First question:

Is it immoral or evil to punish someone with excruciating pain for all eternity in a fiery torture chamber because A) they did not believe in Jesus as God, B) they never heard of Jesus in the first place, or 3) they heard of Jesus but rejected his Godhood because they preferred their own beliefs about God as Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Aztecs?


The second is like the first:

Would God see it as evil or immoral? NOTE: I am not asking what God would do. I am asking what you THINK God would do. I realize one can never perfectly know the mind of God, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what YOUR belief is, what one believes God would do.


Parroting the Bible is not what is being sought. That is already known.

Referencing the Bible in a well-thought out response is welcomed.

Athos
Two Questions About Hell As Hell Is Understood By Many Christians

First question:

Is it immoral or evil to punish someone with excruciating pain for all eternity in a fiery torture chamber because A) they did not believe in Jesus as God, B) they never heard of Jesus in the first place, or 3) they heard of Jesus but rejected his Godhood because they preferred their own beliefs about God as Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Aztecs?


My opinion on hell has already been put out there. Randy Alcorn envisioned it as....nothing. Pure aloneness. Conscious, but there's noone else, nothing to interact with, sort of a limbo type existence. The only person we see go there is someone who deliberately rejects Jesus, even in the face of his best friends' encouragement. And they show it in their lives as well as their words, but he rejects it anyway for various reasons. When he's killed in an accident, that's how he ends up.

As for your question, who defines morality and evil? Is it possible there's more going on at the eternal level than we can ever comprehend, which means there are more reasons for people ending up where they do than we know? How evil is evil? How immoral is immoral? Are there degrees? Where's the dividing line between what's unacceptable and what can be tolerated? And most important, how do/can we know?



The second is like the first:

Would God see it as evil or immoral? NOTE: I am not asking what God would do. I am asking what you THINK God would do. I realize one can never perfectly know the mind of God, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what YOUR belief is, what one believes God would do.


My belief is, God defines good and evil, moral and immoral. If God has concluded that certain people spending eternity separated from him/her/it is necessary, I'm not the one to second-guess. I can see how it looks immoral and evil from a human earthly standpoint, and that's all we have. But the key to it all is, that's all we have. We don't have the whole picture, indeed if we saw it our heads would explode.

Randy Alcorn envisioned it as....nothing. Pure aloneness.

Lol. Nice job avoiding.

Let me re-phrase it. Substitute Alcorn's "nothing, pure aloneness" etc., for "fiery excruciating pain", etc. Is that a fair suitable punishment for never having heard of Jesus?


The only person we see go there is someone who deliberately rejects Jesus.....for various reasons.

Someone who deliberately rejects Jesus for reasons as various as that person's faith is Islam or Judaism or any number of beliefs that do not believe in Jesus as God is sent to hell?


As for your question, who defines morality and evil?

Please, DW, this is really avoiding the question. We can all define morality and evil enough to answer the question.


Is it possible there's more going on at the eternal level than we can ever comprehend

Sure there is. But you were specifically asked NOT to answer as if you knew the mind of God.


which means there are more reasons for people ending up where they do than we know?

This is one of those non-answer answers avoiding by saying God knows more than we know. You're not being asked what God knows.


How evil is evil? How immoral is immoral? Are there degrees? Where's the dividing line between what's unacceptable and what can be tolerated? And most important, how do/can we know?

None of these questions are relevant. You've already admitted believing in the existence of hell as Alcorn described it.


My belief is, God defines good and evil, moral and immoral.

A) No one denies that. B) You were specifically asked for YOUR thought, NOT answering for God.


If God has concluded that certain people spending eternity separated from him/her/it is necessary

IF? IF? No one has concluded that.


I'm not the one to second-guess.

You're not being asked to second-guess.


I can see how it looks immoral and evil from a human earthly standpoint, and that's all we have. But the key to it all is, that's all we have. We don't have the whole picture,
WHAT "looks immoral or evil"?

You're talking in circles, confounding your admission of the existence of hell with questioning whether the "human earthly standpoint" is the whole picture. I think your belief in hell is rooted in the Bible but not in the traditional understanding of hell as eternal fiery punishment. That's progress.

Well, it's been fun replying to all your points. I hope you will do me the honor of similarly replying to all of mine.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Randy Alcorn envisioned it as....nothing. Pure aloneness.
Lol. Nice job avoiding.

Not if you cite all that I wrote, which you didn't.



Let me re-phrase it. Substitute Alcorn's "nothing, pure aloneness" etc., for "fiery excruciating pain", etc. Is that a fair suitable punishment for never having heard of Jesus?

I have answered this question many times and you don't seem to grasp the concept of "I don't know".




