• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
66
Left coast
✟122,600.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You apparently don't understand the implications of the universalist doctrine when compared to your own. Universalism--and to a lesser degree, Annihilationism--reduces the torturing aspect tradition places God in via the endless torment of a finite human being, to a God who rightly punishes--not tortures--individuals for sin.

Your reasoning is defective. There, that's a softer term.
Apparently my understanding is deeper than a superficial view of either of those two beliefs. It can only be a very superficial, shallow view which attempts to claim universalism is ok because it "reduces the torturing aspect" of the traditional view. At least now I have gotten someone to admit that if one is going to claim that punishment torture, then it has to be torture in both views. The only difference is one has "reduced" the duration of it and claimed the person better for being tortured in the end. Which again makes me think of Monty Python skits.

Perhaps now we can address my point, which was how it is ok to see God as a "little" torturer but not ok if He tortures for longer periods (and how that reasoning is NOT defective).
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I recall having trouble following your thinking in past posts, and the difficulty is still there. All the same, let's try it again.

It can only be a very superficial, shallow view which attempts to claim universalism is ok because it "reduces the torturing aspect" of the traditional view.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of universalism. You're trying to force a "same as" meaning on my use of the phrase "reduces the torturing aspect". It was a simple figure of speech designed to highlight the difference between various positions.

To wit:

* The traditional view of hell is eternal torture for the unsaved.

* Universalism ELIMINATES eternal torture (there, do you understand this word better?) by revealing that all Godly punishment is purgative and restorative for the unsaved.

At least now I have gotten someone to admit that if one is going to claim that punishment torture, then it has to be torture in both views.
And you've now fallen back into the superficial category. Are you eternal tormentists so desperate to maintain your position in the face of it being revealed for the logically incurable doctrine it is that you have to grasp at straws like this in an attempt to salvage some credibility?

Let's be clear: punishment is not torture. Torture is torture, and punishment in salvific terms is God's great mercy and lovingkindness because it heals and restores the sinner to a non-sinning state instead of insanely torturing her for all eternity.

The only difference is one has "reduced" the duration of it and claimed the person better for being tortured in the end. Which again makes me think of Monty Python skits.
The only difference is one has a reduced duration? What sort of nonsense is this? To try to desperately to pin any notion of torture on God's punitive action, which always works toward a goal of final restoration to a true or perfect state of the individual so they can spend eternity is a perfect, glorified state is ridiculous.

Perhaps now we can address my point, which was how it is ok to see God as a "little" torturer but not ok if He tortures for longer periods (and how that reasoning is NOT defective).
Your attempts to "drag down" the beauty of the salvation of all and God who planned it from before the foundation of the world into a distorted role of a bad guy for restoring every human to a state of perfection as a result of deserved punishment for sin is disreputable.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not too interested in an outsider's biased assumptions/presuppositions. Do you have anything like evidence? Do you understand what I mean by evidence?
Sure. By evidence you mean something you can completely ignore and belittle, then cut and paste your patented, "You have none, zero, no evidence!"

The fact that you have your standard insults saved to your computer so you can cut and paste them at will would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Those who have the ability to reason do so. Those who don't cut and paste nonsense like yours to fill in the empty space.

While you may feel the legal profession is impoverished by your decision not to become an attorney, I'm pretty sure it was in your best interests to take up something else.
 
Upvote 0

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yeah. DA has shown us that cutting and pasting from a big library of folks who agree with him constitutes truth. What are you thinking CherubRam?

I do not understand why it is so important for DA to cling to his position. There is more scripture to support the fact that God does not tortures beings in Hell. He rejects that fact that it was the Catholic Church that canonized scriptures. That should explain everything in a nut shell right there. Is it that he can't stand to be wrong, or does he hold to some false notion. I have heard many Christians say there must be a Hell. It seems to me that they do not understand that if there was a Hell, that, that would undermine God's Holiness. If there is living beings in Hell, then the Serpent told the truth and God lied. I assure everyone, God has no reason to lie.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
66
Left coast
✟122,600.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I recall having trouble following your thinking in past posts, and the difficulty is still there. All the same, let's try it again.
........
Your attempts to "drag down" the beauty of the salvation of all and God who planned it from before the foundation of the world into a distorted role of a bad guy for restoring every human to a state of perfection as a result of deserved punishment for sin is disreputable.
Again sounds like a Monty Python skit. Am not the one here calling a particular view of Hell torture (because it is eternal), then turning it around and calling the same punishment corrective/restorative as long as it ends with the person "purified" by the process. People administering torture which induced death to get people to confess (in order to "save" their soul) used the same logic. It was ok as long as it ended (or was intended to end) with a good result for the person being tortured.

