Those who choose Hell.......

[Protoevangel]

First of all, DanHead, there is no need to be disrespctful, and besides I'm married.

No intention to be disrespectful. Looking back, I see that my offhand remark looks more boorish than I intended. I do apologize for that.

Secondly it is not just my opinion.

I'm of the opinion that we are not meant to take Revelation literally, especially not the allegorical parts! So you have not provided any valid proof.

First of all, valid proof is not dependant upon your "opinion".

So, what do you suppose I was referring to?

Thirdly attempts to verify anything from the Bible need to quote verses that actually mean what people suppose them to mean.

When did I attempt to verify anything? You asked "On what do you base this idea that people will be thrown into a lake of fire and sulphur?" All I did was offer you the main verses whereupon this idea is based by those who espouse it.

Fourthly, while you may be correct, perhaps it would be best to let J David answer for himself.

I have not neutered him of that ability. He is still perfectly capable of doing exactly that. Once again, all I did was provide the most pertinent and obvious verses which are used by those who teach that people will be thrown into a lake of fire and sulphur. I did not indicate my own opinion on those verses.

If you have such a problem with everyone who disagrees with you perhaps it would be wise not to post here.

No problems at all. I did not attempt to “verify” anything, or provide any “proof” whatsoever to prompt your argument. I provided no exegesis, commentary or opinion on the verses for you to conclude that you could disagree with my position. What exactly makes you thing we disagree anyway, when all I provided was Scripture? Or are you offended by the Scripture itself?

 

[ahab]

If you have such a problem with everyone who disagrees with you perhaps it would be wise not to post here.

Hi Treasure the Questions,

I have been following this thread and felt I had to write that I dont think your comments are really very fair at all. I feel you have taken Danhead's questions very defensively and negatively.

I think Danhead's question was quite clear, what does God wish to reveal to us from all the NT scripture such as Rev 20:14-15?
For me it literally says what it literally says in our Bible versions and regardless of what the lake of fire actually is and what the book of life actually is, I cant make this passage anything other than a severe warning about death and life. This theme is dealt with as a warning in various places throughout the NT.

 

[Duggie]

I think we need to realise that many people, myself included, do not take every word of the Bible literally. Revelation as a book is very symbolic and the amount of interpretation that take place within the whole of Christendom with just this one book is immense. I think Treasure the Questions has made some valid points and whether you agree or not we all occasionally see scripture in a different light and context.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Hi Treasure the Questions,

I have been following this thread and felt I had to write that I dont think your comments are really very fair at all. I feel you have taken Danhead's questions very defensively and negatively.

I think Danhead's question was quite clear, what does God wish to reveal to us from all the NT scripture such as Rev 20:14-15?
For me it literally says what it literally says in our Bible versions and regardless of what the lake of fire actually is and what the book of life actually is, I cant make this passage anything other than a severe warning about death and life. This theme is dealt with as a warning in various places throughout the NT.

Perhaps the problem is linguistic, but Danhead's post seemed unnessarily rude to me, and his further remarks seemed to show a lack of knowledge of how the discussion had developed. I was merely pointing out that the verses he supplied were unhelpful as I did not share his opinion on the meaning in Revelation. Just as I am aware his opinion is not unique, he must appreciate that mine is not unique, but shared by many Christians including theologians and serious Bible scholars.

There also seemed an implication that I should not disagree with his interpretation of the verses.

This seems a very unsatisfactory way to conduct a discussion in my opinon.

 

[Protoevangel]

Perhaps the problem is linguistic, but Danhead's post seemed unnessarily rude to me

No, it was not just linguistic, it was thoughtless, which is why I apologized for that comment. You don't have to forgive me, but it would be nice if we could move on, anyway.

and his further remarks seemed to show a lack of knowledge of how the discussion had developed.

I have followed the thread since the beginning. I made no "remark" regarding the thread whatsoever, I simply provided a scripture refrence answer the question that was asked.

I was merely pointing out that the verses he supplied were unhelpful as I did not share his opinion on the meaning in Revelation. Just as I am aware his opinion is not unique, he must appreciate that mine is not unique, but shared by many Christians including theologians and serious Bible scholars.

