|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 18, 2023 22:33:42 GMT
Well, it is a bit pretentious of you to think that you have found THE answer. This is one of those doctrinal differences you will find among Christians who have done just as much studying as you have. You agree the soul is eternal for believers, so as to the point of this discussion, I am fine with our disagreement for non-believers, and is not a conversation I am interested in having, you have your views, I have mine, we both have scripture to support them. It is not going to make a difference in the end or now on who is right there, well, except for those poor souls who "perish"  1. Do you think I am unique in this view? 2. "Perishing" is preferable to burning for eternity in fire. By a long shot. 3. My view doesn't have devastating contradictions. No. I never said burning, but that is certainly what some scripture says Neither does mine |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 18, 2023 22:51:19 GMT
1. Do you think I am unique in this view? 2. "Perishing" is preferable to burning for eternity in fire. By a long shot. 3. My view doesn't have devastating contradictions. No. I never said burning, but that is certainly what some scripture says Neither does mine Read Reply #53 libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/361176/thread |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 18, 2023 22:52:27 GMT
Anything in particular? I have already responded to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 18, 2023 22:58:36 GMT
Anything in particular? I have already responded to that. There's an inherent contradiction between Christ being "all in all" and the eternal perpetuation of hell (which many, rightly, would describe as "separation from God"). |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 19, 2023 10:32:23 GMT
Anything in particular? I have already responded to that. There's an inherent contradiction between Christ being "all in all" and the eternal perpetuation of hell (which many, rightly, would describe as "separation from God"). I am told that in Hell there's other people... |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 19, 2023 10:35:04 GMT
I'm not "nitpicking." I've been very clear. We were not created with an "eternal soul." The only verses used to justify the concept must be "pre-interpreted" to mean "eternal experience" rather than "eternal consequence," even though other uses of "eternal" used the same way talk about consequence (e.g., the "eternal destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah"). After judgement, apart from God's intervention, we perish. What does that mean? Does "perish" mean "persist"? We perish, but continue to exist? Luke 13:3 2 Peter 3:9 John 3:16 (of course) Etc. I would suspect that you believe what you believe because, like me, you've been taught it all your life, and so you read scripture through that lens, despite the fact that the text doesn't actually say that, and despite the fact that that particular interpretation leads to irreconcilable contradictions. Why would we assume that the soul is eternal (despite the fact that the text doesn't say so)? Because we've mixed Greek philosophy with the biblical text and so we read it through a Greek perspective. So we assume that the soul is eternal. And we justify that by misreading "eternal punishment" (while ignoring the parallel "eternal destruction"). ...It is not going to make a difference in the end or now on who is right there, well, except for those poor souls who "perish" Leaving out the fact that there's no guaranty that you won't be among "those poor souls"... Speaking of pretentious... |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 19, 2023 14:26:38 GMT
...It is not going to make a difference in the end or now on who is right there, well, except for those poor souls who "perish" Leaving out the fact that there's no guaranty that you won't be among "those poor souls"... Speaking of pretentious... Well, figuring that you are either too ignorant or too dishonest to understand anything about Christianity honestly... |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 19, 2023 14:28:11 GMT
Anything in particular? I have already responded to that. There's an inherent contradiction between Christ being "all in all" and the eternal perpetuation of hell (which many, rightly, would describe as "separation from God"). Well, in the way you are interpreting the use of all in that chapter, sure. It is speaking to the resurrection there, and if you have been studying as much as you have, certainly you don't have to agree with it, but do understand that isn't they way many others interpret that scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 19, 2023 15:13:26 GMT
There's an inherent contradiction between Christ being "all in all" and the eternal perpetuation of hell (which many, rightly, would describe as "separation from God"). Well, in the way you are interpreting the use of all in that chapter, sure. It is speaking to the resurrection there, and if you have been studying as much as you have, certainly you don't have to agree with it, but do understand that isn't they way many others interpret that scripture. I've seen the way people interpret that scripture and I haven't seen people address the contradiction. It's ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 19, 2023 15:20:02 GMT
Well, in the way you are interpreting the use of all in that chapter, sure. It is speaking to the resurrection there, and if you have been studying as much as you have, certainly you don't have to agree with it, but do understand that isn't they way many others interpret that scripture. I've seen the way people interpret that scripture and I haven't seen people address the contradiction. It's ignored. So how do you address all the scriptures that talk about eternal? There is no contradiction the way others interpret it... that is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 19, 2023 16:08:24 GMT