The only person we see go there is someone who deliberately rejects Jesus.....for various reasons.
Someone who deliberately rejects Jesus for reasons as various as that person's faith is Islam or Judaism or any number of beliefs that do not believe in Jesus as God is sent to hell?

No. Read the book.



As for your question, who defines morality and evil?
Please, DW, this is really avoiding the question. We can all define morality and evil enough to answer the question.

From God's perspective? Or from human perspective? That's my question. Nice dodge.



Is it possible there's more going on at the eternal level than we can ever comprehend
Sure there is. But you were specifically asked NOT to answer as if you knew the mind of God.

I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote. Another nice dodge.



which means there are more reasons for people ending up where they do than we know?
This is one of those non-answer answers avoiding by saying God knows more than we know. You're not being asked what God knows.

I'm not sure *you* know what you're asking, because you keep changing it.



How evil is evil? How immoral is immoral? Are there degrees? Where's the dividing line between what's unacceptable and what can be tolerated? And most important, how do/can we know?
None of these questions are relevant. You've already admitted believing in the existence of hell as Alcorn described it.

You are the one who brought up the concepts of evil and immorality, and now you're saying defining them is irrelevant. Please make up your mind.



My belief is, God defines good and evil, moral and immoral.
A) No one denies that. B) You were specifically asked for YOUR thought, NOT answering for God.

You're telling me to have a different opinion than what I believe God says about it. That doesn't make sense.



If God has concluded that certain people spending eternity separated from him/her/it is necessary
IF? IF? No one has concluded that.

I believe that's what I said, and the reason for the "if". Again, your answer doesn't make sense.



I'm not the one to second-guess.
You're not being asked to second-guess.

That's exactly what you're asking me to do by demanding my opinion, but insisting that it can't be the same as (my opinion of) God's.



I can see how it looks immoral and evil from a human earthly standpoint, and that's all we have. But the key to it all is, that's all we have. We don't have the whole picture,
WHAT "looks immoral or evil"?

Um, what YOU said was immoral or evil: sending someone to a fiery torment for reasons you don't think are valid. Your words, friend. Again, you brought up those concepts, but I'm not convinced you know what you want to do with them.



You're talking in circles, confounding your admission of the existence of hell with questioning whether the "human earthly standpoint" is the whole picture. I think your belief in hell is rooted in the Bible but not in the traditional understanding of hell as eternal fiery punishment. That's progress.



I still don't see your reasoning. I've denied the fire and brimstone hell consistently every time it's come up. I have no idea what you want from me, and I'm not sure you do, either.

I have no idea what you want from me, and I'm not sure you do, either.

(Thank you, thank you, thank you - for answering me point by point. That's so much better than hit-and-run replies.)

I have a perfectly sure idea what I want from you.

Instead of point-by-point, this time let me go right to your important last sentence I included above to start this reply.

In the absolute simplest terms, IS-THERE-A-HELL-WHERE-GOD-SENDS-PEOPLE-WHO-DO-NOT-BELIEVE-IN-JESUS-AS-GOD-AND HE LEAVES-THEM-THERE-FOR-ETERNITY??

Please don't obfuscate. A simple YES or NO will suffice. After your yes or no, an explanation for your answer if you decide to offer one will be carefully read by me, every single word, AFTER your yes or no. If you prefer to continue without the yes or no, or simply give no reply, I thank you for the time and effort you have spent on this thread and I will no longer participate in this thread.

For the record, I think you DO believe in a perpetual hell where God sends those who do not believe Jesus is God.

I'm working on another topic which I invite all to comment on.

I realize this may, for some, upset the apple cart, but should we elect to pay some attention to what Jesus said, we find about twenty references where he likened hell to "fire".

For example, there is this passage in Luke 16.
The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’

This one passage clearly shows the error of, "The only person we see go there is someone who deliberately rejects Jesus." There are many other references such as the Matt. 25 passage which has been earnestly ignored here by some.

One must wonder what Jesus meant when he said in John 5, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." What did he mean by "judgment"? What did he mean when he said, "...hears my word and believes him who sent me..."?

For the record, I think you DO believe in a perpetual hell where God sends those who do not believe Jesus is God.

I don't know why, because I have said many times that that's not the case.

The answer is yes, with the caveat that Jesus said this place was prepared for Sstan and his minions, but human free will that rejects God's revelation of himself causes people to end up there, as well.

But for the umpteenth time, believing Jesus is God is not the criterion. Please get off that kick.

I don't know why, because I have said many times that that's not the case.

But for the umpteenth time, believing Jesus is God is not the criterion. Please get off that kick.

