K
Kormagh
Guest
dies-l said:
What would you call eternity in the lake of fire? I call it torment.
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
Upvote
0
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.
dies-l said:You seem to be reading more into those verses than is actually there. Nothing in there about eternal torment.
Remember, the debate it's not about whether hell exists, but about what happens to people condemned to it.
John of Patmos called it the Second Death. Death is the condition of not being alive.What would you call eternity in the lake of fire? I call it torment.
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
Kormagh said:What would you call eternity in the lake of fire? I call it torment.
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
dies-l said:If I'm dead while in said lake, I'd call it being dead. And since the Bible calls it death, I will go with that. One need be alive to be tormented, and one who is dead is by definition not alive.
Kormagh said:Unbelievable!
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
dies-l said:Believing scripture instead of tradition is unbelievable? I suppose, but there are a few of us who still try.
Kormagh said:Unbelievable that people take scripture in such a wooden literal sense instead of how it is intended and come up with such illogical conclusions that don't make any sense when taken with scripture as whole.
I wasn't using tradition, I was using scripture.
You interpret the doctrine of hell like some people interpret the doctrine of the trinity- the word trinity isn't in scripture, therefore it doesn't exist.
Unbelievable!
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
dies-l said:So believing what Scripture says instead of what I want it to say is illogical? The conclusions that Scripture less to on the topic are more consistent with logic and common sense than the traditions that you cling to.
Kormagh said:I don't quite understand what that means. I thought you were wanting scripture to say what it literally says and forming conclusions from that (wooden literal sense) instead of reading scripture in the sense it was intended (exegetical).
What traditions do you believe I am holding to?
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
dies-l said:I am basing my conclusions on what Scripture seems to be saying. Generally, the best interpretation is the one that flows most logically from the text. In this case that would be the "wooden literal sense". The "eternal torment" would never be gleaned from the text if not for hundreds of years of manmade traditions that have shaped the Christian understanding of Hell.
I sincerely do not understand your point. I have not disagreed with you as to whether hell is eternal. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that any human being will be tormented eternally in hell. Hell may very well endure forever (although Timothew does make a good point about the distinction between a fire than cannot be quenched and a fire that will never go out), but that does not mean that those who are sent there will be eternally conscious or that they will not ultimately be destroyed completely.
If hellfire does exist forever, it does not necessarily follow that (a) the fire is fueled by human beings or (b) that said human beings are conscious. If the humans in hell are destroyed or if their consciousness is taken from them, then there is no eternal torment. I see Scripture as denying the first premise (i.e., teaching that unredeemed humans are ultimately destroyed), but either premise would discontinue the link between your arguments and your conclusion, if you are in fact concluding that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment. If you are not making that argument, then perhaps we do not disagree.
gradyll said:well maybe this discussion is over then, I am unsure how to repeatedly explain basic things to you and yet they go right over your head.
Kormagh said:So, you believe in annihilationism?
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
dies-l said:If you must apply a label, that is probably a fairly close approximation. I believe in what I read in Scripture. I had never even heard the term annihilationism until years after I became aware of the proper biblical understanding of Hell.
Why? What has dies-l said that wasn't true? Do you reject what he says simply because he comes from a different denomination than you come from? Actually, I think he and I come from the same denomination as you, but we've read the bible for what IT says, not for what we want it to say.Then we will have to agree to disagree.
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
Timothew said:Why? What has dies-l said that wasn't true? Do you reject what he says simply because he comes from a different denomination than you come from? Actually, I think he and I come from the same denomination as you, but we've read the bible for what IT says, not for what we want it to say.
Great deflection!!!
The thing is that I understand what you are trying to say, but it is a fatally flawed argument. What I do have trouble understanding is why you cannot see the lack of any logical nexus between your arguments and your conclusions.
True, annihilationism is not the orthodox view. I'm not accusing you of eisegesis, I just think that you are overly influenced by the traditional view. Read the bible to see if it supports the trad view or not.Annihilationism is not an orthodox view of the doctrine of hell, to the best of my knowledge. You are accusing me of isogesis (sp). I have no idea what denomination you all are from because I'm using my smart phone app.
I said we will have to agree to disagree because neither of us will be swayed from what we believe based on our own interpretation of scripture.
Sent from my dumb smart phone using CF
Unbelievable!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?