Again, the only difference between the "punishment" (Hell) that in one case is called "torture" and the other one wants to call "purgative and restorative" is duration and outcome. Punishment does not have to be corrective in order to avoid being labeled torture. Punishment can and does serve to isolate, sometimes permanently. The jailer does not become a torturer just because the sentence is permanent and the convicted is never "restored" to society.

The act of isolating some people from the rest of society, (or in the next life from those in Glory) serves a purpose and just because that purpose in not corrective does not make such a punishment torture. Likewise calling something torture because it never ends, then turning around and calling the same thing restorative as long as it ends with a "saved" person is using the same logic as the medievil torturer.

So yes, am still unclear how making God one of those medievil torturers is suppose to make one feel better about Him than if He gave those folks a life sentence. In the spirit of Monty Python I guess one holding this view could say God would have the best record of all torturers given the claim that everyone is "restored" by what He does to them. Batting 1000, Our Creator.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Again sounds like a Monty Python skit. Am not the one here calling a particular view of Hell torture (because it is eternal), then turning it around and calling the same punishment corrective/restorative as long as it ends with the person "purified" by the process.
What is it with you and this Monty Python thing? This has no correlation to the discussion. Maybe your rational powers suffer from this continual comedy you have going on in your head, Dr Bubba. I’ve been down this road with you before, as noted earlier. You get stuck on some insignificant point, seem to think you’ve really got something, and beat it to death.

Definitions: The term “Hell” for traditional Christians typically means at minimum eternal separation, on the far end full blown suffering for eternity in literal fire or experiencing some sort of pain which bears a considerable likeness to literal fire. The latter has traditionally been the more common view.

Tradition’s Hell has God creating circumstances in which unrepentant sinners suffer eternally. Because eternal suffering does not match the degree of sin committed—including those of Hitler, Stalin and all other known bad guys—it is logically considered to be torture

Torture: The deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons on another.

This issue hinges on a proper definition of the Biblical teaching of Godly fire. Tradition fits most or all of the Godly fire passages to their concept of eternal suffering. My univeralism (which seems to be in accord with the beliefs of many or most Christian universalists) understands all Godly fire to be corrective in nature, applied to individuals in time for two primary purposes as I see it:
1) to grant spiritual birth to those God chooses to give it (Mark 9:49, Jn 1:9), creating in them in this process moral ability to discern prescriptive norms;
2) to a greater degree applied to those who agree to conform to Christ in time as a sanctifying process to saving faith. Saving faith is necessary because all pass this life with some measure of “badness” (falsity) staining their souls into God’s presence--a terrible lake of fire to all things false—from which those sanctified to faith are unhurt as typified by Daniel’s friends in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace.

Those not covered by Christ’s blood at the point of physical death undergo the same Godly fire—which serves the same purpose as the nature of Godly fire remains the same. Only the application is different. In the lake of fire (God’s presence) Hell gets its proper description as an occurrence of spiritual death and rebirth experienced in the intellect. This occurrence, in the Christian universalist’s view, fades as falsity is destroyed in spirit and its value replaced with truth. As the individual spirit is restored in refining fire to an ever-increasing truth-content, the suffering disappears in correlation to the diminishing of falsity and restoration to truth. When completed, the spirit is rendered wholly true and wholly compatible with God’s essence…the lake of fire ceases as this state of unity and perfection of essence is completed.

DrBubba, how can you, in good conscience, call the restoration by God of every human spirit to a perfect state the same as torture?

People administering torture which induced death to get people to confess (in order to "save" their soul) used the same logic. It was ok as long as it ended (or was intended to end) with a good result for the person being tortured.
How can you even compare the acts of fallen human beings to what God performs in human souls? Are you so intent on defending your doctrine that you’re willing to drag the concept of God restoring and reconciling every soul to eternal glorification to the same stall as tradition's punishing souls eternally? Your logic is fallacious.

Again, the only difference between the "punishment" (Hell) that in one case is called "torture" and the other one wants to call "purgative and restorative" is duration and outcome. Punishment does not have to be corrective in order to avoid being labeled torture. Punishment can and does serve to isolate, sometimes permanently. The jailer does not become a torturer just because the sentence is permanent and the convicted is never "restored" to society.
You can't be serious? The only difference between eternal suffering and temporary suffering in order to grant eternal life is duration and outcome? Do you even think these things through and examine their logical credibility before you post? This is like saying the only difference between a mouse and a mountain is that one of them has fur.

The act of isolating some people from the rest of society, (or in the next life from those in Glory) serves a purpose and just because that purpose in not corrective does not make such a punishment torture. Likewise calling something torture because it never ends, then turning around and calling the same thing restorative as long as it ends with a "saved" person is using the same logic as the medievil torturer.
Your rationale is seriously deficient Doc. How can you post such stuff?