I've seen the way people interpret that scripture and I haven't seen people address the contradiction. It's ignored. So how do you address all the scriptures that talk about eternal? There is no contradiction the way others interpret it... that is my point. I've addressed that at least three times now. You assume that "eternal punishment" means "eternal experience" rather than "eternal consequence." I'm arguing that it means consequence, as it does in "eternal destruction" (what is it mean for something to be "destroyed forever"?). Further, "eternity" in first-century Judaic understanding was less a reference of "time span" as it was "the age to come." We tend to read it temporally, but was actually a kind of shorthand for "the new age" (one reason why John's Gospel doesn't refer so much to the "Kingdom of God"; where the Synoptics say "Kingdom of God," he tends to say "eternal life"—they're the same thing). As per Gordon Wenham: "When the adjective aionios [αἰώνιος] meaning “everlasting” is used in Greek with nouns of action, it has reference to the result of that action, but not the process. Thus the phrase “everlasting punishment” is comparable to “everlasting redemption” and “everlasting salvation,” both scriptural phrases. . . . The lost will not be passing through a process of punishment forever but will be punished once and for all with eternal results.” |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Dec 19, 2023 16:20:07 GMT
So how do you address all the scriptures that talk about eternal? There is no contradiction the way others interpret it... that is my point. I've addressed that at least three times now. You assume that "eternal punishment" means "eternal experience" rather than "eternal consequence." I'm arguing that it means consequence, as it does in "eternal destruction" (what is it mean for something to be "destroyed forever"?). Further, "eternity" in first-century Judaic understanding was less a reference of "time span" as it was "the age to come." We tend to read it temporally, but was actually a kind of shorthand for "the new age" (one reason why John's Gospel doesn't refer so much to the "Kingdom of God"; where the Synoptics say "Kingdom of God," he tends to say "eternal life"—they're the same thing). As per Gordon Wenham: "When the adjective aionios [αἰώνιος] meaning “everlasting” is used in Greek with nouns of action, it has reference to the result of that action, but not the process. Thus the phrase “everlasting punishment” is comparable to “everlasting redemption” and “everlasting salvation,” both scriptural phrases. . . . The lost will not be passing through a process of punishment forever but will be punished once and for all with eternal results.” I assume nothing more than what was said. You keep saying experience. I am focused on eternal. The scriptures do not describe a final consequence as you are trying to claim. The scripture doesn't say destroyed forever. So, you don't think we will have eternal life with God in the end now or is it just that eternal only means eternal when it comes to heaven, not hell? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 19, 2023 16:24:30 GMT
There's an inherent contradiction between Christ being "all in all" and the eternal perpetuation of hell (which many, rightly, would describe as "separation from God"). I am told that in Hell there's other people... I don't think the Bible says anything about that. C.S. Lewis said, certainly not. A strange book, but I would recommend The Great Divorce by Lewis. Here's a brief summary of Lewis's view in contrast to William Blake (who "suggested that the only way for humans to be truly enlightened was to “marry” Heaven and Hell in their lives—in other words, to be kind and lawful (Heavenly), but also proud and devious (Hellish). Blake further suggested that a life lived according to traditional Christian values would be boring, repetitive, and overly 'prudish,'"; from link below): "Lewis’s second major line of attack against Blake is to present Hell as a boring, repetitive, and ultimately meaningless place—essentially, taking Blake’s criticism of Heaven and applying it to Hell. Hell, as depicted by Lewis, is far from the creative haven that Blake posited. On the contrary, damned souls barely interact with one another at all, and most of them have drifted millions of miles away. There are many creative people in Hell, but because they lack the true “spark” of beauty and enlightenment that Heaven alone can provide, they’re incapable of producing great art or philosophy. Lewis then delivers the final blow to Blake’s ideas at the end of The Great Divorce when he reveals that Hell is tinier than Heaven—so tiny, indeed that it could fit inside a butterfly’s mouth. Lewis suggests that Hell, quite apart from being a worthy equal to Heaven, is actually almost nothing: put another way, evil is simply the absence of beauty, enlightenment, creativity, and all the other things that only Heaven can provide. In short, Lewis argues that Blake was wrong to fetishize Hell—the supposed merits of Hell are either 1) not really merits at all, or 2) actually found in Heaven." www.litcharts.com/lit/the-great-divorce/themes/heaven-hell-and-the-great-divorce |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 20, 2023 0:12:13 GMT
God could be an A.I. that invented time-travel, went back in time and created the universe... Problem solved! There is actually a theory similar to that, based on ideas from Frank Tipler. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 20, 2023 0:34:45 GMT
God could be an A.I. that invented time-travel, went back in time and created the universe... Problem solved! There is actually a theory similar to that, based on ideas from Frank Tipler. Asimov wrote of that idea in his short story The Last Question, published in 1956. Ray Kurzweil has also suggested that some future transhumanist amalgam of computers and humans could accomplish the same thing (something that has been called the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle). |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 20, 2023 0:58:34 GMT