Thank you ten million times for straightening me out. I don't know how I got so far off the track. I think the thread started with me denying God would send someone to hell simply for not believing Jesus is God. I must not have read your replies carefully enough to understand your point. For that I am truly sorry. I pride myself on normally reading replies as many times as needed to ensure I understand what is being written. I promise to do better in the future.

If I were a 16th century samurai, I could not live with the shame I have brought upon myself and would immediately commit seppuku. However, I am a 21st century flannel-mouthed Irishman, so I will charge right ahead with the new information (new to me) in your next sentence. Let the fun begin!!


The answer is yes, with the caveat that Jesus said this place was prepared for Sstan and his minions, but human free will that rejects God's revelation of himself causes people to end up there, as well.

Your answer is yes to the following:
1. Hell is perpetual.
2. It is a place of punishment.
3. It is where Satan and his minions are.
4. People who reject God's revelation of himself are also there.

Do I have that right?

And what good is Hell as a perpetual place of punishment? They've had their chance, so tough bananas? So they will suffer somehow forever? Hmm, that just doesn't sound like the loving God I believe in. Wouldn't He find a better way, maybe to reform them somehow?

that just doesn't sound like the loving God I believe in.You or I believing something does not make it true.

And what good is Hell as a perpetual place of punishment? They've had their chance, so tough bananas? So they will suffer somehow forever? Hmm, that just doesn't sound like the loving God I believe in. Wouldn't He find a better way, maybe to reform them somehow?

Excellent questions. DW should have replies addressing them.

What about the mentally ill who aren't concerned with spiritual matters or people who have been emotionally and physically abused/bullied/sexually abused by supposedly religious people and thus have refused to be a part of God's church on earth?

What about the mentally ill who aren't concerned with spiritual matters or people who have been emotionally and physically abused/bullied/sexually abused by supposedly religious people and thus have refused to be a part of God's church on earth?

Those are tough questions. DW will have his hands full answering them.

Not speaking for DW, but he said hell was for those who rejected God's revelation of himself. Your questions get to the heart of the matter. I just hope we don't get bogged down in the semantics of the meaning of "rejection" and/or "revelation".

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

Your answer is yes to the following:
1. Hell is perpetual.
2. It is a place of punishment.
3. It is where Satan and his minions are.
4. People who reject God's revelation of himself are also there.

Do I have that right?

Sorry if I was a bit harsh. There's no need for that, I apologize.

I can't verify #2. I see it as a place of separation, and in one way or another those who end up there choose it. Don't ask me to get more specific than that because I can't. That's as much as I've been able to suss out.
#3 not necessarily "are" right now, but it's the place of separation that was prepared for those who don't want to acknowledge the Almighty. Satan and his minions are the only ones who truly fit that description.
#4: eventually.

As for WG's question about the mentally infirm etc.: if one is mentally incapable of making a decision, one can't be held responsible for said decision. I think there's a good reason why we refer to folks with Down's Syndrome as "angels". Likewise other mentally challenged people, infants, and so on.

The God I see in the Bible is infinitely loving and merciful. But he also doesn't have to take any crap from us. If a person doesn't want what he offers, they're free to reject it. As for those who have never heard, I've answered that many times, as well. Same answer. They're judged based on how much they do know, not on anything they don't know.

South Park treated this question, if one can imagine that.


Wondergirl
What about the mentally ill who aren't concerned with spiritual matters or people who have been emotionally and physically abused/bullied/sexually abused by supposedly religious people and thus have refused to be a part of God's church on earth?

I like to say, "Don't judge Jesus by the company he keeps. Because he's even willing to keep company with you."

As for those who have never heard, I've answered that many times, as well. Same answer. They're judged based on how much they do know, not on anything they don't know.
How much they know -- or if they love others? A brain thing or a heart thing?

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
As for those who have never heard, I've answered that many times, as well. Same answer. They're judged based on how much they do know, not on anything they don't know.

I don't make such a distinction. The whole head/heart separation is a fallacy that probably grew out of the enlightenment.

I don't make such a distinction. The whole head/heart separation is a fallacy that probably grew out of the enlightenment.
Thus, you're saying, "What's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love but a second-hand emotion?"

Sorry if I was a bit harsh. There's no need for that, I apologize.

Not to worry. Things often get a "bit harsh" in these parts. I humbly accept your apology.


I can't verify #2. I see it as a place of separation, and in one way or another those who end up there choose it. Don't ask me to get more specific than that because I can't.

I take that to mean you can't verify punishment, but you agree that some do end up there by choice. I respect that you can't be more specific.


#3 not necessarily "are" right now, but it's the place of separation that was prepared for those who don't want to acknowledge the Almighty. Satan and his minions are the only ones who truly fit that description.