So yes, am still unclear how making God one of those medievil torturers is suppose to make one feel better about Him than if He gave those folks a life sentence. In the spirit of Monty Python I guess one holding this view could say God would have the best record of all torturers given the claim that everyone is "restored" by what He does to them. Batting 1000, Our Creator.
Amazing logic. That you are” still unclear” should be painfully obvious to anyone reading the thread. Your focus is entirely on ways to force the merciful, loving acts of God in restoring every human soul to perfection as equal to a medieval torturer? Do you even hear what you’re saying?
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
5,297
1,086
America
Visit site
✟362,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
All that is ahead for people after this life without redemption is with all the fairness from Yahweh God. I trust him for that. I think this is what all posters here believe too. There is otherwise a distorted belief of God. Fairness is defined by his justice, not by human courts of law. All souls that Yahweh has made, to live in this world, are to exist forever from now on. Death, and perishing, do not mean annihilation, otherwise there is contradiction with other passages showing there is no annihilation, and those passages have to be explained away in an unreasonable way. It is the same for all spirits. There is no end to Satan's existence. Otherwise he could have been destroyed already. But he will suffer forever in what is prepared for him.

There is nothing of torture in any of this that will come. But we have been warned, even in what Christ came to say for us. No one should want what is coming without redemption. What souls that will always last will suffer is for everything they have done, in perfect fairness, it has no torture in that. I don't know what it will be like, but the imagery shown for it shows that we would be miserable with it. We are shown that Yahweh is not willing to have any left to be doomed to that, but for them to come to salvation with faith in Christ the Lord, repenting of their life with sin. His justice and fairness are never compromised. There is the right consequence to all sins, every one, people are forever subject to that on their own, except for being redeemed coming to Christ, who bore it all for them.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
He-man, I've explained this over and over to you but it doesn't sink in. You're trying to disprove interpretation (A) by using interpretation (B) as arbiter. Every time you post the annihilation passages and throw out the same, "Well what about this? Look here, the Bible says this!" you are merely saying "Your interpretation is wrong because my interpretation says this." This is not a legitimate argument.

Interpretive structures should be measured against accepted truth tests, not other interpretations. Your reasoning is circular. You hold your interpretation to be the sole judge of my interpretation. Obviously, any interpretation which doesn't match yours is automatically going to be "wrong". This is why the same topics are argued ad nauseum over and over on theology boards with only rare (or no) advances in the resolution of tensions.

Your posting of the same verses ad infinitum does not make for a rational exchange. Do you see the point?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,154
EST
✟1,151,726.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure. By evidence you mean something you can completely ignore and belittle, then cut and paste your patented, "You have none, zero, no evidence!"

What I mean is empirical evidence, which is what I have been posting from the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud, the early church fathers, and lexicons such as Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, for Greek and Brown, Driver and Briggs, for Hebrew and other such sources.

The fact that you have your standard insults saved to your computer so you can cut and paste them at will would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Those who have the ability to reason do so. Those who don't cut and paste nonsense like yours to fill in the empty space.

I have not posted a single insult, standard or otherwise, against you or anyone else. I rarely use the second person pronoun. Making position statements and supporting them with evidence, is not an insult. Unless one considers having a belief proven wrong is somehow an insult to them.

While you may feel the legal profession is impoverished by your decision not to become an attorney, I'm pretty sure it was in your best interests to take up something else.

I did not say I wanted to be an attorney. I said my chosen profession required some study in law and I said that I have appeared in federal courts and my name on cases is recorded in the Federal Reporters. My point, which seems to have sailed over some heads was that I am familiar with how to present evidence in court cases, and I use the same procedure here.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,154
EST
✟1,151,726.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He-man, I've explained this over and over to you but it doesn't sink in. You're trying to disprove interpretation (A) by using interpretation (B) as arbiter. Every time you post the annihilation passages and throw out the same, "Well what about this? Look here, the Bible says this!" you are merely saying "Your interpretation is wrong because my interpretation says this." This is not a legitimate argument.

I beg to differ. I haven't seen anyone post "the annihilation passages and throw out the same, 'Well what about this? Look here, the Bible says this!'" What I have seen is people presenting scriptural evidence and supporting it with historical interpretations such as lexicons and the early church fathers. And the counter argument is "Harsh literalism! Harsh literalism! The church has been wrong for 2000 years and I have the only true interpretation, everything is an allegory or parable it is not literal."

Interpretive structures should be measured against accepted truth tests, not other interpretations. Your reasoning is circular. You hold your interpretation to be the sole judge of my interpretation. Obviously, any interpretation which doesn't match yours is automatically going to be "wrong". This is why the same topics are argued ad nauseum over and over on theology boards with only rare (or no) advances in the resolution of tensions.

