The Most Important Writing to Understand

Originally posted by sonship
Divegeester, i hope, is going to explain how he can prove that physical death has to mean [b]non-existence in the Bible.

Rather than him rush into the emotional appeal of the accusation that God keeps victims alive for torture, i think we first need to settle why he thinks death means non-existence.[/b]

Why do I need to do this?

Originally posted by divegeester
Why do I need to do this?

Divegeester, you had no problem figuring out you needed to launch the barrage of sarcasms of this post:

Will the billions of Bibles being thrown into the lake make the flames burn hotter?

And while we are on the subject:
- Does the lake of fire have a shore?
- What if one of the unfortunates in the lake makes it to the shore and climbs out, will they stop burning?
- is the shore where Jesus and his angles will be spectating the choking carnage as described in Revelation?
- as the lake of fire and the suffering within it are eternal, will Jesus spend all of his time there or will he take breaks and come play with the saved in the green fields with the lambs and baby tigers?

Just wondering.

You had little problem in figuring out you needed to do that.

Is death non-existence ? Show me why you think that.
I mean, you don't have to. I thought you'd want to.

Originally posted by sonship
Divegeester, you had no problem figuring out you needed to launch the barrage of sarcasms of this post:

[quote] Will the billions of Bibles being thrown into the lake make the flames burn hotter?

And while we are on the subject:
- Does the lake of fire have a shore?
- What if one of the unfortunates in the lake makes it to the shore and climbs out ...[text shortened]... non-existence ? Show me why you think that.
I mean, you don't have to. I thought you'd want to.

Why would I want to?
Where have I even mentioned it?
What relevance is it to my attacking you doctrine of eternal suffering?

Originally posted by divegeester
Why would I want to?
Where have I even mentioned it?
What relevance is it to my attacking you doctrine of eternal suffering?

Are you up to the task of showing I believe God "keeps people alive" in the second death or not ?

Have you not accused me of believing that the lake of fire is a matter of God keeping people alive for torture forever ?

Yes, you said so.
No, you never said so.

I recall you saying so, and on more than one occasion. So don't be surprise if I say to you now - " So let's examine your complaint. "

In short you have complained basically - IE. "Sonship, you believe something extra which is not there in the Scripture."

Let's see if that is a valid criticism. Is eternal perdition a matter of God forbidding people to do what is normal in that man DIES and oblivion and non-existence for them commences. And you complain that I teach contrary to that, that God KEEPS THEM ALIVE (EXISTING) in order to punish them.

Now, if you don't want to explain DEATH = NON-EXISTENCE and Eternal Punishment = keeping men ALIVE, then I assume you want to forget about your criticism.

Fine, if you want to just drop it. If you ever raise it with me again, remember - I attempted to get you to show me something of my error, if there be one.

You want me to drop it ?
You don't want to use it again ? - "Sonship has God keeping people ALIVE in the fire ? "

Originally posted by sonship
Are you up to the task of showing I believe God [b] "keeps people alive" in the second death or not ?

Have you not accused me of believing that the lake of fire is a matter of God keeping people alive for torture forever ?

Yes, you said so.
No, you never said so.

I recall you saying so, and on more than one occasion. So don't be surpris ...[text shortened]... it ?
You don't want to use it again ? - "Sonship has God keeping people ALIVE in the fire ? "[/b]

Ok I'll play.

Firstly are you coming from the angle that those in eternal suffering are NOT alive?

Originally posted by divegeester

Ok I'll play.
--------------------------

I am really not "playing" anything.

Firstly are you coming from the angle that those in eternal suffering are NOT alive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, I asked you if in the Bible you see that death is the non-existence of the one who died.

Yes, you do ?
No, you do not ?

I do not see in the Bible that death is non-existence.
And I don't see that "the second death" means non-existence.

I gather that you think "the second death" is non-existence.
I also gather that you count the death of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar in Luke 16:19-31 to really be non-existence.

Do you ?

Originally posted by sonship

Yes, you do ?
No, you do not ?

I do not see in the Bible that death is non-existence.
And I don't see that "the second death" means non-existence.

I gather that you think "the second death" is non-existence.
I also gather that you count the death of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar in Luke 16:19-31 to really be non-existence.

Do you ?[/b]

It's not "yes or no" because, unlike you, I don't claim to know; I don't claim, like you do, to be absolutely sure. But it's irrelevant to my opinion of your horrendous belief about eternal torture. It's irrelevant.

