Why an eternal hell?

[createdtoworship]

That's one of the many reasons why we don't believe in eternal tormentalism.

thats one of the reasons I do!

Jesus took on the form of a servant and humbled himself as a man,

thats how God chose to deal with the son.

God changes it up and deals with men differently.

There is no way for men to take on the sin of the world in a single death,

so they die eternally (just to take on their own sins)

makes perfect sense.

You just have to think a little deeper.

 

[dies-l]

thats one of the reasons I do!

That makes no sense to me. Holo and Tim make a great point that the doctrine of eternal torment directly contradicts the doctrine of atonement. You cannot logically believe both to be true.

Jesus took on the form of a servant and humbled himself as a man,

thats how God chose to deal with the son.

God changes it up and deals with men differently.

So, God could just as easily decide out of the goodness of his heart to forgive everyone with no punishment at all? But, He chose the opposite extreme of eternal torment in Hell? Is he really that arbitrary? This explanation seems to contradict the very doctrine that it is trying to defend. It would seem by this reasoning that Christ could have atoned for the sins of the world by receiving a stern rebuke with no need for that messy death by crucifixion business. What kind of horrible God would send His Son to a horrible death if it was not necessary to redeem the world?

There is no way for men to take on the sin of the world in a single death,

so they die eternally (just to take on their own sins)

And, that is what Tim and I have been saying all along. We die eternally -- we are not tormented eternally. The reason that we do not face eternal death is because Christ has overcome death. Nothing in Scripture even implies that he has overcome eternal torment in hell.

makes perfect sense.

You just have to think a little deeper.

Um, it makes no sense. And, I would echo your last sentiment back to you.

 

[createdtoworship]

That makes no sense to me. Holo and Tim make a great point that the doctrine of eternal torment directly contradicts the doctrine of atonement. You cannot logically believe both to be true.



So, God could just as easily decide out of the goodness of his heart to forgive everyone with no punishment at all? But, He chose the opposite extreme of eternal torment in Hell? Is he really that arbitrary? This explanation seems to contradict the very doctrine that it is trying to defend. It would seem by this reasoning that Christ could have atoned for the sins of the world by receiving a stern rebuke with no need for that messy death by crucifixion business. What kind of horrible God would send His Son to a horrible death if it was not necessary to redeem the world?




And, that is what Tim and I have been saying all along. We die eternally -- we are not tormented eternally. The reason that we do not face eternal death is because Christ has overcome death. Nothing in Scripture even implies that he has overcome eternal torment in hell.



Um, it makes no sense. And, I would echo your last sentiment back to you.

are you God? Then if you are, you can change things up too!

 

[createdtoworship]

Annihilation theories are entirely based on the interpretation of merely two greek words, those for death and those for destroy. You don't think that things could get twisted with only two greek words?

 

[dies-l]

are you God? Then if you are, you can change things up too!

No I'm not. So I will go with what the Bible says instead of trying to twist it to support unbiblical doctrines, such as eternal torment

 

[dies-l]

Annihilation theories are entirely based on the interpretation of merely two greek words, those for death and those for destroy. You don't think that things could get twisted with only two greek words?

Interestingly enough that isn't true.

Eternal torment theories are based on ideas that don't appear in Scripture at all. Like that doesn't have potential for twisting!

 

[Armistead14]

Interestingly enough that isn't true.

Eternal torment theories are based on ideas that don't appear in Scripture at all. Like that doesn't have potential for twisting!

Sadly eternal torment was hardly a concept in the early church, most didn't believe in it, it only became a doctrine when Rome hijacked the church and redefined hell as a place of torture. It was a good way to keep the mass in line with all the new doctrines. Worse, the church became an agent of torture itself, after all if God could do it, why not do it in his name.

 

[ebia]

like I said the concept of hell is found in the apocrypha so we know they believed in ET.

Who is "they"? Some inter-testimental literature is more hellenised than other, so perhaps you'd better ennumerate exactly the evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Who is "they"? Some inter-testimental literature is more hellenised than other, so perhaps you'd better ennumerate exactly the evidence.

Jews who read the apocrypha, many Jews take it as history just not scripture.

 

[createdtoworship]

No I'm not. So I will go with what the Bible says instead of trying to twist it to support unbiblical doctrines, such as eternal torment

nope

 

[createdtoworship]

Interestingly enough that isn't true.

Eternal torment theories are based on ideas that don't appear in Scripture at all. Like that doesn't have potential for twisting!

prove it then, how many words is your view based on? Care to tell?

 

[dies-l]

prove it then, how many words is your view based on? Care to tell?

There are 23 pages of posts in which other posters and I provide several arguments against the doctrine of eternal torment. If you are unable or unwilling to read them and have not done so already, then I don't suppose rehashing those arguments again is a worthwhile endeavor. Suffice it to say, anyone who is willing to read the arguments provided in this thread will find that our position is not merely supported by the interpretation of two words, but is the one that is consistent with a coherent reading of the entire New Testament.

