Originally posted by Great King Rat"If you continue to exist in a lake of fire you’ll continue to be hurt."
[b]That is what seems to be the contention amongst believers. I'll be honest. I don't know. But I do know that whatever their state may involve, whether they continue to exist or not, they will be without doubt forever separated from the life of God. As if that isn't bad enough!
If you continue to exist in a lake of fire you’ll continue to be h ...[text shortened]... be regarded as a dormant need for something that might turn out to be God. These are rough days.[/b]
Hurt how? Whatever body they had when cast into the lake most certainly must be incinerated. Consider the following verse.
Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Notice that the rich man said he is tormented in the flame, not by the flame. You may think this is splitting hairs but it's not. God's Word is very precise.
The real question isn't do people suffer horrifying physical torturous agony, but do they actually continue to exist forever tormented in the lake.
"I have two questions:
1) If you continue to exist in this state (and thus burn forever and ever and ever), you will be forever separated from God. You say that like it’s a bad thing. Can you explain to me why that’s bad?"
That's the really bad thing about it! God is life, the giver of life, the author of life. Death is the absence of that life. Separation from God is separation from life.
Jesus called it outer darkness. I was told that in a fire it is dark. Will people that are separated from the life of God in death continue to exist in a flame of fire where it is pitch black with no light, or love, or any sensation at all except for the torment of absolute emptiness? It might be better to at least feel physical pain. I don't know. Don't want to know.
2) "If you cease to exist (a possibility according to you) you will also be forever separated from God. Is that also a bad thing? Why, if you’ve ceased to exist?"
I suppose after one ceased to exist it wouldn't matter, but imagine the sense of loss at the judgement.
"Yes, some days I feel an emptiness and “lostness” in me that I suppose could be regarded as a dormant need for something that might turn out to be God. These are rough days."
The need. That's what turned me to the only thing that satisfied all my searching. I knew, after many years of soul searching, that I was fundamentally flawed to my core. Something was missing. I searched the world over for the cure. I needed to know the truth. The Truth. I tried everything. Even atheism.
I don't know you. I don't know what's in your heart. All I know is that eternity is in mine. I don't understand it all, but as the Word says;
"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward [man] is renewed day by day."
"And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"
The "new man" is Christ in you. God's Christ. God's life. God's love!
Originally posted by sonshipThe point, which I am sure you will continue to conveniently avoid, is that you have no actual reasons to suggest that the program of retributive justice you outline is in any way justified; hence, no reasons to think this is consistent with the perfect justice you predicate unto God. Actually, it is much worse than just that. You have plenty of reasons to think they are, in fact, inconsistent. For example, use some frickin' common sense and deeply entrenched intuition. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that yours is just some story with a few "unknowns" lurking about. It's worse than that, and I think you realize this. You have plenty of reasons to think providing for eternal suffering is not consistent with perfect justice; and yet you ignore such countervailing evidence in the service of your "faith", on the basis of pretty much nothing, apparently, except that such evidence is rather inconvenient for your cherished religious commitments. An analogy I have used in the past is that faith is like the drunken stupor that makes an ugly chick look worth cozying up to. It takes some serious beer goggles to make eternal torment and suffering (for lack of belief, no less) look like an exercise in perfect justice, so I take it that your faith is strong and kicking. I'll give you at least a 9 out of 10 on the delusion scale.
I didn't say it was not bad.
I admitted that the different levels of culpability may comparatively cover a large scope.
Am I allowed to say "What if" speculation, when I admit that it IS just that? This admits that there are unknowns to me.
2 edits
uote]Originally posted by LemonJello
The point, which I am sure you will continue to conveniently avoid, is that you have no actual reasons to suggest that the program of retributive justice you outline is in any way justified;
You have no example of an ethicist in history with as powerful an impression on the moral conscience of mankind as Jesus Christ.
Whose life on earth would you point to as more likely to understand righteousness and wrongdoing other than Jesus Christ?
An argument from authority is not necessarily a wrong argument. It is just not rigorous in the realm of academics.
, no reasons to think this is consistent with the perfect justice you predicate unto God.
The ultimate authority of the One who created us and the universe, I trust in this realm of justice be as unlimited as His power to create.
In short, you're arguing with the One who gave you the ability to argue at all. There is no reason why I should trust that the effect of man is greater than the cause of man - his Creator.
Actually, it is much worse than just that. You have plenty of reasons to think they are, in fact, inconsistent. For example, use some frickin' common sense and deeply entrenched intuition.
There is an intuitive sense that every word and act issuing from Jesus manifests that if God became a man this is how God would be.
There is an approvedness about Him which inspires trust that He will do justly. There is evidence that He cared nothing for Himself but wanted everything for truth and righteousness.