What you seem to be missing still, is that I did not offer an opinion, simply the verses applicable to the question that was asked.

There also seemed an implication that I should not disagree with his interpretation of the verses.

What interpretation of mine is that exactly, Karin? There could have been no such implication as that which you mention, because there was no opinion offered that you should or should not disagree with.

This seems a very unsatisfactory way to conduct a discussion in my opinon.

I agree, you keep saying you disagree with me, when I offered no opinion to be agreed to or disagreed with. Would you like my opinion? If you stop accusing me of doing something I have not done, and stop disagreeing with an opinion that has not even been offered, I would be more than happy to share it with you. But as long as you continue to rail on, I don't see what good it would do for me to share my opinion.

Peace? Move on? I'm ready, are you?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Mentioning verses seems very much like offering an opinion to me. Perhaps it would have helped to avoid misunderstanding if you had qualified what you said.

Karin

 

[Protoevangel]

Mentioning verses seems very much like offering an opinion to me. Perhaps it would have helped to avoid misunderstanding if you had qualified what you said.

Karin

OK, that's fine. But I really don't see what qualification needed to be inserted; after all, I was just answering a question.

If someone asks where universalists get the idea that everyone will be saved, and I offer the answer: "Check out 1 Peter 3:18", does that mean to you that I am a universalist?

If you ask where Mormons get the idea of three heavens, and I tell you to look at 2 Corinthians 12:2, does that mean I am in agreement with the Mormons?

Maybe I do agree, maybe not. That was not the point of my post. If you desire to know, ask, don't accuse. As I tried to point out three separate times, the answer I gave was simply to provide the information you requested. True, you asked J.David, but it had been a few hours since you asked, and J.David could still have (and still can) elaborate on the answer I gave.

Peace? Move on? I'm ready, are you?

 

[Asaph]

Hi Dan,

Actually, I'm very interested in your opinion and I noticed that you haven't even had the chance to comment on the original post or any of that which has transpired since.

So, opine away brother.

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

 

[Protoevangel]

Hi Dan,

Actually, I'm very interested in your opinion and I noticed that you haven't even had the chance to comment on the original post or any of that which has transpired since.

So, opine away brother.

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

Hiya brother Asaph!

About the OP:
I am in full agreement. I have very little that I would choose to add to your OP.


About Sheol, Gehenna, Hell, et.al.:

Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal(1) fire(2) prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal(1) punishment(3), but the righteous to eternal life."

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath(4) remains on him."

Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal(1) judgment(5). (not today, I guess...)

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment(6) of eternal(1) fire(2).

Eternal(1): Aionios - without end
Fire(2): Pur - fire
Punishment(3): Kolasis - punishment
Wrath(4): Orge - anger exhibited in punishment, often used for punishment itself
Judgement(5): Krima - condemnation
Punishment(6): Dike - execution of a sentence

Whatever you want to call it, eternal punishment is very real. God did not give us the Bible to confuse us, but to reveal himself, his will, and his plan of salvation. If one wants to disagree with me, show me plainly in Scripture my error. If one cannot do so using Scripture, no discussion is necessary, for it will go nowhere.

Matthew 13:36-43
Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Here, Jesus is explaining His previous parable, not telling another parable. "They" will be thrown into the fiery furnace, which he elsewhere explains as eternal (aionios).



About the recent “mini-controversy”:

As you probably already know, I consider myself a literalist for purposes of understanding Scripture. We recognize it is wrong to explain symbolically a passage where Scripture speaks literally, as, for when it speaks of Jesus' resurrection. However, it is equally wrong to explain literally passages where Scripture clearly is speaking in pictures and symbols.

Revelation is a book that records a vision; it is a book full of symbols and metaphor. It is of a writing style called “apocalyptic literature”. Numbers, beasts, mountains, horses, bowls, trumpets, etc. have a long history of metaphoric usage in Jewish apocalyptic.

Scripture must always be understood on its own terms. In Revelation 20 we have prophetic vision, not literal statements. To read this chapter literally (according to the author's intention) is to recognize that it employs symbolism and must be interpreted in the light of other Scripture. To tie this in to our ongoing discussion, some of the relevant Scripture has already been included in this post, above.

