Hell and the Play Nice Christian

[YGninja]

I'm loving that we have 2 people, LEK and Godschild, both call themselves 'Christians', both get their beliefs from the same texts, both believe in the same deity, yet they both have differing views of one of the most important tenets of their religion.


Doesn't this say a lot about the god that created their text, the most important document in the history of the universe (according to them), so badly that no 2 believers get the same message?

Yes -- cherry-picking. On all sides.

---

THe doctrine of eternal torture is not biblical. You will only find a couple of verses from Revelations that appear to support this doctrine, and Revelations is infamous for being difficult to understand.

Matthew 18:8, linked above. Explain it.

Easy, eternal fire. Not eternal life in said fire. The eternal nature of the fire could work as a symbolic reminder of the wrath of God, etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes -- cherry-picking. On all sides.

---

Matthew 18:8, linked above. Explain it.

Easy, eternal fire. Not eternal life in said fire.

So, after the sinners are removed, what is the point of keeping the fire burning?

The eternal nature of the fire could work as a symbolic reminder of the wrath of God, etc.

"Could be"?

You're claiming to be in possession of the eternal and Universal truth that Jesus Christ is your savior -- yet here you are, guessing at what he means, and what story your Bible tells, and what is the significance of what is surely one of the most important concepts in the book.

And you don't know what it means, and even paper it over with an "etc". Fancy that!

It could be that the entire thing is a pile of bullshit. Prove me wrong.

[YGninja]

Easy, eternal fire. Not eternal life in said fire.

So, after the sinners are removed, what is the point of keeping the fire burning?

The eternal nature of the fire could work as a symbolic reminder of the wrath of God, etc.

"Could be"?

You're claiming to be in possession of the eternal and Universal truth that Jesus Christ is your savior -- yet here you are, guessing at what he means, and what story your Bible tells, and what is the significance of what is surely one of the most important concepts in the book.

And you don't know what it means, and even paper it over with an "etc". Fancy that!

It could be that the entire thing is a pile of bullshit. Prove me wrong.

You don't need to have an answer for every single verse to believe the main doctrines as a whole. If we were to debate on evolution or the beginnings of the universe, you would inevitably declare "i don't know", and expect applause for your honesty and integrity, and then try and capitalise on it by contrasting the religious who think they "know everything" with atheists who don't pretend to have all the answers.

[Whateverist]

Here's my understanding: You and I and everyone who ever lived or will live on this earth, are eternal beings. Meaning that there is an aspect of us that had no beginning... that we, our essence (if you will) was not created by God. We just always were.

Which is true unless it isn't. I don't personally believe it to be true. Do you have any reason to believe that is true other than the fact that you and other people you know already believe it?

Sounds like a great premise for a Marvel comic book though. I love it when someone from the LSD shows up to show God'sChild how crazy it all looks to us.

[ether-ore]

Here's my understanding: You and I and everyone who ever lived or will live on this earth, are eternal beings. Meaning that there is an aspect of us that had no beginning... that we, our essence (if you will) was not created by God. We just always were.

Which is true unless it isn't. I don't personally believe it to be true. Do you have any reason to believe that is true other than the fact that you and other people you know already believe it?

My reasons for believing it are scriptural. As I explained in another post, I see the eye witness testimonies of prophets over the centuries, even millennia, telling the same story consistently and cohesively as evidence. Am I safe in assuming that that would not satisfy? Nevertheless, it is sufficient for me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You don't need to have an answer for every single verse to believe the main doctrines as a whole. If we were to debate on evolution or the beginnings of the universe, you would inevitably declare "i don't know", and expect applause for your honesty and integrity, and then try and capitalise on it by contrasting the religious who think they "know everything" with atheists who don't pretend to have all the answers.

Sorry, but you're preaching here that you're in possession of the Truth, the Way, and the Light -- and yet here you are, contradicting his very words.

Color me unconvinced. You'll cite the Bible when it suits your needs, and then you'll turn around and say that it doesn't mean what it says when it works against you.

[Godscreated]

No you're not, it will be you who determines the torment you'll have for eternity by the life you live against God in this life. God sends no one to hell people choose not to live with God forever. People do not have to choose hell, they have to unchoose it so to speak.

GC

Really bad answer. Regardless of how you try to spin it, God created the system that torments. And I obviously do not choose Hell. How could I when I don't recognize that it or God exists?

Not a bad answer, just one you do not like to hear. You nor anyone else chooses hell, we're born to it. The real choice is Christ and only through Him is salvation possible.

GC

[Chad32]

Which is true unless it isn't. I don't personally believe it to be true. Do you have any reason to believe that is true other than the fact that you and other people you know already believe it?

My reasons for believing it are scriptural. As I explained in another post, I see the eye witness testimonies of prophets over the centuries, even millennia, telling the same story consistently and cohesively as evidence. Am I safe in assuming that that would not satisfy? Nevertheless, it is sufficient for me.

Really? I seem to recall there are multiple authors talking about the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and having contradictory details.

[YGninja]

You don't need to have an answer for every single verse to believe the main doctrines as a whole. If we were to debate on evolution or the beginnings of the universe, you would inevitably declare "i don't know", and expect applause for your honesty and integrity, and then try and capitalise on it by contrasting the religious who think they "know everything" with atheists who don't pretend to have all the answers.

Sorry, but you're preaching here that you're in possession of the Truth, the Way, and the Light -- and yet here you are, contradicting his very words.

Color me unconvinced. You'll cite the Bible when it suits your needs, and then you'll turn around and say that it doesn't mean what it says when it works against you.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the *life*, i never claimed to be. Don't strawman.

Give me an example of your second claim. It seems to be you who is ignoring what it says, i gave a dozen examples of what it says, all you've given is your imagination that eternal fire = eternal life of torture, even though it would be contrary to all the passages i cited.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Here's my understanding: You and I and everyone who ever lived or will live on this earth, are eternal beings. Meaning that there is an aspect of us that had no beginning... that we, our essence (if you will) was not created by God. We just always were.

Which is true unless it isn't. I don't personally believe it to be true. Do you have any reason to believe that is true other than the fact that you and other people you know already believe it?

Sounds like a great premise for a Marvel comic book though. I love it when someone from the LSD shows up to show God'sChild how crazy it all looks to us.

Sweet Jesus, I've missed this banter!!!

I think there is some truth in what this person has said. I don't know whether or not they'd accept my interpretation but, from where I sit, they're kinda right! Energy exists, and if you posit a first creator then you are subjecting your hypothesis to the constraints of physics. Since no being, no matter how powerful, requires something upon which to exert its causal power, then there undoubtedly must have been a pre-existing "stuff" to act upon in order to bring about its (or Its) creation. The problem is,what? And since there MUST have been someTHING, the motivation behind crowning this creator with an omnipresent title seems to crumble as soon as the properties of this Michelangelo are defined. Any amount of power,no matter how strong, becomes impotent without an external entity for it to exert its causal power upon.

So...we're just left with "stuff" and randomness. And I find no reason to stand on ceremony by giving these concepts ambiguous ttiles and unproveable properties.

I missed you mark!