Did he? Love is defined by what God says/does inside of Scripture. Is everything God says/does inside of Scripture in line with your definition of love, or even most people's definition of love? I think not. Isn't that why this thread was started - because we're trying to redefine hell to be in line with what human beings necessarily think that love is?
God definitely DID make it clear what His type of love was, and it indeed does surpass what humans would try to limit love to.
I have read it. There is nothing in there I disagree with and nothing in there or anywhere else in Scripture that contradicts the traditional view of hell, at least in my opinion.
OK... maybe not explicitly there, but what about this?
Rom 13:10 LITV Love does not work evil to the neighbor. Then love is the fulfillment of Law.
Well, Christ offered the truth did he not?
Christ is the truth, and grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of those who would not understand His parables as ones who would hear but not understand, see but not perceive. I think we would all acknowledge that at least some of Jesus' parables are difficult to understand... perhaps the Bible's statements about hell are not meant to be readily understood by those who will not dig deeper than the surface meaning. I say this not to attack you, but in love to suggest that maybe you are not seeing all there is to see in these passages, and thus misunderstanding them.
If you want more than that I own several commentaries on Leviticus and could probably give you some quotes.
Not necessary.
No doubt. But if God will torture temporally, and he clearly will, then why not eternally?
God does indeed inflict pain on us temporally, so that we might be punished for our wrong and learn from the correction.
Heb 12:8-11 NASB: But if you are without discipline,
of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. (9) Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? (10) For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them,
but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. (11) All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
I will have to say I disagree with this interpretation....I find statements such as "I never knew you" and "children of Satan" and "born again" and so on to be indicative that they never had the image of God in the first place.
Are you insinuating that the nonbeliever is not fully human?
No, it's actually not in line at all with God's moral law. What natural man would execute their children for cursing them? Or for saying "Let us go and serve other gods"?
The penalty is beyond normal human limits, I admit that, but I don't think many people would think either of those things to be "good".
There is something more going on here. Why does God say that man's heart is evil from his youth if he is in line with most of God's moral law?
Because man has departed from the truth he knows in order to follow his own desire... THAT is why they are called sons of Satan. Satan knew God's moral law, he was perfect in wisdom, and he turned his back on God to serve himself.
Indeed. But the point is that torment is not outside of the nature of God. Consider also the passage in Revelation: Rev. 9:3-6 (NRSV)
When a word can mean more than one thing, context helps determine it's meaning.
I would say their purpose is destruction...
It's purpose is retribution. Apparently some terrible crime has been committed.
Indeed... they rejected God and turned away from Him. Their punishment will fit the crime.
I have contemplated it but it does not make sense due to the context of the statements and the sheer number of times they are used. There appears to be a very serious literal element here or else the word "fire" wouldn't be being repeated over and over again.
No matter how many times I may call a scared person a chicken, though I repeat it dozens and dozens of times, at no point do I mean that person is a literal bird.
Actually, the way the word is used in the NT it universally means torture. Consider:
No, not always.
(G928) Matthew 14:24; Mark 6:48; 2nd Peter 2:8... all those passages could rightly be interpreted as being "tested against the stone" in some sense, and I suggest that definition actually makes better sense than the torture/torment one.
You will notice that in each case it is used it refers to some sort of active physical pain, something detrimental to the object it is being used against. You will also notice that the demons in Mt. 8:29 are afraid Christ has come there to "torment them before the time" which can hardly be talking about your definition of torment.
In many of those cases, and in the above verses, the idea of being tested fits better. Context determines meaning. Consider this passage:
Jer 6:27-30 NIV "I have made you a tester of metals and my people the ore, that you may observe and test their ways. (28) They are all hardened rebels, going about to slander. They are bronze and iron; they all act corruptly. (29) The bellows blow fiercely to burn away the lead with fire, but the refining goes on in vain; the wicked are not purged out. (30) They are called rejected silver, because the LORD has rejected them."
At first, one might think the reference again to the bellows/fire again speaks of a literal view of hell, yet who is the "tester of metals"? It is Jeremiah, not God (who is speaking) or the soon to come invading army. How is Jeremiah testing them in the bellows/fire? By speaking truth to them... they are rejected because they reject YHWH and the truth He speaks to them. This may give us some insight into how God tests the lost throughout eternity... they continually turn away/reject Him and His truth. Something for you to consider...
No, not really a Biblical definition: 1 Tim. 4:1-3 (NASB)
Unless you believe those who forbid marriage and command abstention from certain foods are sociopaths - a definition which I think not a lot of psychologists would agree with!
Sociopath | Define Sociopath at Dictionary.com
Paul was speaking of specific teachers during his day... they are unavailable for psyche evaluations though. They were the originators of teachings that others follow by tradition.
Yet God did not descend upon Mt. Sinai as a literal lamb, lion, or door. He descended upon Mt. Sinai as literal fire. Is he trying to tell us something?
NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME. Every instance of certain people seeing the LORD, they were not actually seeing God Himself as He truly is, but a manifestation of His nonphysical being into the physical world. GOD. IS. NOT. A. LITERAL. FIRE!!!
I'm not trying to be rude with the all caps and stuff, but this is absolutely essential for you to understand. We can't continue this conversation in any meaningful way until you get this.