Why is there a hell?

[elman]

We might be in disagreement here.

Do you see the difference between “Godly type Love” defined by everything Christ said and did and other types of Love even the Love a mother has for her baby?

No. I see the love of God for us as the same love we have for others if we act out of compassion and concern for others. A mother's love for her baby would be similar to our heavenly father's love for His children.

Is Godly type Love instinctive, learned or given as a free gift?

It is both part of being human, and learned as we mature and when God gifts us with eternal life it is a free gift--more than we deserve.

If it is a gift when and how do you get it?

At birth, we are born spiritually and physically alive.

How can you tell you have it?

I don't know that we can be sure we have it, but if we are being unloving to others around us, we can be sure then we do not have it.
[

FONT=Calibri]Do you agree with Christ’s teaching “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”?[/FONT]

I think in that context we are talking about our gratitude to God for gifting us with eternal life and if we have lived a very long and unloving life; but then turned to being loving we should be more grateful if possible for eternal life than someone who has lived most of their life in loving obedicence to God.

If you do believe what Jesus taught would it be better to make and show sin to have a huge debt, so once you are forgiven you will Love all the more?

No, I agree with Paul that sinning is bad and it is not a good idea to sin more so you can be loved more.

What would happen if sin really had no significant consequences and God forgave you would that produce little “love”?

That would change the world we are in a lot. If men could be evil--unloving and it have no effect that would not be this world in which evil men are able to hurt you. All of us are going to have reason to be grateful and love God for gifting us with eternal life, because none of us will have lived free of sin and deserve it.

 

[aiki]

Because then God would not be a loving and just Creator.

Can you justify this statement? God's love doesn't negate the demands of His holiness, nor His justness. We see God's love extended to man without nullifying His holiness or justness in the work of Calvary. God's holiness seperates sinful man from God; God's justice demands payment for our sin; God's love pays the penalty for our sin and reconciles us to Himself. In this we see, not that God's love over-rides His attributes of holiness and justice, but that His love works within the bounds of His holiness and justice and satisfies them.

God demonstrates His love to us, not by negating the punishment of hell, but by making a way, through Christ, for us to avoid hell altogether. The existence of hell speaks of God's justice and holiness and the offer of eternal life in heaven He makes to us speaks of His love for us. In this way, God satisfies His justice, holiness, and love, not by somehow removing hell from existence.

Everlasting punishment can be the failure to receive everlasting life.

If by this you mean everlasting punishment is annihilation, then you mistake the meaning of punishment. For punishment to be punishment it must be experienced. Annihilation avoids punishment.

It can mean death as in the wages of sin are death and death may not mean eternal life in pain.

Death may not mean eternal life in pain only if one accepts the gift of salvation offered by a loving God to evil men (to whom He has absolutely no obligation to make such an offer).

Selah.

 

[elman]

Because then God would not be a loving and just Creator.

Can you justify this statement? God's love doesn't negate the demands of His holiness, nor His justness.

It is self evident. God's love does negate torture, and certainly eternal torture.

We see God's love extended to man without nullifying His holiness or justness in the work of Calvary. God's holiness seperates sinful man from God;

Actually man separates himself from God by being unholy.

God's justice demands payment for our sin;

Why? Is mercy not the lack of full payment?

God's love pays the penalty for our sin and reconciles us to Himself. In this we see, not that God's love over-rides His attributes of holiness and justice, but that His love works within the bounds of His holiness and justice and satisfies them.

But His holiness and justice are always loving.

God demonstrates His love to us, not by negating the punishment of hell, but by making a way, through Christ, for us to avoid hell altogether. The existence of hell speaks of God's justice and holiness and the offer of eternal life in heaven He makes to us speaks of His love for us.

If hell is eternal torture, it does not speak of justice or holiness.

In this way, God satisfies His justice, holiness, and love, not by somehow removing hell from existence.

God does not have to remove a place of torture, He never created one in the first place.

Everlasting punishment can be the failure to receive everlasting life.

If by this you mean everlasting punishment is annihilation, then you mistake the meaning of punishment. For punishment to be punishment it must be experienced. Annihilation avoids punishment.

Not correct. Capital punishment is indeed punishment.

It can mean death as in the wages of sin are death and death may not mean eternal life in pain.

Death may not mean eternal life in pain only if one accepts the gift of salvation offered by a loving God to evil men (to whom He has absolutely no obligation to make such an offer).

No, death may mean oblivion and that is certainly a better interpretation of the word than life in pain.

 

[aiki]

It is self evident. God's love does negate torture, and certainly eternal torture.

As I demonstrated from the Gospel itself, this is not true. Christ's work on the cross, his terrible suffering and death, were required to satisfy God's holiness and justice. That we gain reconciliation with God through Christ's work on the cross reveals God's love for us. But Christ did have to die in terrible agony for you and I in order that we might become God's children. In this we see that God's love did not negate or supercede the demands of His holiness and justice but worked in subjection to them in order to achieve God's merciful way of salvation for fallen humanity.

Please demonstrate from Scripture itself the assertion you make above. If you cannot, I must relegate your comments to mere opinion.

Actually man separates himself from God by being unholy.

Six of one; half dozen of the other.

Why? Is mercy not the lack of full payment?

In the case of God and our sin, mercy is God not giving us what we deserve. But the payment for our sin was made in full -- by Christ.

But His holiness and justice are always loving.

And vice versa. God's love never contravenes His holiness and justice.

If hell is eternal torture, it does not speak of justice or holiness.

The Bible teaches that it does. Hell speaks of God's wrath, as well.

God does not have to remove a place of torture, He never created one in the first place.

The Bible disagrees with you. See Matt. 5:29, 30; 10:28; 23:33; Mk. 9:43; Lk. 16:23; 2 Pe. 2:4.

Not correct. Capital punishment is indeed punishment.

Once the criminal is dead do we think he is still being punished? No, his punishment is concluded. Once dead, the criminal can no longer be punished because he is incapable of experiencing anything further that might be done to him in this world. In the same way, annihilation prevents punishment because it ends the capacity to experience punishment.

No, death may mean oblivion and that is certainly a better interpretation of the word than life in pain.

Death in Scripture means typically the loss of well-being, not the loss of being.

Selah.

 

[elman]

It is self evident. God's love does negate torture, and certainly eternal torture.

As I demonstrated from the Gospel itself, this is not true. Christ's work on the cross, his terrible suffering and death, were required to satisfy God's holiness and justice. That we gain reconciliation with God through Christ's work on the cross reveals God's love for us.

I think His teaching revealed God's love for us and His resurrection revealed the possibility of eternal life.

But Christ did have to die in terrible agony for you and I in order that we might become God's children. In this we see that God's love did not negate or supercede the demands of His holiness and justice but worked in subjection to them in order to achieve God's merciful way of salvation for fallen humanity.

I don't understand this. It seems to contridict what you just said.

Please demonstrate from Scripture itself the assertion you make above. If you cannot, I must relegate your comments to mere opinion.

First John -- God is love. Love is not torture for eternity.

Actually man separates himself from God by being unholy.

.Six of one; half dozen of the other.

No our destroying our own soul with our own sin is not the same as God killing us spiritually or physically

Why? Is mercy not the lack of full payment?

In the case of God and our sin, mercy is God not giving us what we deserve. But the payment for our sin was made in full -- by Christ.

No one deserves being tortured forever, not even Hitler.

But His holiness and justice are always loving.

And vice versa. God's love never contravenes His holiness and justice.

And his holiness and justice is never unloving.

If hell is eternal torture, it does not speak of justice or holiness.

The Bible teaches that it does. Hell speaks of God's wrath, as well.