Obviously, any interpretation which doesn't match yours is automatically going to be "wrong". This is why the same topics are argued ad nauseum over and over on theology boards with only rare (or no) advances in the resolution of tensions because nobody will accept your fanciful interpretation.

Your posting of the same verses ad infinitum does not make for a rational exchange. Do you see the point?

Want to get out of the rut? Present some credible, empirical evidence to support your allegorical, parabolical intepretation. I doubt that anyone who is reasonably intelligent will accept any new teaching without evidence.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I beg to differ. I haven't seen anyone post "the annihilation passages and throw out the same, 'Well what about this? Look here, the Bible says this!'" What I have seen is people presenting scriptural evidence and supporting it with historical interpretations such as lexicons and the early church fathers. And the counter argument is "Harsh literalism! Harsh literalism! The church has been wrong for 2000 years and I have the only true interpretation, everything is an allegory or parable it is not literal."



Obviously, any interpretation which doesn't match yours is automatically going to be "wrong". This is why the same topics are argued ad nauseum over and over on theology boards with only rare (or no) advances in the resolution of tensions because nobody will accept your fanciful interpretation.



Want to get out of the rut? Present some credible, empirical evidence to support your allegorical, parabolical intepretation. I doubt that anyone who is reasonably intelligent will accept any new teaching without evidence.
This is a complete waste of space DA. Do you actually have anything intelligent to add to the topic? I pointed out that to judge an interpretation by another interpretation--which most theology board posters do, and you and He-man most certainly do--is circular and a waste of time. Show me some of that alleged "intellectual honesty" you claim to possess for a change, try to avoid the drivel and actually address the topic if you're able.

If you're not, you might consider keeping silent and stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by dumpsterdiver45
I recall having trouble following your thinking in past posts, and the difficulty is still there. All the same, let's try it again.
........
Your attempts to "drag down" the beauty of the salvation of all and God who planned it from before the foundation of the world into a distorted role of a bad guy for restoring every human to a state of perfection as a result of deserved punishment for sin is disreputable.
Again sounds like a Monty Python skit.
Am not the one here calling a particular view of Hell torture (because it is eternal), then turning it around and calling the same punishment corrective/restorative as long as it ends with the person "purified" by the process. People administering torture which induced death to get people to confess (in order to "save" their soul) used the same logic. It was ok as long as it ended (or was intended to end) with a good result for the person being tortured.

So yes, am still unclear how making God one of those medievil torturers is suppose to make one feel better about Him than if He gave those folks a life sentence.
In the spirit of Monty Python I guess one holding this view could say God would have the best record of all torturers given the claim that everyone is "restored" by what He does to them. Batting 1000, Our Creator.
What is it with you and this Monty Python thing? This has no correlation to the discussion. Maybe your rational powers suffer from this continual comedy you have going on in your head, Dr Bubba.
I’ve been down this road with you before, as noted earlier. You get stuck on some insignificant point, seem to think you’ve really got something, and beat it to death.

Definitions: The term “Hell” for traditional Christians typically means at minimum eternal separation, on the far end full blown suffering for eternity in literal fire or experiencing some sort of pain which bears a considerable likeness to literal fire.
The latter has traditionally been the more common view.

Tradition’s Hell has God creating circumstances in which unrepentant sinners suffer eternally. Because eternal suffering does not match the degree of sin committed—including those of Hitler, Stalin and all other known bad guys—it is logically considered to be torture

Torture: The deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons on another.

DrBubba, how can you, in good conscience, call the restoration by God of every human spirit to a perfect state the same as torture?

You can't be serious? The only difference between eternal suffering and temporary suffering in order to grant eternal life is duration and outcome? Do you even think these things through and examine their logical credibility before you post?

This is like saying the only difference between a mouse and a mountain is that one of them has fur.

Your rationale is seriously deficient Doc. How can you post such stuff?

Amazing logic. That you are” still unclear” should be painfully obvious to anyone reading the thread. Your focus is entirely on ways to force the merciful, loving acts of God in restoring every human soul to perfection as equal to a medieval torturer? Do you even hear what you’re saying?
Mouse and Mountain.......funny analogy....


.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
66
Left coast
✟122,600.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
DrBubba, how can you, in good conscience, call the restoration by God of every human spirit to a perfect state the same as torture?
I do not call "Hell" torture and I would not call, whatever "God Fire" is understood to be, torture. The only people calling anything torture are the annihilationists and universalist. Again the point is simple. If 'God Fire' represents what one thinks is Hell then we are speaking of the same thing. Whatever it is, it is unpleasant. The fact one of us views what ever "it is" as never ending, and the other sees it as "just enough or just the right amount" is irrelavent. We are both talking about someone experiencing something that among other things is painful. The only difference is duration and in one case a happy ending for the person experiencing it.

