Hell

[createdtoworship]

Romans 6:23 says "For the wages of sin is death,

Death, destruction however doesn't mean annihilation/extinction/nonexistence:



believing that one definition of destruction or burning is suitable to every verse is a fallacy. The fallacy is called illegitimate totality transfer. Annihilationists know this word well because I learned it by reading blogs that were annihilationistic.

even if something is burned to chaff, it is not "non existent=extinct" . Ash still exists for example. So this would be wrong to say this.

my car is at the auto wreckers and I drive by that yard every day. Is my car destroyed, extinct, non existent? No. It still exists it is just not suitable for it's intended use. So too destruction in any form is always, always able to be defined by such measures: "to render useless". Notice I say "able" and not "is" because I too do not want to commit said fallacy.

in fact here are some greek studies that agree...

RE: 2 Pet 3:5 wuest states:

“Perished” is apollumi (ἀπολλυμ&#953, “to ruin so that the thing ruined can no longer subserve the use for which it was designed.” - Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader (2 Pe 3:5). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

RE: Mark 22:2 wuest again states:

The Greek word apollumi (ἀπολλυμ&#953…It means “to destroy, to render useless.” - Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader (Mk 2:22). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Wuest was a professor of New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, and published over a dozen books on the New Testament...Wuest is credited as one of the translators of the original New American Standard Bible (NASB). He later went on to produce his own English translation of the New Testament (the Wuest Expanded Translation – abbreviated WET) based on Nestle's critical text. In his translation of the New Testament, Wuest attempts to make the original Greek more accessible to the lay reader by drawing out (in translation) the full variety of possible meanings and translations of the underlying Greek words.- wikipedia

Now, In light of wuests definitions (above) regarding the greek word for destroy (New testament word) Strongs as well, is too simplistic a definition: "to destroy utterly"(strongs #622). Especially in verses like 2 Pet 3:5, or Mark 2:22 where apollumi definitely does not mean to destroy utterly (extinction) but to render useless or to ruin. I would venture to say that nothing is annihilated. Under no circumstances is something totally gone. Matter can exist in other forms, chemicals, or compositions (water, ice, and vapor). In Genesis 19:13 it mentions destroying “this place” and as a result there would be ash, and rubble. It still existed but in a different form (ash is chemically a different form of the fuel burned). The same can be said of energy: energy exists in other forms – i.e. the first law of thermodynamics. The law of conservation of energy states that no energy can be destroyed, but can change form. Such is the energy of the soul. It is eternal in whatever form it takes, for eternal fire or eternal bliss. So to believe that utter annihilation is what is meant in the new testament is a contradiction in hermeneutics and also in logical science.

One of the most popular annihilationists today is Edward Fudge
Fudge argues the Old Testament teaches annihilation and therefore the New Testament must teach it as well. “When the Old Testament talks about the final end of the wicked, it uses language that sounds like total extinction.”- Edward Fudge (more in depth discussion in link: The Hermeneutics of Annilhilationism - by Robert A. Peterson), however this again is the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. Basically total extinction if you look it up means that something ceases to exist. If anything, our definition is more legitimate (destroy: to render useless). That is if one wanted to make a generalized blanket assessment of the word destroy, and I am not saying that it SHOULD, do so (it's illegitimate totality transfer)= My definition however, would match more occasions of the word destroy in both old and new testament. But One thing I will not do, is state that just because Destroy means one thing in one passage in Hebrew (old testament), that it therefore means the same thing in another language (greek) and in another testament (new testament). Edward fudge does this exact thing which is an extraordinarily bad case of ITT (illegitimate totality transfer). Fudge regarding sulphur in revelation 14:10 states that "In the Bible the symbol derives its meaning from the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah." (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 296- 297) And then on next page states it “sounds out a message of extinction.” Note: some passages do have a message of destruction but not of extinction which indicates a lack of existence.

Fudge does this with a list of 70 words in his book which he declares "Without exception they portray destruction, extinction or extermination." For example there is the word “torn.” Fudge again commits illegitimate totality transfer with this word as he declares for example that a “torn” piece of paper doesn’t exist anymore. All because he uses this entire list to mean extinction, that is they don’t exist anymore on earth.

But extinction by definition doesn't exist in the Bible. Like I addressed above, nothing ceases to exist ever logically, scientifically, or Biblically either. One must believe the above and yet still declare that the soul is a special example of ‘ceasing to exist.’ I find this hard to believe.

Thank you for the post.

 

[CherubRam]

Death, destruction however doesn't mean annihilation/extinction/nonexistence:

Thank you for the post.

I hope you do not mind if I believe what Christ said, contrary to you.

Matthew 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 (the grave / hell.)

 

[createdtoworship]

I hope you do not mind if I believe what Christ said, contrary to you.

Matthew 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 (the grave / hell.)

but in the grave the bones still exist, so they are not technically destroyed/annihilated/nonexistent by your definition of destroyed.

Under no circumstances is something totally gone. Matter can exist in other forms, chemicals, or compositions (water, ice, and vapor). In Genesis 19:13 it mentions destroying “this place” and as a result there would be ash, and rubble. It still existed but in a different form (ash is chemically a different form of the fuel burned). The same can be said of energy: energy exists in other forms – i.e. the first law of thermodynamics. The law of conservation of energy states that no energy can be destroyed, but can change form. Such is the energy of the soul. It is eternal in whatever form it takes, for eternal fire or eternal bliss. So to believe that utter annihilation is what is meant in the new testament is a contradiction in hermeneutics and also in logical science.

One of the most popular annihilationists today is Edward Fudge
Fudge argues the Old Testament teaches annihilation and therefore the New Testament must teach it as well. “When the Old Testament talks about the final end of the wicked, it uses language that sounds like total extinction.”- Edward Fudge (more in depth discussion in link: The Hermeneutics of Annilhilationism - by Robert A. Peterson), however this again is the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. Basically total extinction if you look it up means that something ceases to exist. If anything, our definition is more legitimate (destroy: to render useless). That is if one wanted to make a generalized blanket assessment of the word destroy, and I am not saying that it SHOULD, do so (it's illegitimate totality transfer)= My definition however, would match more occasions of the word destroy in both old and new testament. But One thing I will not do, is state that just because Destroy means one thing in one passage in Hebrew (old testament), that it therefore means the same thing in another language (greek) and in another testament (new testament). Edward fudge does this exact thing which is an extraordinarily bad case of ITT (illegitimate totality transfer): Fudge regarding sulphur in revelation 14:10 states that "In the Bible the symbol derives its meaning from the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah." (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 296- 297) And then on next page states it “sounds out a message of extinction.” Note: some passages do have a message of destruction but not of extinction which indicates a lack of existence.

Fudge does this with a list of 70 words in his book which he declares "Without exception they portray destruction, extinction or extermination." For example there is the word “torn.” Fudge again commits illegitimate totality transfer with this word as he declares for example that a “torn” piece of paper doesn’t exist anymore. All because he uses this entire list to mean extinction, that is they don’t exist anymore on earth. But extinction by definition doesn’t exist in the Bible. Like I addressed above, nothing ceases to exist ever logically, scientifically, or Biblically either. One must believe the above and yet still declare that the soul is a special example of ‘ceasing to exist.’ I find this hard to believe.


I await your response, and thank you for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

I also quote from the Talmud. It is available at two sites come and hear which is downloadable and sacredtexts which is online only. The Talmud at come and hear is fully searchable

still looking for links, will search more. Is the talmud you speak of the babylonian or the palestinian/Jerusalem talmud? I have the babylonian.

 

[he-man]

still looking for links, will search more. Is the talmud you speak of the babylonian or the palestinian/Jerusalem talmud? I have the babylonian.

I will let Timothew answer!

Originally Posted by Timothew View Post
I would answer that by saying that Matthew 3:12 doesn't say that the wicked will be torn like a piece of paper. It says that they will be burnt up like chaff.
And this agrees with the whole of scripture, Malachi 4:1 as one example of many:
"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them."
Nothing will be left of the wicked. They will not exist anymore. They will be "extinct".

This is according to the Bible.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

DocBubba, what in the name of all that is good are you even talking about? Your reasoning abilities just took another turn for the worse.

Perhaps ONLY to those who want to look at this superficially and imagine a god that is everyone's good buddy with some weak idea of a sense of human equality binding on God in having punishment "fit' the crime in their view; which a more deep thinking person would recognize as the thoughts that go into making a statement like this:

The concept of eternal torment exceeds the definition of punishment.

Especially after giving a definition of punishment with speaks nothing of limits or duration. Which in the context of this thread is the only relevant difference between the punishment universalist would have God giving the damned and the punishment traditional orthodox view does. One even attempts to excuse God for using the same punishment that one claims would be torture if it lasted longer (than a human thinks it should).

And BTW that is how one responds to demonstrate the fallacy and irrational of another poster's statements. Which is preferable in all but superficial responses (like the first one quoted above) where claims are simply made without any support.

As a Christian you should be at least vaguely aware that Jesus died on the cross to pay for sin.

As a Christian one should avoid insulting another simply because one has nothing else to offer in reply. The point was precisely that, that the cost - Jesus's Death - highlights the fallacy of imagining our offense against our Creator is something our minds are capable of judging what punishment for that "is enough"; which is precisely what one does in saying eternal suffering is "too much". Who are we to tell God what is fair???

I have never said "punishment is owed" to God. Where do you get this ridiculous stuff? Your posts are nearly incomprehensible.

Ah again someone thinking superficially about this perhaps would not notice, but one does exactly that as soon as one talks as if one knows how much punishment for sin would be too much. As our views of Hell differs ONLY in the duration the damned experience whatever that is, one has already decided that a never ending duration is too much. The only ways one can make such statements is imagine oneself God, or imagine Him more like us. Neither of those views of God are appealing to most Christians.

What point are you trying to make?

Making a point is easy when people responding superficially do not realize they help make it for me.

I've already pointed out the lack of rational approach you're using here in my last several posts. All you do is repost the same defective reasons over and over. We're finished here.

Making a claim that someone is irrational and using defecting reasoning is different than pointing it out. It is also easier for those being superficial to just make such claims rather than actually demonstrate they understand how to back it up and point our where a poster is being irrational or using defective reasoning.

For example in my posts I did not make unsupported claims - I said one who claims Hell represents torture if it does not end, but is not torture if it does not last "too long" is using defective reasoning (being irrational). I even demonstrated the fallacy of that logic by putting it in temporal terms like this: Just because the one guy operating the rack is able to get 100% confession (presumably for "salvation") before the victim dies and the another guy is lucky to get 35%, we cannot look at that and say one guy is a torturer and the other guy is not.

See that is not just a shallow claim made by someone who cannot defend either their position or their baseless claim about another poster. It is demonstrating some of the fallacy of logic used when people irrationally try to get God "off the hook" for suffering. I could have just said simply said (as others here have here) that one's posts are full of fallacy. While those are true statements, I think it deeper to demonstrate it. I also think it more polite than just making supported claims and attempting to insult a person.

 

[createdtoworship]

Originally Posted by Timothew View Post
It says that they will be burnt up like chaff.
And this agrees with the whole of scripture, Malachi 4:1 as one example of many:
... They will not exist anymore. They will be "extinct".

This is according to the Bible.

but when fire destroys the chaff still exists, so technically it's not annihilated or non existent. by your definition of destroyed.

 

[he-man]

but when fire destroys the chaff still exists, so technically it's not annihilated or non existent. by your definition of destroyed.