The Bible is a book written by men. It should be followed when it is correct, not when it is not. Torture forever is not love and not the act of a loving Creator. Further, it is not that clear that the Bible teaches hell is endless torture. Hell is described in the Bible as death, the second death, destruction, the lake of fire which is defined as the second death, the bottomless pit and outer darkness. I think the endless torture part may be man's creation. It is certainly not from a loving Creator.

God does not have to remove a place of torture, He never created one in the first place.

The Bible disagrees with you. See Matt. 5:29, 30; 10:28; 23:33; Mk. 9:43; Lk. 16:23; 2 Pe. 2:4.

How many of these actually say endless torture? Any of them?

Not correct. Capital punishment is indeed punishment.

Once the criminal is dead do we think he is still being punished? No, his punishment is concluded.

He is not living. To not live is punishment especially if the life being missed is life indeed.

Once dead, the criminal can no longer be punished because he is incapable of experiencing anything further that might be done to him in this world. In the same way, annihilation prevents punishment because it ends the capacity to experience punishment.

A loving Creator would not want anyone to suffer punishment without end. The Bible in facts says several times that God is not will than any be lost but want all men everywhere to repent.

No, death may mean oblivion and that is certainly a better interpretation of the word than life in pain.

Death in Scripture means typically the loss of well-being, not the loss of being.

Chapter and verse on that please. I think that is from you and not the Bible.

 

[drich0150]

Chapter and verse on that please. I think that is from you and not the Bible.

A call for "book chapter and verse," is a hypocritical act by a man who openly refutes scripture when it conflicts with the message he may derive from His own heart.

Not to mention the last post I read that belonged to you, (http://www.christianforums.com/t7543924-3/ post 25) you specifically site a example of death (Adam's spiritual death) being separate from his physical death.

Because these two instances of death happened at separate times it can easily be said that Adam's well being was lost long before his being.

 

[aiki]

I think His teaching revealed God's love for us and His resurrection revealed the possibility of eternal life.

I agree with you. However, Christ's teachings also reveal a God of righteous wrath who is a holy Judge of sin. Jesus preached heaven for the children of God and eternal hell for those who lived in rebellion to their Maker. It is thoroughly inconsistent to adopt those teachings of the Saviour we approve but reject those we do not. In doing so, one's subjective opinion becomes the final arbiter of the truth of Christ's teachings. Such a basis for ascertaining truth is profoundly corrupt and leads rapidly to self-deception.

I don't understand this. It seems to contridict what you just said.

In what way?

First John -- God is love. Love is not torture for eternity.

Why do you trust that Scripture has it right in 1 John and not in those places where it plainly states that hell is eternal torment? Do you not see the great inconsistency in approaching Scripture this way?

What kind of love does not torture for eternity? God's love, as the Bible tells us, is merciful, gracious, patient, and deep. But that love is also holy and just; it is not seperate from these other divine attributes. You seem to want to make God's love devoid of His holiness and justice. Such a love, though, becomes very human in quality: maudlin, self-serving, undiscerning, overly-tolerant, and fleshly. Thinking God's love is like this, it becomes impossible to see how it could be reconciled to His wrath. It is only when we see that God's love expresses His holiness and justice as well His mercy and grace that we can understand the proper nature of the Creator's love, which includes punishing the wicked.

No our destroying our own soul with our own sin is not the same as God killing us spiritually or physically

But who establishes that our own sin will have a destructive consequence? Who puts this law in place? God. I understand, I think, what you're trying to get at and I answer your ideas on this matter in another thread. Here's what I wrote:

"It is God's decree that sin results in death. He made this a consequence of sin; He could have done otherwise. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility for the death our sin incurs is God's. His responsibility is not as ours is, however. Just as the car manufacturer is responsible for the car's capacity to drive fast but not for the driver who chooses to speed while driving one of their cars, God is the "manufacturer" of the law of sin and death but is not responsible for our choice to ignore that law and thus sin and die."

No one deserves being tortured forever, not even Hitler.

Really? How about the devil? Does he deserve eternal torment? If yes, where is the line one crosses into being deserving of eternal torment and not? If not, on what basis do you determine your viewpoint?

How can the Bible have any authority in your life when you decide where it is right and where it is wrong? The Bible says,

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

and

Revelation 20:15
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

and

Revelation 14:11
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name.

and

Matthew 25:46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

According to Scripture, God views our sin and rebellion toward Him as worthy of eternal punishment. Really, I don't think you see sin in the same way that God does. He is perfectly holy; you are not. Sin is utterly anathema to Him; you (and I) are pretty comfortable with it. So, we get to thinking that hell is too over-the-top, to excessive, and that God can't really hate our sin so much that He would punish it with eternal torment.

Who is our sin against ultimately? The Creator Himself. And who is the Creator? He is the perfect, infinite, omnipotent Sovereign over all that exists. Our sin is not so small when we realize that it is rebellion against such a God. Our sin which is against an infinite, holy Being truly does deserve eternal punishment.

In addition to these things, our willful, unrepentant sin treads upon the precious blood of Christ with which God's forgiveness of our sin was bought. Many who find themselves in hell are guilty of despising the blood-bought gift of salvation God freely offers to all. Is this not evil of the darkest sort? God thinks so:

Hebrews 10:26-31
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs unto me, I will recompense, says the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The Bible is a book written by men.

And it claims to be inspired (or God-breathed) by God. Traditionally, Christians have held that the Bible is in the original inerrant and divinely-inspired. Consider the following:

The Inspiration of Scripture (by Ron Rhodes)

It should be followed when it is correct, not when it is not.

With this attitude, you become an authority over the Word of God.

Torture forever is not love and not the act of a loving Creator.

For its own sake, you would be right. But as just punishment for rebellion against an infinite, holy God it is perfectly appropriate.

Further, it is not that clear that the Bible teaches hell is endless torture.

As someone with a vested interest in not seeing this, it is no surprise to me that it is "unclear" to you.

Hell is described in the Bible as death, the second death, destruction, the lake of fire which is defined as the second death, the bottomless pit and outer darkness. I think the endless torture part may be man's creation. It is certainly not from a loving Creator.

You can lead a horse to water...(*sigh*)

Selah.

 

[If Not For Grace]

In the beginning there was God and there was no evil. There can be good without evil. The existence of God is not removed with the removal of evil.

But then there was only God. The existence of anything OTHER than God, must be given a "choice" or it can not be created by Love (Which God is Love) nor can it (what ever was created or exists) love. If you have no choice there is no love.

 

[elman]

=drich0150;57032616]A call for "book chapter and verse," is a hypocritical act by a man who openly refutes scripture when it conflicts with the message he may derive from His own heart

.Actukally the hypocricy is when one calls for chapter and verse from me but then makes this response when I ask for it. You believe one must have chapter and verse to support your ideas--I don't. But usually I do have chapter and verse to support what I am saying.

Not to mention the last post I read that belonged to you, (http://www.christianforums.com/t7543924-3/ post 25) you specifically site a example of death (Adam's spiritual death) being separate from his physical death.

I think the Bible indicates this separation. God said he would die on the same day that he ate. This can only be true if God was referring to spiritual death, because his physical death did not occur on the same day.

Because these two instances of death happened at separate times it can easily be said that Adam's well being was lost long before his being.

It may be easy for you to say that, but it is not easy to support it with reason or bible. The Bible says his well being was lost after he ate, not before.

 

[elman]

But then there was only God. The existence of anything OTHER than God, must be given a "choice" or it can not be created by Love (Which God is Love) nor can it (what ever was created or exists) love. If you have no choice there is no love.

I agree. I don't think what I said contradicts that.

 

[elman]

I think His teaching revealed God's love for us and His resurrection revealed the possibility of eternal life.

