09 Nov 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOf course I haerd his words but having heard them it reminds me of the Ten Commandments that also said, "Thou shalt not kill". I believe these words also came from God yet it appears he later gave orders for the children of Israel to kill. Of course, there appears to be a contradiction of sorts considering these facts. How do you come to terms with them?
Hear the words of Jesus....
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIn addition to my last post, how does one view the Jesus that said these words as the same Jesus that picked up a whip in the temple to chase out the money changers? How do we see this same Jesus that said these words as the same Jesus in Revelations who returns with a sword to render judgment upon the earth?
39 but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
.
.
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 44 but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for ...[text shortened]... ust and the unjust.
.
.
Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."[/b]
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyRead how the passage is introduced. Jesus presents a standard of righteousness that was not understood by the Jews.
In addition to my last post, how does one view the Jesus that said these words as the same Jesus that picked up a whip in the temple to chase out the money changers? How do we see this same Jesus that said these words as the same Jesus in Revelations who returns with a sword to render judgment upon the earth?
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyactually i am not sure on this point myself and I am not ashamed to admit it, it seems a little complicated. what i can say with any certainty is that there are two types of death, one from the results of adamic sin which we all suffer because of our inherited imperfection and from which we have the hope of being resurrected and the so called, 'second death' which is equated with 'the lake of fire'.
I recognize the possibility of translating the word torment to mean that of earlier translations that did not necessarily mean torment in the Bible, however, you must realize that the lake of fire is a new and different phenomenon not covered Biblically any where else.
If I am correct, your theology is that the "lost" will not be tortured, rather, they simply will cease to be. Is this correct?
now the scriptures do not indicate that anyone can return from the lake of fire, like Gehenna nothing returns from there, the conclusion is that the second death is another kind of death from which there is no return, no chance of a resurrection, which seems logical. the point i am a little unsure upon and will need to do further research is with regard to the manner in which those who receive the sentence of the second death are either tormented in the sense of being under everlasting restraint as per our previous conversation or the more likely everlasting destruction, because the scriptures state that the devil will be cast into the lake of fire and tormented (kept under restraint as previously discussed), however if he were to be literally tortured for ever and ever God would need to preserve him alive and the scriptures state that the Christ will destroy him (Hebrews 2;14) - therefore the torment seems to be restraint until such times as God deems it necessary to destroy him ... i think, could be wrong but that's the way it appears to me.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can tell that you have a good heart and have the best of intentions Robbie, but you have the slight problem of being a little presumptuous.
i have not and will never make the mistake of quoting a verse out of context, but always view it in its immediate context and in the context of the bible as a whole. that the scripture is very pertinent and has been shown in the Nuremberg trials to be relative to the topic because it was proven that everyone has a universal conscience which should b ...[text shortened]... the greater context, because quite clearly God requires that a Christian desist from killing.
"Are you trying to find a pretext for war here?"
No.
Are you setting yourself up as the one who decides where and when men go to war? Or who is guilty or justified?
God is sovereign. The affairs of man are in His hands
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by josephwmy apologizes, really , you are correct, if i may offer an excuse, its the siege mentality of the forum, its turning me into a paranoid schizophrenic!
I can tell that you have a good heart and have the best of intentions Robbie, but you have the slight problem of being a little presumptuous.
[b]"Are you trying to find a pretext for war here?"
No.
Are you setting yourself up as the one who decides where and when men go to war? Or who is guilty or justified?
God is sovereign. The affairs of man are in His hands.[/b]
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand perfectly.
my apologizes, really , you are correct, if i may offer an excuse, its the siege mentality of the forum, its turning me into a paranoid schizophrenic!
I've been in here for about two years now, and I think I got a handle on it.
But I paid the price for my persistence.
God bless your efforts to make known the truth of God and our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by josephwthank you Joseph really, although i am not really a good example, as you can see i can be very flippant and sometimes downright sarcastic and rude, especially when provocation comes, your kind words are a real encouragement for us all, yes as the poet states, we shall take a cup of kindness yet, i really do appreciate your words - regards Robbie.
I understand perfectly.
