The god who burns people alive for eternity

@sonship said
@divegeester

It’s over sonship, your have admitted that Revelation is not literal.

I’m happy with that.

Saying it was made known by signs is not saying nothing there is literal.
You're not that dumb. And you're coming off dishonest.

Who mentioned “signs”?

We are talking specifically about wether or not Jesus is in a literal Hell overseeing the literal casting of non Christians into a literal lake of fire.

And you said Revelation contains allegories.

I agree.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Probably an allegory.

And that is ALL you are going to give in the way of interpretation?

Use your imagination and put some more meat on it.

Now if the beast and the false prophet were destroyed into nothing, how is it that it says that "THEY" will be tormented once the Devil joins them?

"Probably an allegory" ... of what ?

He cannot give you an interpretation of those texts because of his warped version of salvation. From what I have seen of his doctrinal understanding of the gospel. It is that people must find it acceptable and to their liking, just give it to them in ways that itch their ears!

That way, it can cause them to come to God, then once they do that, God has to accept them into His Kingdom because He loves them.

That is blasphemy in the highest order! We are going to God through Jesus Christ, so He will take us, not the other way around, He is the Sovereign Lord, King, and Creator of the Universe, we are sinners, and we are so bad we cannot even see how corrupt we really are before Him.

@divegeester

And you said Revelation contains allegories.

I can't think of a book of the Bible that doesn't contain allegories.

Finally, FINALLY you have someone who agrees with you that a book in the Bible contains allegories ?

Anyway, I proved that as far back as 2014 I was talking about allegories in Revelation. Only tiredness kept me from going back even further.

@sonship said
@divegeester

And you said Revelation contains allegories.

I can't think of a book of the Bible that doesn't contain allegories.

For the umpteenth time, yes we are in agreement that the book of Revelation is not literal.

However you will still CHOOSE to accept the literal interpretation of the nasty bits so you can continue to have all the eternal suffering help you forgive people when they mistreat you.

Remember that malignant revelation sonship?

@divegeester

For the umpteenth time, yes we are in agreement that the book of Revelation is not literal.

I think either you are drunk or deliberately twisting things dishonestly or you're mentally unstable.

We are not in agreement that there is nothing in Revelation to be taken literally or at face value.

I cannot think of any book of the Bible that does not need some allegorical analysis or some interpretation of symbolic or parabolic words. I don't say they are not literal because of that.

Your victory lap, as I said before, is a phony one. I do not share with you any concept that there is nothing literal in Revelation.

@sonship said
@divegeester
We are not in agreement that there is nothing in Revelationto be taken literally or at face value.

Ok good now we are getting to the next step in this conversation. (I’ve learnt that with you one has to let you sort of run a few laps before asking the next logical question.)

Ok you acknowledge that Revelation contains allegories. So according to you which parts of Revelation are literal and which parts are allegorical?

I’d really appreciate succinct straightforward replies please.

@divegeester

Ok good now we are getting to the next step in this conversation. (I’ve learnt that with you one has to let you sort of run a few laps before asking the next logical question.)

What? It is "ok good" that you think to repackage old failed arguments?

"Ok good" that there will be yet another repetition of points and counter points made in the past with you?

You want me to go through the whole book and give my methods of interpretation 22 chapters. But I cannot get you to give us an alternative view on one passage.

What is the lake of fire meaning?
Of you think of it as annihilation into non-existence?

If you hate how I teach it, what is a BETTER way of teaching it?

Philakalia also asked you:

Just put forward your ideas and be honest.

Before you demand I go through the whole book with this kind of analysis, why can't you relate what is most pertinent to your OP and explain HOW this lake of fire should be understood?

@Philokalia

I have never actually seen him justify his position in regards to what the Bible says so there is no way for me to be convinced of the arguments he brings up here.

It's like we have only seen half of the rationale.

A guy says you are terribly wrong to interpret some words in the Bible as you do ! So you ask him for his alternative that you may consider his objection.

You don't get it.
He is content just to criticize YOUR understanding.

An alternative understanding requested is met with a shrug.

A lake of fire in Revelation:

Is it for the readers here:

1.) Something terrible?

2.) Something wonderful?

3.) Something benigh, neither terrible or wonderful really?

@sonship said
@divegeester

Ok good now we are getting to the next step in this conversation. (I’ve learnt that with you one has to let you sort of run a few laps before asking the next logical question.)

What? It is "ok good" that you think to repackage old failed arguments?

"Ok good" that there will be yet another repetition of points and counter points made in ...[text shortened]... ate what is most pertinent to your OP and explain HOW this lake of fire should be understood?

Just as I suspected, you lack the courage to be honest, succinct and straightforward.

Anyway, we are aligned that Revelation is not entirely literal.

@divegeester

Just as I suspected, you lack the courage to be honest, succinct and straightforward.

Just as I expected. If you can't change God lash out at Christians.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Just as I suspected, you lack the courage to be honest, succinct and straightforward.

Just as I expected. If you can't change God lash out at Christians.

What are you on about?

As soon as you feel courageous enough to tell us which parts of Revelation are literal and which parts aren’t please do so.

To make it easy for you to answer and more difficult for you to wriggle out of, you can start with the stuff in my OP of this thread I.e.

Is Jesus literally in a literal hell in the presence of literal people/souls being literally cast into a literal lake of fire where the literal smoke of their literal suffering goes literally for ever.

Here my position; non of it is literal. None of it.

@divegeester

Is Jesus literally in a literal hell in the presence of literal people/souls being literally cast into a literal lake of fire where the literal smoke of their literal suffering goes literally for ever.

There will be eternal punishment to those whose names are not recorded in the book of life.

I believe it will involve a lake of fire but as I said multiple times, there is no reason to say it is LIMITED to that feature.

Hades is seen thrown into the lake of fire.
Hades is Hell. (20:14)

Death is seen thrown into the lake of fire. (verse 14)

If you think that Jesus Christ in Hell is thrown with Hell into the lake of fire in ANY regard, ANY sense, ANY analysis, or ANY interpretation you are stubborn and insist on being DECEIVED.

HOWEVER you wish to take Revelation 14 or 20 if you want to see if you can maneuver Christians to say -

"with Death and Hades thrown into the second death Jesus Christ gets tossed into the lake of fire with them" in ANY conceivable sense ... you are wrong and deceived and deceiving.

Any kind of word play you may employ to show that in any sense Christ with Death and Hades go to the lake of fire, you're wrong.

"And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20:14,15)

Any kind of lawyerly weasel wording you concoct to see if you can insert "Jesus in the lake of fire" into the mouths of Christians, is wicked and deceptive and wrong.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Is Jesus literally in a literal hell in the presence of literal people/souls being literally cast into a literal lake of fire where the literal smoke of their literal suffering goes literally for ever.

There will be eternal punishment to those whose names are not recorded in the book of life.

I believe it will involve a lake of fire ...[text shortened]... i]"Jesus in the lake of fire"[/i] into the mouths of Christians, is wicked and deceptive and wrong.

Was that a yes, or a no to my question? Neither, just more evasion and prevarication.

The question was IS IT LITERAL? This question initially requires a YES or a NO.

Here is your point of reference for this thread sonship. From the OP...

Here is my opening gambit:
I contest that the doctrine of death, the doctrine of eternal suffering as laid out by those who believe in it and as it has been discussed in dozens of threads over years in this forum, fundamentally describes a version of the Christian God, including the “Lamb” (Jesus) overseeing the deliberate, purposeful burning alive of what will effectively be billions of non-christians who are supernaturally kept alive to endure this suffering for eternity. That is the actual outworking of this doctrine.