Am saying if one insists it is torture simply because it last longer and lacks a happy ending, then it cannot be true that it is not torture if it is shorter and has a happy ending.

And since the definition of torture is brought up and an attempt to suggest perhaps that in this alternate view the damned simply being in God's presence releaves God of the responsibility for inflicting the resulting pain, we might ask why that thought cannot be turned around to apply to the eternal Hell view. The damned being said to be eternally in that 'God Fire' should likewise equally releave God of that responsibility. God allows suffering now and even though the innocent suffer too, He is not a torturer. And since He is not one now, am unclear how allowing some to suffer in the next life makes Him one either.

BTW note that even in the definition presented for "torture" there is nothing stated about purpose, intent, duration or good outcome mitigating the act.

And if we talk of equality or porportional punishment, how do we imagine an offense against an Infinite Being - assuming one has that high a view of God. I mean if we offended Obama we could expect a much harsher result than insulting someone here in CF. And though he may think himself king or even God, most folks view of God is much larger than even Obama can imagine of himself. So before one goes on imagining what we would or should do or consider should be done (fair) when offended by another person, it is probably best to remember Whom we offend when we sin, which is why the Price for our redemption was so high.
How can you even compare the acts of fallen human beings to what God performs in human souls? Are you so intent on defending your doctrine that you’re willing to drag the concept of God restoring and reconciling every soul to eternal glorification to the same stall as tradition's punishing souls eternally? Your logic is fallacious.
That is a claim, but pointing out how so requires more than superficial remarks and opinion.

On the other hand, I have pointed out repeatedly the fallacy of saying a method of punishment is torture unless it has limit and a good outcome.
You can't be serious? The only difference between eternal suffering and temporary suffering in order to grant eternal life is duration and outcome? Do you even think these things through and examine their logical credibility before you post? This is like saying the only difference between a mouse and a mountain is that one of them has fur.
Again whether we call it "Hell" or "God's Fire", and I make no claim to know exactly what it is or even how the damned suffer, we both say they suffer and that is THE punishment. We are talking about THE punishment, which is the SAME - except for duration. So yes, the only difference in our views of this punishment is one of us has it never ending, the other has it ending - with a good outcome for the damned.

So if it can be said in ANY WAY that THE punishment equal torture, it cannot be true it is not torture if it stops, regardless of what then happens to the individual. One keeps putting this out there like we could point to a number and say - this guy gets 30 licks and if we give him 31 that last one is torture. Am saying if any licks are considered torture, then all 31 licks are torture.

And it would also not matter if at 29 licks the guy says I have seen the light and will never steal again. If the next two licks are considered torture then all 31 licks were torture.

Your rationale is seriously deficient Doc. How can you post such stuff?
It is called logic and is easily differentiated from superficial claims and giving opinions. If one sees a logical flaw in what was posted then show it. Why just make a claim? And when a flaw is pointed out in one's own logic, why not defend it or refute the point rather than just sweep it under the rug?

Amazing logic. That you are” still unclear” should be painfully obvious to anyone reading the thread. Your focus is entirely on ways to force the merciful, loving acts of God in restoring every human soul to perfection as equal to a medieval torturer? Do you even hear what you’re saying?
LOL, am not the one claiming God is torturer, but as long as the people being tortured end up seeing the light and making it to Heaven, that act of torture is considered a merciful and loving act by God.

Certainly sounds like a medievil torture scheme to me. If they would only confess their crime, the pain would end and God would welcome them to Heaven. And the job of the medievil torturer is merciful and loving because he is simpy trying to help them get there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟105,748.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Annihilation of individuals is one of the more common metaphors God uses to show how He applies new birth to human spirit and thus saves souls. ?
Please conjure up an explanation for this if you think it is a metaphor: Ps 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in His hand, and He will throughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. So you admit there will be a second death? That must mean no more torture or tears either?

The 19th century Young's Literal Translation and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible both try to be as literal a translation as possible and do not use the word Hell at all, keeping the words Hades and Gehenna untranslated. Annihilationists understand Gehenna to be a place where sinners are eventually utterly destroyed, not tormented forever.

Earlier in the 20th century, some theologians at the University of Cambridge including Basil Atkinson supported the belief. 20th-century English theologians who favour annihilation include Bishop Charles Gore (1916),[4] William Temple, 98th Archbishop of Canterbury (1924);[5] Oliver Chase Quick, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1933),[6] Ulrich Ernst Simon (1964),[7] and Caird G. B., The Revelation of St John the Divine London: A. and C. Black., 1966, pp. 186f., 260.