I've been in here for about two years now, and I think I got a handle on it.
But I paid the price for my persistence.
God bless your efforts to make known the truth of God and our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie" ...i am not really a good example, as you can see i can be very flippant and sometimes downright sarcastic and rude, especially when provocation comes,.."
thank you Joseph really, although i am not really a good example, as you can see i can be very flippant and sometimes downright sarcastic and rude, especially when provocation comes, your kind words are a real encouragement for us all, yes as the poet states, we shall take a cup of kindness yet, i really do appreciate your words - regards Robbie.
You should see some of the things I've said in past threads. I've publicly stated that I wish I could take alot of what I had said back.
Water under the bridge.
09 Nov 08
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are right, it is a little complicated. However, that does not prevent us from trying to figure it all out, no? In fact, these complicated scenarios often render themselves the illusion of contradiction.
actually i am not sure on this point myself and I am not ashamed to admit it, it seems a little complicated. what i can say with any certainty is that there are two types of death, one from the results of adamic sin which we all suffer because of our inherited imperfection and from which we have the hope of being resurrected and the so called, 'seco t necessary to destroy him ... i think, could be wrong but that's the way it appears to me.
I think the whole theology regarding hell is a little troubling, that is if you have a pulse. In fact, there are many on these boards who reject Christianity altogether because they cannot fathom a loving God allowing there to be a hell whether it be torture or simply nonexistence, especially a God who is all knowing and all powerful.
As for myself, I find suffering in general to be troubling, let alone the concept of hell. For example, why do bad things happen to "good" people? The whole mystery for me involves the introduction of sin via free will. A God of love is only a God of love if free will is offered. If free will is absent, so is the ability for us to love God back. Otherwise it would simply be God loving or rejecting himself back and what sense do either of those scenarios make? He might as well just play tic tac toe with himself for all eternity if that is the case. Having said that, free will would be impossible unless an all powerful God willfully surrenders part of his power over us. It is a mystery to say the least.
So as we see, suffering occurs whether it be temperal or eternal. I say, if we know it is temperal how can we be so certain that it is not eternal? Obviously a loving God allows temperal suffering so the question begs, so why not eternal? Don't get me wrong, I don't think God enjoys either temperal or eternal suffering, rather, these things must be if he is to surrender part of his perfect will in the universe to others who might oppose him. Suffering is simply diviating from perfection in my opinion.
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieObviously, Jesus used Gehenna figuratively. Thanks for the history lesson, but it did nothing to bolster your claim.
wrong absolutely one hundred percent fallacy and unmitigated fabrication, do you think that when Christ used the illustration of the Valley of Hinnom (greek gehenna), just to the south and west of Jerusalem that his listeners envisioned it as a place of torment, if you do you are seriously deluded, perhaps a little history on the subject may change y HOW GOD HIMSELF FEELS, yes, SUCH A THING HAS NEVER EVEN COME UP INTO HIS FIGURATIVE HEART.
Eternal punishment remains a biblical truth. Matthew 25:46: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night."
I've studied the arguments for annihilationism and they aren't overly impressive. The idea of the wicked being obliterated rather than suffering endlessly appeals to the sensitive, but emotion cannot be the primary consideration in settling theological issues. In this case the biblical and theological data weigh strongly on the side of eternal conscious punishment of the wicked.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGod is a God of mercy, in fact he delights in acts of mercy, is slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness, would never torture someone eternally for having made mistakes when in an imperfect condition, on the contrary, it is not i who needs to fear but those who have painted him as a torturer and vindictive god, when nothing could be further from the truth.
haha, it is not the apostles who have erred, although they did make some make quite mysterious mistakes, what marks the difference between them and you was their willingness to stand corrected.
correction number 1, no one has stated that Gehenna does not exist, what we have stated is that it is not a place of literal torment, eternal, temporal or ...[text shortened]... ve painted him as a torturer and vindictive god, when nothing could be further from the truth.
By stating that God "would never torture someone eternally" you are assuming two false, unbiblical concepts:
(1) that God and man are basically equal partners, and therefore are able to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement between them.
(2) that punishment in hell is something God administers by His own deliberate, voluntary, and vindictive action, when He really would not need to do so.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasBy God's choosing not to act, He submits that individuals would be tortured eternally.
By stating that God "would never torture someone eternally" you are assuming two false, unbiblical concepts...
That is, imagine that you and a friend are wandering in a desert. Your friend, because he is careless
or foolish or exceedingly stupid, has wasted his water supply on cleaning the sand off of his
knapsack. He has no water and is beginning to suffer. On the one hand, he deserves to suffer and
die because he behaved foolishly.
On the other hand, you have an infinite supply of water (because you're God) and he will never
die, just suffer forever.
By choosing not to act, you are indeed torturing him eternally.
Nemesio
09 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI understand your point, however it is not the only explanation.
By God's choosing not to act, He submits that individuals would be tortured eternally.
That is, imagine that you and a friend are wandering in a desert. Your friend, because he is careless
or foolish or exceedingly stupid, has wasted his water supply on cleaning the sand off of his
knapsack. He has no water and is beginning to suffer. On the one hand suffer forever.
By choosing not to act, you are indeed torturing him eternally.
Nemesio
It is also possible that it is primarily the human person who chooses the eternal punishment, or at least chooses the action that leads to that punishment. This is the very point C. S. Lewis proposed as a possibility in The Problem of Pain, 122-123. He wrote that what is most characteristic of hell is not physical flame and attendant suffering. Instead what really makes it hell is the absence of God, with the consequent loneliness, anguish, and longing (whereas God's presence is what makes heaven heaven). Thus sin is a human being saying, "God, go away and leave me alone," and hell is God finally saying, in effect, "All right, you shall have what you wish," and in the final analysis it is not God who sends individuals to hell, but those persons themselves.
It does not necessarily follow that the sufferings of hell are personally administered by God. Therefore, the argument that God would never send someone to a place of eternal torment, because He is a loving God, is insubstantial.
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas
Thus sin is a human being saying, "God, go away and leave me alone," and hell is God finally saying, in effect, "All right, you shall have what you wish," and in the final analysis it is not God who sends individuals to hell, but those persons themselves.
Today, I was working in my wood shop with my nearly-5-year old son. In a freak accident which has
never happened before, the table saw ripped a piece of wood from my hand and it struck him
in the chest. He was fundamentally okay, but very (understandably) scared. In fear, he threw a
piece of wood at me, said he never wanted to speak to me again, he hated me, he hated working
in my shop, &c &c &c. (He, incidentally, loves working in the shop, and he came back down
after we cooled down from the accident, and we finished our project.)
This is an understandable and predictable reaction and, as a parent, I know that the words are
simply how his brain processes things. I am not hurt by his comments, and I don't give them
any weight. I know that he loves me, I know that he wants to speak to me again, I know that
he didn't want to hurt me in return. I know these things, even if at that moment he doesn't know
these things.
The mind of God is infinitely more complex and intricate than our minds, and certainly more
understanding of humankind than I am of my son. If a person seriously considers the Scriptures
and rejects the basic theological tenets of Christianity (Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus was
Divine, Jesus remits the sin of the world, &c) because they seem implausible, because they seem
unreasonable, because they seem foolish or whatever reason, God will take this as a mature
response and say, 'Well, you asked for it?'
Given His infinite understanding of each individual human, their dispositions, states of mind,
cares, values, interests and beliefs, he would banish them from His presence to a place where
nothing but torture is known, even if that torture is 'merely' separation from God?
Who would, in the full revelation of His Almighty Presence, would say 'I want to be separated
from God?' Relative to God, we are not merely children; we are infants. What anyone claims
to know of God is an infinitesimal portion of what Revelation might exist.
So, a God of Love, a God of Justice, a God of Mercy would take these infantile statements of
faith and say, 'You get what you ask for?'
And, for those who say, 'I hate you. You hurt me on purpose,' like my son did to me today, God
would say, 'So be it. Off to hell where you damn yourself to eternal separation and attendant
torture?'
Do you not see the problem with this?
Nemesio