The Fate of Unbelieving Children

[Doulos Iesou]

You should probably reject beliefs based on their truthfulness, not on their implications. It might make us all feel a little better if gravity was simply Earth's desire to hug us, but obviously that's not the case. And the desire to believe something based on its factual nature rather than our desired outcomes is a very conservative position.

I'm pointing out the implications of your position, relative to your "Christian" label.

These same arguments you make are those of an atheist and agnostic.

To get in an in depth discussion on the specifics and determining through exegesis the correct interpretation would be for another time and place.

Would you like me to provide every reason for why I reject your liberal view of Scripture?

You provide no specifics.

That is because I am speaking generally about the matter, as it is off topic to the purpose of this thread I created.

Haven't looked at what you've posted. My position is that there are multiple positions in the compilation we call the bible in regards to an afterlife.

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46)
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28)

One of these statements represents eternal punishment (limitless), while one represents eternal destruction (limited punishment). And that's just within Yeshua's own teachings in a single gospel.

Have you ever actually read the arguments we have for Conditional Immortality? This to me demonstrates a profound ignorance of how we reconcile these texts.

I'm interested in facts, not titles.

Okay, just making distinctions are true.

Easy on the run-on sentences.

This is a casual discussion forum.... Your point?

That said, why should anyone care about your happiness in regards to what is true versus what is not true? One should only care about what is validated in regards to the truth, not whether you find it more or less comforting.

Perhaps I should qualify what I said a bit further.

I have been "happy," because I have been satisfied with the answers provided, not because they confirm my bias but because of their strength.

Again, your admonition that we place the value of implications above the value of the facts is lacking.

Obviously, you and I disagree on what the facts are. I'm just pointing out the implications of your beliefs.

It is akin to saying one should not teach true things which are harsh lest the harsh things bother us.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying and for what purpose.

I suspect, however, that if a doctor told you that you are cancer-free, while in fact you were terminally ill, you might be happy in the short term, while feeling greatly deceived as you found out otherwise. Perhaps you would want to be told you're completely healthy, when in fact you are dying, but I and some number of others would want the truth regardless of how it made us feel.

While I don't think the analogy holds entirely, I don't disagree with what you mean. The truth matters, but some of us come to different conclusions on what that is. That doesn't mean that it is relative, but rather that we imperfect at reaching what it really is.

For instance, the doctor's diagnosis is imperfect and could be wrong, and it would be wise to receive a second opinion. Outright denial won't be helpful, but digging deeper and asking more questions is.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I'm pointing out the implications of your position, relative to your "Christian" label.

And I'm continuing to state that facts are far more important than implications if what you want is the truth.

These same arguments you make are those of an atheist and agnostic.

Well, I'm a theist, so that gets all three primary groups.

To get in an in depth discussion on the specifics and determining through exegesis the correct interpretation would be for another time and place.

Unless it is pertinent to this discussion.

Would you like me to provide every reason for why I reject your liberal view of Scripture?

1) You have inadequate information as to my views of scripture.
2) Only if it is pertinent to the current discussion.

Haven't looked at what you've posted. My position is that there are multiple positions in the compilation we call the bible in regards to an afterlife.

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46)
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28)

One of these statements represents eternal punishment (limitless), while one represents eternal destruction (limited punishment). And that's just within Yeshua's own teachings in a single gospel.

Have you ever actually read the arguments we have for Conditional Immortality? This to me demonstrates a profound ignorance of how we reconcile these texts.

Responding by asking a question which does not answer the issue at hand, then assuming the answer to your question represents ignorance on the part of another, is woefully inadequate.

Matthew 25:46 is a juxtaposition of two eternal fates: eternal punishment and eternal life. Punishment is every bit an action as living is, and thus, one can extrapolate quite easily that this supports the idea of eternal punishment (actually verbatim). Other passages are contrary to this position.

This is a casual discussion forum.... Your point?

Good grammar is always appreciated, though I'm not going to point out simple errors.

I have been "happy," because I have been satisfied with the answers provided, not because they confirm my bias but because of their strength.

Will you become unhappy if they are shown to be less truthful?

Obviously, you and I disagree on what the facts are. I'm just pointing out the implications of your beliefs.

And I am only interested in the facts, not the implications.