Forgive me as I go on a far tangent. Satan isn't a REAL figure. I'm surprised you think he is. You must know he was imported from Persian religion, became Satan in Hebrew literature and morphed into pure evil by the time of the New Testament with Jerome doing one of his unfortunate translations rendering "morning star" as "Lucifer" which became another name for Satan.


#4: eventually.

I take this to mean that people who reject God's revelation of himself are eventually in hell.

Sam reads the Bible, hears Christian preachers, gives a lot of thought to God and Jesus and everything he knows about God and consciously decides not to accept God. Sam declares he's an atheist.

Ok - summary time:
1. Hell is perpetual.
2. Hell is not punishment, it is better described as separation from God (not verified), and those who go there choose to go there.
3. Satan etc., etc., etc.
4. People who reject God eventually go to hell.

#3 Satan is dealt with above. He doesn't affect the discussion one way or the other.

For the rest, you say hell is an eternal place of separation from God (which you can't verify) for those who deliberately reject God's revelation of himself.

My reply:
Assuming you can verify your description of hell, you run up against two very determinative refutations of all you say re hell.

The first one is that nowhere in the Bible can your description of hell be found.

The second one and much more importantly is that hell is a contradiction of the nature of God. We say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and eternal.

The contradiction lies in a God that is both perfectly loving and creator of all. For a hell to exist would mean God is not perfectly loving since as an all-powerful creator who has perfect knowledge, God would know that Sam would deliberately reject God and go to hell for eternity.

This would be an unpleasant experience for Sam for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect a perfect love that God had for Sam. By the act of creating Sam, God has condemned Sam. God chose to create Sam anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending Sam to hell since Sam cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.

QED. There is no hell.


The God I see in the Bible is infinitely loving and merciful....... As for those who have never heard, I've answered that many times. They're judged based on how much they do know, not on anything they don't know.

Agreed.

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I don't make such a distinction. The whole head/heart separation is a fallacy that probably grew out of the enlightenment.
Thus, you're saying, "What's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love but a second-hand emotion?"

In this particular context, yes.


Forgive me as I go on a far tangent. Satan isn't a REAL figure. I'm surprised you think he is. You must know he was imported from Persian religion, became Satan in Hebrew literature and morphed into pure evil by the time of the New Testament with Jerome doing one of his unfortunate translations rendering "morning star" as "Lucifer" which became another name for Satan.

Uh uh. According to the New Testament he's a real critter and I'll take that testimony over yours any day, pardon me. The "morning star" passage is about the king of Babylon. It says so right there. The word "Lucifer" grates on my nerves every time I hear it. It's a Latin rendering of a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase and it's meaningless. But Satan is real.

Assuming you can verify your description of hell, you run up against two very determinative refutations of all you say re hell.

The first one is that nowhere in the Bible can your description of hell be found.

The second one and much more importantly is that hell is a contradiction of the nature of God. We say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and eternal.


Point 1: verify it how? What do you expect me to do?

Point 2: 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment...there are many varied descriptions of hell in the Bible.

Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

You haven't made your points, and I get the feeling you're asking the impossible from me with this "verify" stuff.


This would be an unpleasant experience for Sam for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect a perfect love that God had for Sam. By the act of creating Sam, God has condemned Sam. God chose to create Sam anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending Sam to hell since Sam cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.


Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times. Read most any good book on philosophy of religion. Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either. Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.
You're using very old, tired arguments, my friend. Most every theologian from Origen on has answered them, but people don't seem to get the message.

IAccording to the New Testament he's (Satan) a real critter and I'll take that testimony over yours any day, pardon me.

After such a nice apology, now you're being insulting by setting up the New Testament against "my testimony". As you well know, or should know, it is not "MY TESTIMONY", but it is the well-established factual description of the evolution of Satan as the figure moved from Persian religion into Christianity. I can only note that you completely avoided replying to that contention and instead substituted your own personal "testimony" (belief) as refutation.

I will stand by my factual description of Satan against your belief in his reality and leave him out of this thread other than to reply where necessary.


The "morning star" passage is about the king of Babylon. It says so right there. The word "Lucifer" grates on my nerves every time I hear it. It's a Latin rendering of a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase and it's meaningless. But Satan is real.

Thank you for supporting my point about Lucifer. You admit that Lucifer is a meaningless translation but accept Satan as real! The mind boggles.

You have two other posts of which I have read one and will shortly reply to that one. The other (Universalism) I have yet to read, but will as soon as I can.

Point 1: verify it how? What do you expect me to do?

The "verify" was YOUR thought, not mine. You brought it up in replying to "punishment" in your post #15. I was simply using your own language.