In eternity, Christ will be "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 3:11). I Corinthians 15:28 says God will be all in all in the future, not Christ. In fact, the passage is pretty clear that Christ is something other than, and subjected to, God. Colossians 3 says that Christ is all in all, and from the phrasing, it sounds like Christ already is all in all, instead of Christ turning the kingdom over to God in the future. This is a pretty strong theological difference between Colossians and I Corinthians: God will be all in all Christ's future gift to God vs. Christ is all in all right now. Some Bible verses do teach universalism, and it was not uncommon among the Church Fathers. Mark 9:47-48: ...blethenai eis ton geennan [48] hopou ho skolex auton ou teleuta kai to pur ou sbennutai "ho skolex auton" is usually translated as "their worm", and I was always taught that the worm was referring to the people cast into hell fire. But in your interpretation, the phrase "ho skolex auton" should be translated as "the worm of the same", and refers to a worm of Gehenna, not to a body/soul/whatever of those thrown into Gehenna. Just as the fire of Gehenna never goes out but is always burning to permanently destroy those tossed in, the worm of Gehenna does not die but lives forever to consume those cast into Gehenna. Since Gehenna (geennan) is the closest previous noun to ho skolex auton, and it would make sense that auton (same) would refer back to Gehenna, not to the ones cast in. Fascinating bit of translational trickery! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 20, 2023 2:19:01 GMT
"ho skolex auton" is usually translated as "their worm", and I was always taught that the worm was referring to the people cast into hell fire. Wow, I've never heard that interpretation before! |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 20, 2023 10:29:11 GMT
Leaving out the fact that there's no guaranty that you won't be among "those poor souls"... Speaking of pretentious... Well, figuring that you are either too ignorant or too dishonest to understand anything about Christianity honestly... Are you trying to prove that you're an idiot? Because if so then... Bravo! |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 20, 2023 10:36:03 GMT
There is actually a theory similar to that, based on ideas from Frank Tipler. Asimov wrote of that idea in his short story The Last Question, published in 1956. Ray Kurzweil has also suggested that some future transhumanist amalgam of computers and humans could accomplish the same thing (something that has been called the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle). Some could say it's Something Maximizing Actual Reasoning and Technology... |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 20, 2023 11:07:24 GMT
I am told that in Hell there's other people... I don't think the Bible says anything about that. C.S. Lewis said, certainly not. A strange book, but I would recommend The Great Divorce by Lewis. Here's a brief summary of Lewis's view in contrast to William Blake (who "suggested that the only way for humans to be truly enlightened was to “marry” Heaven and Hell in their lives—in other words, to be kind and lawful (Heavenly), but also proud and devious (Hellish). Blake further suggested that a life lived according to traditional Christian values would be boring, repetitive, and overly 'prudish,'"; from link below): "Lewis’s second major line of attack against Blake is to present Hell as a boring, repetitive, and ultimately meaningless place—essentially, taking Blake’s criticism of Heaven and applying it to Hell. Hell, as depicted by Lewis, is far from the creative haven that Blake posited. On the contrary, damned souls barely interact with one another at all, and most of them have drifted millions of miles away. There are many creative people in Hell, but because they lack the true “spark” of beauty and enlightenment that Heaven alone can provide, they’re incapable of producing great art or philosophy. Lewis then delivers the final blow to Blake’s ideas at the end of The Great Divorce when he reveals that Hell is tinier than Heaven—so tiny, indeed that it could fit inside a butterfly’s mouth. Lewis suggests that Hell, quite apart from being a worthy equal to Heaven, is actually almost nothing: put another way, evil is simply the absence of beauty, enlightenment, creativity, and all the other things that only Heaven can provide. In short, Lewis argues that Blake was wrong to fetishize Hell—the supposed merits of Hell are either 1) not really merits at all, or 2) actually found in Heaven." www.litcharts.com/lit/the-great-divorce/themes/heaven-hell-and-the-great-divorceI was actually making a joke based on Sartre's remark about Hell, a metaphoric Hell, as it were. But it's interesting to see the theories people concoct about places (heaven and Hell) that presuppose that there is a life after death of which we don't have the slightest proof. It would be like attempting to build a house of cards... on air. As I said previously; even if God's existence was a given, there is still zero proof that he would have bothered to create another place, different in nature from this universe, where the laws of physics don't apply and we can be re-created after death and live there forever. Even if God actually communicated with us there is still zero proof that he would tell us the truth. The simplistic notion that God couldn't and wouldn't lie is laughably ridiculous and naïve (for one thing God created creatures that can lie, why would he be less than what he's created?) and that's assuming that we knew for sure that God communicated with us. People believed so much that their personal brand of religion was true that in 1978 more than 900 of them killed themselves. What makes you think that people two thousand years ago would be any wiser and smarter? I often hear the argument that people were ready to die for their faith and that that is a proof of some sort. I am sorry but that doesn't prove anything, people kill themselves for the falsest and stupidest of reasons. |
|