I agree with you. However, Christ's teachings also reveal a God of righteous wrath who is a holy Judge of sin. Jesus preached heaven for the children of God and eternal hell for those who lived in rebellion to their Maker. It is thoroughly inconsistent to adopt those teachings of the Saviour we approve but reject those we do not. In doing so, one's subjective opinion becomes the final arbiter of the truth of Christ's teachings. Such a basis for ascertaining truth is profoundly corrupt and leads rapidly to self-deception.

Everyone picks and choses. The only difference is some deny doing it and some admit it. Yes Jesus seemed to preach eternal hell--but except for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which was not a parable to teach about the details of heaven or hell, the hell Jesus taught about was outer darkness, death, and destruction etc.

First John -- God is love. Love is not torture for eternity.
Why do you trust that Scripture has it right in 1 John and not in those places where it plainly states that hell is eternal torment?

Why do you trust those places that you think indicate eternal torment and not First John?

Do you not see the great inconsistency in approaching Scripture this way?

Do you not see we are actually approaching scripture much the same way, just using different passages to believe and ignore or discount.

What kind of love does not torture for eternity? God's love, as the Bible tells us, is merciful, gracious, patient, and deep. But that love is also holy and just; it is not seperate from these other divine attributes. You seem to want to make God's love devoid of His holiness and justice. Such a love, though, becomes very human in quality: maudlin, self-serving, undiscerning, overly-tolerant, and fleshly.

It is not overly tolerant to think torture is not loving.

Thinking God's love is like this, it becomes impossible to see how it could be reconciled to His wrath. It is only when we see that God's love expresses His holiness and justice as well His mercy and grace that we can understand the proper nature of the Creator's love, which includes punishing the wicked.

There is a loving way to punish the wicked--deny eternal life to them. Then there is an unloving way to punish them--torture them forever.

No our destroying our own soul with our own sin is not the same as God killing us spiritually or physically

But who establishes that our own sin will have a destructive consequence? Who puts this law in place? God. I understand, I think, what you're trying to get at and I answer your ideas on this matter in another thread. Here's what I wrote:

"It is God's decree that sin results in death. He made this a consequence of sin; He could have done otherwise. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility for the death our sin incurs is God's.

I disagree. God gave us the ability to love. When we do not use that ability to love, it is not God's responsibillity but ours.

His responsibility is not as ours is, however. Just as the car manufacturer is responsible for the car's capacity to drive fast but not for the driver who chooses to speed while driving one of their cars, God is the "manufacturer" of the law of sin and death but is not responsible for our choice to ignore that law and thus sin and die."

If we kill ourselves by driving the car into a tree, it is our responsibility not the car makers.

No one deserves being tortured forever, not even Hitler.

Really? How about the devil? Does he deserve eternal torment?

No and i don't think the devil is real.

If yes, where is the line one crosses into being deserving of eternal torment and not? If not, on what basis do you determine your viewpoint?

God has written on my heart and on yours if you will listen to it, that torture is not loving and eternal torture is also not loving.

How can the Bible have any authority in your life when you decide where it is right and where it is wrong?

You do the same thing. You decide what verses to ignore and which ones to emphasize and which ones to spin and show the say the opposite of what they actually say.

The Bible says,

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

See how this does not prove your point. Notice the word destruction, not torture but keep alive and also notice this is about the gospel of Jesus and knowing God, not about taking the Bible as inerrant.
and

Revelation 20:15
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

It further identifies the lake of fire as the second death--not life in pain. Being written in God's book of life would indicated the sheep in Matt 25:31 and following--nothing there about faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.
and

Revelation 14:11
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name.

This the one place there is torment mentioned. All I can do with this one is say it is symbolic if there is any divine truth there and if literal, I do not believe it is from God.
and

Matthew 25:46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Everlasting death would be everlasting punishment. This does not justify everlasting life in pain.

According to Scripture, God views our sin and rebellion toward Him as worthy of eternal punishment.

Perhaps but there is still a question of weather eternal death is eternal punishment.

Really, I don't think you see sin in the same way that God does.

I doubt you or I see anything the same way God does, but I don't think God sees eternal torture as love.

He is perfectly holy; you are not.

Eternal torture is no holy and just and not worthy of a Creator who is love.

Sin is utterly anathema to Him; you (and I) are pretty comfortable with it. So, we get to thinking that hell is too over-the-top, to excessive, and that God can't really hate our sin so much that He would punish it with eternal torment.

It makes no sense that God would punish us with eternal torture and it makes God less than loving if He does.

Who is our sin against ultimately? The Creator Himself. And who is the Creator? He is the perfect, infinite, omnipotent Sovereign over all that exists. Our sin is not so small when we realize that it is rebellion against such a God. Our sin which is against an infinite, holy Being truly does deserve eternal punishment.

No quarrel from me. Eternal death is the consequences of sin.

In addition to these things, our willful, unrepentant sin treads upon the precious blood of Christ with which God's forgiveness of our sin was bought. Many who find themselves in hell are guilty of despising the blood-bought gift of salvation God freely offers to all. Is this not evil of the darkest sort? God thinks so:

Perhaps but God is not so dark as to torture someone forever for it.

Hebrews 10:26-31
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

When someone is devoured they cease to exist.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs unto me, I will recompense, says the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Yes it is and death forever and loss of heaven forever is a terrible price to pay.

The Bible is a book written by men.

And it claims to be inspired (or God-breathed) by God. Traditionally, Christians have held that the Bible is in the original inerrant and divinely-inspired. Consider the following:

And some men have claimed to be divinely inspired and other men has said they were- Some even said a pope is inerrant.

The Inspiration of Scripture (by Ron Rhodes)

I found nothing by Ron Rhodes but he makes many mistakes in theology. James 3:2

It should be followed when it is correct, not when it is not.

With this attitude, you become an authority over the Word of God.

Only if the Bible is the inerrant dictated word of God. But if as the Bible says, Jesus is the word of God then I do not become an authority over Jesus, just a seeker and follower.

Torture forever is not love and not the act of a loving Creator.

For its own sake, you would be right. But as just punishment for rebellion against an infinite, holy God it is perfectly appropriate.

No it is not appropriate and you would admit you see that, if you were not desparately holding on to your theology. I understand you atitude. you feel if you lose the Bible as you inerrant support for your faith you will lose your faith. I was able to deny inerrancy and not lose my faith.

Further, it is not that clear that the Bible teaches hell is endless torture.

As someone with a vested interest in not seeing this, it is no surprise to me that it is "unclear" to you.

As someone with a vested interest in seeing endless torture describes hell, it is no surprise to me it is clear to you.

Hell is described in the Bible as death, the second death, destruction, the lake of fire which is defined as the second death, the bottomless pit and outer darkness. I think the endless torture part may be man's creation. It is certainly not from a loving Creator.

You can lead a horse to water...(*sigh*)

Correct and then there is a horse of a different color.

 

[aiki]

Everyone picks and choses. The only difference is some deny doing it and some admit it.

This is the sort of thing one says when one is trying to justify one's own behaviour. My twelve year old niece uses this same logic when she says, "But Mom everyone is doing it!" Of course, this isn't true when my niece says it and it isn't true when you say it.

I can tell you, though I doubt you can bring yourself to believe it, that I do not pick and choose my way through the Bible. I accept it all as it claims to be, the Word of God.

Yes Jesus seemed to preach eternal hell--but except for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which was not a parable to teach about the details of heaven or hell, the hell Jesus taught about was outer darkness, death, and destruction etc.

On what grounds do you assert that the parable of Lazarus and Rich Man is pure fiction?

Consider the following:

"Think about it a minute: If at death people simply lapse into a state of nonexistence...what is the point of Luke 16:22-28? Are we to conclude that Jesus was teaching something based entirely on a falsehood -- something that is wholly untrue in every way? If the rich man and Lazarus were not conscious after death, then the answer would have to be yes.