Want to bet?
OFFAL 1: the waste or by-product of a process
2: rubbish
Synonyms: chaff, deadwood, debris, dreck (also drek), dross, dust, effluvium (also effluvia), junk, litter, garbage, offscouring, raffle, refuse, riffraff, rubbish, scrap, spilth, trash, truck, waste
Offal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jerusalem, which as the site of fire-worship from the time of Ahaz,was desecrated by Josiah and became a dumping-place for the offal of the city.
Page 89 A MANUAL GEEEK LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ABBOTT-SMITH

Mat_3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It is the same reasoning minds far greater than anyone here (me foremost) have said repeatedly that the damned are destroyed, yet still exist and are aware. It is why CS Lewis spoke of them and the "destruction" of Hell as making them just "what remains", still alive and aware as a person but no longer recognizable as the person they once were or maybe not even recognizable anymore as human.

And it also flows logically from the foundational element of our faith that God made man to love, sever and know Him and any person rindered forever incapable of that purpose is truly dead, destroyed, annihilated...etc as far as being human is concerned. Just like the cities in the OT were destroyed/annihilated as far as being inhabitbitable places, yet still exist as a place.

 

[createdtoworship]

Want to bet?
OFFAL 1: the waste or by-product of a process
2: rubbish
Synonyms: chaff, deadwood, debris, dreck (also drek), dross, dust, effluvium (also effluvia), junk, litter, garbage, offscouring, raffle, refuse, riffraff, rubbish, scrap, spilth, trash, truck, waste
Offal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Mat_3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

yes I would definately bet you on this, as everything you mention in your post exists. You would have to mention something that doesn't exist, namely a soul in hell, and this is a case of special pleading as to your definitions.

in conclusion: nothing ceases to exist, it just transforms chemically, or materially to another form. My definition of destruction suits more. Namely a definition that of to "render useless" works in most occasions of apollumi and other greek/hebrew words for destroy.

All you would have to do is mention something that is totally destroyed, that is , doesn't exist anymore, to prove your point. And you can't because you have no evidence or examples of total annihilation:

extinction by definition doesn’t exist in the Bible. Like I addressed above, nothing ceases to exist in totality- ever, logically, scientifically, or Biblically. Yet the annihilationist is forced to conclude that the soul is a special example of ‘ceasing to exist.’ I find this very hard to believe.

Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jerusalem, which as the site of fire-worship from the time of Ahaz,was desecrated by Josiah and became a dumping-place for the offal of the city.
Page 89 A MANUAL GEEEK LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ABBOTT-SMITH

please to some online google searching, my view has recently changed due to online studies regarding the myth of the gehenna garbage dump theory:

http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/myth-of-burning-garbage-dump-of-gehenna.html

http://thepaperthinhymn.com/2013/04/22/the-myth-of-the-burning-garbage-dump-of-gehenna/

please do some online research as both der alter and myself have both told you about this myth already.

 

[Der Alte]

I hope you do not mind if I believe what Christ said, contrary to you.

Matthew 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 (the grave / hell.)

What God created, He can destroy but there is not one single verse which depicts or fortells a soul being destroyed in hell or anywhere else.

 

[FredVB]

Indeed, the dead are that, the dead, not the nonexistent. The Bible is never speaking of nonexistence, or coming to nonexistence, in speaking of the dead, or death which comes. I like that explanation, which sounds to me like the actual matter, that in going to destruction, there is that left remaining of the dead, that will suffer, this then would be according to the justice that is only defined rightly by Yahweh God. And I would say that in this they will know the justice, with memory of what things they were doing that leads to this. And Christ alone who bore the consequence for sin would save anyone from that, it is only with coming to him in repentance, according to life changing faith, to be right with God.

 

[CherubRam]

What God created, He can destroy but there is not one single verse which depicts or fortells a soul being detroyed in hell or anywhere else.

Your words are a contradiction to this verse: Matthew 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 (the grave / hell.)

 

[Der Alte]

What God created, He can destroy but there is not one single verse which depicts or fortells a soul being destroyed in hell or anywhere else.

Your words are a contradiction to this verse: Matthew 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 (the grave / hell.)