Additionally, the Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in 1995 that "[h]ell is not eternal torment", but "non-being". Some Protestant and Anglican writers have also proposed annihilationist doctrines.

The ancient Aramaic paraphrase-translations of the Hebrew Bible supply the term "Gehinnom" frequently to verses touching upon resurrection, judgment, and the fate of the wicked. This may also include addition of the phrase "second death", as in the final chapter of the Book of Isaiah, where the Hebrew version does not mention either Gehinnom or the Second Death, whereas the Targums add both. In this the Targums are parallel to the Gospel of Mark addition of "Gehenna" to the quotation of the Isaiah verses describing the corpses "where their worm does not die"
McNamara, Targums and Testament, ISBN 978-0716506195

There is evidence however that the southwest shoulder of this valley (Ketef Hinnom) was a burial location with numerous burial chambers that were reused by generations of families from as early as the seventh until the fifth century BCE. The use of this area for tombs continued into the first centuries BCE and CE.

By 70 CE, the area was not only a burial site but also a place for cremation of the dead with the arrival of the Tenth Roman Legion, who were the only group known to practice cremation in this region.
Gabriel Barkay, "The Riches of Ketef Hinnom." Biblical Archaeological Review 35:4-5 (2005): 22–35, 122–26.

In the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the Kingdom (Mark 9:43-48).[29] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28: "....rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in, 'Gehenna.'".

αποτομη, ης, η a cutting off: & αποτομια, ας, η, seveity: fr. αποτομος, ο, η, abrupt, cut or broken off ; by metaph. severe: Hence, αποτομως, adv. severely, precisely
Page 79 English and Greek Lexicon Page 22 Cutting, τομη, τομηα: by cutting, off, αποτομη

The word "severity" now suggests sometimes the idea of harshness, or even of cruelty. (Webster.) But nothing of this kind is conveyed in the original word here. It properly denotes "cutting off," αποτομίαν apotomian from αποτέμνω apotemnō, to cut off; and is commonly applied to the act of the gardener or vine-dresser in trimming trees or vines, and cutting off the decayed or useless branches.

Here it refers to the act of God in cutting off or rejecting the useless branches; and conveys no idea of injustice, cruelty, or harshness. It was a just act, and consistent with all the perfections of God. It indicated a purpose to do what was right, though the inflictions might seem to be severe, and though they must involve them in many heavy calamities.
G5114 Swords of the Soul and Spirit – Scribd tomōteros tom-o'-ter-os Compound of a derivative of the primary word τεμνω temnō (to cut; more comprehensive or decisive than G2875

The term severity αποτομια [Strong's G663], from απο [Strong's G575], from, and τεμνω, to cut off, properly denotes excision, cutting off, as the gardener cuts off, with a pruning knife, dead boughs, or luxuriant stems.
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Commentary on the Bible, Adam Clarke “but it was severity, αποτομια, an act of excision, Rom 11:1;
Deu 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy [אבד ] them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
Spec, a) Of things, to destroy, to lay waste, 2 K. 19, 18. Num. 33, 52. Deut. 12, 2. ) to waste one's substance, Prov. 29, 3. b) Of men, to destroy, to kill, to put to death,
Esth. 3, 9. 13. 2 K. 11, 1. 13, 7. to destroy, to cut off, as men and nations, Deut. 7, 10. 8, 20 ; Lev. 23, 30 ; Deut. 7, 24 ; also of a land, to lay waste, Zeph. 2, 5 ;

It is God who controls life and excision from life:
destroying angel 2 Sam. 24. 16, and the destroyer Ex. 12, 23, i. e. the angel of God who inflicts calamities and death upon men;
comp.1 Chr. 21, 12. Jer. 51, 1 Page 1053

Job 14, 19. Very rarely the quiescent X in 1 pers. fut. is dropped, as in Jer. 46, 8.
Deriv. Chald. fut. to perish. Jer. 10, 11. Aph. to destroy, to cut off, Dan. 2, 12. 18^ 24.
after the Heb. minner, Dan. 7, li.Participial noun, destruction, Num. 24, 20. 24. See Lehrg. p. 488.
2. place of destruction, abyss, i. e. Sheol, Hades, Prov. 27, 20 Chethibh. "m. 1. destruction, Job 31, 12. 2. place of destruction, abyss, nearly synon. with Job 26, 6. 28, 22. Prov. 15, 11
m. verbal of Piel for without Dag. lene in destruction, slaughter, Esth. 9, 5. id. destruction death, Esth. 8, 6. Page 3. 4

Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall pay the penalty with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,154
EST
✟1,151,726.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is a complete waste of space DA. Do you actually have anything intelligent to add to the topic? I pointed out that to judge an interpretation by another interpretation--which most theology board posters do, and you and He-man most certainly do--is circular and a waste of time. Show me some of that alleged "intellectual honesty" you claim to possess for a change, try to avoid the drivel and actually address the topic if you're able.

If you're not, you might consider keeping silent and stop embarrassing yourself.

The only people being embarrased around here are those who are being constantly refuted with credible, verifiable, historical evidence, such as I present. And most don't even know what that means. A lot of folks here think if they can find something, written by somebody, somewhere that supports their argument that it supposedly refutes any counter argument.

It is not about this interpetation beats that intepretation but it is about the qualifications of the source. Something written by a scholar, of any theological position, in the 19th-21st century, is only compelling if it is supported with credible, verifiable, historical evidence otherwise it is only opinion. Unlike some folks around here I provide credible, verifiable, historical evidence such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud and the lexicons. My copy of BAGD has 8 pages with about 50 references on each page of historical sources. Some scholar now dead who wrote something in 1967 who cites only 2-3 historical sources does not cannot refute all the sources I provided.
 
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟105,748.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It is not about this interpetation beats that intepretation but it is about the qualifications of the source. Something written by a scholar, of any theological position, in the 19th-21st century, is only compelling if it is supported with credible, verifiable, historical evidence otherwise it is only opinion. Unlike some folks around here I provide credible, verifiable, historical evidence such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud and the lexicons. My copy of BAGD has 8 pages with about 50 references on each page of historical sources. Some scholar now dead who wrote something in 1967 who cites only 2-3 historical sources does not cannot refute all the sources I provided.
:doh: No Satan, no Hell!
The following was written in 2003:
In the Bible there is also verses which show that it is God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole universe, who is responsible for both the Good and the Bad, and not a devil or god of the underworld:
I am the Eternal, and there is none else, there is no god beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Eternal, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Eternal do all these things. [Isaiah 45:5-7]

For God, the Bible, and for Judaism, to have an entity that competes with God, that has power and authority of his own in opposition to God, is to violate the basic idea of monotheism.

For Jews, anything that even remotely conflicts with the idea that God is One and Indivisible will be rejected because it precludes true, pure, monotheism. The idea that there is a God in heaven above who fights against a god of the underworld, or hell, is not monotheism, however, it is the same duality found in other pagan faiths. The Bible speaks of a character known as The Satan, who acts like a prosecuting attorney, or a district attorney, in God's court. However, The Satan has no power or authority in and of himself, rather he must get permission from the Judge, God, to do anything.

Now, of course, Judaism and the Bible tell of a character called, "The Satan." Every time the term is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, it reads, "HaSaTaN," which means "THE Satan." However, the concept of The Satan is radically different from the idea of the Devil. For Christians, the devil has power and authority in and of himself. However, in the Bible, The Satan only has power granted by God, and has no authority in and of himself. For the devil, or satan, to have power and authority is to have more than one god, as we saw above concerning the Greeks and the Romans.

The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he works FOR God, not against God, and must get permission from God for everything that he does. Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned.

In the following quotation from the Biblical Book of Job, please take note of who is doing the talking, as The Satan asks God for permission to conduct a sting operation against Job:
And the Eternal said unto <the>Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou <The Satan> movedst me <God> against him, to destroy him without cause. And Satan answered the Eternal, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand <God's hand> now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the Eternal said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. [Job 2:3-6]

In the above verses, The Satan must get permission from God to perform this "sting operation" on Job. The Satan has no power or authority of his own, who must also obtain permission from The Judge for anything he does. Furthermore, the Biblical text paints this same picture of the Satan, when it uses the character of The Satan

And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Eternal, and <the>Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Eternal said unto Satan, "The Eternal rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Eternal that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" [Zechariah 3:1-2]
Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin. [Psalm 109:6-7]
What Jews Believe (Rabbi Stuart Federow 2003)
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
:doh: No Satan, no Hell!
The following was written in 2003:...............................


Now, of course, Judaism and the Bible tell of a character called, "The Satan." Every time the term is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, it reads, "HaSaTaN," which means "THE Satan." However, the concept of The Satan is radically different from the idea of the Devil.

For Christians, the devil has power and authority in and of himself. However, in the Bible, The Satan only has power granted by God, and has no authority in and of himself. For the devil, or satan, to have power and authority is to have more than one god, as we saw above concerning the Greeks and the Romans.

The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he works FOR God, not against God, and must get permission from God for everything that he does.
Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned...................

What Jews Believe (Rabbi Stuart Federow 2003)
Perhaps we need to make a thread on that topic :idea:

Think About It, Know About It.: The Devil, Satan, and Lucifer: What&#39;s the Difference Between the Three?
What's the Difference Between the Three? http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2557848901980438864&postID=9073906351280162030&from=pencil
The Devil, Satan, and Lucifer.

