No it doesn't.
One can perfectly defend their position with logic and scripture, and still call you a crybaby.
Calling you a crybaby doesn't have squat to do with whether one can defend a position or not.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
One can perfectly defend their position with logic and scripture, and still call you a crybaby.
Calling you a crybaby doesn't have squat to do with whether one can defend a position or not.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
touching essentials, and going beyond 'bibilical' assumptions....
touching essentials, and going beyond 'bibilical' assumptions....
Correct,......for it would seem insane for a God of justice and mercy to detain or hold living beings FOREVER in a state of eternal torment and suffering to no end or resolve, - such would be sadistic, illogical, barbaric, unbecoming of a God of goodness. If a religious writing states something that is contrary to reason, logic or sanity, let alone 'justice' or 'mercy'...it is to be rejected.
It is more logical that punishments are meant to be 'corrective' in nature and only commensurate with the measure of sin committed, while mercy and love continue their mediation to all souls...calling for their repentance. What is the will of Infinite Love? Does that will ever change?
Concerning the view of soul-death:
If a soul has reached a point of no return and is no longer able to repent, having chosen a final and eternal death (a total embrace of iniquity resulting in soul-destruction)...it would seem more appropriate and resourceful for that soul to truly 'die', be wiped out of existence (meaning that that living soul is no longer alive/conscious, - its 'integrity' and 'potential' as a living personality has been 'expunged'. Such is a complete termination of that particular soul and its life-potential. While there may be some metaphysical problems with this position according to some schools, it is much more tenable than ECT. As shared earlier, the Urantia Papers have a reasonable description of what happens to souls that undergo disintegration. The Bible does not have all the information (or 'revelation' for that matter) in the world, which is why other revealed texts and information are helpful in our study.
As we shared previously here, philosophically ECT is insane and illogical. The two most common alternatives are 'conditional immortality' and 'universalism', and some spiritualist views that blend and coordinate these two in various ways. All thru-out God's universe and kingdoms,....we must not forget He rules with perfect justice and mercy. Souls are 'judged' and 'saved' according to the just laws and merciful ministry of 'God' in all conditions and situations. This would be more essential to understand, while we may not have a complete knowledge of all details, apart from revealed information, our own powers of reason, and progressive revelation.
The ninny-picking here is more inevitable among those who only use a limited context of the Bible in contemplating these questions, since there are only a few 'proof texts' used to support various positions. The other resources shared that are 'extra-biblical' add further insights and revealed information that broadens ones comprehension of the subject exploring possibilities outside of usual dogmas and assumptions. A true researcher considers all information available on these subjects, continually questioning his own 'opinions' being open to new discovery, revelation and new points of view, for such are subject to change in the wake of better knowledge. One is to keep asking, seeking and knocking...as the Lord Jesus encourages....for only those who do, draw near to truth.
pj
touching essentials, and going beyond 'bibilical' assumptions....
Correct,......for it would seem insane for a God of justice and mercy to detain or hold living beings FOREVER in a state of eternal torment and suffering to no end or resolve, - such would be sadistic, illogical, barbaric, unbecoming of a God of goodness. If a religious writing states something that is contrary to reason, logic or sanity, let alone 'justice' or 'mercy'...it is to be rejected.
It is more logical that punishments are meant to be 'corrective' in nature and only commensurate with the measure of sin committed, while mercy and love continue their mediation to all souls...calling for their repentance. What is the will of Infinite Love? Does that will ever change?
Concerning the view of soul-death:
If a soul has reached a point of no return and is no longer able to repent, having chosen a final and eternal death (a total embrace of iniquity resulting in soul-destruction)...it would seem more appropriate and resourceful for that soul to truly 'die', be wiped out of existence (meaning that that living soul is no longer alive/conscious, - its 'integrity' and 'potential' as a living personality has been 'expunged'. Such is a complete termination of that particular soul and its life-potential. While there may be some metaphysical problems with this position according to some schools, it is much more tenable than ECT. As shared earlier, the Urantia Papers have a reasonable description of what happens to souls that undergo disintegration. The Bible does not have all the information (or 'revelation' for that matter) in the world, which is why other revealed texts and information are helpful in our study.
