Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Arthur Brain]

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

Then why would God create trillions of human lives with full knowledge that many wouldn't 'make the cut'? Your doctrine is just one of horror and the antithesis of 'good news'.

 

[glorydaz]

Do you recognize allegory in the creation account?

I am confident I do not see allegory where you do, Artie. Why don't you start a thread on it, and find out?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I am confident I do not see allegory where you do, Artie. Why don't you start a thread on it, and find out?

Or you could just answer the question.

:idunno:

 

[glorydaz]

Then why would God create trillions of human lives with full knowledge that many wouldn't 'make the cut'? Your doctrine is just one of horror and the antithesis of 'good news'.

Why did God create man with the ability to choose?

They can even choose whether or not they procreate. Amazing.

 

[glorydaz]

Or you could just answer the question.

:idunno:

Well, I don't really think a serpent was talking.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why did God create man with the ability to choose?

They can even choose whether or not they procreate. Amazing.

Do you seriously think people are "choosing" something like eternal torment if they don't find faith in one short life? Does it make it easier for you to justify the fate of others by determining that it's their "choice"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, I don't really think a serpent was talking.

Some people do. They take it absolutely literally.

 

[freelight]

A parable is an 'illustration'.....

A parable is an 'illustration'.....

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.

This is 'assuming' Jesus actually taught this parable, as opposed to a 'parable' PUT into Jesus mouth by some scribe, since as noted previously, there is no other gospel witness for this 'story'.

Also, seeing the parable within its surrounding context shows that what is being communicated is how to be charitable and giving to the less fortunate (poor), neglecting to serve others even basic needs, when one esteems himself 'rich' and 'well-respected'. - such is basic to universal laws of love and charity, even found in the Torah (love your neighbor as yourself). This is the kernel-message, - the 'extras' are just 'embellishments' IMO.

i recommend you be born again.

My 'theology' has always accepted being 'born from above' (spiritual regeneration, illumination, transformation) as being part of every soul's experience of the divine - I accept that 'recommendation', as well as being a student of 'comparitive relgions', 'religious philosophy', and 'universal laws and principles, besides a basic inquiry into consciousness studies. - so while I'm a spiritualist at heart, the fields of science, metaphysics and philosophy are to be integrated into our science of life, whereas I take an eclectic, holistic approach.

A 'dogmatic' approach to the Bible or any other religious text is wholly 'unnecessary' IMO, since the Spirit Alone is Life - all 'language' is but 'symbolic', hence the power of life is never in the words themselves, but in the essence, reality, meaning and value of the Spirit-consciousness using the 'languages' to express itself.

 

[freelight]

Reminders.............

Reminders.............

This sounds like something from a "new age" pamphlet.

That I expound and articulate about 'God' being LOVE, is a fundamental proposition on the NATURE of DEITY. If you think that is 'new age' to you, that does not obscure or disprove the proposition itself, except to show your fragmented and misqualified view of it.

Love has a will, and that will must by nature be eternal. This divine will, that is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent continues on in all realms, all worlds...no matter what religious beliefs arise to try to 'condition' or 'qualify' it.

I personally don't have the necessary time to go through that post.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. That post is a blog-portal-post of mine on ECT, which includes former posts here and in other threads on the subject expounding my own findings so far. - it probably includes within its network at least 50 - 100 former posts. It holds here.

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.

We've covered various aspects of 'soul-death' earlier, and there does appear to be more support for 'soul-death' over 'ECT'in the Bible, as far as eschatology goes for the individual, towards ultimates ends in any case.

Just because 'eternity' is in our hearts by God's grant or own presence within the soul, does not necessarily grant a soul 'immortality' or 'eternal life'....since we see that such is given to man as a 'gift', not a permanent grant. Of course, the principle of 'free will' within its own parameters and powers within divine providence...exists.

 

[JudgeRightly]

JudgeRightly,
re: "Do you not know how to use the 'QUOTE' feature?"

I do. Any particular reason for asking?

It'd be nice if you did use it.

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.

Three questions then:

What are the requirements?

Why did they not meet them?

Did Jesus say anything about how to get to heaven?

re: "Do you not know that the universe itself declares the glory of God?"

Apparently it doesn't do that for everyone.

Does everyone have the ability to look up at the night sky or even just the world around them?