Scholars have noted that when Jesus taught people using parables or stories, he always used real-life situations...Clearly, Jesus never illustrated his teaching with a falsehood. We must conclude that Luke 16 portrays a real-life situation and should be taken as solid evidence for conscious existence after death. Any other interpretation makes an absurdity of the text." (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning From the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 326)

Why do you trust those places that you think indicate eternal torment and not First John?

But I do trust 1 John. I just work to synthesize it with all of Scripture, rather than simply dismiss other verses which don't allow my interpretation of it.

Yes, God is love, but the Bible also says that the angels around God's throne chant "Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty." (Rev. 4:8) You'll note that they do not say, "Love, love, love." Also, this form of repetition in Scripture is intended to emphasize or accentuate that which is repeated. No other one of God's attributes is repeated this way in all of Scripture.

Do you not see we are actually approaching scripture much the same way, just using different passages to believe and ignore or discount.

I have never discounted any Scripture; only your interpretation of it.

It is not overly tolerant to think torture is not loving.

Torture isn't loving. But torment is an appropriate punishment for sin. The punishment of hell delivers the judgment and wrath of God upon unbelieving sinners, not His love.

There is a loving way to punish the wicked--deny eternal life to them. Then there is an unloving way to punish them--torture them forever.

God has shown love to the wicked in providing for them - at the expense of His Only Son's life - a way to enjoy an eternity with Him. When they reject this precious gift, they step away from God's love and under His terrible wrath. The punishment of hell is not intended to express love; for the love of God toward wicked humanity has found its fullest, completest expression in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. When it is refused, God's love is refused and all that remains, then, is judgment and punishment.

Here's another excerpt from Ron Rhodes's book "Reasoning From the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses."

"The punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 cannot be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear in this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness. Bible scholar John Gerstner comments, 'One can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it.' " (pg. 331)

"How do we know that the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does not entail an extinction of consciousness and annihilation? There are many evidences. For example, consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. As Bible scholar Alan Gomes explains it, 'one is either annihilated or one is not. In contrast, the Scripture teaches that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.)' The very fact that people will suffer degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts." (pg. 332)

"Moreover, one cannot deny that for a person who is suffering excruciating pain, the extinction of his or her consciousness would actually be a blessing, not a punishment. As theologian William Shedd notes, 'The guilty and remorseful have, in all ages, deemed the extinction of consciousness after death to be a blessing; but the advocate of conditional immortality explains it to be a curse.' Any honest seeker after truth must admit that one cannot define eternal punishment as an extinction of consciousness.

Torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Alan Gomes comments, 'A punishment that is not felt is not punishment..."

Note also in Matthew 25:46 that this punishment is said to be eternal. There is no way that annihiliationism or an extinction of consciousness can be forced into this passage. Indeed, the adjective "aionion" in this verse means "everlasting, without end." ...this same adjective is predicated of God (the "eternal" God) in Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:7, Hebrews 9:14, 13:8, and Revelation 4:9. The punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as the forever existence of our eternal God. Moreover, as Professor Gomes notes,

What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective "aionios" is used to describe both the length of punishment for the wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked without at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for the redeemed. It would do violence to the parallel to give it an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked."

I disagree. God gave us the ability to love. When we do not use that ability to love, it is not God's responsibillity but ours.

I think you may be so eager to disagree that you aren't considering fully what I'm saying. In fact, what you say above is more or less what I was trying to say in my analogy about the car manufacturer. Although the maker of a car is responsible for making the car capable of high speeds, the car maker is not responsible for the driver of the car who chooses to speed. In the same way, God has made us capable of choosing to sin, and has ordained the law that sin results in death, but we are the one's who are responsible for our choice to sin and the death that results. Our choice to sin and suffer the resulting death does not, however, eliminate the fact that both our capacity to choose sin and its deadly consequences are ordained by God.

If we kill ourselves by driving the car into a tree, it is our responsibility not the car makers.

I agree.

No and i don't think the devil is real.

If you don't think the devil is real, your answer loses its value, I think.

So, even though the Bible explicitly mentions Satan, the devil, you refuse to accept that he is real? How do you decide which things the Bible says you will accept. Is your basis of choice completely subjective?

God has written on my heart and on yours if you will listen to it, that torture is not loving and eternal torture is also not loving.

I don't think I've ever actually said otherwise. Hell is about God's judgment and wrath.

You do the same thing. You decide what verses to ignore and which ones to emphasize and which ones to spin and show the say the opposite of what they actually say.

I don't ignore verses, nor do I give one verse undue emphasis over another. What "spin" I may give to a verse takes into account all that Scripture has to say on the matter, not just what suits me. And even if I did, why would you condemn me for doing exactly what you are guilty of yourself?

See how this does not prove your point. Notice the word destruction, not torture but keep alive and also notice this is about the gospel of Jesus and knowing God, not about taking the Bible as inerrant.

"The Greek word "destruction" in this verse is "olethros", and carries the meaning "sudden ruin," or "loss of all that gives worth to existence." New Testament scholar Robert L. Thomas says that "olethros" 'does not refer to annihilation... but rather turns on the thought of separation from God and loss of everything worthwhile in life...Just as endless life belongs to Christians, endless destruction belongs to those opposed to Christ.' "

"Along these same lines, commentator David A. Hubbard notes that 'annihilation is not the thought (in 2 Thess. 1:9) but rather total ruin, the loss of everything worthwhile. Specifically, it is separation from the presence (face) of the Lord, the true source of all good things.' (W.E. Vine agrees.) Hence, the "destruction" suffered by the wicked does not involve a cessation of existence, but rather a continual and perpetual state of ruination. (pg. 334)

"Notice too that the word "eternal" (aionion) is used in conjunction with "destruction." Now, it is obvious that annihilation, by definition, must take place instantly - in a mere moment. It makes virtually no sense to say that the wicked will suffer "endless annihilation." Rather, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is saying that the wicked will suffer a ruin which is everlasting - a punishment that will never end."

This the one place there is torment mentioned. All I can do with this one is say it is symbolic if there is any divine truth there and if literal, I do not believe it is from God.

Well, sir, all I can say is that this is completely prejudicial and myopic. Why bother with the Bible at all? You seem to know instinctively what the truth is - to an even greater degree than the Bible itself - so what can the Scripture offer to one so advanced beyond its truth?

Everlasting death would be everlasting punishment. This does not justify everlasting life in pain.

See above.

Eternal torture is no holy and just and not worthy of a Creator who is love.

What beyond your opinion can you offer in support of this assertion?

It makes no sense that God would punish us with eternal torture and it makes God less than loving if He does.

If you think God is only loving, I can see your problem. But the Bible makes it clear that He is not.

Yes it is and death forever and loss of heaven forever is a terrible price to pay.

If you don't believe in heaven, the price is nothing to pay. And if you feel differently when you are standing face to face with your Maker, the feeling will be quickly relieved by annihilation. Not much of a down side for the unbeliever if you're right - certainly nothing so negative as to provoke sober second thought.

And some men have claimed to be divinely inspired and other men has said they were- Some even said a pope is inerrant.

What does the Bible say? That's the important question.

I found nothing by Ron Rhodes but he makes many mistakes in theology. James 3:2

I'm afraid this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Only if the Bible is the inerrant dictated word of God. But if as the Bible says, Jesus is the word of God then I do not become an authority over Jesus, just a seeker and follower.

You can't deny the Bible's authority in one breath and then use it as an authority in the next! Goodness! Show some measure of reason here! If you don't believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, then on what basis do you assert that it is correct about who Jesus is? If the Bible is in error, why is not in error about Jesus' identity?

No it is not appropriate and you would admit you see that, if you were not desparately holding on to your theology. I understand you atitude. you feel if you lose the Bible as you inerrant support for your faith you will lose your faith. I was able to deny inerrancy and not lose my faith.

