TimothyW
Member
Thanks for the clarification. Since I don't hold that belief I will leave the thread now.
Blessings
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Blessings
P
poetofparables
Guest
Mmm k.
chessman
Member
Oh, okay then. I'll just listen to what's presented by those that think eternal suffering is necessary. If you'd like to know why Eternal destruction is necessary, just ask.
So far, out of over 340 posts, you have the following answers from those that think Eternal suffering is necessary:
1. jonahmano said that eternal suffering is necessary because you're not like a computer.
2. Kathi said Eternal suffering is necessary was because Christ died so that the saved will not perish.
3. WIP said it was because good requires evil.
I think that's an accurate and compete summary so far, from those that think that way about Eternal Damnation.
P
poetofparables
Guest
Yep that's great, thanks chessman.
In fact, those who are cast (thrown) into the lake of fire will be "tormented night and day forever and ever.
What Scripture indicates that God will bless those who have turned away from Himself??
Though we disagree on the issue of whether there is eternal suffering, your reply to p.o.p was excellent. However, since he has said that he has turned away from Christianity, after indicating that he used to be one (need a lot more info before deciding that he ever had saving faith in the first place: he might just be reacting to some very legalistic system that was inacurrately called "Christianity"), I'm not sure why he would bother with a definition that "makes the most Biblical sense", given that he no longer believes in God. iow, why would it matter to him whether his definition lines up with the Bible or not? Further, why does he bother with the question, if he believes that God does not exist? Most atheists deny any eternal existence. iow, after physical life ends, there is nothing else. So why bother with such questions?
I wonder what his real motive was.
P
poetofparables
Guest
To observe the christian mindset.
P
poetofparables
Guest
Ok, well I know that sounds patronizing. Disregard it due to insensitive on my part.
What's the problem? I find it enlightening to observe the unbeliever's mindset.
P
poetofparables
Guest
Well if your all ok with that, then I'll continue. Thanks Willie
I guess we'll just keep going round and round. Yes, they do mean the same thing. But NO where in Scripture does it say that anyone will be "eternally destroyed". I urge to check out Scripture.
The point of Rev 20:10 is that those IN the lake of fire WILL BE "tormented night and day forever and ever". So where is there any evidence from Revelation (the context for all this) that those involved in 20:15 WON'T be "tormented night and day forever and ever"? Until you provide that evidence from the context of Rev, your view is not supported by Scripture.
<sigh> You keep missing the point of WHAT HAPPENS to those who are cast into the lake of fire. Let's keep "sheol" out of this, ok? They AREN'T the same place.
The Bible tells us plainly of the condition of those who are cast into the lake of fire from Rebv 20:10. They are "tormented night and day forever and ever". This isn't debatable.
So when John tells us that those who are unsaved are cast into the SAME lake of fire, why ASSUME they get a different treatment?? You've not demonstrated your view.
As to your first sentence, you have NO verse that says anyone perishes in the lake of fire. Zero. As to your second sentence, Rev 20:10 and 20:15 go together. It's the SAME PLACE and anyone cast into it gets the SAME TREATMENT.
You've not shown otherwise. All your verses about sheol are irrelevant. Different place altogether.
And I explained the Hebrew meanings. You still have no support from Scripture.
This is a faulty assumption. The Bible DOESN'T say "only" those 3 will be tormented forever. It says they will be tormented forever. There is NO "only" in the text. That is your assumption. And 20:15 tells who ELSE will be cast into the lake of fire. Where do you find in Rev 20 that they get a different outcome from being cast into it?
I will "concede" that ANYONE who is cast into the lake of fire gets the SAME TREATMENT as the 3 in Rev 20:10. There is NO reason to assume anything other than that.
Correct, they don't have eternal life. What they DO have is "eternal death". But you seem not to understand the meaning of "death" in this context. James described physical death as SEPARATION of soul from body in James 2:26. What is spiritual death? SEPARATION of soul from God. The lake of fire is separation from God.
On the contrary, it doesn't support your assumption that those in Rev 20:15 get a DIFFERENT outcome than the 3 in Rev 20:10.
Eternal death is eternal separation from God. And a conscious torment night and day forever and ever. That's the existence in the lake of fire.
Yes, I mean those involved in Rev 20:15; all the unsaved humans. They are cast into the SAME PLACE as the 3 in 20:10. Please prove or demonstrate that they get a DIFFERENT outcome than the 3.
What do you mean "will be"? Will be WHAT?? John clearly SAYS that in addition to the 3, all of unsaved humanity will be cast into the lake of fire.