The universe declares the glory of God whether a person is paying attention or not.

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.

Have you ever heard of the law of contradiction? Answer 1 contradicts the question, therefore it cannot be a valid answer. therefore, answer 2 is the only logical option.

re: "You mean if he has never heard the gospel?"

No.

Then what do you mean?

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

And what do we call that kind of person?

Does sick, perverted, psychopath work?

If he's won her heart then she obviously does. I know where you're going with this but it doesn't work.

Which of the two men more accurately represents God, in your opinion?

Allow me to expand on the second scenario.

Let's say that man had a relationship with another woman prior to the woman above who became his wife, and he gave her the same options as the one he's currently married to, but she rejected his offer, and left him. Should he still marry her and keep her with him? Would it be right for him to do so?

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.

So if God were to keep someone in heaven, even though they don't want to be there, and they can't escape, and they hate God, would that not be hell for them?

See, if you take all the people who would be in hell and then put them in heaven, you would turn heaven into hell.

Hell is just the name we give to the place where people who hate God go.

Which is barbaric, cruel and serves no purpose.

Would it not be barbaric, cruel, and serve no purpose, to keep them with Him when they don't want to be with Him?

You seem to be arguing on the one hand that God won't force people to be with Him

Stop there, and you'll have my point.

but He will force them to endure an eternity of suffering for not getting things 'right' in one brief speck of an existence

See my point below about missing the mark.

no matter how much regret or remorse such people may have.

The people who reject God, whom God will cast into the lake, would rather kill God to vindicate themselves, than humble themselves and repent of their sin.

That's what people did when Christ came for three years, teaching about His kingdom, about eternal life. Both Jews and Gentiles put Him to death because he offered them salvation from their sin.

That is not love.

No, what is not love is forcing someone to be where they don't want to be.

Art, would you agree with this statement:

"There's no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends."

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.

So what if you cut your toe off and then stub it? You don't feel any pain of having stubbed your toe, do you? Pain is awareness. Awareness is knowledge of stimulation is not physical, therefore pain is not physical.

If pain were physical, then why do women feel pain when they lose a child? There is nothing physical being done to them, so how are they feeling pain?

I am not denying that physical things can cause pain, because clearly, if you stab someone in the chest, it will hurt. I am saying that the pain itself is not physical.

There are people who deal with chronic physical pain conditions that would very likely take issue with you.

They would have to get around the fact that knowledge is not physical.

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.

It's still pain, is it not? I mean, you even said, "the pain of loss."

Why would a loving God leave people in any state of suffering?

Because they chose that suffering over being with the One who can wipe away their tears.

Why not just annihilate them if there were no reconciliation possible?

Because annihilation of something that was designed to be eternal is not 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?

Arthur, what alternative would you propose that would make everyone happy?

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?

God is not present in the Lake of Fire. He cannot be the one doing the torturing.

Try again. Who is the one causing the suffering?

Here's a hint:

Blaming God is wrong because it's pointing a finger at God and telling Him that he's doing something contrary to His nature. He is not the author of evil.

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?

You can't force someone to love you. They have to have the option to hate you, or else they cannot love. Love is freely given. It cannot be coerced. You can't demand someone to love you, because that's not what love is.

But what about those who reject the truth? What do you propose God should do about them? God shoved the truth in Pharaoh's face, and Pharaoh hardened his heart against it. In fact, throughout the Bible, God shows that shoving truth in people's faces almost always turns them away from it. Why would God want to turn people away from Him by doing so?

After all, if God exists then everyone is going to find out for sure

God has already proven He exists. People don't have to wait until that point in there existence to acknowledge He exists, because by then it will be too late. The heavens declare God's handiwork, He wrote two books, the Bible, and Nature. He gave the world a written law to live by, after showing that having no law leads to the world becoming evil. He performed miracles for His people, the Israelites, and then put those miracles, along with the law, in a box as evidence of His actions. He delivered his people countless times against His enemies, even when their armies were greater than His people. He even performed miracles during His ministry on earth, for three years he came as a witness, hoping to get His people to turn to Him, so that He could then send them to the world. But His people utterly rejected Him, and so He sent Paul to the world.

Every person who has ever turned their hearts to God is evidence that He exists.