If the Bible is in error about the truth it claims to reveal, why should I give it any authority in my thinking? The Bible claims to be the Word of God. God is true. Therefore, the Word of God must also be true, if, in fact, it is God's Word. If it is found not to be true, then it is not true as God is and cannot be the Word of God.

You claim to have faith but in what remains a mystery to me. From all that you've written it seems clear to me that the final source of truth for you is not God, but yourself. What does that make you, then? In what, ultimately, is your faith placed? It seems obvious to me that the god you place your faith in is actually yourself. But this is the sort of self-delusion that occurs when one denies the inerrancy and objective authority of Scripture.

Selah.

 

[elman]

Everyone picks and choses. The only difference is some deny doing it and some admit it.

This is the sort of thing one says when one is trying to justify one's own behaviour. My twelve year old niece uses this same logic when she says, "But Mom everyone is doing it!" Of course, this isn't true when my niece says it and it isn't true when you say it.

I can tell you, though I doubt you can bring yourself to believe it, that I do not pick and choose my way through the Bible. I accept it all as it claims to be, the Word of God.

When was the last time you used Ezekiel 18 as a guide for your theology? Or how often do you refer to the passage of where God waited to ambush and murder Moses but Moses was saved by his wife?

Yes Jesus seemed to preach eternal hell--but except for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which was not a parable to teach about the details of heaven or hell, the hell Jesus taught about was outer darkness, death, and destruction etc.

On what grounds do you assert that the parable of Lazarus and Rich Man is pure fiction?

On the grounds that the parable is trying to teach you and I that being rich does not mean we are pleasing God and being poor does not mean God is displeased with us. It is the same teaching as Job.

Consider the following:

"Think about it a minute: If at death people simply lapse into a state of nonexistence...what is the point of Luke 16:22-28? Are we to conclude that Jesus was teaching something based entirely on a falsehood -- something that is wholly untrue in every way? If the rich man and Lazarus were not conscious after death, then the answer would have to be yes.

Do you think heaven is acuratly described as being in the arms of sheepherder?

Scholars have noted that when Jesus taught people using parables or stories, he always used real-life situations...Clearly, Jesus never illustrated his teaching with a falsehood.

So Jesus never thought up a story to teach someone something? How do you arrive at that knowledge? Is it from God? When and where did God say that?

We must conclude that Luke 16 portrays a real-life situation and should be taken as solid evidence for conscious existence after death. Any other interpretation makes an absurdity of the text." (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning From the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 326)

Absurd. The point of the story was as I said above. The point is valid without all this assumptions about the details of the story.

Why do you trust those places that you think indicate eternal torment and not First John?

But I do trust 1 John. I just work to synthesize it with all of Scripture, rather than simply dismiss other verses which don't allow my interpretation of it.

By synthesize you mean allow for torture to be a loving action?

Yes, God is love, but the Bible also says that the angels around God's throne chant "Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty." (Rev. 4:8) You'll note that they do not say, "Love, love, love." Also, this form of repetition in Scripture is intended to emphasize or accentuate that which is repeated.

Holy and loving are not at odds. Loving and torture are at odds.

Do you not see we are actually approaching scripture much the same way, just using different passages to believe and ignore or discount.

I have never discounted any Scripture; only your interpretation of it.

So you have convinced yourself.

It is not overly tolerant to think torture is not loving.

Torture isn't loving. But torment is an appropriate punishment for sin. The punishment of hell delivers the judgment and wrath of God upon unbelieving sinners, not His love.

You admit torture is not loving but you insist God tortures and still insist God is love.

Here's another excerpt from Ron Rhodes's book "Reasoning From the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses."

"The punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 cannot be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear in this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness. Bible scholar John Gerstner comments, 'One can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it.' " (pg. 331)

Rhodes is incorrect. Capital punishment is punishment.

"How do we know that the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does not entail an extinction of consciousness and annihilation? There are many evidences. For example, consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. As Bible scholar Alan Gomes explains it, 'one is either annihilated or one is not. In contrast, the Scripture teaches that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.)' The very fact that people will suffer degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts." (pg. 332)

I tend to agree these are incompatible concepts just as torturing people foreve is incompatible with love.

"Moreover, one cannot deny that for a person who is suffering excruciating pain, the extinction of his or her consciousness would actually be a blessing, not a punishment. As theologian William Shedd notes, 'The guilty and remorseful have, in all ages, deemed the extinction of consciousness after death to be a blessing; but the advocate of conditional immortality explains it to be a curse.' Any honest seeker after truth must admit that one cannot define eternal punishment as an extinction of consciousness.

No and any honest seeker after truth must admit that etertal torture is not compatible with a loving Creator.

Torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Alan Gomes comments, 'A punishment that is not felt is not punishment..."

Wrong again. Capital punishment is punishment. Lost of eternal life is punishment.

Note also in Matthew 25:46 that this punishment is said to be eternal. There is no way that annihiliationism or an extinction of consciousness can be forced into this passage. Indeed, the adjective "aionion" in this verse means "everlasting, without end." ...this same adjective is predicated of God (the "eternal" God) in Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:7, Hebrews 9:14, 13:8, and Revelation 4:9. The punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as the forever existence of our eternal God. Moreover, as Professor Gomes notes,

What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective "aionios" is used to describe both the length of punishment for the wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked without at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for the redeemed. It would do violence to the parallel to give it an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked."

I do not limit the loss of eternal life for the wicked. It is forever.

 

[elman]

I disagree. God gave us the ability to love. When we do not use that ability to love, it is not God's responsibillity but ours.

I think you may be so eager to disagree that you aren't considering fully what I'm saying. In fact, what you say above is more or less what I was trying to say in my analogy about the car manufacturer. Although the maker of a car is responsible for making the car capable of high speeds, the car maker is not responsible for the driver of the car who chooses to speed. In the same way, God has made us capable of choosing to sin, and has ordained the law that sin results in death, but we are the one's who are responsible for our choice to sin and the death that results. Our choice to sin and suffer the resulting death does not, however, eliminate the fact that both our capacity to choose sin and its deadly consequences are ordained by God.

What do you mean by ordained by God? I was in agreement with what you were saying until you said that. If you are saying sin is the will of God, I disagree.

No and i don't think the devil is real.

If you don't think the devil is real, your answer loses its value, I think.

Why?

So, even though the Bible explicitly mentions Satan, the devil, you refuse to accept that he is real? How do you decide which things the Bible says you will accept. Is your basis of choice completely subjective?

Yes. I am not getting any instructions directly from God. I assume God is love and what agrees with that is accepted and what contridicts that is rejected.

God has written on my heart and on yours if you will listen to it, that torture is not loving and eternal torture is also not loving.

I don't think I've ever actually said otherwise. Hell is about God's judgment and wrath.

God's judgment and wrath cannot be eternal torture, because then God would not be love.

You do the same thing. You decide what verses to ignore and which ones to emphasize and which ones to spin and show the say the opposite of what they actually say.

I don't ignore verses, nor do I give one verse undue emphasis over another. What "spin" I may give to a verse takes into account all that Scripture has to say on the matter, not just what suits me.

I think you believe that.

And even if I did, why would you condemn me for doing exactly what you are guilty of yourself?

I am just pointing out the hypocracy of condeming me for what you also do.

See how this does not prove your point. Notice the word destruction, not torture but keep alive and also notice this is about the gospel of Jesus and knowing God, not about taking the Bible as inerrant.

"The Greek word "destruction" in this verse is "olethros", and carries the meaning "sudden ruin," or "loss of all that gives worth to existence." New Testament scholar Robert L. Thomas says that "olethros" 'does not refer to annihilation...

Why should I believe him? Destruction is much more compatible with annihilation that being kept alive and tortured.

but rather turns on the thought of separation from God and loss of everything worthwhile in life...Just as endless life belongs to Christians, endless destruction belongs to those opposed to Christ.' "

Annihilation fits very well with endless loss of eternal life and endless separation from God who is the source of all life.