No philosopher or ethicist gives rise in me that she or he is absolute for what is right as Jesus. And His vindication was supernatural and believable to me. He had His hands on so much truth and justice that even the grave had to vomit Him out.
Something eternal and universal therefore argues that no higher mind and mouth of the uncompromised rightness ever lived, surpassing Jesus.
It's disingenuous of you to suggest that yours is just some story with a few "unknowns" lurking about.
No it is not disingenuous. The Bible alludes total 100% systematization. It tells a story and it contains teaching. Where it is silent we often simply do not have something revealed to us and therefore it is unknown.
We may employ some "systematic theology" to figure out what we think God will do. But often we simply cannot guess with certainty because He has not revealed something to us.
So it is quite honest of me, a life long student of the Bible, to admit that there some things I would like to know but are left unknown to me.
God wants to see what people do with the revelation they have.
Just to satisfy curiosity may be high on human priority more so than on divine priority.
It's worse than that, and I think you realize this.
No, its not worse that that because it is not even as bad as that.
You have plenty of reasons to think providing for eternal suffering is not consistent with perfect justice; and yet you ignore such countervailing evidence in the service of your "faith", on the basis of pretty much nothing, apparently, except that such evidence is rather inconvenient for your cherished religious commitments. An analogy I have used in the past is that faith is like the drunken stupor that makes an ugly chick look worth cozying up to.
Nothing means more to God than His Son. All that He is and all He accomplished is apparently of such worth to God that if we reject Who He is, we will have forever to reconsider.
I think that is captured in the words "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ...". No one can tell His total worth. No one can know just how much He means. No one can fully know how precious this One is.
Apparently, men cannot reject Him without suffering for that rejection for eternity. I did not invent the scheme. It came from the mouth of this One and I believe He is telling the truth.
When I contemplate that my sins caused Him to die, it make some sense that justice demands that my rejection of Him be rewarded. The full infinite hatred of God for sin will fall on that one. This is the justice of recompensing the open eyed deliberate discarding of what God was and did in Jesus Christ.
It takes some serious beer goggles to make eternal torment and suffering (for lack of belief, no less) look like an exercise in perfect justice, so I take it that your faith is strong and kicking. I'll give you at least a 9 out of 10 on the delusion scale.
You may give me whatever you wish. The last judgment is not in your hands concerning anyone. It is carried out by God.
What this life meant to God, His worth, His value, His moral preciousness more fills my concern. Apparently, His worth to God is so great that, God does not expect us to know it fully. But He calls us to believe in Him. If we refuse to the full weight of God's infinite hatred for sin will be felt as long as God is. And that is for eternity.
God does not command that we believe in hell to be saved.
He commands that we believe in His Son. Then the saving will take place because we are associated with His Son.
And as I said before, there are some unknowns to me. The importance of believe into the Son of God is a known.
Originally posted by sonshipAll you seem to be saying is that you believe the torturer has the right to torture because he's in charge and he chooses to torture people ~ which is merely a variation on 'might is right'. Is there not something with more moral validity ~ something more exemplary for humans perhaps to emulate ~ than this unfathomable cruelty at the heart of your concept of "justice"?
The ultimate authority of the One who created us and the universe, I trust in this realm of justice be as unlimited as His power to create.
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Read the 9th chapter of the Gospel of John. It is dedicated to an occasion where Jesus healed a man's blindness who was born blind.
Can you show one (just one) piece of morality from JC that has no precedent?
"Since time began it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind." (John 9:32)
No prior example of this in history.
Probably none after either.
Now if you feel the life of this man was not unique you can point out whatever life has made such an impact that TIME on the planet has been divided into before and after someone's earthly life.
The advent of dividing history into "Before Christ" ( BC ) and in the "Year the Year of Our Lord" ( AD ). This is essentially saying "Since this person has lived things will never be the same on the earth."
It wasn't because of the style of sandals He wore. It was because of the goodness that He exemplified.
And if you come back with something like "Pre Elizabethan" European history, I won't be too impressed.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF
All you seem to be saying is that you believe the torturer has the right to torture because he's in charge and he chooses to torture people ~ which is merely a variation on 'might is right'. Is there not something with more moral validity ~ something more exemplary for humans perhaps to emulate ~ than this unfathomable cruelty at the heart of your concept of "justice"?
You seem to be implying that no case of might makes right could ever be legitimate. Of course the expression "Might makes Right" easily conjurs up visions of armed bullies or people who will have the power to force their will upon others.
But consider if "Might makes Right" could ever be valid.
In Matthew 8 Jesus pronounced to a man "Your sins are forgiven" and the Pharisees jeered and sneered. They said "Who can forgive sins except God?" Jesus' reaction was to ask them WHICH was easier?