Point 2: 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment

Jerome took the mythological Greek "tartarus" and translated it into "infernum" which means "intense fire" which is not any part of the meaning of tartarus and which was later translated into the English word "hell". 2 Peter also has no mention of eternal or punishment. His "gloomy dungeons" is a holding cell awaiting judgement. So this example fails on many points.


...there are many varied descriptions of hell in the Bible.

All mistranslated similar to the above.


Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!


You haven't made your points

Of course I have. Saying I haven't is not the same as actually responding to those points to argue against them. The arguments you did make are very weak as I have pointed out.


, and I get the feeling you're asking the impossible from me with this "verify" stuff.

As noted earlier, the "verify stuff" came from you, not me.


Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.

Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?


Read most any good book on philosophy of religion.

Come on, this is the oldest dodge on the internet. I don't like to "pull rank" here, but if I must, I must. Based on your answers on the philosophy of religion, I can guarantee you I have read more books on the subject than you have even dreamed of. No reply necessary for this one.


Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either.

Foreknowledge and free will AND CREATOR!! You left out the big one, didn't you? Not good for one who criticizes another for a lack of reading re the philosophy of religion.


Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.

No, the alternative is realizing there is no hell based on God-given logic.


You're using very old, tired arguments, my friend.

MY FRIEND, how about refuting those very old arguments instead of just saying so? Huh? My friend.


Most every theologian from Origen on has answered them,

Rather than just SAYING Origen answered them, why not give us the arguments so we can discuss them? That's the way these things are usually done.


but people don't seem to get the message.

No argument there. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years.

Finally, you obviously didn't understand (based on your replies) my argument about the nature of God. Please read it again as carefully as possible, this time reflecting on my answers to your objections.

Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.
That's not love. It might be self defense, but it ain't love!

That's not love. It might be self defense, but it ain't love!Very frequently, that's love in action.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Point 1: verify it how? What do you expect me to do?
The "verify" was YOUR thought, not mine. You brought it up in replying to "punishment" in your post #15. I was simply using your own language.

Oh, I see, you're ripping my statement out of context inasmuch as I was only referring to one of your points, and all I said was, I couldn't verify that particular description. I'll thank you not to do that to my words.


Point 2: 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment
Jerome took the mythological Greek "tartarus" and translated it into "infernum" which means "intense fire" which is not any part of the meaning of tartarus and which was later translated into the English word "hell". 2 Peter also has no mention of eternal or punishment. His "gloomy dungeons" is a holding cell awaiting judgement. So this example fails on many points.

Not so. Tartarus is one of the many words the NT writers used to try and describe the indescribable. I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome, I have my own issues with Jerome and his mistranslations are irrelevant. We know what Peter was talking about and your dodge doesn't change that.


...there are many varied descriptions of hell in the Bible.
All mistranslated similar to the above.


Not so again. I repeat: we know what they were talking about, and no amount of dragging centuries-later theologians will alter that fact. You're not making the case that you think you are.


Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.
This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!

I love how you keep trying to change the game. You only pull this out of your bag when you're backed into a corner, and I've already answered it. Try something else.


Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.
Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?

I already have in multiple threads. You seem to think if I repeat myself enough times it'll come out the way you want.


Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either.
Foreknowledge and free will AND CREATOR!! You left out the big one, didn't you? Not good for one who criticizes another for a lack of reading re the philosophy of religion.

Because it doesn't affect anything. It has zero to do with free will unless you are saying the existence of a creator nullifies free will. You haven't even begun to demonstrate such a thing.


Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.
No, the alternative is realizing there is no hell based on God-given logic.


I have no idea how you made that connection. It's like saying because I have a bad leg, there is no Tacoma. Why don't you address the actual question? Would you prefer to be a robot?


After such a nice apology, now you're being insulting by setting up the New Testament against "my testimony". As you well know, or should know, it is not "MY TESTIMONY", but it is the well-established factual description of the evolution of Satan as the figure moved from Persian religion into Christianity. I can only note that you completely avoided replying to that contention and instead substituted your own personal "testimony" (belief) as refutation.

I will stand by my factual description of Satan against your belief in his reality and leave him out of this thread other than to reply where necessary.


You're welcome to follow those unfounded assumptions. I take the New Testament more seriously than that, as the Word of God, and I really don't care what those who would tear it down want to try and say. He is presented as a real person in both Testaments so that's good enough for me. It is in fact "your" testimony because you're the one passing on the fallacious arguments. Similarity does not imply origin. That's a massive historical fallacy.


The "morning star" passage is about the king of Babylon. It says so right there. The word "Lucifer" grates on my nerves every time I hear it. It's a Latin rendering of a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase and it's meaningless. But Satan is real.
Thank you for supporting my point about Lucifer. You admit that Lucifer is a meaningless translation but accept Satan as real! The mind boggles.