"Along these same lines, commentator David A. Hubbard notes that 'annihilation is not the thought (in 2 Thess. 1:9) but rather total ruin, the loss of everything worthwhile. Specifically, it is separation from the presence (face) of the Lord, the true source of all good things.' (W.E. Vine agrees.) Hence, the "destruction" suffered by the wicked does not involve a cessation of existence, but rather a continual and perpetual state of ruination. (pg. 334)

Why do you assume these people are speaking for God?

"Notice too that the word "eternal" (aionion) is used in conjunction with "destruction." Now, it is obvious that annihilation, by definition, must take place instantly - in a mere moment. It makes virtually no sense to say that the wicked will suffer "endless annihilation." Rather, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is saying that the wicked will suffer a ruin which is everlasting - a punishment that will never end."

Notice that instant destruction can be a punishment that never ends if they are not reborn.

This the one place there is torment mentioned. All I can do with this one is say it is symbolic if there is any divine truth there and if literal, I do not believe it is from God.

Well, sir, all I can say is that this is completely prejudicial and myopic. Why bother with the Bible at all?

Because tghe Bible says God is love. This verse is not compatible with that. It is either symbolizm or just not true and not from God. Revelation is a book of signs and symbols.

You seem to know instinctively what the truth is - to an even greater degree than the Bible itself - so what can the Scripture offer to one so advanced beyond its truth?

I know torture is not love. You have admited you know that also. If God is love is true, then God tortures is not true.

Everlasting death would be everlasting punishment. This does not justify everlasting life in pain.

See above.


Eternal torture is not holy and just and not worthy of a Creator who is love.

What beyond your opinion can you offer in support of this assertion?

Your opinion that torture is not loving.

It makes no sense that God would punish us with eternal torture and it makes God less than loving if He does.

If you think God is only loving, I can see your problem. But the Bible makes it clear that He is not.

I think the Bible makes it clear that God is love. That means He will not be unloving just as God will not lie.

Yes it is and death forever and loss of heaven forever is a terrible price to pay.

If you don't believe in heaven, the price is nothing to pay

.The existence of heaven is not dependent upon our belief in it.

And if you feel differently when you are standing face to face with your Maker, the feeling will be quickly relieved by annihilation. Not much of a down side for the unbeliever if you're right - certainly nothing so negative as to provoke sober second thought.

This is amazing stuff. Oblivion is nothing to be concerned about? Loss of eternal life is nothing to provoke sober second thought on our part? Not much of a down side?

And some men have claimed to be divinely inspired and other men has said they were- Some even said a pope is inerrant.

What does the Bible say? That's the important question.

It says God is loving and tortures people. It says God does not lie, and sends lying spirits to decieve. It says all sorts of things--kill your children if they are disrepectful. Love your neighbor. It says hell is death and destruction and a bottomless pit and outer darkness and a lake of fire.

I found nothing by Ron Rhodes but he makes many mistakes in theology. James 3:2

I'm afraid this is the pot calling the kettle black.

I never claimed to have perfect theology.

Only if the Bible is the inerrant dictated word of God. But if as the Bible says, Jesus is the word of God then I do not become an authority over Jesus, just a seeker and follower.

You can't deny the Bible's authority in one breath and then use it as an authority in the next! Goodness! Show some measure of reason here! If you don't believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, then on what basis do you assert that it is correct about who Jesus is?

I do not believe the Bible is perfectly correct nor do I believe the Bible is perfectly wrong. Why am I not allowed to believe in Jesus if I reject the perfection of a man made book?

If the Bible is in error, why is not in error about Jesus' identity?

If the Bible says God is love and then says God tortures people, why am I not allowed to believe in a loving God but not believe in an unloving God who tortures people? Why must I be forced to accept inconsistency?

No it is not appropriate and you would admit you see that, if you were not desparately holding on to your theology. I understand you atitude. you feel if you lose the Bible as you inerrant support for your faith you will lose your faith. I was able to deny inerrancy and not lose my faith.

If the Bible is in error about the truth it claims to reveal, why should I give it any authority in my thinking? The Bible claims to be the Word of God. God is true. Therefore, the Word of God must also be true, if, in fact, it is God's Word. If it is found not to be true, then it is not true as God is and cannot be the Word of God.

Actually the Bible does not claim to be the Word of God. It says very clearly in the first chapter of John that Jesus is the Word of God.

You claim to have faith but in what remains a mystery to me. From all that you've written it seems clear to me that the final source of truth for you is not God, but yourself. What does that make you, then? In what, ultimately, is your faith placed? It seems obvious to me that the god you place your faith in is actually yourself. But this is the sort of self-delusion that occurs when one denies the inerrancy and objective authority of

Are you aware that for several hundred years after the death of Jesus there was no Bible, yet people had faith in Him and God? For fifteen hundred years after the death of Jesus, most people did not have a bible nor did they have access to one, nor could they have read it if they had acces to one, and all those years people had faith in God and Jesus. Now you seem to question that I or anyone could possibly have faith in Jesus unless we have your version of the Bible and unless we worship at your alter to the Book.

 

[seerly]

amazing! right, beelzebub was cast out of heaven for "wrongdoings"? and it was at this point that god created hell because he had to put him somewhere, am i close? and after reading through this thread, apparently, "wicked" people join him in hell. could you define "wicked" please, is there a line that cant be crossed? not wicked ___line___wicked. i think that is a very strong word to be used so nonchalantly. is someone wicked if they rape someone? is someone wicked if they kiss someone outside marriage (with tongue), is someone wicked if they touch? is someone wicked if they have a wet dream? is someone wicked if they look at pictures of semi nudity? is someone wicked if they think of fornication? is someone wicked if they want to have sex? is someone wicked if they swear? is an atheist wicked?
i suppose i will now be regarded as vulgar and thrown out of the forum, but im not, these are genuine and important points. all words used are proper words found in authentic dictionaries. we are human beings, all made of the same stuff, whatever we think, whatever we believe, lets talk.

 

[aiki]

What do you mean by ordained by God? I was in agreement with what you were saying until you said that. If you are saying sin is the will of God, I disagree.

I wrote very clearly what I meant. Let me repeat myself:

Our choice to sin and suffer the resulting death does not, however, eliminate the fact that both our capacity to choose sin and its deadly consequences are ordained by God.

What I did not say was that God was the origin of sin. "...God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." (1 Jn. 1:5)

So, even though the Bible explicitly mentions Satan, the devil, you refuse to accept that he is real? How do you decide which things the Bible says you will accept. Is your basis of choice completely subjective?
​

Yes. I am not getting any instructions directly from God. I assume God is love and what agrees with that is accepted and what contridicts that is rejected.

Well, if you're going on a completely subjective basis, then your assertions about God and His nature are without any objective authority. We are simply discussing your opinions, which have no more weight than the next person's. The really serious problem with such a subjective basis for your understanding of God is that you become the final arbiter of the truth of God's nature. He doesn't tell you what He is like; you tell Him what He is like. In essence, you determine who and what God is, which makes you, ultimately, His Creator. But, then, that means, of course, that you are God, doesn't it?

God's judgment and wrath cannot be eternal torture, because then God would not be love.

Thanks for your opinion. But's it just your opinion, so there's no further point in debating it.

And even if I did, why would you condemn me for doing exactly what you are guilty of yourself?
​

I am just pointing out the hypocracy of condeming me for what you also do.

Yes, but in doing so you condemn yourself - though I don't think you realize it. How does that saying go? "When you point your finger at another, three of your fingers are pointing back at you."

I don't ignore verses, nor do I give one verse undue emphasis over another. What "spin" I may give to a verse takes into account all that Scripture has to say on the matter, not just what suits me.