On the contrary, you haven't demonstrated that anyone thrown into the lake of fire doesn't survive.
Since the lake of fire is also called the "second death" why would the Bible use the word "will live". This isn't about 'living'; it's about being tormented night and day forever and ever. And for that to occur, one must be conscious.
iow, it will be a conscious death. Or conscious separation from God…for eternity. In torment.
None of the so-called proof texts have anything to do with the lake of fire. Zero. You're just mixing apples and oranges.
The assumption is on your view, that those in Rev 20:15 somehow get a different outcome than the 3 in 20:10.
btw, how do you understand Matt 25:46 - “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The 'these' are the unsaved. What does "eternal punishment" mean to you?
If one simply ceases to exist, how can that be considered "eternal punishment"? It can't.
Last edited:
chessman
Member
Which is why I offered an alternative to answering his question without necessarily using Scripture to do it. I'd prefer to provide the justification for why the Eternal Destruction of unbelievers is necessary Biblically, of course, but it's not necessary to quote the Bible to do it. Plus, It makes for another interesting question; (How can I avoid Eternal Destruction?) if one takes the words of the Bible seriously.
But, your right, he's already just flat out said that Jesus' words are wrong.
So you're probably right that he's not really after the Biblical answer anyway.
Not really sure why he asked a bunch of Christians though, if he's not after the Biblical answer.
But you have to admit, he's interacted a lot better than most atheists that pop in for a 'question' now and then. They mostly just ignore our points or leave after 1 or 2 posts.
So I thought just maybe he'd be intersted in the Biblical justification for the Eternal Destruction of unbelievers.
You could easily justify why Eternal Destruction is absolutely necessary on any atheistic view, of course. Is that not what is going to happen at his personal death on his worldview? And that's going to necessarily happen to all humanity when the Sun runs out of fuel?
The much more interesting question is; Why has an atheistic universe designed him as a "knowledge factory" that thinks eternal suffering is immoral (since he said it did)
Given his athestic worldview, I'm not sure how or why he thinks he obtained this knowledge (that eternal suffering is evil and life is good or better), from a universe that has no concept of what's good and what's evil. It would seem to me that athestic universe would never, not in a trillion years, have designed a knowledge factory capable of deciding what's good and what's evil. But our worldview has an answer.
But that's just me. I'm sure he has his 'reasons'.
TimothyW
Member
Matthew 5:45 (This is not to say that Mr Poet is unjust or evil in any way, just that God blesses everyone, and I am happy that He does.)
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Last edited:
P
poetofparables
Guest
When I said we are learning factories, I mean what ever or whoever designed us, designed us specifically for learning. Evolution by default is a learning system, the whole universe is a learning system. That hole that all the spiritual and religious people ascribe as a heart shape hole for god, is in error. That hole is not a design flaw, it's a feature. Its hard-wired into us so we can desire learning. This idea makes the most sense to me when comparing it to what we already know. I can go as far as saying that the answer to the problem "why is there evil?" Lies in the absence of learning knowledge. What I'm saying is that the less we learn the more sick we will become.
Humm the "knowledge" of Good and Evil.... that we were never to begin learning from, in the first place..... And the only "Learning" we are instructed to persue is learning of Him.
I think, perhaps, you just may have missed a little something in your deductions.
I think, perhaps, you just may have missed a little something in your deductions.
Obadiah
Member
Not necessarily directed at the above post.
I'm going to close this thread to give everyone a chance to think about how to respond from here on out. I commend those members who are doing a good job of following our new guidelines as well as the ToS. Thank you. But even though the exact words haven't been used, I think we are starting to inadvertently descend into a "You're wrong", "No I'm not" kind of discussion. Also, let's refrain from talking about another member and their reasoning as if they weren't here among us. If you question a member's motivations for what they have written, please ask them directly and refrain from voicing your speculation as to their motives.
So take a little while to think through your positions and how you still want to respond to this subject with new information and evidence that hasn't already been given. I'll open this back up later.
I'm going to close this thread to give everyone a chance to think about how to respond from here on out. I commend those members who are doing a good job of following our new guidelines as well as the ToS. Thank you. But even though the exact words haven't been used, I think we are starting to inadvertently descend into a "You're wrong", "No I'm not" kind of discussion. Also, let's refrain from talking about another member and their reasoning as if they weren't here among us. If you question a member's motivations for what they have written, please ask them directly and refrain from voicing your speculation as to their motives.
So take a little while to think through your positions and how you still want to respond to this subject with new information and evidence that hasn't already been given. I'll open this back up later.
Last edited: