Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI already responded that I'm not exactly moved to start my own thread about it, and that I thought the thread would be better served by your own obvious interest and motivation to explore the topic.
Honest error. Please forgive my misunderstanding. Neither do I believe there's the least truth in Conditional Mortality. Am I also mistaken in understanding that you had no interest in exploring the topic of Annihilation with a thread of your own?
Your research into the topic of Annihilation, however, produced some supposed "standard" theories that form a basis for the belief, but these are all written by those who don't believe in Annihilationism to begin with and are flawed. As I mentioned in my initial reply to your initial post about it in this thread, I do not believe in Conditional Immortality, which was espoused as a "reason" some believe in Annihilationism, when that's not the case, at least in my case.
"browbeating me"? Hardly. I'm not here to hurt anyone, believers in Christ or those who have so far rejected God's Grace Gift of eternal live through faith alone in Christ alone; nor am I here to placate those who see this forum through the self serving prism of socializing by placating atheists at the risk of doing them the disservice by watering down and weakening the hard acid truths of God's Word. It's poignantly painful to consider the possibility that these unbelieving men and women will eventually regret their decisions which they enunciate daily with impunity. Yet I fully appreciate the freedom of volitional choice each of them have [and do pray often that God will give them additional opportunities to change their minds].Bob, I understand your feeling here and I share it, but this has little to do with me. I see little reason for this paragraph about unbelievers just because I espouse Annihilationism.
Suzi, here's the absolute reality of the cause of dissension and dislike: Matthew 10:34-39 NIV 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law; 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 7 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."I'm aware of this piece of scripture, Bob, and I take it to heart every day. I have no family here, yet I fully expect the Tribulation to come during my lifetime, and I also expect to not live very long after refusing the mark of the beast.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI'm not here to hurt anyone, believers in Christ or those who have so far rejected God's Grace Gift of eternal live through faith alone in Christ alone; nor am I here to placate those who see this forum through the self serving prism of socializing by placating atheists at the risk of doing them the disservice by watering down and weakening the hard acid truths of God's Word. It's poignantly painful to consider the possibility that these unbelieving men and women will eventually regret their decisions which they enunciate daily with impunity. Yet I fully appreciate the freedom of volitional choice each of them have [and do pray often that God will give them additional opportunities to change their minds].
"Sometimes," she said, "they threaten you with something – something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn't really mean it. But that isn't true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there's no other way of saving yourself and you're quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don't give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself." [Who said this?]
Grampy Bobby, you remind me of O'Brien. 🙂
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFThis is Julia, from George Orwell's 1984. I found this novel quite shocking as a relatively sheltered young teen when I read it.
[b]I'm not here to hurt anyone, believers in Christ or those who have so far rejected God's Grace Gift of eternal live through faith alone in Christ alone; nor am I here to placate those who see this forum through the self serving prism of socializing by placating atheists at the risk of doing them the disservice by watering down and weakening the hard acid trut ...[text shortened]... All you care about is yourself." [Who said this?]
Grampy Bobby, you remind me of O'Brien. 🙂
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneIt sheds interesting light on how mental extortion through fear and threat of violence or suffering can be used to ensure surrender and obedience to an ideology.
This is Julia, from George Orwell's 1984. I found this novel quite shocking as a relatively sheltered young teen when I read it.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFOh yes, except for those who are determined to resist until the end. I'm sure to do so would be easier if one did not have children or other family to protect as well.
It sheds interesting light on how mental extortion through fear and threat of violence or suffering can be used to ensure surrender and obedience to an ideology.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMatthew 10:34-39 NIV 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law; 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 7 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
This sounds like the ideology that Oceania tried to instil in its children in Orwell's 1984 dystopia.
[Yes, I know, 1984 again.] 🙂
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneMaybe so, but the issue is why are people being threatened with harm and torture? What kind of regime does that?