I know you desperately want to demonstrate through some sort of reverse logic, that if there is "existence" and if there is a lake of fire, then existence in it, is somehow not your version of god keeping people alive to burn them.

Originally posted by divegeester

It's not "yes or no" because, unlike you, I don't claim to know; I don't claim, like you do, to be absolutely sure. But it's irrelevant to my opinion of your horrendous belief about eternal torture. It's irrelevant.

So you wish to hedge on the matter by scolding me for being so SURE of things. I should not claim to be SURE of anything.

Of course you are SURE that I have a "horrendous belief about eternal torture."
Its OK for you to be SURE about that.
And a simple "YES" there is no problem.


Well, I can say with Paul about all things in God's revelation that now we see through a glass darkly.

I am not SO cock sure that I cannot admit WITH the Apostle Paul (who penned 13 or so New Testament epistles) that we don't know everything so clearly.

" For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is complete comes, that which is in part will be rendered useless. For now we see in a mirror obscurely, but at that time face to face." (1 Cor .13:9,10, 12)

This is my reply to your complaint that I am too cock sure and cut and dry and demand a Yes or No on matters not completely known.

Paul said we do prophesy in part. But he did not say that because of this we should NOT prophesy.

Paul said our present day prophesying will one day be rendered useless. He did not say that TODAY it IS useless.

Yes, I know in part. Yes, one day the obscurity will be no more and we will know some of these matters in much greater clarity. I do not for this reason not tell people what the Bible prophesies and what the Bible teaches and what the Bible warns.

I know you desperately want to demonstrate through some sort of reverse logic, that if there is "existence" and if there is a lake of fire, then existence in it, is somehow not your version of god keeping people alive to burn them.

So you do not want to answer because you wish not to appear So SURE about things of which we have less than perfect knowledge. And I am desperate about something or other.

No Divegeester, I am not "desperate." The word of God is the word of God. And certain passages that you and I don't LIKE are not going to evaporate from the Scripture just for that reason.

Some things sound horrendous because they were meant to sound horrendous.

So, I am not "desperate" and we can conclude the exchange right here.
Thankyou for your few thoughts, as evasive as they come off on your innuendos about my alleged sadism.

Originally posted by sonship

It's not "yes or no" because, unlike you, I don't claim to know; I don't claim, like you do, to be absolutely sure. But it's irrelevant to my opinion of your horrendous belief about eternal torture. It's irrelevant.

So you wish to hedge on the matter by scolding me for being so SURE of things. I should not claim to be SURE o ...[text shortened]... u for your few thoughts, as evasive as they come off on your innuendos about my alleged sadism.

No, we won't conclude it there, just because you are getting all pouty as usual.

We are talking about your horrendous erroneous teaching that God tortures unbelievers in eternity. And yes you are absolute about it. I did not call you "cock sure" so please don't put words in my mouth; I've already had to cal you out for your insults and now for this. Honestly!

So I'm "hedging" am I? You ask me a question and truthfully tell you I don't know the answer and you decend into this silliness.

At the end of the day YOU adamantly believe that the God of John 3:16 tortures people in an incinerator for eternity for not believing in him. And I don't. Simple.

Originally posted by sonship

It's not "yes or no" because, unlike you, I don't claim to know; I don't claim, like you do, to be absolutely sure. But it's irrelevant to my opinion of your horrendous belief about eternal torture. It's irrelevant.

So you wish to hedge on the matter by scolding me for being so SURE of things. I should not claim to be SURE o ...[text shortened]... u for your few thoughts, as evasive as they come off on your innuendos about my alleged sadism.

And no I've haven't made "innuendos about your alleged sadism" either. You are being dishonest.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, we won't conclude it there, just because you are getting all pouty as usual.

We are talking about your horrendous erroneous teaching that God tortures unbelievers in eternity. And yes you are absolute about it. I did not call you "cock sure" so please don't put words in my mouth; I've already had to cal you out for your insults and now for this. ...[text shortened]... 16 tortures people in an incinerator for eternity for not believing in him. And I don't. Simple.

No, we won't conclude it there, just because you are getting all pouty as usual.

You keep evading my question. All you are doing is methodically trying to insert your expressions again and again into my mouth.

From what I see that's all you have.
You don't seem to want to look at the relevant verses.

We are talking about your horrendous erroneous teaching that God tortures unbelievers in eternity. And yes you are absolute about it. I did not call you "cock sure" so please don't put words in my mouth; I've already had to cal you out for your insults and now for this. Honestly!

If not this year, last year, I wrote on more than one occasion - these word pictures are absolutely negative. The science and specifics of the matters they point to are hard for us to be certain about.

