Why an eternal hell?

[createdtoworship]

I assume you're aware ET was hardly a part of the early church, more around the 4th century that it became doctrine. It was at this time ET doctrine was progressed with aspects of paganism by men like Dante.

Anyway, the church felt just, in if God would torture heretics, sinners, apostates, etc...they could also be just in doing the same thing, so the church became an agent of torture for several hundred more years, after if God could do it, why couldn't they?

Do you feel the church was "just" in torturing basically anyone that went against it, thus God?

what about turtullian who believed it in the second century, and Clement of alexandria, and cyprian?

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow! You are grasping at straws now to make your point. The fact that you can think of a worse punishment does not make the lesser punishment a reward. Could you imagine a parent who told their kids, "being grounded is a GREAT reward compared to me violently abusing you everyday"?

no, it's a reward. (in comparison)

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay? And this makes my point any less valid how exactly?

it's the same lake of fire (you know the one where they will be there forever and ever?)

 

[dollarsbill]

I assume you're aware ET was hardly a part of the early church, more around the 4th century that it became doctrine. It was at this time ET doctrine was progressed with aspects of paganism by men like Dante.

I would say that's your opinion. Not fact.

Anyway, the church felt just, in if God would torture heretics, sinners, apostates, etc...they could also be just in doing the same thing, so the church became an agent of torture for several hundred more years, after if God could do it, why couldn't they?

Do you feel the church was "just" in torturing basically anyone that went against it, thus God?

How about sticking with what the NT says?

 

[createdtoworship]

Here's a thought ( I know I said I was walking away but I had forgotten to unsubscribe and I apparently want to eternally torture myself) the soul is non-corporeal right? Fire only destroys physical things right? Now we know from any of the passages on hell that the soul is concious and can feel pain right? Then how can fire ( a corporeal thing ) ever fully consume a persons soul ( a non-corporeal thing )? A little simplistic I know, but it proves a point.

May God Richly Bless you!

thats too good of a point to be commented on,

 

[dollarsbill]

no, it's a reward. (in comparison)

Now that's a fact!

 

[createdtoworship]

But you don't get them back. That's the point.

but they are alive, thats the point.

 

[seeingeyes]

Hebrews 6:18 (NASB)
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

But again, He can do what He wants. He's not limited to what the author of Hebrews thinks of Him, either.

 

[seeingeyes]

so? what does that matter? We were talking about torture and drowning and how they were the same personality type delivering both (in a global flood)

No, we were talking about whether 5 or 10 minutes of torture was the same as 5 or ten years of torture.

 

[dollarsbill]

But again, He can do what He wants. He's not limited to what the author of Hebrews thinks of Him, either.

God is the Author of Hebrews.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, we were talking about whether 5 or 10 minutes of toture was the same as 5 or ten years of torture.

remember you offered an illustration saying you would rather have your child drown in 5 minutes than have them repeatedly drowned for weeks. And I said at least they recover from torture, they are not dead.

It was about your illustration, not Hell persay

but even in Hell we may not get them back but they are alive.

 

[seeingeyes]

God is the Author of Hebrews.

Even better! He can say whatever He wants, too.

 

[Armistead14]

I would say that's your opinion. Not fact.

How about sticking with what the NT says?

Another one of your consistant one liners.

So what does the NT say about it?

 

[dollarsbill]

Another one of your consistant one liners.

You have a point?

So what does the NT say about it?

Have you read this thread or others? There are several.

 

[dies-l]

He can

Okay, so let's stop with the strawmen accusing people of telling God what He can and cannot do, and instead focus on the actual argument.

but the NT says torment forever in the fire.

The thing is that it does say that about the beast, the devil, the false prophet, and those who worship the beast in a specific and deliberate way, and absolutely nobody else. So, to say that this passage proves that hell is a sort of default position for unredeemed sinners is frankly just plain wrong. Repeating the same debunked argument over and over again doesn't make it any less debunked.

 

[dies-l]

Are you saying that you would rather burn in Hell forever?

No, I am not saying that at all. Go back and read the post, and stop making up such nonsense.

 

[dies-l]

no, it's a reward. (in comparison)

That is perhaps the most illogical and nonsensical argument that has made so far in this thread (congrats to you and db for that honor). By that logic, I suppose one could argue that being burned forever is a reward in comparison to being burned forever and having your fingernails plucked out one by one over and over again through all eternity." You can always think of something worse; that doesn't make the lesser punishment a reward.

 

[dollarsbill]

Okay, so let's stop with the strawmen accusing people of telling God what He can and cannot do, and instead focus on the actual argument.

The point is that He doesn't have to ask anyone's permission.

The thing is that it does say that about the beast, the devil, the false prophet, and those who worship the beast in a specific and deliberate way, and absolutely nobody else. So, to say that this passage proves that hell is a sort of default position for unredeemed sinners is frankly just plain wrong.

It proves that humans can indeed burn in the fire forever. And that God will do it.

Repeating the same debunked argument over and over again doesn't make it any less debunked.

But you just proved it is not"debunked".

 

[dollarsbill]

No, I am not saying that at all. Go back and read the post, and stop making up such nonsense.

So then you would choose annihilation over eternity in Hell? So then it's not really "nonsense".

 

[dies-l]

it's the same lake of fire (you know the one where they will be there forever and ever?)

See my previous post with the analogy about jail. Your argument has already been addressed.