As we shared previously here, philosophically ECT is insane and illogical. The two most common alternatives are 'conditional immortality' and 'universalism', and some spiritualist views that blend and coordinate these two in various ways. All thru-out God's universe and kingdoms,....we must not forget He rules with perfect justice and mercy. Souls are 'judged' and 'saved' according to the just laws and merciful ministry of 'God' in all conditions and situations. This would be more essential to understand, while we may not have a complete knowledge of all details, apart from revealed information, our own powers of reason, and progressive revelation.
The ninny-picking here is more inevitable among those who only use a limited context of the Bible in contemplating these questions, since there are only a few 'proof texts' used to support various positions. The other resources shared that are 'extra-biblical' add further insights and revealed information that broadens ones comprehension of the subject exploring possibilities outside of usual dogmas and assumptions. A true researcher considers all information available on these subjects, continually questioning his own 'opinions' being open to new discovery, revelation and new points of view, for such are subject to change in the wake of better knowledge. One is to keep asking, seeking and knocking...as the Lord Jesus encourages....for only those who do, draw near to truth.
pj
Well said. Amen!
Adhominums do not prove your point. The fact that you use them proves that you don't have any scriptural support for your position. If you had any scriptures to support your position, you would use them instead of merely calling me a crybaby, which proves nothing.
You don't know who you are talking to. Tambora is very learned theologically. I have the utmost regard for her.
You, however, are new here and absolutely out of line to speak to her in such a fashion.
I'm beginning to see a mean spirit in you.
Okay, I stand corrected. Adhoms do prove something.
But there was no way that I could tell that she was "very learned theologically" by her "crybaby" remark. Do you understand what I am saying to you? I could have heard the same thing in 2nd grade. Which advanced degree teaches how to call someone a "crybaby"? Is there a Poopyhead 101 Course that I need to take?
So you people can dish it out but can't take it yourself. You seem like a bunch of crybabys to me.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
raising the bar here.......
raising the bar here.......
Thanks dear,....I always love to bring a variety of perspectives from different schools, and let readers research things for themselves, after all,...thats the most reasonable approach. As an 'eclectic' those who know me, know I'm not limited to just the 'Bible', but respect those who choose to limit themseslves to that 'context', although I see so much more, and offer further expansions for those who will dare to 'think outside the box'
In any case,...the kindergarten level exchange of little 'egos' that are surfacing in the thread do no justice to the topic (neither to sincere readers here), neither does such enhance or inspire real dialogue...which is the purpose of the forum. It is most honest to just to say, this is what I currently believe on the subject, and be open to keep investigating, realizing that your 'view' or 'position' could change, if you're open to learn more on the subject, admitting that your 'conclusion' might not be 'absolute'. Much 'truth' anyways on religious/philosophical levels is more or less 'relative' from a human perspective, and alot is pure speculation. An honest person will admit this, beyond what he can confirm by his own soul-faculties or personal religious experience.
At times it does appear to be 'pearls to swine' when contributing to certain threads (if dialogue becomes petty and immature), which is why I'll be creating some new threads of my own, since many of my classic threads were deleted in the recent system-change over.
Again, what more could we say about ECT? One is free to believe it if they wish, but there is much more involved than just the traditional assumption here (the passage in Revelation, a few passage in the gospels, etc.), regarding the nature of the soul, destiny, and the principles that actually govern and determine destinies, not to mention the Justice and Mercy of God that are ever mediating the case of all sentient beings.
If a serious and intelligent discussion cannot be had here, then this entity will have to venture elsewhere, letting the ball roll on its own so to speak. 'Creative dialogue' is the key for constructive and enjoyable discussion IMO, and so let us be true to the art (or retire yourself).
Namaste!
paulie
raising the bar here.......