The destruction of death and hell are pictured as they are thrown into the “lake of fire.” The devil, his angels, the people who followed him, his power, his propaganda, his seduction, his deception, death, hell, they are all thrown together into a final, yet eternal, misery of being forever separated from the love of God, described by our Lord Himself as eternal fire; punishment; wrath; judgment. This is the fate of all the people who stood before the Judge’s throne and whose works were read, but whose names were not found written in the Book of Life, who were not listed as believers in Jesus. They were not quickened and regenerated by the Holy Spirit; they are not heirs of eternal life with Christ.

Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen!

 

[ahab]

Hi Treasure the Questions,

Mentioning verses seems very much like offering an opinion to me. Perhaps it would have helped to avoid misunderstanding if you had qualified what you said.

I’m sorry but I find that extraordinary. Danhead did not offer an interpretation but simply scripture passages which I suspect means that you interpreted those passages to mean pretty much what they said and were offended by them because they doesn’t suit your ideas.

I do mean to sound too aggressive.. blessings

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Hi Treasure the Questions,




I’m sorry but I find that extraordinary. Danhead did not offer an interpretation but simply scripture passages which I suspect means that you interpreted those passages to mean pretty much what they said and were offended by them because they doesn’t suit your ideas.

I do mean to sound too aggressive.. blessings

In my several years of using internet discussion boards responding to a post with Bible verses tends to mean you think the verses support what has been proposed. I did feel he was wasting my time with verses that by their very symbolic nature offered no real support for the view under discussion. I do grow impatient with flabby thinking.

I accept Danhead's apologies for his disrespectful remarks, but I have come across too many "wide-eyed innocents" to be confident that he or Asaph have no idea why I should think he was offering his opinion. But then, perhaps it depends on what you mean by "opinion".

Karin

 

[Asaph]

In my several years of using internet discussion boards responding to a post with Bible verses tends to mean you think the verses support what has been proposed. I did feel he was wasting my time with verses that by their very symbolic nature offered no real support for the view under discussion. I do grow impatient with flabby thinking.

I accept Danhead's apologies for his disrespectful remarks, but I have come across too many "wide-eyed innocents" to be confident that he or Asaph have no idea why I should think he was offering his opinion. But then, perhaps it depends on what you mean by "opinion".

Karin

TTQ,

I have no idea why you even mentioned my name here, but I will not be drawn into your web. It was obvious to me and other more mature individuals on this board that the verses in question, and every other verse posted, convicts certain people before all. It is not in any way a matter of opinion about the scriptures that certain people display a problem with. It is not an interpretation of the scriptures that certain people rail against. It is the scriptures themselves that certain people have a problem with and that has nothing to do with me, or Dan Head, or anybody else on the face of the planet. Face it, certain people have a problem with the Author and that has nothing to do with me.

Now, every Universalist I've had the misfortune of coming in contact with eventually digresses into name calling and casting about aspersions and I suppose I don't blame them. Fighting against God (in denying His Word) always causes weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

Do not mistake my patience for weakness or "flabby thinking". Dan Head twice offered you the hand of peace and both times you ignored it. I make no such offer unless you can agree to discuss these things in a mature manner.

Good day to you,
Asaph

 

[ahab]

Hi Karin,

I accept Danhead's apologies for his disrespectful remarks

With respect I felt Danhead was not the one who needed to apologise but rather your remarks were unfair. Humbly, however Danhead has apologised.

I think Danhead’s summary of these passages is comprehensive and I believe you have a problem with these scriptures from God. I think Jesus confronts from the scriptures so that we can either recieve from Him, or reject as 'flabby thinking'.

Blessings

 

[Treasure the Questions]

You are entitled to your opinion, Ahab, as is everyone here. That does not change my opinion that to view Revelation as a prediction of "end times" is erroneous and extremelty dangerous.

However, I know better than to argue with people who are not willing to listen to reason.

Karin

 

[Protoevangel]

That does not change my opinion that to view Revelation as a prediction of "end times" is erroneous and extremelty dangerous.

However, I know better than to argue with people who are not willing to listen to reason.