You can beat a lake of fire sideways, topdown, upside down, shake it, and lean it in anyway you want. It is hard to get anything pleasant out of it. A lake of fire is bad. it is communicating something awful on purpose - because it has to mean something awful, namely remaining forever unforgiven.

What do you want me to do about that ?

No, a lake of fire as it is described in the Bible does not seem to be a peaceful retreat into oblivion. Sorry. It just doesn't convey that.

Granted - the most explicit description seems to be for the followers of Antichrist in Revelation 14 And the Devil himself is seen as a victim in Revelation 20.

The point is that if the Bible says those whose names are not recorded in the book of life go there, there is little reason given to expect something good about that fact. The place is described as bad. To know that some will go to the same place does not encourage hope that their fate will be good.

Use your head man. And don't blame me for using mine.

I may be curious to know if everyone suffers in the same way as the followers of Antichrist in Revelation 14. I am not so curious that I want to go and find out. I do not suggest anyone be so curious as to not get saved and go to the same place.

Use your head man. And don't blame me for just taking the Bible at its word.

I have to go do something now.

So I'm "hedging" am I? You ask me a question and truthfully tell you I don't know the answer and you decend into this silliness.

Let me tell you the answer then. In that Bible of yours either DEATH does not mean non-existence OR Jesus was ignorant or deceptive in STRONGLY implying and even TEACHING that physical death was not oblivion of non-existence.

Solomon in Ecclesiastes ASKED a question. He did not say DEATH is non-existence. He ASKED --- WHO KNOWS ?

And Solomon's words about death being you GONE and GONE good, pertains to the realm "under the sun". He is speaking of the limitations of knowledge of those who are physically alive in this familiar realm that we know.

Concerning the grave, Solomons says "Man! Who Knows ??"

By experience none of us living really know.

Originally posted by sonship

No, we won't conclude it there, just because you are getting all pouty as usual.

You keep evading my question. All you are doing is methodically trying to insert your expressions again and again into my mouth.

From what I see that's all you have.
You don't seem to want to look at the relevant verses.

[quote]
We are talking about ...[text shortened]... ave, Solomons says [b]"Man! Who Knows ??"

By experience none of us living really know.[/b]

All your obfuscation and rhetoric does not detract from this point:

Your version of God will be burning all the unbelievers in a lake of fire for eternity.

That's it, that's what you believe and you are immovable on it, despite it being a symbolism in the bible.

I don't believe it. Simple. The God of John 3:16 would not do that.

But to you it is "perfect justice". And to you I am "poisoning the well" "turning away" and "poisoning the relationship between other Christians". Nice insults, thanks.

Whereas you are merely bringing the gospel of the God I believe in, into disrepute.

Your version of God will be burning all the unbelievers in a lake of fire for eternity.

That's it, that's what you believe and you are immovable on it, despite it being a symbolism in the bible.

I don't believe it. Simple. The God of John 3:16 would not do that.

But to you it is "perfect justice". And to you I am "poisoning the well" "turning away" and "poisoning the relationship between other Christians". Nice insults, thanks.

Whereas you are merely bringing the gospel of the God I believe in, into disrepute.

Disrepute ?

Why did Paul exhort Timothy to suffer evil with the gospel ?

" Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord nor of me His prisoner; but suffer evil with the gospel according to the power of God." ( 2 Tim. 1:8)

Does this indicate that there will be some unhappy people who will hold the Gospel in less than favorable repute ?

I think one of the factors that we must suffer evil with the Gospel for is the words of Jesus about eternal punishment.

And if some kind of punishment is impossible with God beyond physical death then Jesus Christ was wrong to give a teaching which so graphically detailed the possibility - Luke 16:19-31.

Would He not be unethical to so definitely portray the rich man as being in flames of punishment if He knew very well that NO SUCH experience was possible to mankind ?

1.) IT IS FALSE that God can punish beyond the death of man. And Jesus was immoral for teaching Luke 16:19-31.

2.) IT IS TRUE that God has power and authority to punish man beyond his death. And Jesus was faithful to teach honestly what was true.

I'm going to believe #2. If it brings disrepute to my teaching then I will just have to " suffer evil with the gospel according to the power of God. "

You on the other hand have the job of explaining why Jesus Christ would teach something He so blatantly knew was impossible, wouldn't happen, or anything LIKE it would happen, could not happen, God never intended to such.

" ... and in Hades he lifted up his eyes ... "

Explain the immorality of the Son of God for teaching such a thing if it be totally false.