Thanks dear,....I always love to bring a variety of perspectives from different schools, and let readers research things for themselves, after all,...thats the most reasonable approach. As an 'eclectic' those who know me, know I'm not limited to just the 'Bible', but respect those who choose to limit themseslves to that 'context', although I see so much more, and offer further expansions for those who will dare to 'think outside the box'
In any case,...the kindergarten level exchange of little 'egos' that are surfacing in the thread do no justice to the topic (neither to sincere readers here), neither does such enhance or inspire real dialogue...which is the purpose of the forum. It is most honest to just to say, this is what I currently believe on the subject, and be open to keep investigating, realizing that your 'view' or 'position' could change, if you're open to learn more on the subject, admitting that your 'conclusion' might not be 'absolute'. Much 'truth' anyways on religious/philosophical levels is more or less 'relative' from a human perspective, and alot is pure speculation. An honest person will admit this, beyond what he can confirm by his own soul-faculties or personal religious experience.
At times it does appear to be 'pearls to swine' when contributing to certain threads (if dialogue becomes petty and immature), which is why I'll be creating some new threads of my own, since many of my classic threads were deleted in the recent system-change over.
Again, what more could we say about ECT? One is free to believe it if they wish, but there is much more involved than just the traditional assumption here (the passage in Revelation, a few passage in the gospels, etc.), regarding the nature of the soul, destiny, and the principles that actually govern and determine destinies, not to mention the Justice and Mercy of God that are ever mediating the case of all sentient beings.
If a serious and intelligent discussion cannot be had here, then this entity will have to venture elsewhere, letting the ball roll on its own so to speak. 'Creative dialogue' is the key for constructive and enjoyable discussion IMO, and so let us be true to the art (or retire yourself).
Namaste!
paulie
keypurr
Well-known member
Yes, but he is speaking a lot of truth. Listen and learn GR.
keypurr
Well-known member
You do. But he's OK when you get to know him.
"Logic" doesn't really have anything to do with it.
If you want to simply rely on logic, would it not be logical for a God of justice and mercy to forgive and fix everyone, rather than just some and not others?
Then you are going to have to reject much of the bible.
For God did many things that seem illogical to our limited view of what real logic is.
One instance is the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5).
Naaman had leprosy.
He was told to wash in the Jordan River 7 times.
There was no logic to that, and he even questioned the logic of it because there were several bodies of water closer than the Jordan River.
Why did it have to be the Jordan River, and why 7 times?
And yet, he did it just the way he was told, and was healed.
If washing in the Jordan River had any "logical" reason to heal leprosy, then every leper in the country would have done it and been healed, and there would have been no more lepers in the country.
While puny little man likes to think he has the right to question God's logic, he can't really even fathom the logic of God's ways.
Best to just believe what God says, and leave the logic up to Him. He's much better at it!
No, they don't prove your point.
And they don't discredit your point either.
The point is the point, whether an ad-hominem is added or not.
The added ad-hominem has nothing to do with whether the point was valid or not.
No, it doesn't.
One can give plenty of scripture for their point, and call you a crybaby also.
The "crybaby" part doesn't have squat to do with whether one can provide scripture or not.
And for the record, I am not the one that called you a crybaby.
I merely pointed out that one could call you a crybaby, and have a made a valid point using scripture also.
I can take all you want to dish out.
It still won't have squat to do with whether your point is valid or not.
Humble apologies. You know more about me on your conditional view. I apparently know more of the Bible in context than you.:ha:
Humble apologies for the age thing. However, maturity is not dependent on chronological age. At least you are not old and senile like me (52).
They were conscious in the after life. Jesus does not teach false things, but spiritual truth/reality (whether metaphor or not).
You are not a moderator. You also misunderstood what I was saying and did not factor in the proximal clarification posts that take away perceived grounds of offense.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Obviously ECT is true:
Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
The smoke of their torment will ascend for ever and ever. In order to have smoke: you have to have torment. For there to be torment, someone has to be conscious. Obviously they will be tormented in flames for eternity.
I was merely questioning the logic of a person assuming that name calling proved anything. My position stands solidly on scripture. I wasn't questioning God's logic. Jesus said that the body and soul can be destroyed in Gehenna, but the other side questions him on this and thinks that the soul will not be destroyed in Gehenna. And the "proof" they offer for this? "Tim is a heretic, Tim is like a JW, Tim is like a SDA, and Tim is a crybaby if he reports what we call him."
Someone has said that you are intelligent, so why don't we forget the playground talk and just discuss this like inteligent people. I do believe what God says. I don't believe what "Godrulz" says. He is not really God.