Karin

Actually Karin, about the Revelation of John; I don't buy the typical milliniest views either. When we read the Apocalypse the way we read the parables and the apocalyptic sections of the Old Testament, we begin to see that Revelation does indeed include information pertinent to the End Times, but that is clearly not the limit of it's scope.

Revelation is a book of comfort in which the Lord Jesus, through symbolic language, impresses on His people that He is still in charge and ruling all things for the benefit of his Church. He encourages Christians whose hearts are troubled by persecution to remain faithful to his Word, confident that he is coming soon to set them free forever from all that troubles them. Sometimes we are told exactly what the symbols mean, as in the case of the seven candlesticks and the seven stars. Sometimes the immediate context makes the symbol clear. No one needs to tell us that the majestic figure with the two edged sword coming out of his mouth is the Lord Jesus. In fact, after reading the first chapter I suppose that most of us are practically oblivious that the Savior has not been identified by name even once in the vision.

Sometimes other books of the Bible leave no doubt about the meaning of the symbol. Why the sword comes out of the mouth of the Savior instead of being held in His hand is no mystery to anyone who has read in the book of Hebrews that the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword. The significance of the Savior standing in the midst of the seven candlesticks is not unclear to anyone who knows that He promised, “Lo, I am with you always,” and “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”

Once you start using reason, you might be surprised at how many people are listening.

 

[Mother Vashti]

I'm afraid that most of those who make that choice must believe that somehow their afterlife will be either similar to their life here on earth or somehow better.

But hell will be a place where none of the attributes of God are displayed. There will be no Love, period. There will be no Mercy, period. In short, there will be No Good Thing, period.

Then they're right, afterall. The after-life is similar to their life here on earth, don't you think?

A lot of sinful people... No, let me rephrase that.
WE ALL were taken up in the talons of the world, from the day we were born. Every day the abyss stares deeply into the window of your soul, and there's no way to divert your eyes. It becomes easy to feel alone and unloved, or it becomes easy to ridicule people who assure you that you aren't alone or unloved.

So let's have a little sympathy here.

 

[Asaph]

Then they're right, afterall. The after-life is similar to their life here on earth, don't you think?

No I don't, which was a portion of the original post.

A lot of sinful people... No, let me rephrase that.
WE ALL were taken up in the talons of the world, from the day we were born. Every day the abyss stares deeply into the window of your soul, and there's no way to divert your eyes.

I can only speak for myself, but the abyss is no longer peeping at my soul. God is my strong tower.

It becomes easy to feel alone and unloved, or it becomes easy to ridicule people who assure you that you aren't alone or unloved.

So let's have a little sympathy here.

A deep sorrow for those lost was the point of the original post. You have left all that out when you took your quote though. Why?

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

 

[Mother Vashti]

I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that people deserve to die. 'Deep sorrow', in this context, is really just feeling sorry for yourself. Given truth and foreknowledge of the afterworld, watching people seal their fiery fate, like so many blind marching ants.... This is both patronizing and idle-talk.

I was suggesting that you be sympathetic not because people aren't aware fiery lakes of sulfur await them. Be sympathetic because you understand what they're going through. This will prompt you to action, instead of being a pitying, uninvolved observer.

 

[Asaph]

I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that people deserve to die. 'Deep sorrow', in this context, is really just feeling sorry for yourself. Given truth and foreknowledge of the afterworld, watching people seal their fiery fate, like so many blind marching ants.... This is both patronizing and idle-talk.

I was suggesting that you be sympathetic not because people aren't aware fiery lakes of sulfur await them. Be sympathetic because you understand what they're going through. This will prompt you to action, instead of being a pitying, uninvolved observer.

My, my, my. Have you read my posts lady? What in the world is wrong with you? If your posts are an example of sympathy, I want nothing to do with it. You started out by attacking me, and you continue.

Go ahead, hit me some more. You are displaying some interesting characteristics.

Let me give you something to really send you off the deep end, "God Loves You Too"!

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

 

[Mother Vashti]

Asaph, chill out. Nobody is attacking you. That's just the way messageboards are, for some reason.
Posts are sent out, fairly emotionless, but when they're received the thing creates an emotion overload. No one knows why that happens. In ten years there will probably be something called "digital psychology" to study it.

Just leave enraging posts for about 7 min, then come back to it. It works, and I should know!