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

Even the most ardent atheist is ardently wrong.

If he is contrite about what, exactly? His sin? Then why doesn't he repent about it now, and turn to God?

The Bible says that all have fallen short. We have all missed the mark when it comes to being righteous.

It also says that there is only one Way to heaven, and that is Jesus Christ.

because of this snapshot of a life on earth. Does that strike you as loving?

So you think God should give everyone a second chance after they die? That after an arbitrary amount of time, God should let them out of the lake for a while to see if they would repent?

Here's an analogy:

An archer, standing 50 feet away from a target must be nearly perfect in his aim, his stance, and he must be in control of his body to hit the dead center of the target. Move that target another 50 feet back and he must be even more so. 150 feet, and it's not likely that he'll hit the target, let alone the bullseye, though he may get close to hitting the target. Now move it 1000 feet away from him. 10,000 feet. 1 mile. 100 miles. 1,000,000 miles. Move it to the outer limits of what we can see in our universe. Now double that. Again. Again, times 1 billion.

The archer could never hit something that's that far away, and you'd have to be more accurate than that to hit the mark of being righteous. Infinitely more so.

That's how hard it is to get to heaven on your own. You can't do it. That's why God the Father, who out of love for us, sent us God the Son, His Son Jesus, to hit that mark or us, to live a perfect life, to die for us, so that we can be with Him for eternity.

"There's no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends."

Is that true, Arthur?

I ain't labeling myself.

But definitely not a Christian, right?

Yours is really no better. You still depict a cruel and tormenting God.

Again I ask, what should be the alternative?

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.

What do you propose God should do that would make Him more "loving" to you?

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.

Of course people can go through pain and loss without believing there's a God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do you recognize allegory in the creation account?

And what allegory would that be?

Then why would God create trillions of human lives with full knowledge that many wouldn't 'make the cut'? Your doctrine is just one of horror and the antithesis of 'good news'.

Because God is a God of risk.

He risked having His creation, man, fall by creating him with the ability to choose otherwise. But in doing so, he also gave His creation the ability to love. And that's worth the risk.

Do you seriously think people are "choosing" something like eternal torment if they don't find faith in one short life? Does it make it easier for you to justify the fate of others by determining that it's their "choice"?

If the only two options (and I challenge you to come up with a third) are spend eternity with God or spend eternity apart from God, which do you think most people would choose if in order to choose being with God they would have to give up their sin?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And what do we call that kind of person?

Does sick, perverted, psychopath work?

Depends, not everyone who believes in monstrous doctrines are monsters themselves.

Which of the two men more accurately represents God, in your opinion?

Allow me to expand on the second scenario.

Let's say that man had a relationship with another woman prior to the woman above who became his wife, and he gave her the same options as the one he's currently married to, but she rejected his offer, and left him. Should he still marry her and keep her with him? Would it be right for him to do so?

I don't think the analogy works full stop. Comparing human relationships and romantic love hardly compares. You might fall in love with a woman who only has platonic feelings in return and of course you can't force her to feel the same. It's not simply love/hate/rejection. She may be very fond of you as a friend but that's as far as it goes.

So if God were to keep someone in heaven, even though they don't want to be there, and they can't escape, and they hate God, would that not be hell for them?

See answer below.

See, if you take all the people who would be in hell and then put them in heaven, you would turn heaven into hell.

You have a very simplistic view of things. Has it occurred to you that if confronted with the truth of a loving God that that very experience could transform people?

Hell is just the name we give to the place where people who hate God go.

Who would they be exactly? Most people in my experience have been agnostics so that's hardly 'hating' God or are you one of these people who conflates a lack of belief with hate?

Would it not be barbaric, cruel, and serve no purpose, to keep them with Him when they don't want to be with Him?

As above.

Stop there, and you'll have my point.

Which I obviously disagree with for reasons prior.

The people who reject God, whom God will cast into the lake, would rather kill God to vindicate themselves, than humble themselves and repent of their sin.

That's just your unfounded and rather bizarre opinion.

That's what people did when Christ came for three years, teaching about His kingdom, about eternal life. Both Jews and Gentiles put Him to death because he offered them salvation from their sin.

I think it was rather more because He ruffled the status quo and wound up the authorities and religious leaders of the time than what you suggest. Even on the cross Jesus is recorded as saying "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do".