Yet, even if your were claim were true. A common sense interpretation of the words "death" and "destruction" is a more reasonable basis for one's opinion than a traditional interpretation that has no basis at all in Scripture and has been used throughout history for some rather self-serving purposes.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are 23 pages of posts in which other posters and I provide several arguments against the doctrine of eternal torment. If you are unable or unwilling to read them and have not done so already, then I don't suppose rehashing those arguments again is a worthwhile endeavor. Suffice it to say, anyone who is willing to read the arguments provided in this thread will find that our position is not merely supported by the interpretation of two words, but is the one that is consistent with a coherent reading of the entire New Testament.

Yet, even if your were claim were true. A common sense interpretation of the words "death" and "destruction" is a more reasonable basis for one's opinion than a traditional interpretation that has no basis at all in Scripture and has been used throughout history for some rather self-serving purposes.

so you don't have an answer, is what your telling me. Okay. end of conversation.

 

[Timothew]

so you don't have an answer, is what your telling me. Okay. end of conversation.

Finally!

Now we can continue to believe that the wages of sin is death, and not eternal torment in hell without interference from naysayers. I'm glad that's over!

 

[dies-l]

so you don't have an answer, is what your telling me. Okay. end of conversation.

My answer has been provided numerous time now. So, it would seem that you're choosing to not pay attention. And, I agree, that would indicate that the conversation is over.

 

[holo]

As far as I can see, and do correct me if I'm wrong, there are two verses in the bible that appear to say that the unsaved will be suffering eternally. True, "hell" is mentioned many times, but it's not defined in those verses. I don't think it's reasonable to make a doctrine out of two verses, especially when that doctrine seems to directly contradict literally thousand of other verses.

like I said the concept of hell is found in the apocrypha so we know they believed in ET.

Do you have sources for this? As for my belief that eternal torture is a foreign concept to judaism, I actually can't give you any sources, I can't remember the places I read about it. Also, I've heard jews pointing it out. But it's definitely something I'd like to learn more about. It would be very strange indeed if Jesus was the one to introduce the concept of eternal torture for the unsaved. It would be by far the most radical thing he ever taught.

IF Jesus took on eternal torture for every soul he would never have paid the price, HE WOULD STILL BE PAYING IT!

Exactly. If he took our punishment, then he took our punishment. If I take the blame for some murderer I wouldn't get a completely different sentence.

God is not only father He is our Lord and Master.

And brother and redeemer an righteous judge and so forth. Our torturer, though? The worst, most relentless and merciless(!) torturer you can imagine?

Do you think anybody deserve eternal suffering?

 

[holo]

It's sad to see another thread go down the old meaningless "you don't accept what the bible says," "no, you don't accept what the bible says" spiral.

Why is the doctrine of hell as eternal suffering so important to so many believers?
I think it's about two things: the fear of the "watered down gospel" - if you try to replace a traditionally "hard" teaching with at softer one, it's not only possible, but probable, that it's in fact False Doctrine(tm) designed to lure people away from God and the true gospel. I've been to many churches where any good news must be suspicious news. The narrower the road, the truer it must be.

The other reason, I think, is that without the threat of eternal torture, salvation actually becomes pointless. What's reconciliation and salvation about if not only an escape from punishment? That says a lot about what people actually believe: a) that the only real reason to seek God is fear - your default fate is endless torture, and the way out is to believe in Christ, and b) if you're NOT going to be tortured forever, there's no real point in seeking God's grace. You would be free to sin, as it were.

 

[ebia]

Jews who read the apocrypha, many Jews take it as history just not scripture.

Are we talking about modern Jews or 2nd temple Jews?

"the apaocrapha" isn't a category outside Christian thinking so which specific books are we talking about?

4 Maccabees? Very hellenised and stoic. roughly contempory with the NT
2 Esdras? Similar, but post Temple destruction.
Judith?
Or what?

 

[ebedmelech]

What purpose does it truly serve? Is there anything one person can do that is so horrible that they deserve an eternity of indefinite torture? No bible quotes please just opinions. The bible can be interpreted every which way and there are verses supporting both sides of either arguments. What purpose does an eternal hell serve? Or an afterlife for that matter. What do we accomplish by being alive after death, or more importantly what does god? Supposedly only humans are allowed this divine privilege. Perhaps other creations are considered inferior? Just curious what anyone thinks on the matter.

Hmmm.

If it's the bible that deals with the teaching of hell, to not be able to quote the bible as an authority on the topic renders this entire discussion meaningless.

When it get's down to it, whether right or wrong in your belief of what hell is, what matters is what God says..He is the Creator, and therefore what He says is ultimately what will stand. Like it or not.

 

[createdtoworship]

My answer has been provided numerous time now. So, it would seem that you're choosing to not pay attention. And, I agree, that would indicate that the conversation is over.

shifting the burden of proof, I see.