glorydaz
Well-known member
Artie doesn't think too far past the foot he keeps in his mouth.
The person's physical body is dead, so whatever spiritual body God has given those in the place of the dead is not like our body of flesh.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Artie doesn't think too far past the foot he keeps in his mouth.
The person's physical body is dead, so whatever spiritual body God has given those in the place of the dead is not like our body of flesh.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Ever hear of a 'parable'? - we've already been over this. - the are teaching tools, allegorical stories to communicate certain themes, ideas, principles, etc. I recommend an 'upgrade' in your 'program' module
Parables are never based on untruths. Perhaps you need to upgrade your understanding of parables, and what always holds true with them in order to be parables in the first place.
way 2 go
Well-known member
Ever hear of a 'parable'? - we've already been over this. - the are teaching tools, allegorical stories to communicate certain themes, ideas, principles, etc. I recommend an 'upgrade' in your 'program' module
Jesus only talked about things that actually exist
consciousness after death
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
a fire that does not consume
Luk 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame
So we will be able to shout back and forth between heaven and hell? No wait Abraham didn't shout he merely spoke...so roaring flames and screams of others being tormented aren't that loud I guess...
How far is it before someone is not recognizable? So is that the distance between those saved and those lost?
Close enough to hold a conversation?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Just a PARABLE.........
Just a PARABLE.........
So you would have to prove that all the parables that Jesus taught about 'exist' (somehow), and are not merely teaching parables, symbolic stories, 'figurative' in nature. This is clearly a 'parable'. There is no reason to read anything 'further' into it, besides what subjective principles or ethics being illustrated in the 'STORY'. - no other gospel witnesses exist for this 'story', as the narrative is only unique to the 'scribe' who wrote the gospel of Luke, and is similar to some apocryphal stories and themes of the time period.
More:
Just a PARABLE.........
So you would have to prove that all the parables that Jesus taught about 'exist' (somehow), and are not merely teaching parables, symbolic stories, 'figurative' in nature. This is clearly a 'parable'. There is no reason to read anything 'further' into it, besides what subjective principles or ethics being illustrated in the 'STORY'. - no other gospel witnesses exist for this 'story', as the narrative is only unique to the 'scribe' who wrote the gospel of Luke, and is similar to some apocryphal stories and themes of the time period.
More:
everready
New member
Ever hear of a 'parable'? - we've already been over this. - the are teaching tools, allegorical stories to communicate certain themes, ideas, principles, etc. I recommend an 'upgrade' in your 'program' module
Why would Jesus make a parable about such a horrific fate when it's the very reason he came? He painted a perfect picture of what happens to those that reject Gods gift of salvation.
i recommend you be born again.
everready
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh, like deeper thinking is a common trait of fundamentalists...
lain: How about appreciating symbolism and allegory?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why would Jesus make a parable about such a horrific fate when it's the very reason he came? He painted a perfect picture of what happens to those that reject Gods gift of salvation.
i recommend you be born again.
everready
Only if you unquestioningly conform to a doctrine that depicts a god as one who creates life where most of it would be tormented by its own design. Hardly fits in with a God of love, especially as set out in Corinthians. Many in the early church didn't glean eternal torment from the original texts at all.
Zeke
Well-known member
I wonder who thought up this little punishment scheme Luke 9:54-55 Galatians 4:20-24, who wont escape what they sow for others as being from the mind of the Father instead of the dead letters without their spiritual application being discerned, judgement is a two edge sword that will cut those who teach such fear mongering, who love teaching death 2Cor 3:6 instead of life they haven't experienced within the temple 1Cor 3:16
everready
New member
Whoa up for a minute you make it sound like God created hell for man and that's just not the case.. Hell was created for the devil and his angels and anyone else that rejects Gods gift of eternal life..
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
everready
No, unfortunately, I would have to say that most Christians don't even know what the Bible actually says about this topic, and therefore they, albeit unwillingly, show God to be cruel and unjust.
How about an analogy?