Who told you the existence of Satan rises or falls on the word "Lucifer"? That doesn't make sense.

Oh, I see, you're ripping my statement out of context inasmuch as I was only referring to one of your points, and all I said was, I couldn't verify that particular description. I'll thank you not to do that to my words.

I don't think it was taken out of context. It described your idea of hell's punishment as possible but not verified. It was to give you an opportunity to refute my "determinative refutations". However, maybe I did overuse it. I'll avoid that going forward.


Not so. Tartarus is one of the many words the NT writers used to try and describe the indescribable

Tartarus was translated as Latin "infernum". It is a very bad translation since it translates a "gloomy place" from mythology as a place of "fiery intensity". I don't know why you say "Not so". It IS so.


I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome,

You are quoting Peter which book (2 Peter) only appears in translation around the 4th century.


I have my own issues with Jerome and his mistranslations are irrelevant.

I disagree, but that can be another topic.


We know what Peter was talking about and your dodge doesn't change that.

Of course we know what Peter was talking about - he says it as "putting them (angels) into gloomy dungeons to await judgment". That is not a description of hell (a place of fiery intensity). It describes Tartarus.

I don't know why you're accusing me of a "dodge". I've described EXACTLY what the situation is. There is no "dodge" here.


Not so again

This "not so" refers to my claim that all Bible translations into hell are misleading. I stand by that claim and I will be happy to discuss that with you any time. Maybe another suitable topic.


I repeat: we know what they were talking about, and no amount of dragging centuries-later theologians will alter that fact.

What you are talking about, DW, is a hell that is a fiery place, but that is NOT what Peter is talking about as I explained above in the clearest terms possible. The 4th century reference is the earliest date of the 2 Peter manuscript.


You're not making the case that you think you are.

DW, I have no objection to you saying that but I DO require you to give some evidence of your contention, rather than just declaiming it from on high, so to speak. So far, I have supplied excellent support for every case I am making.


fm DW
Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

fm Athos
This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!

fm DW
I love how you keep trying to change the game. You only pull this out of your bag when you're backed into a corner, and I've already answered it. Try something else.

I have not changed the game, DW, I have CORRECTED the game. You left out the key part which is necessary to examine your statement. The analogy of God and a parent omits the critical aspect of God that the parent cannot possess - God is the Creator.

I'm sorry to say that your tone has developed into one who is losing an argument and resorts to personal attacks like you have done here. I find it very disappointing.




fm Athos
This would be an unpleasant experience for Sam for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect a perfect love that God had for Sam. By the act of creating Sam, God has condemned Sam. God chose to create Sam anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending Sam to hell since Sam cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.

fm DW
Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.

fm Athos
Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?

fm DW
I already have in multiple threads.

I researched all your replies going several pages back in several threads and I can find no instance of your ever answering this even once, much less "many, many times". Would you now repost this specific fallacy or tell me where it can be found?


You seem to think if I repeat myself enough times it'll come out the way you want.

No, I don't think that especially since I couldn't find it even once which makes it impossible to "repeat".


Read most any good book on philosophy of religion. Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either. Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.

Actually, when you add creation to foreknowledge and the other qualities of God, they are contradictory to free will. However, that's another topic for discussion. Predestination might be q good title. For now, let's stick to the current topic.



You're welcome to follow those unfounded assumptions.

I have not made any unfounded assumptions. You're doing it again, making accusations without backing up those accusations.


I take the New Testament more seriously than that, as the Word of God, and I really don't care what those who would tear it down want to try and say.

Neither do I care about those who would tear it down. I prefer to discuss where it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated leading to unfortunate false doctrines such as hell. There is a sizable fraction of Christianity who keys on hellfire to describe their faith when the message of Jesus is overwhelmingly about loving God, neighbor, and self - and, strikingly, one's enemy.


He (Satan) is presented as a real person in both Testaments so that's good enough for me.

Actually, he's not presented as a real person in either Testament.

In Job, he is hardly presented as the epitome of evil in a story which is not to be taken literally. In the New Testament, Satan is a literary creation used to give evil a sinister persona. If you review the mentions of Satan in the Gospels, his fictional character becomes obvious and has been of such great appeal as a bogeyman that he continues to flourish today in all forms of art and entertainment.

I realize you don't believe any of this and that's ok. We can agree to disagree.


It is in fact "your" testimony because you're the one passing on the fallacious arguments.

My arguments have at least been accompanied by reasons and examples. Have yours?


Similarity does not imply origin. That's a massive historical fallacy.

What similarity? What "massive historical fallacy"? Please clarify.


Who told you the existence of Satan rises or falls on the word "Lucifer"? That doesn't make sense.

