Hell

Originally posted by Rajk999
You still need to have the law written down because not everything is easily understood. Do you think that people will think of their own conscience that God wants them to observe the sabbath?

More importantly, some 'evil' actions are not inherently evil but are dependent on other peoples desires. It is only evil to not observe the sabbath if you know that it is Gods desire that you observe it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
More importantly, some 'evil' actions are not inherently evil but are dependent on other peoples desires. It is only evil to not observe the sabbath if you know that it is Gods desire that you observe it.

Doesn't this get to the arguments against god based on morality? Sorry to go all philosophy 101, but I've never actually seen this discussed, only read over the argument once:

Is an act good because God said so, or did God say it because it was good? On the one hand we have no absolute morality, only a relative morality based on the whims of some Being. On the other hand, we have an absolute morality, but at the cost of making God not perfectly free.

Honestly, I don't put much stock in these kinds of paradoxes. I find them very weak as arguments against God, since it seems to me that if God were real, he would be so far beyond logic that the paradox would be irrelevant. They do serve to demonstrate that their are logical problems with God, but that's about it. (But hey, I'm a scientist and not a philosopher, so that's probably why I don't find these arguments very compelling!)

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know if you’ll even read this, Robbie. Perhaps you will (I depart for respite from these forums on a rather regular basis—I always seem to return!)

When I first posted in these forums, I was roundly—and rightly—lambasted for making assertions that I could not defend with reasoned argument. You are, I think, capable of such reasoned argument—thou ...[text shortened]... ps learning from; otherwise, you would simply be dismissed in silence.

In any case, be well.

=========================================

Jaywill could tell you that he and I have hardly ever agreed. It has been nice when we have—but I have always learned from him, even in disagreement. Even if the terms of the debate were occasionally harsh (my fault, often). And, for example, even in disagreement, my understanding of Christian soteriology has been permanently influenced by his emphasis on a “soteriolgy of transformation”. His soteriology is still more juridical than my view—I trust you are reading this, jaywill!—but I have had to revise my own view in light of his work on here. And that is my gain!

When someone takes the time—and makes the effort—to argue with you, they are paying you a compliment. Never forget that. Even if the form of their argument is such that you see it as insulting (which jaywill has not done here, so far as I can see)—it still means that you are seen as someone worth engaging, and perhaps learning from; otherwise, you would simply be dismissed in silence.

===========================================

That is a very respectful and humbling comment visted.

May God have mercy on us in our pursuit of the truth.

Anytime you would like to have discussion with me I will attempt to comply with as much respect.

Past words were never meant to injure, though I may have thought to be frank. They were not meant to injure.

I also learn from you.

Visted,

In my last post to you I spoke of God's mercy. Occasionally I pray to God and ask for mercy.

I do so because I know that up to this very moment I am still a deceived man. In some area of my understanding of Christ and of God I know I am still in the dark.

If I was not then certain aspects of my life, I know, would be different. The gage for me is not what one knows so much as what one is.


Anyway, it is good for us all to confess to the God of truth that we require His mercy to see and to understand. And we need His mercy to see more and understand more.

Originally posted by convect
Is an act good because God said so, or did God say it because it was good? On the one hand we have no absolute morality, only a relative morality based on the whims of some Being. On the other hand, we have an absolute morality, but at the cost of making God not perfectly free.

Although that is an important question, I was trying to get at acts whose 'goodness' or 'badness' is based on information unavailable to the perpetrator. For example, if I send you a present, I might be doing something good or bad depending on whether or not you like the present I sent, which is information I am not privy to.

Honestly, I don't put much stock in these kinds of paradoxes. I find them very weak as arguments against God, since it seems to me that if God were real, he would be so far beyond logic that the paradox would be irrelevant.
What do you mean by 'far beyond logic'? Do you mean he would not be logical? Immune to logic? Capable of doing illogical things?
If so then I disagree.

Originally posted by jaywill
Anyway, it is good for us all to confess to the God of truth that we require His mercy to see and to understand. And we need His mercy to see more and understand more.

Why is that good? Surely he knows it already, and it is an almost trivial result of your belief anyway? I certainly don't see the need to repeat it regularly and loudly for all to hear. Surely that has more to do with social interactions than it does with the need to confess to God?

And you actual statement:
"May God have mercy on us in our pursuit of the truth."
Sounds more like a wish, or good luck charm than an actual confession to God.

It sounds very similar to the way Muslims must tag on "May his name be praised" or something like that every time they mention the prophet or Allah.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why is that good? Surely he knows it already, and it is an almost trivial result of your belief anyway? I certainly don't see the need to repeat it regularly and loudly for all to hear. Surely that has more to do with social interactions than it does with the need to confess to God?

And you actual statement:
"May God have mercy on us in our pursuit of ...[text shortened]... y his name be praised" or something like that every time they mention the prophet or Allah.

That was a little bit of a more personal note to vested.

If you are married your spouse probably knows that they are loved by you. But to say it more than once does something in both of your hearts, especially in the one who speaks.

Excuse me for making a more personal post to someone. It was not an invitation to a debate.

Originally posted by jaywill
That was a little bit of a more personal note to vested.

If you are married your spouse probably knows that they are loved by you. But to say it more than once does something in both of your hearts, especially in the one who speaks.

Excuse me for making a more personal post to someone. It was not an invitation to a debate.

Sorry for messing up a personal post. I do not think you are necessarily wrong to tell your spouse you love her, nor are you wrong to do so openly in front of others, I just thought that it was interesting to note the real reasons why we do so.

Robert,

Are you interested in me explaining the comment which gave rise to this response of yours?

=======================================
''That is the comfortable section of Hades until the resurrection from the dead'', man id like to see a Biblical reference for this, its absurd.
=========================================


jaywill

Addressed to those who object against the Bible teaching of eternal punishement of torment.

Some have said the word translated "eternal" and "everlasting," does not mean proper eternity but only a limited period of ages.

Contrary Evidence :

1.) Aionios expresses eternity, in opposition to that which lasts only for a time.

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are TEMPORAL, (lasting but for a time) but the things which are not see are ETERNAL." (2 Cor. 4:18 my emphasis)

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, ETERNAL IN THE HEAVENS." (v.1)

"For perhaps he therefore DEPARTED FOR A SEASON, that you should RECEIVE HIM FOREVER, not as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." (Philem. 15)


2.) Aionion expresses God's endless existence -

"The revelation of the mystery" which "now is made manifest,"according to the commandment of the EVERLASTING GOD" (Rom. 16:25,26)

The word is used to discribe the existence of the Son of God. " .... His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and ETERNAL LIFE." ( 1 John 5:20)

3. The word is used to discribe the eternity of the period of wrath in various forms. But the Scripture has not made all to depend on the sense of one word.

"He that believes into the Son has eternal life: and he thaot does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed, IT HAD BEEN BETTER FOR THAT MAN IF HE HAD NEVER BEEN BORN." (Mark 26:24)

"But he that blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is in danger of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29)

4. The same word is used to discribe BOTH the endless situation of two contrasting classes of the judged:

"And these shall go away into ETERNAL punishment, but the righteous into ETERNAL life." (Matt. 25:46)

If Mark 3:29, where Christ is speaking, speaks of the unpardonable sin, and says that offender "NEVER HAS FORGIVENESS", but is in danger of an eternal sin", .. if that does not speak of eternal woe than neither does Mark 10:30 speak of eternal bliss without end - "eternal life"

If Second Thess. 1:9 - "everlasting destruction" does not mean endless sorrow to the lost, then neither in Hebrews 5:9 can we assume "eternal salvation" means life without end.

If in Jude 7 "eternal fire" does not prove the never ending torment of the damned, then 2 Tim. 2:7 - "eternal glory" should not mean the never-ceasing happiness of the saved.

We cannot accept the word Eternal to apply only for one side of God's judgment and not for the other. Universalists and those enfluenced by Annhilationists' teaching make this mistake.

Originally posted by jaywill
Addressed to those who object against the Bible teaching of eternal punishement of torment.

Some have said the word translated "eternal" and "everlasting," does not mean proper eternity but only a limited period of ages.

Contrary Evidence :

1.) [b]Aionios expresses eternity, in opposition to that which lasts only for a time.

"While w ...[text shortened]... luenced by Annhilationists' teaching make this mistake.

why don't you tell the forum some of the instances where it has been translated to mean something of a finite duration and that will clearly end? as at 2 timothy 4;10!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
When did God create hell -- before or after the fall of man?

Who was the first person to go to hell?

Depends on what you are calling Hell, since the word Hell was
translated from several different words into the word Hell. With
respect to the enternal 2nd death, no one is there yet.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why don't you tell the forum some of the instances where it has been translated to mean something of a finite duration and that will clearly end? as at 2 timothy 4;10!

That would be a good survey to cover all usages of the word. That is not what I am trying to do here.

You might ask yourself why you did not mention the verses I mentioned.

Originally posted by jaywill
That would be a good survey to cover all usages of the word. That is not what I am trying to do here.

You might ask yourself why you did not mention the verses I mentioned.

lol, why i did not mention the verses you mentioned, because what am i, a parrot? actualy there was no need you had made reference to them already, the point was that it is interesting, as quite clearly the word can refer to something of a limited and finite duration, your post just seemed a little, how can i say, imbalanced and leaning towards one side, you know a little readjustment here so that we can get the full picture, after all we wouldn't want to get the impression that you are trying to sway someone with a one sided approach would we, no that would never do as we are chess players and must try to remain objective all the time!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, why i did not mention the verses you mentioned, because what am i, a parrot? actualy there was no need you had made reference to them already, the point was that it is interesting, as quite clearly the word can refer to something of a limited and finite duration, your post just seemed a little, how can i say, imbalanced and leaning towards one , no that would never do as we are chess players and must try to remain objective all the time!

===================================
lol, why i did not mention the verses you mentioned, because what am i, a parrot?
====================================

Obviously, I meant BEFORE I mentioned them, not after.


===================================
actualy there was no need you had made reference to them already, the point was that it is interesting, as quite clearly the word can refer to something of a limited and finite duration, your post just seemed a little, how can i say, imbalanced and leaning towards one side, you know a little readjustment here so that we can get the full picture,
========================================

I emphasized these passages to respond general statement and grandiose statements from others that eternal damnation was not in the Bible.

========================================
after all we wouldn't want to get the impression that you are trying to sway someone with a one sided approach would we, no that would never do as we are chess players and must try to remain objective all the time!
====================================

But I am trying to sway interested readers away from the heresy loudly proclaimed with foolish confidence that there was no teaching of eternal punishment in the Bible.

Perhaps if the initial erroneous statements had not been delivered in such a grandstanding manner, my approach would have not called for this kind of focused rebuttal.