No, what is not love is forcing someone to be where they don't want to be.

Then that works against your own position as love doesn't inflict harm or force people into suffering.

Art, would you agree with this statement:

"There's no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends."

It's one of the most selfless acts a person could do.

So what if you cut your toe off and then stub it? You don't feel any pain of having stubbed your toe, do you? Pain is awareness. Awareness is knowledge of stimulation is not physical, therefore pain is not physical.

If pain were physical, then why do women feel pain when they lose a child? There is nothing physical being done to them, so how are they feeling pain?

I am not denying that physical things can cause pain, because clearly, if you stab someone in the chest, it will hurt. I am saying that the pain itself is not physical.

Of course pain can be physical. It can be both physical and psychological and you are just being flat out silly on this.

They would have to get around the fact that knowledge is not physical.

No they wouldn't, they'd likely tell you to buy a clue among other things. Someone suffering with arthritis is
feeling very real pain in their joints and they wouldn't need to have awareness of their condition for that pain to be any the more or less real.

It's still pain, is it not? I mean, you even said, "the pain of loss."

Yes, of course it is, I never said otherwise. As I've said for the third time now, pain can be both physical and psychological.

:AMR:

Because they chose that suffering over being with the One who can wipe away their tears.

Which is just another silly and rather callous thing to say.

Because annihilation of something that was designed to be eternal is not possible.

Of course it's possible.

Arthur, what alternative would you propose that would make everyone happy?

Well, how about the restitution of all things? There's plenty in the bible that talks of God restoring all and who's to say that God can't accomplish that? You ever heard of the phrase "Love conquers all"? People wouldn't necessarily be forced into wanting to be in after being 'face to face'.

God is not present in the Lake of Fire. He cannot be the one doing the torturing.

Dude, If I locked you up in a basement with no food and water and left you to die with no means of escape then do I have to be present to be the cause of your subsequent suffering and death?

Try again. Who is the one causing the suffering?

See above.

Here's a hint:

Blaming God is wrong because it's pointing a finger at God and telling Him that he's doing something contrary to His nature. He is not the author of evil.

Inflicting a state of suffering is contrary to love. Now what is God's nature and in fact God Himself described as?

You can't force someone to love you. They have to have the option to hate you, or else they cannot love. Love is freely given. It cannot be coerced. You can't demand someone to love you, because that's not what love is.

Agreed, although they don't necessarily have to hate in order to love.

But what about those who reject the truth? What do you propose God should do about them? God shoved the truth in Pharaoh's face, and Pharaoh hardened his heart against it. In fact, throughout the Bible, God shows that shoving truth in people's faces almost always turns them away from it. Why would God want to turn people away from Him by doing so?

A lot of people don't believe or are sceptical, it's human nature to have doubts. It's not hate.

God has already proven He exists. People don't have to wait until that point in there existence to acknowledge He exists, because by then it will be too late. The heavens declare God's handiwork, He wrote two books, the Bible, and Nature. He gave the world a written law to live by, after showing that having no law leads to the world becoming evil. He performed miracles for His people, the Israelites, and then put those miracles, along with the law, in a box as evidence of His actions. He delivered his people countless times against His enemies, even when their armies were greater than His people. He even performed miracles during His ministry on earth, for three years he came as a witness, hoping to get His people to turn to Him, so that He could then send them to the world. But His people utterly rejected Him, and so He sent Paul to the world.

Every person who has ever turned their hearts to God is evidence that He exists.

To you, not to everybody and nobody around nowadays was witness to the miracles as recorded in the bible so that's not going to be convincing to everybody. Nature can be very beautiful and I can appreciate your reasoning but on the flip side nature can also be very ugly as well. Regarding your latter that's also not convincing in itself.

Even the most ardent atheist is ardently wrong.

They aren't convinced of that.

If he is contrite about what, exactly? His sin? Then why doesn't he repent about it now, and turn to God?

No, and contrite wasn't really the right word to use. A lack of belief isn't about pride or hate or unwillingness to acknowledge flaws etc.

The Bible says that all have fallen short. We have all missed the mark when it comes to being righteous.

It also says that there is only one Way to heaven, and that is Jesus Christ.

