ARCHIVE: The reality of "Hell"
- Thread starter AVmetro
- Start date
C
cirisme
Guest
That's ok, o2. I came down with a cold and I'm surprised I can form a coherent sentence right now. 
C
cirisme
Guest
Spam us while we're down... isn't there something about that in the Ten Commandments?
circisme
circisme
Hey what do you know! It's the 12th commandment. Didn't see it until I went to the link. Sorry Knight .
However I would like to point out the crucial fact that every one of those 'spams' was directly and highly relevent to the topic on this thread......um ...yeah...........
circisme
Hey what do you know! It's the 12th commandment. Didn't see it until I went to the link. Sorry Knight
. However I would like to point out the crucial fact that every one of those 'spams' was directly and highly relevent to the topic on this thread......um ...yeah...........
C
cirisme
Guest
You're right at that. The spam you posted was highly relevant, and controversial. Gotta love 'em!
o2bwise
New member
Finally!
Finally!
Hi cirisme,
Finally!
My main point is that the light bulb example was AN ANALOGY. I used it NOT to be representative of how a light bulb really behaves, but rather as a representation of how I believe MAN is!
I agree, the light/heat remain. They diffuse, but they remain (in one form or another). But, that's not my point. And even though this is really outside the topic, IF I accept your analogy and force it to my understanding of man, I would assert that the light and heat BEFORE the bulb broke exist, they would have to be streams of consciousness whose GENERATION preceded the destruction of the bulb.
Now, that's getting a little "high-tech" for me, i.e. does a thought "live?" Does it travel in some dimension? I don't know and at this time, I don't really much care.
But, again, to accept your understanding of light bulbs, I would assert that there is no longer CONTINUED GENERATION OF HEAT AND LIGHT and due to the fact that the hardware is destroyed. No continued streams of consciousness. No continued praise of the Lord, love for the Lord.
The psalmist indeed asks, "Who can praise thee in the grave" and Acts, when referring to David, does not say that his body is in the grave, it says that DAVID is in the grave?
Now, wouldn't that be colossaly superficial if David is equated to his body and NOT his person?
Well, I chose the analogy so as to do just this. To provide what I see as the core point of departure of our beliefs. I asserted my belief with respect to this and you have asserted yours.
Frankly, I do not subscribe to your belief and I understand and appreciate that you do not subscribe to mine.
But, I repeat, the Bible does not differentiate personhood from how a being is identified. It speaks of Satan being destroyed. It does not parse his physical component (should he have one) from any consciousness component. Same with David and the same with everyone else.
I believe this is a strong biblical argument in my favor.
To me, the most PERTINENT attribute of me (Tony) is not my flesh and bones. It is my personality. It is the sum collection of my thoughts and feelings and passions and loves, etc. It is inclusive of the service with which my MIND renders to the Lord.
To say that Tony is in "hades" and he can't praise the Lord and then to:
1. Assert that "Tony" is inclusive of his consciousness and thus all of him is dead
is a lot more accurate a statement of just WHO Tony is, then to assert
2. Tony refers to just his physical component. The rest is NOT Tony.
I think to suggest the Bible actually does not include one's personhood as a PART of how one is identified is unacceptable and clearly erroneous.
God Bless You cirisme...
Tony
Finally!
Hi cirisme,
Finally!
My main point is that the light bulb example was AN ANALOGY. I used it NOT to be representative of how a light bulb really behaves, but rather as a representation of how I believe MAN is!
I agree, the light/heat remain. They diffuse, but they remain (in one form or another). But, that's not my point. And even though this is really outside the topic, IF I accept your analogy and force it to my understanding of man, I would assert that the light and heat BEFORE the bulb broke exist, they would have to be streams of consciousness whose GENERATION preceded the destruction of the bulb.
Now, that's getting a little "high-tech" for me, i.e. does a thought "live?" Does it travel in some dimension? I don't know and at this time, I don't really much care.
But, again, to accept your understanding of light bulbs, I would assert that there is no longer CONTINUED GENERATION OF HEAT AND LIGHT and due to the fact that the hardware is destroyed. No continued streams of consciousness. No continued praise of the Lord, love for the Lord.
The psalmist indeed asks, "Who can praise thee in the grave" and Acts, when referring to David, does not say that his body is in the grave, it says that DAVID is in the grave?
Now, wouldn't that be colossaly superficial if David is equated to his body and NOT his person?
Well, I chose the analogy so as to do just this. To provide what I see as the core point of departure of our beliefs. I asserted my belief with respect to this and you have asserted yours.
Frankly, I do not subscribe to your belief and I understand and appreciate that you do not subscribe to mine.
But, I repeat, the Bible does not differentiate personhood from how a being is identified. It speaks of Satan being destroyed. It does not parse his physical component (should he have one) from any consciousness component. Same with David and the same with everyone else.
I believe this is a strong biblical argument in my favor.
To me, the most PERTINENT attribute of me (Tony) is not my flesh and bones. It is my personality. It is the sum collection of my thoughts and feelings and passions and loves, etc. It is inclusive of the service with which my MIND renders to the Lord.