Satan and Lucifer are often used interchangeably. Most (some?) Christians identify Satan and Lucifer as the same fallen angel.

DW will perhaps reply to this point by point. It will only take the rest of the day.

I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome,
You are quoting Peter which book (2 Peter) only appears in translation around the 4th century.

I have no idea what you mean by that. I'm talking about the original Greek letter, dated to somewhere in the middle of the first century based on language and manuscript history, though some critics try to place it in the second century.

You seem hung up on translations. I'm not interested in translations, Jerome's or otherwise. I'm looking at the source.

I'm talking about the original Greek letter,

The original Greek letter has "tartarus". That has been rendered as "hell" in English. Tartarus does not mean hell. It was mistranslated into Latin as 'infernum". Infernum does not mean tartarus. Infernum means a fiery place. Infernum was rendered as hell in English.

The point - tartarus was mistranslated as infernum which led to hell in English.


You seem hung up on translations. I'm not interested in translations, Jerome's or otherwise. I'm looking at the source.

When discussing hell, I have to be interested in translations since hell is an English word translated from the Latin which was translated from the Greek.

My contention is that hell as traditionally understood in Christianity does not exist. This example of tartarus is one of the proofs of my contention.

Was there anything else in my reply above that you wish to comment on?

You have yet to say how you think tartarus should be translated. Seeing as how it refers to the lowest place of the dead where the gods condemned their enemies, I'm not sure how that helps your cause any. It can be certain that Peter was not suggesting that sinners would be condemned to a literal place described in Greek mythology, so how should the word be translated?

At the risk of bringing down your disapproval, we might consider again the words of Christ. "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Actually, that's not the case. Jesus was giving an explanation for His previous, well-crafted allegory. Read it in context and you will see for yourself.


His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

(posted following day) Oh for goodness sake. Now, rather than addressing my reply, WG runs for the hills by deleting her comment where she said the words of Jesus were a "well-crafted allegory". Sad to be so fearful of open dialogue. It never ceases to surprise me and yet always makes me glad that I don't hold a position so fragile as to need protection from the give and take of discussion.

Actually, that's not the case. Jesus was giving an explanation for His previous, well-crafted allegory. Read it in context and you will see for yourself.


The disappearance of WG's post led me to manually unblock this post of yours and also your previous post #31. I will reply to each.


#32. WG was correct when she called it a “well-crafted” allegory. I have read your reply, read what you suggested, and still agree with WG.

#31.
You have yet to say how you think tartarus should be translated.

The discussion is how tartarus IS translated, not how it should be translated.


Seeing as how it refers to the lowest place of the dead where the gods condemned their enemies, I'm not sure how that helps your cause any.

My “cause” is that hell as traditionally understood does not exist. You admit you're not sure how my cause is helped by tartarus referring to the “lowest place of the dead”. My cause is helped because that description is not the description of hell, yet it is translated as hell.


It can be certain that Peter was not suggesting that sinners would be condemned to a literal place described in Greek mythology, so how should the word be translated?

If you are certain about Peter's words, then it is up to you to translate the word.


At the risk of bringing down your disapproval

There is little risk of that not occurring. My disapproval of what you post is almost always consistent.


we might consider again the words of Christ. "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Jesus is quoted as saying ”... and those who commit lawlessness...” will be in a furnace of fire weeping and gnashing their teeth. That is obviously not to be taken literally since the victims will hardly be weeping in the fire. If anything, they will be screaming at the top of their lungs for the few seconds it takes to turn them into crispy critters and ashes. Also, to further the figure of speech, the righteous will shine like the sun is an obvious simile, and the ear remark completes the colorful way of expression. Allegorical to the Nth degree.

Jesus often spoke in allegories (parables). In the Gospel of John he says that very thing, “I have spoken these things to you in allegories”. He is not addressing this specific parable, but in general.

Just this one time, if you reply directly, I will consider your reply. If you deflect or divert, I will not reply and manually block you again.

#32. WG was correct when she called it a “well-crafted” allegory. I have read your reply, read what you suggested, and still agree with WG.When Jesus was asked to explain his parable (allegory), he gave an explanation. I don't know how much plainer it could be. To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness. "Jesus, will you explain your parable to us?" "Sure! I'll explain my parable with another parable!" You really believe that???

But it's nice of you to try and justify WG's hasty retreat.


The discussion is how tartarus IS translated, not how it should be translated.It is now.


My “cause” is that hell as traditionally understood does not exist. You admit you're not sure how my cause is helped by tartarus referring to the “lowest place of the dead”. My cause is helped because that description is not the description of hell, yet it is translated as hell.It's a simple explanation. It's a word that has more than one meaning. When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning.