There is a man who loves a woman, but she doesn't love him. He forces her to marry him, builds her a home and brings her into it, and then boards up the windows and doors so she cannot escape. Do you think that the woman would love him?
Another man loves a different woman, so he woos her, telling her that if she does not want to be with him, then she may leave at any time. She declines to leave, and he wins her heart, and marries her. He builds her a home, and invites her in. She willingly enters. Do you think that the woman would love him?
Question for you, Arty. Who or what is doing the tormenting? Do you think it's God?
That's good.
My stance is that God will not force people to live with Him for the rest of eternity if they don't want to, and that the "torment" of those who will be separated from Him is not God Himself using a flamethrower on them, or whipping them with whips, or beating them with clubs, no.
The torment these people will endure for the rest of eternity is not physical pain, but emotional.
Pain is not physical. Pain and sentience are knowledge based, and knowledge is not physical, therefore pain is not physical. We sense pain with our brain, but the brain, as an organ itself, is completely unable to feel pain. Pain is awareness, i.e. a state of knowledge. A robot can be programmed to reverse direction after bumping into a wall and even yell "ouch!", but it did not feel pain, because it is only made of atoms and molecules, and can have no awareness, because sentience is not physical. Pain is awareness that something is wrong, therefore pain is inherently non-physical, and so pain resulting from non-physical causes is dramatically more hurtful than pain resulting from physical stimuli. For example, a paper cut really hurts, but a father who will not look his disowned son in the eyes is far more painful. The pain of childbirth is gone within a short period of time, but the pain of the child dying lasts for years.
So, pain is not physical. As you said elsewhere, the idea that a drop of water would quench someone who is tormented by flame is obviously silly, but if you think about what it means, it seems to mean that the man wanted to have his suffering eased.
Hell (and eventuallly the Lake of Fire) is the place of separation from God.
Those who die rejecting God will not be given physical bodies, yet they will still experience pain, but it's not pain from being burned, or whipped, or beaten, because that pain is caused by the physical, but that's what the pain will feel like to them. But instead of lasting for just a few moments, like the pain of bruising one's knee, or the pain of childbirth, this pain will never end.
Now, before you respond to the above, again I ask you, who or what is doing the tormenting? Is it God?
Then what are you? Agnostic?
As I said previously, the doctrines and depictions you have of God currently are not found in the Bible, and arguments against the God of the Bible stemming from those doctrines and depictions would be considered straw man arguments.
I agree, that belief, that "God can inflict what he wants and it would be 'good' ..." is inherently wrong.
However, God is righteous by nature, so He would never do anything unrighteous or unjust.
A agree, it is easy to get into the "holier than thou" mindset.
No, it isn't.
Do you honestly think that every atheist, agnostic or people from other faiths are consciously choosing that?[/QUOTUE]
No, I do not.
Are you asking if I think it's ok for them to blame God for their baby dying? Because blaming God for anything is wrong.
I do, but what does that have to do with anything?
Do you not know how to use the "QUOTE" feature?
And why were they not written in the Book of Life?
Do you not know that the universe itself declares the glory of God?
I can consciously choose to believe otherwise.
You mean if he has never heard the gospel?
:crackup:
Allegory, types, shadows, symbology,....gotta love it
A God of love and wisdom rules and judges with total fairness, equity, upholding justice and mercy to their full, and only 'God' himself and the heavenly tribunals can render those decisions with the free will choices of each individual as to their conditions and eternal destiny. Yet love and wisdom are the directing guides while mercy is ever triumphing over justice. This is natural to a 'God' that is LOVE itself.
This sounds like something from a "new age" pamphlet.
Let your love be without hypocrisy, hate evil, cling to what is good.
Challenging ECT here (and elsewhere)
I personally don't have the necessary time to go through that post. I will address, quickly, the concept of what you call "soul-disintegration."
The Bible explicitly states that God has placed eternity into our hearts. That means that, even though we have not always existed, like God has for eternity past, we will exist for the rest of eternity, either with God or apart from Him. It is up to us to decide where we want to be.
