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal (aionion) life."

Romans 5:21, "that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal (aionion) life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."

Gal. 6:8, "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal (aionion) life."

1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen."

1 John 1:2, "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal (aionion) life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"

1 John 5:11, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal (aionion) life, and this life is in His Son."

The following set of scriptures divulge the nature of eternal damnation.

Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire.

Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal (aionion) fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;"

Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life."

Mark 3:29, "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal (aionion) sin."

Mark 10:30, "but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life.

Luke 18:30, "who shall not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life."

2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal (aionion) fire."

It should be quite obvious that there is an eternal punishment and that universalism is nothing more than a hopeful wish. The Universalists are not justified in picking and choosing the meaning of a word based upon their interpretations of "aion" that suits them and depending on which verse is used.

Your argument appears to be that because God knows every detail of our wrong deeds, he is justified in eternal torture for temporary crimes. I say if he is aware of every detail of our wrong deeds, he is also aware of every detail of our righteous deeds as well, and if our evil deeds deserve punishment, our righteous deeds deserve reward. If our righteous deeds out weigh our wrong deeds, (the case for most people) we should get eternal reward; only for the few people whose evil out weighs their righteousness should go to Hell.
To provide punishment for wrong deeds while ignoring the good deeds is unfair and gives evil more power than righteousness.

Another argument is that if God wanted us to be perfectly righteous people who never did wrong, he should have made sure we were all born that way. To purposely set a system in place where everybody would be forced to be born with the desire to do wrong, then punish us for doing wrong is like breaking a mans legs, then punishing him because he is unable to walk. Only an evil tyrant would do something like that.

createdtoworship · Jul 14, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
Your argument appears to be that because God knows every detail of our wrong deeds, he is justified in eternal torture for temporary crimes.

like I said before the soul is eternal because it is massless, and exists in a domain above the time domain. When our bodies die, our soul will live on. So when we sin physically, we sinned spiritually first and foremost. We sinned in eternity. So our punishment must also be in eternity.

I say if he is aware of every detail of our wrong deeds, he is also aware of every detail of our righteous deeds as well, and if our evil deeds deserve punishment, our righteous deeds deserve reward. If our righteous deeds out weigh our wrong deeds, (the case for most people) we should get eternal reward;

say in the court of law you were imprisoned for a DUI, and you said, hey judge but I helped a lady cross the road the other day, why should I still get punished for this crime? See, it's illogical. You are not punished for the good you do, you are punished for the bad you do.

only for the few people whose evil out weighs their righteousness should go to Hell.

again if you go to a court judge and said I know I did a DUI the other night, but that was just one day of the week, the other days I worked hard at a local charity and did good the other 6 days, I only partied that one day. Again it's illogical because you are not punished for the good, you are punished for the bad. Only a corrupt judge would grade on a curve as you suggest.

To provide punishment for wrong deeds while ignoring the good deeds is unfair and gives evil more power than righteousness.

I think I adressed the evil part of this above. Now remember that doing good does get it's reward. Even other religions believe in something called karma. In christianity is similiar, when we do good, God blesses us. When we sin, God distances himself from us and the blessings stop, and depending on how bad the sin is, and how compounded it is, He may not only distance himself from us, but stop protecting us, and allow us to be sifted by the enemy and destroyed because of our sin. (this is all theology, and christianity, but it makes good sense, there are literally hundreds of verses about the blessings of obedience, and the curses of sin)

Another argument is that if God wanted us to be perfectly righteous people who never did wrong, he should have made sure we were all born that way.

He did make us perfect. With a free will. A free will is a part of the perfect creation of man. Satan brought evil into the world by the temptation of adam and eve. They had known no evil before that point. And because of the corporate and genetic fall of our corporate parents, we all die as well, and have a sin nature as well.

To purposely set a system in place where everybody would be forced to be born with the desire to do wrong,

adam and eve did not sin until satan tempted them, the desire to sin is not sin unless we meditate and follow up on that desire. If the desire becomes lust, then it is sin.

then punish us for doing wrong is like breaking a mans legs, then punishing him because he is unable to walk. Only an evil tyrant would do something like that.

like I said all sin in the world entered through satan, and his temptation. And adam and eve bought into it. So because of them, we are all under sin. But God did create us perfect and we could have lived perfectly without sin right now, if adam and eve had not given into temptation. Granted no one else did either. And that is wishful thinking, seeing the beautiful, juicy, red ripe apple just ready to be plucked.

mmksparbud · Jul 14, 2019

gradyll said:
like I said before the soul is eternal because it is massless, and exists in a domain above the time domain. When our bodies die, our soul will live on. So when we sin physically, we sinned spiritually first and foremost. We sinned in eternity. So our punishment must also be in eternity.

say in the court of law you were imprisoned for a DUI, and you said, hey judge but I helped a lady cross the road the other day, why should I still get punished for this crime? See, it's illogical. You are not punished for the good you do, you are punished for the bad you do. again if you go to a court judge and said I know I did a DUI the other night, but that was just one day of the week, the other days I worked hard at a local charity and did good the other 6 days, I only partied that one day. Again it's illogical because you are not punished for the good, you are punished for the bad. Only a corrupt judge would grade on a curve as you suggest.
I think I adressed the evil part of this above. Now remember that doing good does get it's reward. Even other religions believe in something called karma. In christianity is similiar, when we do good, God blesses us. When we sin, God distances himself from us and the blessings stop, and depending on how bad the sin is, and how compounded it is, He may not only distance himself from us, but stop protecting us, and allow us to be sifted by the enemy and destroyed because of our sin. (this is all theology, and christianity, but it makes good sense, there are literally hundreds of verses about the blessings of obedience, and the curses of sin)

He did make us perfect. With a free will. A free will is a part of the perfect creation of man. Satan brought evil into the world by the temptation of adam and eve. They had known no evil before that point. And because of the corporate and genetic fall of our corporate parents, we all die as well, and have a sin nature as well.

adam and eve did not sin until satan tempted them, the desire to sin is not sin unless we meditate and follow up on that desire. If the desire becomes lust, then it is sin.

like I said all sin in the world entered through satan, and his temptation. And adam and eve bought into it. So because of them, we are all under sin. But God did create us perfect and we could have lived perfectly without sin right now, if adam and eve had not given into temptation. Granted no one else did either. And that is wishful thinking, seeing the beautiful, juicy, red ripe apple just ready to be plucked.

The soul is not eternal. The immortality of the soul is not taught in the bible. Jesus did not teach it.

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God did not tell Adam and Eve if they ate oif the tree they would be tormented in hell forever---He saids they would die.

Eze_18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the right

createdtoworship · Jul 14, 2019

mmksparbud said:
The soul is not eternal. The immortality of the soul is not taught in the bible. Jesus did not teach it.

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God did not tell Adam and Eve if they ate oif the tree they would be tormented in hell forever---He saids they would die.

Eze_18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the right

what would be the point of tormenting someone in hell forever, if they die right away? This contradiction makes you believe that hell is temporary, but it says right in the verse that it's forever. If we simply die, why even mention forever. I mean death should be permanent at that point right? So I fail to see your point. If you believe scripture proves your point, please answer why "forever" is in the verse. For example if I say that that guy has been in the bathroom forever, that means a lot longer than, he just went in. Because using forever in language has meaning. So to when it's in the Bible it does not mean, He dies and that is it. At this point you will say, yes the death lasts forever. By why even mention it? If a bird dies we bury it in the grave do you think it is appropriate to say, it's dead forever? I mean isn't that weird? Of course it's permanent, but you don't need to waste precious space in God's word to tell us something so basic. If it's weird for us to say it at a birds funeral, why would God say it? Again I want you to think about it. Forever means that the soul is in perpetual death. Forever is supposed to be a threatening word. If my son crosses the road without looking, I don't say, "hey if you get hit by a car, you'll be forever dead." No I say "that car will kill you!" And if a kid is smart enough to know that death is permanent, I don't know why God would think you and me are not smart enough to understand death is permanent. Again you have no answer for this.

createdtoworship · Jul 14, 2019

mmksparbud said:
The soul is not eternal. The immortality of the soul is not taught in the bible. Jesus did not teach it.
God did not tell Adam and Eve if they ate oif the tree they would be tormented in hell forever---He saids they would die.

here is an interesting article I found online:

Though the Bible does not disclose to us whether Adam and Eve are in Heaven or Hell, but it does teach about life after death, and that all Old Testament people went to a place of conscious existence called Sheol. Both the wicked (Psalm 9:17; 31:17; 49:14; Isaiah 5:14), and the righteous (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13; Psalm 6:5; 16:10; 88:3; Isaiah 38:10) went this same place.

The equivalent of Sheol in the New Testament is Hades. The story Jesus told in Luke 16:19-31 reveals that Hades is divided into two compartments: a place of comfort where Abraham and Lazarus were, and a place of torment where the rich man was. However, the term “hell” in verse 23 is not “Gehenna” (place of eternal torment) but “Hades” (place of the dead). Lazarus’s place of comfort, called Abraham's bosom, is elsewhere known as Paradise (Luke 23:43).

The Bible reports that Jesus, after His death, descended into Hades where He went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago (Acts 2:27, 31; 1 Peter 3:18-20; cf. Ephesians 4:9). It is believed that at His resurrection, Jesus transferred the believers in the Paradise wing of the Hades to Heaven (see 2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

Now the question should be, Are Adam and Eve in Heaven or still in Hades? Well, since God continued to talk with Adam and Eve and provide for them after the Fall, it is most likely that our First Parents believed in God’s promise that He would provide a Savior (Genesis 3:15). This could be the reason why God was prompted to make garments of skin for them (Genesis 3:21). Thus the slaying of an animal (probably a lamb) to provide a "covering" for Adam and Eve typifies the covering a believer has by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.

It is apparent from scriptures that Adam and Eve believed in and depended on God. In Genesis 3:20-21, we see Adam calling his wife Eve ("mother of life"), thereby showing that he believed the promise about the Seed of the Woman crushing the head of Serpent (the devil). Undoubtedly, Abraham's naming of his wife “Eve” is an indication of life, not death. Also Adam and Eve demonstrated their faith in God’s plan of salvation by accepting the coats of skin God prepared for them and clothed them in.

After Adam has known Eve his wife and she gave birth to Cain, we are told in Genesis 4:1 that Eve acknowledged that her son was a gift from the Lord. It is likely that Adam and Eve taught their children that God was worthy of sacrifice. So we assume it was from them that Cain and Abel knew they were supposed to sacrifice to God (cf. Genesis 4:3-4). On their own part, Adam and Eve could have learned through the Fall to sacrifice to God and obey His commands. Whatever may be the case, we notice that it was not until the time of Enosh in Genesis 4:26 "men began to call on the name of the Lord".

However, it will not be wrong to conclude that Adam and Eve might have lived a life of faith after their fall in the Garden and that they might have been confined to "Abraham's bosom" after their death until Jesus transferred them to Heaven. But assuming Adam and Eve went to the other wing of Hades (called Hell). Then Christ preached to the spirits in prison paul said, and that meant he "led captivity captive." He freed the captives of paradise (today you will be with me in paradise, not heaven). So there is much scripture that says that He freed the inhabitants of the paradise side of abrahams bosom.

mmksparbud · Jul 14, 2019

gradyll said:
what would be the point of tormenting someone in hell forever, if they die right away? This contradiction makes you believe that hell is temporary, but it says right in the verse that it's forever. If we simply die, why even mention forever. I mean death should be permanent at that point right? So I fail to see your point. If you believe scripture proves your point, please answer why "forever" is in the verse. For example if I say that that guy has been in the bathroom forever, that means a lot longer than, he just went in. Because using forever in language has meaning. So to when it's in the Bible it does not mean, He dies and that is it. At this point you will say, yes the death lasts forever. By why even mention it? If a bird dies we bury it in the grave do you think it is appropriate to say, it's dead forever? I mean isn't that weird? Of course it's permanent, but you don't need to waste precious space in God's word to tell us something so basic. If it's weird for us to say it at a birds funeral, why would God say it? Again I want you to think about it. Forever means that the soul is in perpetual death. Forever is supposed to be a threatening word. If my son crosses the road without looking, I don't say, "hey if you get hit by a car, you'll be forever dead." No I say "that car will kill you!" And if a kid is smart enough to know that death is permanent, I don't know why God would think you and me are not smart enough to understand death is permanent. Again you have no answer for this.

Yes and when I am put on hold for a couple minutes I say it takes forever. The bible is full of examples of where forever is not forever but for a length of time. Hanna gave her son to the temple forever--it was until death. A servant who chose to stay with their owners was to be their servant forever---it means until they die. Hell is a judgement for sins committed. It is measured out "according to their works." It is a just punishment's for their lives. I always ask---who is it that you hate so much you want them to burn forever? If that is someone you love--your spouse, child, grandmother--you'll be happy watching them burn forever??? It says :
Rev_14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

You really think Jesus and the angels have nothing better to do throughout all of eternity but to sit and watch people being tortured?

You actually believe that God would torture a 15 year old killed while stealing a bicycle forever
right next to a serial killer? Same length of time---eternity. God is love---God is justice. That is neither.
To think that Cain has been in hell all this time, yet Hitler will never ever burn as long as he for his one death, is monstrous. It makes no sense. That when we die we are in the grave until we are resurrected--either unto the resurrection of life or to the resurrection of death-- is justice. At the judgement the lost are given the sentence, serve it and die--from this death there will be no more resurrection. With the death of the final sinner--which will be Satan---all sin is wiped out. There will be no more sin, no more tears, no more pain in the new earth. As long as there is a sinner being burned, there is sin, there is pain and tears.

holo · Jul 14, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
To purposely set a system in place where everybody would be forced to be born with the desire to do wrong, then punish us for doing wrong is like breaking a mans legs, then punishing him because he is unable to walk. Only an evil tyrant would do something like that.

It would appear so. I think it's interesting that this thought at least crossed Paul's mind.

From Romans 14:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

As far as I can tell, the bible is pretty clear that God never made a sort of level playing field. He picked and chose according to his own will, completely independent of what people thought would be correct or even good. I think the real kicker in these verses is that Paul doesn't correct the faulty assumption that God has created people to be sinners - he confirms it! He says it IS true that God made you this way, but that's his right as creator and you can kick and scream all you want.

He doesn't explain how this fits in with the idea of God being righteous, good, etc, and personally I (no longer) think he ever knew how to reconcile it. But there are lots of verses in the bible that can be taken to mean that everybody will eventually be saved, and that would allow for some kind of ultimate reconciliation. Maybe everybody goes to heaven in the end and we will understand and appreciate exactly why God created people to be nazis and generally didn't do squat to save others from them while on Earth.

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

do you believe in a literal eternal hell fire?

no hell does not exist

no it just means death

it means separation from God, not eternal hell fire

it means what it says, eternal conscious hell fire.

Independent Centrist

In the grip of grace

Independent Centrist

In the grip of grace

Independent Centrist

In the grip of grace

Independent Centrist

In the grip of grace

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

In the grip of grace

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

In the grip of grace

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

former Christian

Similar threads