Luke 10:18
And He said to them "I beheld the Satan, as a star-flash/lightening/astraphn <796> out of the heaven falling/pesonta <4098> (5631) ".

Revelation 9:1
And the fifth messenger trumpets and I saw a star/astera <792> out of the heaven having fallen/peptwkota <4098> (5761) into the land
and was given to him the key of the well of the abyss, [Luke 10:18]




The "Fallen Angel"


We use these terms interchangeably when referring to the evil opposer of God. But do they really all mean the same thing?

Not at all.

People used to understand the difference between them, but over time, the real meanings of these three terms have all been morphed into one idea. You will not learn the real meanings behind these terms at church, nor will you learn the real difference between Satan, Lucifer, and the devil on sites like Christianity.com. Most likely, you'll live your life thinking that the devil, Satan, and Lucifer are basically the same thing. But we are truth seekers, and we know that this is not true. There is indeed a difference between Satan, Lucifer, and the Devil. Unfortunately, these differences have been obscured, lost in translation, or misinterpreted. Here, we will learn the real differences between these three terms.

First off, let's take a look at "the Devil." The word "devil" comes from the Greek word "diabolos," which means "slanderer" or "accuser."

The word "Satan" comes from the Hebrew word "(ha-)Satan," meaning "(the) adversary" or "(the) opposer." The word "ha" is a definite article meaning "the."

Finally, the word "Lucifer" comes from the Latin word "lux-fer," which means "bringer/bearer of light."

Now that we know the etymological history behind these three terms, let's look at how their original meanings have been distorted...........


.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do not call "Hell" torture
Nor did I all those years I blindly accepted the concept without realizing its logical absurdity.

and I would not call, whatever "God Fire" is understood to be, torture.
Neither does anyone else. Godly fire is understood to be the Biblical concept of punishment.

Punishment: Something (e.g. imprisonment or paying a fine) someone is made to do to compensate for a wrongdoing, especially for crime.

The only people calling anything torture are the annihilationists and universalist.
Universalists see the logical fallacy in the attempts by traditionalists to retain the concept of punishment in their doctrine by applying it eternally. The concept of eternal torment exceeds the definition of punishment. Pay attention to this--it's at this point your entire argument becomes specious and crumbles.


Again the point is simple. If 'God Fire' represents what one thinks is Hell then we are speaking of the same thing.
Here's where you fall. Godly fire is understood by Christians to be punishment for sin. As explained above, eternal torment fails the definition of punishment and takes on the appearance of torture for torture's sake. The God who can fix broken humans but instead chooses not to fix them so they can suffer for endless eternity with no chance of remediation is insane. At least the Annihilationist's God puts those He chooses not to fix out of their misery. Their view resolves one of Eternal Torment's tensions.

Whatever it is, it is unpleasant. The fact one of us views what ever "it is" as never ending, and the other sees it as "just enough or just the right amount" is irrelavent.
But this is where you continue to embarrass yourself Doc. How can you in good conscience look at the concepts of eternal suffering and eternal salvation and say the difference between the two is irrelevant?

We are both talking about someone experiencing something that among other things is painful. The only difference is duration and in one case a happy ending for the person experiencing it.
Again with the "only difference" thing?

Repeated attempts to make the case that there is no difference between God’s acts in:
A) committing a sinner to an eternal state of suffering with no hope of termination
B) committing a sinner to a temporary state of suffering in order that he may be saved for all eternity
...shows an appalling lack of understanding of the issue itself, the standards of rational judgment or both, Doc Love.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟30,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I haven't seen anyone post "the annihilation passages and throw out the same, 'Well what about this? Look here, the Bible says this!'" What I have seen is people presenting scriptural evidence and supporting it with historical interpretations such as lexicons and the early church fathers.
I've presented considerable logical and Biblical evidence here for my position. Like the atheist who builds an arena in which she demands only arguments pertaining to temporal and spatial things are allowed...then challenges the theist, "come, let us argue together!", you constantly try impose manmade rules designed to support only your literalist interpretive method, then present nonsense like the above as though they're legitimate challenges.

Both interpretations and the doctrines they establish are expected to stand up to established truth criteria. You have no interest in judging according to truth criteria, only according to your doctrine. Like the atheist position, yours is circular. You're a waste of time DA.

Where did I say that the Rich man/Lazarus story specifically mentioned duration?

the word of God exists forever

The passage "none may cross over from there to us." will remain in God's word unless/until He changes it.

The rich man will remain in his condition until God changes the words of Luke 16:26. Let me know when that happens.

Posted by Der Alter:
I do indeed post with a high degree of intellectual honesty.
 
Upvote 0