I think you believe that.

Yes, I do. And your point is?

Why should I believe him? Destruction is much more compatible with annihilation that being kept alive and tortured.

Why should you believe him? Because he is a well-credentialed, well-respected Bible scholar and his basis for his viewpoint is not merely his opinion, but a careful study of the text of Scripture.

Annihilation fits very well with endless loss of eternal life and endless separation from God who is the source of all life.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. As are those who take a completely different view from yours. And since its just subjective opinion, there's no reason to give yours any more credence than the next guy's. I certainly can't reasonably give your opinion anywhere near the same weight as the Bible scholar who can refer to a broad spectrum of facts in support of his viewpoint and his specialized training in the field of biblical exegesis.

Why do you assume these people are speaking for God?

I never said I did. They don't necessarily speak for God but of Him - and they do so from a reaonable, authoritative, objective basis. I would be a fool to trust a mere opinion over their scholarship.

Notice that instant destruction can be a punishment that never ends if they are not reborn.

And so? I really can't comment on your opinions beyond what I have done already. As has been noted before, punishment is not punishment if it is not experienced. One cannot punish a rock, or tree, or a mound of dirt because none of these things can experience punishment. Likewise, one cannot punish one who does not exist. Endless punishment comes to an abrupt end the moment one is removed from existence by annihilation, therefore, annihilation is not endless punishment.

Because tghe Bible says God is love. This verse is not compatible with that. It is either symbolizm or just not true and not from God. Revelation is a book of signs and symbols.

So? Why trust the biblical assertion that "God is love" and not the ones that say God is wrathful, or jealous, or vengeful? It is completely inconsistent and illogical to deny the Bible speaks the truth about God on one hand and then reference it as a source of truth about Him on the other. You utterly destroy any serious argument you might make from Scripture about the nature of God when you deny that Scripture is divine in origin. If its just another man-made book, whose to say the human makers of it know any more than the Hindu does about who and what God is?

I know torture is not love. You have admited you know that also. If God is love is true, then God tortures is not true.

This is such bad logic - and such obviously bad logic - it pains me to read it!

An equivalent to your statement above would be:

If the earth is hot, then the earth is cold cannot be true.

The earth is very hot in places; its core is made up of boiling, bubbling magma. But the earth is also very cold; the polar ice caps are covered in vast sheets of ice and snow. Obviously, then, the earth can be both very hot and very cold and the above assertion is false. So, too, with God. He is loving and He is wrathful; He is gracious and He is jealous; He is merciful and He is vengeful. He can be all these things without any logical contradiction whatsoever - just as any human father can be.

Your opinion that torture is not loving.

I'm flattered that you would think so much of my opinion as to use it in defense of your own, but one opinion coupled to another does not make either opinion anything other than...opinion.

If you think God is only loving, I can see your problem. But the Bible makes it clear that He is not.

I think the Bible makes it clear that God is love. That means He will not be unloving just as God will not lie.

No, this is unreasonable. First of all, you're trying to use the Bible as an authority on God when you've denied that it is. This is a self-destructing argument. Second, the Bible makes it clear that God is many things, including loving. On what basis do you assert that God cannot be all these things together? If humans can have more than one dimension to their character, certainly God can!

The existence of heaven is not dependent upon our belief in it.

How do you know that?

This is amazing stuff. Oblivion is nothing to be concerned about? Loss of eternal life is nothing to provoke sober second thought on our part? Not much of a down side?

There have been several infamous atheists who have craved the forgetfulness of oblivion. There have been criminals as well who have relished the thought of oblivion and thus escape their own guilty conscience and the condemnation of society. For many, annihilation is a welcome relief, not a horror.

It says God is loving and tortures people. It says God does not lie, and sends lying spirits to decieve. It says all sorts of things--kill your children if they are disrepectful. Love your neighbor. It says hell is death and destruction and a bottomless pit and outer darkness and a lake of fire.

Well, if this is the way you've framed your understanding of the contents of the Bible, no wonder you don't trust it. What you've described here is a very superficial and very confused rendering of the Bible, however. It all makes good sense if you take the time to study and synthesize together all that Scripture teaches. You seem content instead to let it appear the contradictory mess you have depicted above.

You don't do this with, say, the concept of water, do you? I mean, water can be hot or cold, liquid, solid or vapor, it can be blue in color, or white, or black, or green. You can drown in it or drink it, wash in it, or climb it, or make a snowman out of it. Water can be all sorts of contradictory things -- or so it appears. With some study, however, all the contradictions can be resolved into a perfectly reasonable set of explanations -- just like the Bible.

I do not believe the Bible is perfectly correct nor do I believe the Bible is perfectly wrong. Why am I not allowed to believe in Jesus if I reject the perfection of a man made book?

Hey, you can believe anything you want. Just don't try to suggest to others that your belief, which is completely drawn from your own preferences and biases, legitimately reflects objective truth.

If the Bible says God is love and then says God tortures people, why am I not allowed to believe in a loving God but not believe in an unloving God who tortures people? Why must I be forced to accept inconsistency?

Sir, you aren't forced to accept inconsistency; you appear to embrace it wholeheartedly!

If the medicine label says the medicine will make you feel better and then says it can potentially kill you, why should you not be allowed to believe it can make you well but not believe it can kill you? Why should you be forced to accept such inconsistency?

Actually the Bible does not claim to be the Word of God. It says very clearly in the first chapter of John that Jesus is the Word of God.

How does David refer to the OT Scripture? "Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against you." (Ps. 119:11)

What is Paul talking about when he writes,

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

How is the God-inspired Scripture communicated to us? In word. In other words (no pun intended), Scripture is God's Word. This doesn't deny that Jesus is the Word of God as spoken of in the Gospel of John; there is the incarnate Word of God, Jesus, and the inspired Word of God, the Bible. These are not mutually-exclusive things.

Are you aware that for several hundred years after the death of Jesus there was no Bible, yet people had faith in Him and God?

They didn't have the Bible in the form that we have today. But the Bible we read today originates with the letters of the apostles and the OT Hebrew Scriptures that were available to and used by the Early Church.

Now you seem to question that I or anyone could possibly have faith in Jesus unless we have your version of the Bible and unless we worship at your alter to the Book.

My version of the Bible? Cute. I use the NKJV, NSV, and NASB. These aren't my versions, though. And did I say I have an altar for the Bible? Nope. I respect the Bible deeply as God's word to humanity - as you should - but I don't worship it. I worship the One whom it reveals.

Well, I think I'm all done discussing this matter with you. We've made our respective viewpoints pretty clear, I think, and neither of us seems inclined to budge from them. Thanks for the discussion. Its been...interesting.

Selah.

 

[elman]

amazing! right, beelzebub was cast out of heaven for "wrongdoings"? and it was at this point that god created hell because he had to put him somewhere, am i close? and after reading through this thread, apparently, "wicked" people join him in hell. could you define "wicked" please, is there a line that cant be crossed? not wicked ___line___wicked. i think that is a very strong word to be used so nonchalantly. is someone wicked if they rape someone? is someone wicked if they kiss someone outside marriage (with tongue), is someone wicked if they touch? is someone wicked if they have a wet dream? is someone wicked if they look at pictures of semi nudity? is someone wicked if they think of fornication? is someone wicked if they want to have sex? is someone wicked if they swear? is an atheist wicked?
i suppose i will now be regarded as vulgar and thrown out of the forum, but im not, these are genuine and important points. all words used are proper words found in authentic dictionaries. we are human beings, all made of the same stuff, whatever we think, whatever we believe, lets talk.

To be rightous is to be loving and compassionate for others in need. See the parable of the Good Samaritan and Matt 25:31 and following. To be wicked is to fail to be righteous. God decides who is wicked and who is righteouse. We are unable to do that, but I can hazard a guess that Hitler and Stalin were wicked. All of us fall short of being what God wants us to be. That does not mean we are all equally wicked. It does of course mean none of us will deserve the gift of eternal life if we receive it.

 

[seerly]

To be rightous is to be loving and compassionate for others in need. See the parable of the Good Samaritan and Matt 25:31 and following. To be wicked is to fail to be righteous. God decides who is wicked and who is righteouse. We are unable to do that, but I can hazard a guess that Hitler and Stalin were wicked. All of us fall short of being what God wants us to be. That does not mean we are all equally wicked. It does of course mean none of us will deserve the gift of eternal life if we receive it.

so how can you know whether you are being wicked or not as far as god is concerned?
is euthanasia wicked?

 

[bling]

No. I see the love of God for us as the same love we have for others if we act out of compassion and concern for others. A mother's love for her baby would be similar to our heavenly father's love for His children.

There are books on Agape (Love) that show the differences between all the different “loves” so I cannot go over everything, but would suggest you read some of them.


Jesus redefines true love which I define as Godly type Love and capitalize the “L” to distinguish this “Love” from all other loves. The definition of Godly type Love includes everything Christ said and did. You can also use 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4.


I am not suggesting an excellent Christian mother would not have Godly type Love for her child, but that Love would be much more than just mother’s love for child.

There are lots of emotional, instinctive and logical reasons why a mother loves her child, some of the same reasons we see in the animal world among some animals.

Godly type Love has nothing to do with “who” is being Loved, but is the result of the Lover deciding to love because of who he is and what has been done for him. Suppose you lived in the first century and this man Saul had tortured and killed all your family and friends, would it be natural for you to Love him? God Loved him and he wants us to Love him, but not for what he did or what he will become, but because of who we are and want has been done for us. What has been do for us can also happen for Saul, but is not required to happen for us to Love Saul. To “Love” Saul would take a “Love” way beyond human type love and ability for humans to develop.

It is both part of being human, and learned as we mature and when God gifts us with eternal life it is a free gift--more than we deserve.
At birth, we are born spiritually and physically alive.

I don't know that we can be sure we have it, but if we are being unloving to others around us, we can be sure then we do not have it.

[ I think in that context we are talking about our gratitude to God for gifting us with eternal life and if we have lived a very long and unloving life; but then turned to being loving we should be more grateful if possible for eternal life than someone who has lived most of their life in loving obedicence to God.

“Eternal Life” is not being addressed, but does come along with forgiveness (a really nice adder).


Luke 7: 36-50 Jesus teaches both: “…he that is forgiven little Loves little…” and “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” It really has to do with our perception of how much we have been forgiven and if we really accept that forgiveness as “Charity”, since that is the way it is given.

I know that I have been forgiven much because hell is the price of sin and what Christ went through as the result of my sins.

No, I agree with Paul that sinning is bad and it is not a good idea to sin more so you can be loved more.

How is that a no and not a yes to my question?


It is not that we have to “sin more” to Love more one sin would put Jesus on the cross. There is a lengthy explanation behind this, but if I had not sinner and fulfilled my earthly objective without sinning then there would have been “another way” and Jesus would not have gone to the cross, but because I could not keep from sinning Christ went to the cross (it is my entire fault). Is that a big enough sin?

That would change the world we are in a lot. If men could be evil--unloving and it have no effect that would not be this world in which evil men are able to hurt you. All of us are going to have reason to be grateful and love God for gifting us with eternal life, because none of us will have lived free of sin and deserve it.

Most people now, in this world do not attach much significance to sin and do all they can to minimize its significance. The Muslims say, “good deeds take sins away” and other religions have similar systems and do not see the need for Christ to go to the cross.

What has to be addressed how would it effect you personally forgetting about the rest of the world?

 

[elman]

]

What do you mean by ordained by God? I was in agreement with what you were saying until you said that. If you are saying sin is the will of God, I disagree.

I wrote very clearly what I meant. Let me repeat myself:

Our choice to sin and suffer the resulting death does not, however, eliminate the fact that both our capacity to choose sin and its deadly consequences are ordained by God.

What I did not say was that God was the origin of sin. "...God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." (1 Jn. 1:5)


So, even though the Bible explicitly mentions Satan, the devil, you refuse to accept that he is real? How do you decide which things the Bible says you will accept. Is your basis of choice completely subjective?

Believing the Bible is inerrant does not change your choices to objective. The Bible is not objecively inerrant. That is a matter of faith. Further when two people believe the Bible to be inerrant, they still do not always agree on what it says, unless one of them is not thinking. In other word your theology is as subjective as mine.

Yes. I am not getting any instructions directly from God. I assume God is love and what agrees with that is accepted and what contridicts that is rejected.

Well, if you're going on a completely subjective basis, then your assertions about God and His nature are without any objective authority. We are simply discussing your opinions, which have no more weight than the next person's. The really serious problem with such a subjective basis for your understanding of God is that you become the final arbiter of the truth of God's nature. He doesn't tell you what He is like; you tell Him what He is like. In essence, you determine who and what God is, which makes you, ultimately, His Creator. But, then, that means, of course, that you are God, doesn't it? [/QUOTE]No, being unwilling to let a man or group of men tell me what to think about God does not mean I am God or the creator of God. You have no more objective authority than I. Your theology is no less opinion than mine.

God's judgment and wrath cannot be eternal torture, because then God would not be love.

Thanks for your opinion. But's it just your opinion, so there's no further point in debating it.

It is more than my opinion that torture is not being loving. You are well aware of that.

And even if I did, why would you condemn me for doing exactly what you are guilty of yourself?

I am just pointing out the hypocracy of condeming me for what you also do.

Yes, but in doing so you condemn yourself - though I don't think you realize it. How does that saying go? "When you point your finger at another, three of your fingers are pointing back at you."

I have not denied my theology is subjective.

I don't ignore verses, nor do I give one verse undue emphasis over another. What "spin" I may give to a verse takes into account all that Scripture has to say on the matter, not just what suits me.

I think you believe that.

Yes, I do. And your point is?

It is a delusion on your part.

Why should I believe him? Destruction is much more compatible with annihilation that being kept alive and tortured.

Why should you believe him? Because he is a well-credentialed, well-respected Bible scholar and his basis for his viewpoint is not merely his opinion, but a careful study of the text of Scripture.

Be serious. Well credentialed and well respected Bible scholars make mistakes all the time and have throughout history. James 3:2 Even the apostles made many mistakes in theology.

Annihilation fits very well with endless loss of eternal life and endless separation from God who is the source of all life

.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. As are those who take a completely different view from yours. And since its just subjective opinion, there's no reason to give yours any more credence than the next guy's. I certainly can't reasonably give your opinion anywhere near the same weight as the Bible scholar who can refer to a broad spectrum of facts in support of his viewpoint and his specialized training in the field of biblical exegesis.

It is a mistake to assume other people know things about God just because they claim to be experts.

Why do you assume these people are speaking for God?

I never said I did. They don't necessarily speak for God but of Him - and they do so from a reaonable, authoritative, objective basis.

No they do not speak from an objective basis. Their opinion is still subjective.

I would be a fool to trust a mere opinion over their scholarship.

You should trust neither and theirs is also mere opinon.

Notice that instant destruction can be a punishment that never ends if they are not reborn.

And so? I really can't comment on your opinions beyond what I have done already. As has been noted before, punishment is not punishment if it is not experienced. One cannot punish a rock, or tree, or a mound of dirt because none of these things can experience punishment.

If capital punishment is punishment, this argument is wrong.

Likewise, one cannot punish one who does not exist. Endless punishment comes to an abrupt end the moment one is removed from existence by annihilation, therefore, annihilation is not endless punishment.

Meaningless words. Of course capital punishment is endless if one is not resurrected.