Was it easier to say "Your sins are forgiven" or to command that a lame man be instantly healed and pick up his bed and walk home, something he has been unable to do his entire life.
Jesus didn't say "Which is harder?" but "Which is EASIER?. The implication seems to be that because He is God neither to forgive nor to miraculously heal is hard for Him if He wants to.
Then Jesus, in addition to forgiving the man, proved that He had the MIGHT to do so by miraculously healing him too.
I think this is a case of God showing that the authority and the power to instantly rearrange nature AND to pronounce someone genuinely forgiven belong to the Son of God.
I take this as a valid "Might makes Right" case as righteous.
I would not take every case of "Might makes Right" as valid.
For example, the Slave Trade or Nazi Holocaust.
Now let me ask you something. Would you think that a municipal judge who has the authority and the back-up to place a criminal into prison should rather be titled "A Torturer"?
Since a judge does have power and authority to punish, should you call he or she in court "Your Torturer" rather than "Your Honor"?
The nine justices on the Supreme Court may at times cause the discomfort of some person on death row by denying a suspension of his execution.
Do you think they should therefore be called more accurately "The Nine Torturers of the Supreme Court"?
Concerning "emulation" - your question is really can we salvage something from this example of Divine Judgment to prop up a godless humanism. In this case I don't think so.
There is nothing any human institution can do to decide for a souls eternal destiny. This unique position is held by God alone. And only God with His infallible record of all the contributing circumstances of a person's life, could fairly judge.
This act is never placed into the hands of man. No pope or cleric has ever been invested with the authority to decide the eternal destiny of a soul. They have claimed to falsely.
All judgments of human institutions are about temporal consequences.
The death sentence is the most extensive decision a human institution could have.
But to know the real facts of a case, that we would hope good justices would exercise, being humanly limited as they are. I also think compassion is a characteristic they could emulate in some cases. And severity in other cases should be exercised.
Apparently God deems that the one who rejects the Son of God will feel the infinite hatred of God for sin for as long as God exists. To believe the Son is something man has not even thought to ask for in most cases - eternal life.. That is not only eternal in duration but in quality as well.
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not asking you for party tricks. You were talking ethics and morality.
Read the 9th chapter of the Gospel of John. It is dedicated to an occasion where Jesus healed a man's blindness who was born blind.
You posted: "You have no example of an ethicist in history
with as powerful an impression on the moral conscience of
mankind as Jesus Christ."
I asked you to justify this by citing a piece of
morality from JC that was not known of before his time.
Can you do that?
Originally posted by sonshipThe point, which I am sure you will continue to conveniently avoid, is that you have no actual reasons to suggest that the program of retributive justice you outline is in any way justified;
You have no example of an ethicist in history with as powerful an impression on the moral conscience of mankind as Jesus Christ.
Whose life on ...[text shortened]... before, there are some unknowns to me. The importance of believe into the Son of God is a known.
You have no example of an ethicist in history with as powerful an impression on the moral conscience of mankind as Jesus Christ.
Whose life on earth would you point to as more likely to understand righteousness and wrongdoing other than Jesus Christ?
An argument from authority is not necessarily a wrong argument. It is just not rigorous in the realm of academics.
Don't sell yourself short: you are relying on a couple different forms of fallacious reasoning here, not just appeal to authority. When you fall back on how many minds have been influenced by Jesus, you are also relying on some variant of argumentum ad populum.
What I am looking for are actual reasons that would serve to shed plausibility on the idea that providing for eternal torment/suffering is consistent with a program of perfect justice. Citing what any putative authority figure or his crowds of followers have concluded on the issue is irrelevant, unless that comes concomitant with detailing of the underlying reasons that justified their conclusion (if any such reasons exist, that is).
The rest of your post is irrelevant blather. It only serves to confirm that you have no actual reasons to offer in virtue of which it makes any sense that eternal torment/suffering is consistent with perfect justice. "Apparently" that is just the way it works, whether or not it makes any sense to us, you say. Hmmm...not particularly convincing.
Originally posted by sonshipIn this case it conjures up visions of billions of people being tortured for eternity in burning agony for thoughtcrime. You offer no moral justification whatsoever other than to declare this demented cruelty to be "appropriate", "perfect" and "justice".
You seem to be implying that no case of might makes right could ever be legitimate. Of course the expression "Might makes Right" easily conjurs up visions of armed bullies or people who will have the power to force their will upon others.
Originally posted by sonshipAre you suggesting that your God figure's vengeance by way of "eternal torment" is not a form of torture?
Now let me ask you something. Would you think that a municipal judge who has the authority and the back-up to place a criminal into prison should rather be titled "A Torturer"?