Oh yes, except for those who are determined to resist until the end. I'm sure to do so would be easier if one did not have children or other family to protect as well.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneSuzi..... my sole motivation has been and still is to provide accurate information to my friend divegeester:
I already responded that I'm not exactly moved to start my own thread about it, and that I thought the thread would be better served by your own obvious interest and motivation to explore the topic.
Your research into the topic of Annihilation, however, produced some supposed "standard" theories that form a basis for the belief, but these are all written by ...[text shortened]... me during my lifetime, and I also expect to not live very long after refusing the mark of the beast.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Question: Is anyone able to fathom the infinite quantitative/qualitative aspect of an eternity with or separated from God?
Originally posted by divegeester (First Post)
Can you demonstrate scripturally that a person can exist eternally, while separated from God?
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 3)
How does "second death" translate to "existing for eternity"?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 3)
Synonymous with an unbeliever's entire being suffering in the Lake of Fire forever; otherwise God's justice is compromised.
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 3)
I still don't see how "death" can be equated to "suffering for eternity"?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 3)
"14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:11-15 The italicized phrase?
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 4)
Sorry GB but you are not making a cohesive point.
My point is that "death" is not conducive to "eternal suffering". Whereby death is in fact the end and not eternity.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Pge 4)
My apology for assuming familiarity with the context phrasing; Tuesday I'll strive to clarify the exegetical meaning.
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 4)
Translated:
I regret that you don't understand what I'm writing; but I can't be bothered to explain it to you until tomorrow.
?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 4)
Incorrect. Please take it verbatim at face value... there are medical reasons I'd prefer to withhold. Thank you.
Originally posted by divegeester (page 4)
Cramp?
edit 😛
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 5)
In all seriousness as you need to take care of yourself we will speak tomorrow on it then.
It's late here in the UK and I can't sleep. Again.
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 6)
I notice that you continued posting for several hours in different forums after telling us you could not respond due to to "medical reasons". Are you testing "Galveston's Law" (that says any excuse not to post is not usually acceptable) or are you being an April fool?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 6)
dive, the residual lower leg neuropathy from the sixteen month paralysis often prevents supine position sleep; then 2-3 hour sleep intervals at best when the discomfort is minimal... I'll deliver as promised later today. 2.5 Hours Sleep so far @ GMT-5
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 7)
Can you personally provide some explanation as to how experiencing "death" can also mean experiencing "eternal suffering"?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 7)
divegeester, I'll be glad to give your question serious thought and reply when there's any accurate information to add.
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 7)
In the meantime do you agree that claiming that "death" means the same as "eternal suffering" is nonsensical and therefore an erroneous interpretation?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 7)
My unsupported opinion on this or any other significant biblical question or issue is utterly worthless online public forum social noise. What matters is what does the scripture teach in the original languages the sixty six books were written.
II Peter 1:20-21 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
As promised, I'll diligently examine the content of my two replies and your concerning question in the light of God's Word.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 11)
Summary: What is commonly known as hell, is what the Bible calls the "lake of fire." It is the final judgment of the wicked. Those in the lake of fire will suffer eternally, consciously, and bodily. It will be an awful place." Don Stewart
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_170.cfm
Note: divegeester, I'll continue to pursue definitive resolution of your question.
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 11)
Do you think your god will give a second thought to the agonising suffering of the millions of people burning in eternal doom while revelling with those fortunate enough to have believed? Will you?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 12)
God is gracious and patient. He is "not willing that any should perish". He gives all people maximum opportunity to believe in in His Son Jesus Christ in time. God is Perfect; therefore His Plan is Perfect. Any suggestion that God could possibly "give a second thought to the agonising suffering of the millions of people burning in eternal doom while revelling with those fortunate enough to have believed?" would indicate minimal appreciation and knowledge of God's Character. In Heaven [following the Judgment Seat for evaluation] there will be no more tears or suffering (or memories of absent loved ones).
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 12)
That you can write this in terms of burning people for ETERNITY and keep a straight face tells me you are either a troll or a psychopath.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 12)
It's a prominent part of the Word of God of which all believers are to be students if they wish to grow in grace.
Suzi, though there's more exchange beyond page 12, it would be counterproductive to rehearse it forward here. I'm glad you too "take it to heart every day." and appreciate your thoughtful replies more than you'll probably ever know. -Bob
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyTo me, divegeester seems to me to be following a similar belief in Annihilationism. If so, I'd suspect that he already has a solid understanding of what most consider to be the mainstream opinion on the subject. He just doesn't buy it either. It seems counterproductive to re-assert this "mainstream opinion", unless one is playing to the "peanut gallery". 🙂
Suzi..... my sole motivation has been and still is to provide accurate information to my friend divegeester:
>snip<
Suzi, though there's more exchange beyond page 12, it would be counterproductive to rehearse it forward here. I'm glad you too "take it to heart every day." and appreciate your thoughtful replies more than you'll probably ever know. -Bob
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI here must disagree. What you mean to say is that this is how this concept is assumed to be displayed in the Bible. I still claim that Annihilationism is compatible with the Bible. What people have come to assume the Bible is saying on the subject is due to what they've been taught.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 12)
It's a prominent part of the Word of God of which all believers are to be students if they wish to grow in grace.
10 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneMy hope is that "Chafer's study on Annihilation from his Systematic Theology" (page 26) would finally present an explanation divegeester would be satisfied with as definitive whether he chose to believe it or not. Case closed as far as I'm concerned since anything further would become superfluous. Yours truly doesn't give a damn about "playing to the peanut gallery".
To me, divegeester seems to me to be following a similar belief in Annihilationism. If so, I'd suspect that he already has a solid understanding of what most consider to be the mainstream opinion on the subject. He just doesn't buy it either. It seems counterproductive to re-assert this "mainstream opinion", unless one is playing to the "peanut gallery". 🙂
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneOf course it's a fact that we all believe what we've been taught. Only question is has truth mixed with error crept in.
I here must disagree. What you mean to say is that this is how this concept is assumed to be displayed in the Bible. I still claim that Annihilationism is compatible with the Bible. What people have come to assume the Bible is saying on the subject is due to what they've been taught.
12 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhat is Truth?
The Offensive Nature of Truth:
"When the concept of truth is maligned, it usually for one or more of the following reasons:
One common complaint against anyone claiming to have absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a stance is “narrow-minded.” However, the critic fails to understand that, by nature, truth is narrow. Is a math teacher narrow-minded for holding to the belief that 2 + 2 only equals 4?
Another objection to truth is that it is arrogant to claim that someone is right and another person is wrong. However, returning to the above example with mathematics, is it arrogant for a math teacher to insist on only one right answer to an arithmetic problem? Or is it arrogant for a locksmith to state that only one key will open a locked door?
A third charge against those holding to absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a position excludes people, rather than being inclusive. But such a complaint fails to understand that truth, by nature, excludes its opposite. All answers other than 4 are excluded from the reality of what 2 + 2 truly equals.
Yet another protest against truth is that it is offensive and divisive to claim one has the truth. Instead, the critic argues, all that matters is sincerity. The problem with this position is that truth is immune to sincerity, belief, and desire. It doesn’t matter how much one sincerely believes a wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in and the lock won’t be opened. Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison. Finally, truth is impervious to desire. A person may strongly desire that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going..." (Part 3 of 4)[/b]
===================
Comments awaiting response from Grampy Bobby:
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison.
Someone who reads some ancient texts and sincerely believes that these texts mean they will have eternal life will still, nevertheless, die and their life will be finite ~ the truth is unaffected by sincerity, as you yourself say.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Truth is impervious to desire. A person may strongly desire that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going..."
A person may strongly desire that they will have eternal life and their existence will never end, but when they get to the end of their lives [and life's 'fuel gauge says the tank is empty' and our lives 'will not run any farther'] then no desire in the world, Grampy Bobby, will miraculously cause you to have eternal life ~ ~ the truth is unaffected by desire, as you yourself say.