Nobody's perfect, I don't think anyone's disputing that and if Jesus died as a ransom for all then it doesn't negate the above either.

So you think God should give everyone a second chance after they die? That after an arbitrary amount of time, God should let them out of the lake for a while to see if they would repent?

Here's an analogy:

Please, enough with the analogies already. This was covered above and what would it matter to you if God brought everyone into the fold, which again would hardly necessitate force?

"There's no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends."

Is that true, Arthur?

I've no issue with it.

But definitely not a Christian, right?

Told you dude, I don't do labels.

Again I ask, what should be the alternative?

Answered earlier.

What do you propose God should do that would make Him more "loving" to you?

What I've suggested earlier would certainly be more loving than what you propose.

Of course people can go through pain and loss without believing there's a God.

Quite.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And what allegory would that be?

Well for starters do you think there was a literal talking snake?

Because God is a God of risk.

He risked having His creation, man, fall by creating him with the ability to choose otherwise. But in doing so, he also gave His creation the ability to love. And that's worth the risk.

So God plays dice?

If the only two options (and I challenge you to come up with a third) are spend eternity with God or spend eternity apart from God, which do you think most people would choose if in order to choose being with God they would have to give up their sin?

I gave you another option in my last reply and it's pretty obvious what most people would choose if suffering was the only other option. You talk about love not being coercive which is true, it isn't. That's why love doesn't threaten or inflict pointless suffering either. 'Turn or burn' doctrines are based on fear by way of, not love.

 

[glorydaz]

Some people do. They take it absolutely literally.

And they may well be right. All things are possible with God.

A donkey spoke, as I recall. A sea parted. Manna rained down from heaven. Yep, they may well be right.

 

[Tambora]

I don't think it always has to be a case of a person peacefully rejecting Him and calmly walking away.
And I see nothing unloving or unjust for the Master of the universe to say "My way or the highway", or, "My house, My rules."
And if you don't like it, I'm not sure why you would think that GOD cannot kick you out the door and slam it shut after you, and be perfectly just in doing so.

 

[glorydaz]

Do you seriously think people are "choosing" something like eternal torment if they don't find faith in one short life? Does it make it easier for you to justify the fate of others by determining that it's their "choice"?

It's a matter of rejecting God.

The repercussions of man's choices are evident. Even unbelievers understand the principle of reaping what you sow. Some call it Karma. You gotta pay the piper. Yep, life is short, which is why we preach the Gospel.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't think it always has to be a case of a person peacefully rejecting Him and calmly walking away.
And I see nothing unloving or unjust for the Master of the universe to say "My way or the highway", or, "My house, My rules."
And if you don't like it, I'm not sure why you would think that GOD cannot kick you out the door and slam it shut after you, and be perfectly just in doing so.

Then equate this with a loving parent who has an unruly child. They'd be well within their rights when the child reaches such an age to tell them to abide by the house rules or find somewhere else to live. If the child continued to disrespect the rules then it wouldn't necessarily be unloving for the parent to enforce this, although that wouldn't mean just throwing them onto the streets. A loving parent, however, wouldn't shut the door permanently on that child and would still wish for their well being. Look at the tale of the prodigal son. He was contrite when he returned but the dad was overjoyed to see him returning from a distance, before he'd even had a chance to say anything.

There's also the counter side. If you're bringing life into the world then you, as a parent, have a duty of care to that child and a responsibility to bring it up properly, supply it with all it's needs and show it love, even through discipline. A loving parent certainly wouldn't abandon their child or close the door permanently so why would a God who is described as love do the same? Would it irk you if it was only believers who God allowed in?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's a matter of rejecting God.

The repercussions of man's choices are evident. Even unbelievers understand the principle of reaping what you sow. Some call it Karma. You gotta pay the piper. Yep, life is short, which is why we preach the Gospel.

And how would you define that exactly? Simply a matter of not having faith, or the 'right' sort of faith?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And they may well be right. All things are possible with God.

A donkey spoke, as I recall. A sea parted. Manna rained down from heaven. Yep, they may well be right.

So it's not quite that straightforward then is it? There's those who insist that it's word for word literal verbatim, others who find allegory at least in parts and others who regard it as an allegorical account. I think there's pretty obviously a lot of allegory in Genesis.