Not they do not. All you have to do is show me a verse which depicts or foretells God destroying a single soul in hell. There are verses which foretell of people being thrown into the lake of fire. There are verses which foretell of people being thrown into a furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. There are verses which foretell of people being thrown into hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. But there is not one verse which says "God will destroy his/her soul."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your words are a contradiction to this verse: Matthew 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 (the grave / hell.)

Bodies and souls are also mentioned in conjunction with OC Jerusalem in Revelation 18:13

http://www.christianforums.com/t7434988/
OC Jerusalem and Lake of Fire
　
Young) Matthew 10:28
`And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.
Reve 18:
8 Yet this, in one day, shall be arriving the stripes of Her, death and sorrow and famine.
And in fire She shall be being burned, that strong Lord the God, the one judging Her.
13 and cinnamon and incenses and attars and frankincense and wine and oil and flour and grain and beasts and flocks and of horses and of chariots and of bodies and souls of men.
Reve 19:3
And a second-time they have declared "allelouia! and the smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages".
[Ezekiel 13:18,19]

 

[Norah63]

No 4th of July in hell, no freedom there.

 

[createdtoworship]

Want to bet?
OFFAL 1: the waste or by-product of a process
2: rubbish
Synonyms: chaff, deadwood, debris, dreck (also drek), dross, dust, effluvium (also effluvia), junk, litter, garbage, offscouring, raffle, refuse, riffraff, rubbish, scrap, spilth, trash, truck, waste
Offal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jerusalem, which as the site of fire-worship from the time of Ahaz,was desecrated by Josiah and became a dumping-place for the offal of the city.
Page 89 A MANUAL GEEEK LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ABBOTT-SMITH

Mat_3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Heman, weve had this conversation before. This is when you say, "you want to bet" and I say, "yes I do" , then give you my evidence, and you say "you want to bet" and I say "yes I do."

you wan't to C&P that post once again, or will you actually try to respond with some un - "rehearsed" material?

 

[Evergreen48]

Disengenuous accusation, I never claimed to be a maxim maker. The final clause is the converse. If the stated conditions dictate then a word/verse is figurative.

This comment makes no sense at all, plus the fact that you misspelled the word 'disingenuous', plus the fact that I never accused you of any thing at all. I never said that you were a maxim maker; au contraire I said that I didn't think you were quite ready for that role.

Ah yes the same ol' unorthodox doctrinal "figurative/metaphoric/parabolic" cop-out. When scripture as written contradicts a pet doctrine simply blow it off as metaphor, parable, etc. anything but literal.

I don't do cop-outs, and not believing that the scripture teaches a literal hell is not a "pet doctrine" of mine. If there is such a thing as a "pet doctrine", it would belong to the early RCC who took money from the poor and ignorant people as payment for praying their deceased loved ones out of the dreadful place which they had falsely implanted in their minds. And in their turn, to those people who claim to be protestants, but still feel that they owe allegiance to the RCC as their "mother church", and just can't seem to rid themselves of some of its egregious doctrines and practices.

Why do you stop and vss. 7-11? Let us go back and look at the complete context. Your view would have us believe there was no actual literal king of Babylon, vs. 4, this imaginary king did not literally, actually die, vs. 4. Since this metaphoric king did not die he was not buried vs. 9, and the worms did not consume his body. vs. 11. And since this metaphocal king did not live, did not die, was not buried, the people did not actually, literally rejoice at his death. And God did not literally destroy Babylon, vs. 22. But wait, the scripture is only metaphor, parable when it contradicts someone's pet doctrine.

Isa. 7:4.That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

5.The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers..

I'm sure you would have us to believe that the Lord came down and literally broke the staff and the scepter of the wicked?

6.He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

And I am sure that you have conjured up in your mind a vision of an angry man continually (without stopping) beating the people (the whole of a nation) with an actual whip or a club?

7.The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
8. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

I have no idea how one would picture the earth literally being at rest while fir trees and cedars sing a melodic lullaby to it. But it sounds rather poetic, doesn't it?

9. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones (עַתּוּדִים - attud) of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

What ever one's picture of hell is it would have to include a hell that was able to somehow arouse kings and even he- goats from thier sleep. Then too, it was awfully nice of someone to allow those kings of the nations to take their thrones to hell with them. (They were probably just for use on special occasions, I think )

10. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11. Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols (נֵ֫בֶל - nebel) the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

Looks like they got to take their singing bottles of wine (maybe) with them also. Oh well, at least we know the worms were literal.

12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Sounds like "nebbie" may have been the devil in goat's clothing? ? ?

And here we have the "parable/proverb" cop-out. As I have shown, you only claim the "parable/proverb cop-out" when scripture contradicts a pet doctrine.
And in this case you have ignored the bulk of the chapter.

You have shown only that you have a huge imagination. "Pet doctrine" seems to have become another one of your pet phrases - you know - like "anything which contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions", or "credible, verifiable, historical evidence".

There was a literal, actual king of Babylon, he literally actually died, he was literally actually buried, and the worms literally. actually devoured his body and while this was happening God said "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, ...it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? " The ancient Jews understood this to be factual.

I believe I have already covered this in foregoing comments.

Gehenna
When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10
Jewish Encyclopedia Online

Yes, those Jews had some really strange beliefs. The only problem was, they had no "thus saith the Lord" to base them on.

Did Israel become figurative, a parable or metaphor when God said He would make them a משׁל/mashal, in these verses? משׁל/mashal is the same word translated proverb in Isa 14:4. Or did they remain a literal, factual people but were an object of ridicule and scorn?

Deu 28:37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, [משׁל/mashal] and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.

1Ki 9:7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb [משׁל/mashal] and a byword among all people:

2Ch 7:20 Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb [משׁל/mashal] and a byword among all nations.

Psa 44:14 Thou makest us a byword [משׁל/mashal] among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people.

Jer 24:9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb [משׁל/mashal], a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.

They remained real people who had become a real joke among their neighboring nations. How is that related to what we are talking about here? If anything, it lends credence to my side of the argument.

We know from our natural senses, our own experience, the experience of others that trees don't sing or shout. But we don't have any such experiential knowledge of post death. You have alluded to some scriptures. I quoted scripture. I take them at face value unless it can be proved not just assumed that they are not literal. I have not seen such proof and I suspect I never will.

There's plenty of proof shown through using the common sense that God so graciously gave us. If you will take your selective sight blinders off you will be able to see it.

Read Gal 2:11 re: face time.

Oh okay . . . except I call that "toe to toe time".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No 4th of July in hell, no freedom there.

Can't roast wieners down there either.
Btw, did you know July is National Hot Dog month?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7576320-5/#post58002615
Kosher hot dogs

What are hot dogs made of?

Are hot dogs really made from pigs' snouts and unused meat scraps?

Whether it is pork or beef that is stuffed into a hot dog, the meat trimmings are carefully selected just like the meat you buy in your grocer's coolers.
Most recipes for hot dogs combine together a tasty blend of favorite meats (pork, beef, chicken, or turkey),

.

 

[createdtoworship]

plus the fact that you misspelled the word 'disingenuous',

sorry to but in to the conversation but a few observations must be made:


so the fact that he misspelled a word makes his argument invalid a little bit?

wrong, thats called poisoning the well and is a ad hominem fallacy as well.

If there is such a thing as a "pet doctrine", it would belong to the early RCC who took money from the poor and ignorant people as payment for praying their deceased loved ones out of the dreadful place which they had falsely implanted in their minds.

secondly, you poison the well again with saying basically that "the dreadful place" doesn't exist because of RCC false use of indulgences. This again would be an adhominem against Eternal Hell advocates and not a real argument. I need not go on with your post At this point. however, it may be of use to point out some examples of adhominems so that you may avoid further use...

Ad Hominem Examples

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Use of marital status to invalidate an opinion of someone of a different status, e.g., “How can you make a decision about someone having marital problems if you’ve never been married yourself?”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above list from:

Ad Hominem Examples