Apologies for the delay.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Eh, like deeper thinking is a common trait of fundamentalists...
How about appreciating symbolism and allegory?
Symbolism and allegory have their place. You need to appreciate where that place is and where it isn't.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
And you're an expert on that I suppose...
Not perfect, but better than you. :banana:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So do you, albeit in a different way as to the traditional 'hellfire' doctrine but I'll expound on why further in.
Of course not.
If he's won her heart then she obviously does. I know where you're going with this but it doesn't work.
If beings are kept 'alive' in a state of suffering from which they can't escape, be that physical or psychological then do the math.
Which is barbaric, cruel and serves no purpose. You seem to be arguing on the one hand that God won't force people to be with Him but He will force them to endure an eternity of suffering for not getting things 'right' in one brief speck of an existence no matter how much regret or remorse such people may have. That is not love.
Pain is both physical and psychological else the next time you stub your toe or break a bone or something then you tell yourself it doesn't exist. There are people who deal with chronic physical pain conditions that would very likely take issue with you. Now in a 'meaningful' sense the pain of loss is something different altogether and having been someone who's experienced such along with a crippling depression at one time then I don't make light of either the physical or the psychological side of suffering.
Why would a loving God leave people in any state of suffering? Why not just annihilate them if there were no reconciliation possible?
Then that's just cruel beyond words and what purpose does it serve? 'Justice'? Nobody comes into this world by choice and life can be one obstacle course to navigate as it is. A sadistic entity could do no worse and yet this is not only a God of love but actually is love?
Yes. If God has set things up so that life is created and the ones who don't find faith in this one physical lifetime are sent into such a state then who else? This isn't like your earlier analogies about men trying to force women to fall in love with them, this is a God who could surely (and in the bible wills) bring all people to the 'truth' yes? After all, if God exists then everyone is going to find out for sure but for you it seems that even the most ardent and contrite atheist is going to be forced into an eternal state of suffering no matter what because of this snapshot of a life on earth. Does that strike you as loving?
I ain't labeling myself.
Yours is really no better. You still depict a cruel and tormenting God.
Then maybe you should evaluate why you think any sort of interminable suffering is 'just' and how that that correlates to a God of love.
We all have an ego...
No, I'm asking you if you can relate to people being through such loss simply not believing there's a God out there to blame at all.
A lot, if you're prepared to question doctrine and accept that there's shades of grey...
:e4e:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
JudgeRightly,
re: "Do you not know how to use the 'QUOTE' feature?"
I do. Any particular reason for asking?
re: "And why were they not written in the Book of Life?"
Apparently because they didn't meet the supreme being's specific requirements in order to be included in it.
re: "Do you not know that the universe itself declares the glory of God?"
Apparently it doesn't do that for everyone.
re: "I can consciously choose to believe otherwise."
Perhaps you could demonstrate your ability. In order for something to be considered a choice, there has to be at least 2 things to choose from. In this case the 2 choices are - 1. believe that beliefs cannot be consciously chosen or - 2. believe that beliefs can be consciously chosen. I would ask you to demonstrate your ability be choosing number 1.
re: "You mean if he has never heard the gospel?"
No.
re: "Do you not know how to use the 'QUOTE' feature?"
I do. Any particular reason for asking?
re: "And why were they not written in the Book of Life?"
Apparently because they didn't meet the supreme being's specific requirements in order to be included in it.
re: "Do you not know that the universe itself declares the glory of God?"
Apparently it doesn't do that for everyone.
re: "I can consciously choose to believe otherwise."
Perhaps you could demonstrate your ability. In order for something to be considered a choice, there has to be at least 2 things to choose from. In this case the 2 choices are - 1. believe that beliefs cannot be consciously chosen or - 2. believe that beliefs can be consciously chosen. I would ask you to demonstrate your ability be choosing number 1.
re: "You mean if he has never heard the gospel?"
No.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Eh, symbolically speaking I think not...
In reality, I think for sure.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Do you recognize allegory in the creation account?