To say that Tony is in "hades" and he can't praise the Lord and then to:
1. Assert that "Tony" is inclusive of his consciousness and thus all of him is dead
is a lot more accurate a statement of just WHO Tony is, then to assert
2. Tony refers to just his physical component. The rest is NOT Tony.
I think to suggest the Bible actually does not include one's personhood as a PART of how one is identified is unacceptable and clearly erroneous.
God Bless You cirisme...
Tony
C
cirisme
Guest
I don't have much time, so could you please quote me chapter and verse...
Really!?! All you've done is quote your opinion, you haven't shown me where the Bible seems to be overwhelmingly in your favor.
This would require Satan to exist, would it not...
?
O2, do you believe in heaven? More importantly, do you believe that anyone will goto heaven?
C
cirisme
Guest
I disagree with you on that, mostly because it's your opinion. But, if you insist, I can work it out. The Bible teaches that the spirit and bodies reunite at the end of the world, for both believers and unbelievers. The believers' body will be recreated with pefection for God, where as the unbelievers will be stuck with what they have:
And for the believer...
That makes your arguement moot, doesn't it?
C
cirisme
Guest
*cough**cough**cough*bump*cough**cough**cough*
Sorry, this cold is probably super contagious. I hope you don't catch it because of me... *cough**cough*
C
cirisme
Guest
Waiting for your response, I reread your post and found this:
I lost you on this. Also, notice you say "I would assert." Does this mean there is no Biblical support for your arguement?
I lost you on this. Also, notice you say "I would assert." Does this mean there is no Biblical support for your arguement?
C
cirisme
Guest
Until you directly respond to me, I bestow upon you a grade of INCOMPLETE and if I recall such a grade is inferior to an F.
Why don't you respond to my post, point by point?
Why do you act as though it doesn't even exist?
I am frankly amazed by the pathetic nature of your dialogue.
It is unbecoming a disciple of Christ.
-Tony, er uh AJ
o2, does this sound familiar? It should, it comes from here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=70310#post70310
Why don't you respond to my post, point by point?
Why do you act as though it doesn't even exist?
I am frankly amazed by the pathetic nature of your dialogue.
It is unbecoming a disciple of Christ.
-Tony, er uh AJ
o2, does this sound familiar? It should, it comes from here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=70310#post70310
o2bwise
New member
Partial Answer
Partial Answer
Hi cirisme,
Partial answer:
Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Acts 2:27-29
27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.' F9 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Overwhelmingly? That I will not do. That would take going through the entire Bible together and I suspect the term is subject to interpretation. What I believe is overwhelming, you surely would not. In addition, do you think you have provided overwhelming support for your position? I sure don’t!
Finally, I strung a few texts together which I believe support my position well. Perhaps you could take them, one by one, and suggest an interpretation contrary to their apparent one (the apparent one being consistent with my view).
Gotta run,
God Bless…
Tony (o2)
Partial Answer
Hi cirisme,
Partial answer:
Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Acts 2:27-29
27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.' F9 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Overwhelmingly? That I will not do. That would take going through the entire Bible together and I suspect the term is subject to interpretation. What I believe is overwhelming, you surely would not. In addition, do you think you have provided overwhelming support for your position? I sure don’t!
Finally, I strung a few texts together which I believe support my position well. Perhaps you could take them, one by one, and suggest an interpretation contrary to their apparent one (the apparent one being consistent with my view).
Gotta run,
God Bless…
Tony (o2)
C
cirisme
Guest
I don't know what traslation you're using, but mine translates 'death' as hell. You certainly don't expect people to praise God in hell, do you?! Also note that in verse 4, which you delibrately left out, makes it perfectly clear that the psalmist is referring to the soul.
Again, you're misquoting scripture. This verse refers specifically to Jesus, which is clear with verse 31:
Really!?! I know I have. In fact, I've asked you several questions which you rudely ignore. For instance, when you stated that everyone would simply be destroyed, I showed you in the Bible where it says otherwise and asked you this question:
I don't see an answer.
You mean you can't do it, support for your arguement simply isn't there. I have posted verse after verse that speaks of people in hades and you haven't reponded. If a verse that speaks of very specific people in heaven and hell isn't overwhelming proof for you, then you are a sad human being that needs lots of prayer.
Now, you mind actually addressing my arguement with Biblical evidence and not just emotion and your opinion?
o2bwise
New member
I'm Outta Here
I'm Outta Here
You know what, cirisme?
I find you to be a total drag to communicate with. I suppose you can say it's me, you can think whatever of me you want to. But, I don't feel this way about anyone else in this forum.
I just don't want to dialogue with you anymore. I feel that you too easily resort to inaccurate personal criticism, though no doubt you feel it is accurate and that's cool too.
I'm done (writing with you).
I really tried. It just denigrates, in my opinion.
Fare thee well...
I'm Outta Here
You know what, cirisme?
I find you to be a total drag to communicate with. I suppose you can say it's me, you can think whatever of me you want to. But, I don't feel this way about anyone else in this forum.
I just don't want to dialogue with you anymore. I feel that you too easily resort to inaccurate personal criticism, though no doubt you feel it is accurate and that's cool too.
I'm done (writing with you).
I really tried. It just denigrates, in my opinion.
Fare thee well...
C
cirisme
Guest
Translation... you don't have any proof. If I didn't challenge you, you wouldn't feel "tired."
For someone who hates personal criticism, you sure judge me.