For instance, the doctor's diagnosis is imperfect and could be wrong, and it would be wise to receive a second opinion. Outright denial won't be helpful, but digging deeper and asking more questions is.

Shall we dig?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

And I'm continuing to state that facts are far more important than implications if what you want is the truth.



Well, I'm a theist, so that gets all three primary groups.



Unless it is pertinent to this discussion.



1) You have inadequate information as to my views of scripture.
2) Only if it is pertinent to the current discussion.



Responding by asking a question which does not answer the issue at hand, then assuming the answer to your question represents ignorance on the part of another, is woefully inadequate.

Matthew 25:46 is a juxtaposition of two eternal fates: eternal punishment and eternal life. Punishment is every bit an action as living is, and thus, one can extrapolate quite easily that this supports the idea of eternal punishment (actually verbatim). Other passages are contrary to this position.



Good grammar is always appreciated, though I'm not going to point out simple errors.



Will you become unhappy if they are shown to be less truthful?



And I am only interested in the facts, not the implications.



Shall we dig?

I have no desire to dig with you.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

What a shame. May I ask why?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What a shame. May I ask why?

I don't think it would be a fruitful use of my time.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Fair enough =)

 

[Free]

Parts do and parts don't. "The worm dieth not" doesn't jive with the "destroy the body and soul," and it's okay to acknowledge it.

The parts that are interpreted as eternal physical torture are being misinterpreted, since they very well could mean mental anguish, inner torment. That some physical punishment happens or will happen seems to be without question but it is for a finite duration, varying from individual to individual. That people may spend eternity in hell would then mean that there is likely mental anguish--over what is instead of what could have been.

As for destroying both body and soul, the verse states that only that it is possible for God to do so, not that he will do so.

It seems to me that the only two real viable options are: annihilationism or finite physical punishment/eternal mental anguish.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

The parts that are interpreted as eternal physical torture are being misinterpreted, since they very well could mean mental anguish, inner torment.

I fail to see substantial difference in torture whether it is physical torture or mental torture.

That some physical punishment happens or will happen seems to be without question but it is for a finite duration, varying from individual to individual.

I think that the ambiguity you express is also expressed in the scriptures.

That people may spend eternity in hell would then mean that there is likely mental anguish--over what is instead of what could have been.

You use the subjunctive tense, indicating this is opinion, and I agree. This could be the case, just like other scenarios could be the case.

As for destroying both body and soul, the verse states that only that it is possible for God to do so, not that he will do so.

It is presented as if God not only can do so, but would do so.

It seems to me that the only two real viable options are: annihilationism or finite physical punishment/eternal mental anguish.

So the creator of the universe either kills you if you do not believe he exists, or he waterboards you for a trillion years straight. And that is more acceptable to you?

 

[WIP]

Doesn't matter what is acceptable to us. God alone is the judge and God alone passes the sentence. Whether or not we agree with His decision is immaterial.

 

[Eugene]

Am I to gather from all this that there will be no punishment to them responsible for the death of Jesus?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Does the word “Torment” not mean torment, pain, toss, vex, or toil as the KJV Strong’s Concordance translates it?

If there is no difference in the dead after the judgment, why raise them to just find why they are going to the Lake of fire that will just return them to the blissful state of sleep as it were?

Is there an exception in the scripture relating to for ever with that of eternal?

When is the time? Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Doesn't matter what is acceptable to us. God alone is the judge and God alone passes the sentence. Whether or not we agree with His decision is immaterial.

So if God's sentence is evil, that is immaterial?

 

[chessman]

Doulos Iesou , if I have contributed to your "
The Fate of Unbelieving Children
" topic getting so far off topic, I apologize.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos Iesou , if I have contributed to your "
The Fate of Unbelieving Children
" topic getting so far off topic, I apologize.

No worries, such is the fate of all threads, I think the subject to which the OP was centered around has been sufficiently discussed.

 

[WIP]

So if God's sentence is evil, that is immaterial?

The point I was trying to make and maybe not very well, was that God's ways are not our ways. What we find acceptable may not be what God does. For example, would any of us find it acceptable to crucify the son of God? God deemed it necessary so it was done. We can speculate about the fate of the children and even as we are try to find the answer in scripture but in the grand scheme of things, only God truly knows the answer.