Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most Christians will not admit fear of hell is the reason why they remain committed to God. It would be too devastating to admit this.
So this is another of those cases where we say "That's what our Lord said, but what He really meant was...", isnt it? He said "destroy", but what He really meant was "torture forever".
And if it doesn't, just say "but what He really meant was...".
But wait, what our Lord said was "destroy". But men are saying that isn't He really meant. So you're in effect saying that what men are saying he meant trumps what He actually said, zat right?
Yep, looks like.
Which seems an implicit admission that you had, and have, no earthly clue what the term "universalism" means. Noted.
There is a debate whether or not hell exists. Some believe non believers just die, while others are sure of a long and agonizing eternity in hell. Here is my question: Why would God desire hell over death?
The moment that you start judging God, you have then become a god. God is just and He will apply His justice is a just way. The one thing that the rich man in the Lazarus and the rich man story (Luke 16) did not do is ask why he was were he was. It appears that he fully understood and agreed with his destination even to the point of wanting to warn his brothers.Most christians would never send anyone to burn in hell for eternity. But, we grant God this right. So, why would a loving and kind God rather create hell than a place of nothingness? Does this not seem sadistic?
I'm still awaiting your retraction 98cwitr. Accepting that hell exists, that it will be experienced, and that it will be everlasting is completely contrary to the very notion of Universalism. Your accusation is unfounded.
As you know, there are a few flavors of universalists. Some, like unitarians, do not believe that there is a hell while others, so called Christian universalists, believe in a hell but disagree with the duration. The arguments from both groups are equally unbiblical.
What I was referring to was my earliest posts here, where I made clear I believe in an everlasting experience of hell which is painful (although I admit saying was not physically torturous) yet was still accused of being a Universalist. I personally don't see how anyone can validly claim I am so with that view.
Indeed.
What he clearly doesn't understand, is that a rejection of a physical torturous hell isn't a rejection of hell itself but a rejection of his theology of hell.
I'm still awaiting your retraction 98cwitr. Accepting that hell exists, that it will be experienced, and that it will be everlasting is completely contrary to the very notion of Universalism. Your accusation is unfounded.
Sure it's founded. You said there's no fire...I gave you the scriptural proof that there is. Awaiting your rebuttal good sir.
They go to Hell by choice, God does not send them thereOn that assumption, no one will be in Hell, because no one would ever want to go there.
BTW, Who created Hell, and set it up as the place where the dead go by default?
They go to Hell by choice, God does not send them there
If you are going to accuse me of Universalism, then show proof that I am a Universalist. A member of staff just commented here and seems to see no proof of it. Since Universalism isn't even allowed to be posted here in GT, then my posts should have been staff-edited. As they weren't, then it would show proof your accusation is unfounded.
Universalism has nothing to do with the acceptance or not of physical torment. That's an entirely different topic. Universalism has to do with a duration of hell or if no one will experience hell. Since I don't hold to those, and my posts clearly show that, then any continued attempt of your's to insist that I am a Universalist only continues to put you in a very negative light.
Where is the Universalism? Put up or retract.
God incarnated to save His entire creation.
In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God.[1]
Does the Bible actually say, sinners will spend eternity in hell after they die? Better yet, does the Bible actually say Christians go to heaven after they die? Or are these merely presumed by quoting certain verses out of context?
http://www.biscuithands.com
From post #13
no.Does the Bible actually say, sinners will spend eternity in hell after they die?
yes, good and bad go to heaven when they die.Better yet, does the Bible actually say Christians go to heaven after they die?
Or are these merely presumed by quoting certain verses out of context?
http://www.biscuithands.com
Since what I am saying is so far from what you have always believed, I can see why you assume that I am committing a hermeneutical fallacy.Ahh, I gotcha brother. I wasn't aware this particular interpretation was not allowed. Thanks for the heads up!
If you haven't have guessed, I hold to the pretty boring orthodox view of the soul. But at the same time, I do respect that some folks do believe this view. That being said, I'm not so sure about your distinctions about consciousness really follow. People still experience consciousness even while asleep. Yes, it's an altered state of consciousness, but it is still a state of consciousness nonetheless and we're all familiar with the experience of dreams.
Concerning the understanding of the term "death," I'm not sure we can apply your straightforward and single interpretation consistently throughout Scripture. After all, we have to acknowledge that "death" is not always used in a literal manner. For example:
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”Of course we find shortly after this that Lazarus does die (v 13). So what are we to make of this if we take a single literal interpretation here? Is Christ lying? Not omniscient and just didn't know better? Or by "death" (and note the Greek 'thanaton' here in verse 4 and verse 13), does Christ mean something else then just physical death?
(John 11:1-4 ESV)
As I hinted at above brother, I think you may be falling into a common lexical hermeneutical fallacy here, specifically what's sometimes called the "selective use fallacy," where the interpreter selects a single meaning for a word and applies it everywhere regardless of the context. As I mentioned above with the use of 'thanatos' that clearly cannot refer to literal physical death, it would seem you might be falling into the trap brother. We always have to select the proper interpretation of a term contextually. If we only focus on a single meaning we're going to get in trouble. There's also the reverse problem called "illegitimate total transfer" where one researches every single meaning of a word and then applies all meanings simultaneously to every use of the word. This is just as dangerous an error as selective use.
In any case, since we can't really debate this topic (nor do I really care to), I would instead advise you brother to explore these hermeneutic issues. It's very easy to pick up Strong's or learn enough Greek to be dangerous, but we have to very careful when it comes to this idea that simple word studies can solve all interpretative problems. It can't. So if you're interested in further study, you might want to check out this book. I'm not saying one probably can't still come to the same theological conclusion with a solid hermeneutic, but at least you'll be able to avoid what looks like you're doing here. I.e. making simple lexical errors.
God bless brother and peace be with you!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?