But if you want to contend it does not mean hell, then you should say what, in your view, it does mean. In other words, how should it be translated? You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why. At any rate, it does not indicate a place of anything other than dread and punishment, so I'm still not sure what your point is. It's not a place of eternal fire? OK, then it's a place of eternal dread and terror, filled as it will be with the devil and his demons. Sound good?


Just this one time, if you reply directly, I will consider your reply.You are welcome, as always, to do as you please, but I will add that replying directly is not my problem. It's yours. You're the one who ignores questions you can't comfortably answer. And if I had to guess, I would guess you will continue that practice now. I hope not, but we'll see.

When Jesus was asked to explain his parable (allegory), he gave an explanation. I don't know how much plainer it could be. To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness. "Jesus, will you explain your parable to us?" "Sure! I'll explain my parable with another parable!" You really believe that???

But it's nice of you to try and justify WG's hasty retreat.

I had to smile at that reply. Clever, but weak. It's problematical. I'm sure you know the obvious difficulty. You still have to deal with the language which 2 Peter used to send people to Tartarus. If, as you contend, the 2 Peter explanation is not a parable, then you have to explain its reality. Did 2 Peter/Jesus therefore believe in Tartarus as a real place from Greek mythology? The answer to that is certainly NO.


It's a simple explanation. It's a word that has more than one meaning.

If you claim Tartarus has more than one meaning in the NT, (which you are claiming), then it is incumbent upon you to provide that meaning and a defense of your claim.


When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning.

It means what it has always meant – I variously described it above in posts 23, 27, 30, and 33. Or you can look it up yourself.


But if you want to contend it does not mean hell, then you should say what, in your view, it does mean. In other words, how should it be translated?

It should be translated according to its meaning. I have done that in the posts noted above and also suggested you can look for the meaning yourself if you doubt me.


You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why.

This comment is why you're so disliked here.


At any rate, it does not indicate a place of anything other than dread and punishment

Correct! I might quibble about the punishment part and even the dread since neither is mentioned, but no matter. The point is Tartarus does not mean anything remotely like an eternal fiery torture chamber like hell. It's described as a "gloomy place", a "dungeon", something like a holding cell.


, so I'm still not sure what your point is.

My point – Tartarus is NOT hell – couldn't be any clearer. In fact, you just made my point for me when you wrote, "At any rate, it does not indicate a place of anything other than dread and punishment".


It's not a place of eternal fire? OK, then it's a place of eternal dread and terror, filled as it will be with the devil and his demons. Sound good?

No, sounds completely wrong! It's certainly not described as “a place of eternal dread and terror”. As to devils and demons, let's leave that one alone and possibly save it for a future thread. (Hint – they don't exist. But don't run off and start deflecting with that. Save it for its own topic.)


These comments were mean-spirited.

"To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness."
"...try and justify WG's hasty retreat".
"You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why".
"You're the one who ignores questions you can't comfortably answer."


You were warned about replying directly without the snarky comments. I answered since I said I would. This finishes my reply to you on this thread.

I'm sure you know the obvious difficulty. I sure do. You're not paying attention. I quoted an explanation by Jesus in Matthew which WG referred to as an "allegory". You agreed with her. An explanation of an allegory is generally not itself an allegory, so you were simply wrong. I was clearly not referring to the 2 Peter passage.

As to tartarus as used in 2 Peter 2, it is almost universally translated as "hell". Pretty sure those guys know a lot more than you, so I'm content with that. And since the angels held there are being held until a day of "judgment", then I just don't see how you have much to stand on.


If you claim Tartarus has more than one meaning in the NT, (which you are claiming), then it is incumbent upon you to provide that meaning and a defense of your claim.Actually I did not claim that was the case.


These comments were mean-spirited.

"To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness."
"...try and justify WG's hasty retreat".
"You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why".
"You're the one who ignores questions you can't comfortably answer."I laughed when I read that. If you can't handle some honesty, then talk to someone else.



You were warned about replying directly without the snarky commentsI was warned?? Please drop the drama. I have no concern at all about what you decide to do. If you deal with me, you will deal with someone who is going to tell you the truth.

I sure do. You're not paying attention. I quoted an explanation by Jesus in Matthew which WG referred to as an "allegory". You agreed with her. An explanation of an allegory is generally not itself an allegory, so you were simply wrong

No, I was right - clearly. Here's my reply from post 33:

Jesus is quoted as saying ”... and those who commit lawlessness...” will be in a furnace of fire weeping and gnashing their teeth. That is obviously not to be taken literally since the victims will hardly be weeping in the fire. If anything, they will be screaming at the top of their lungs for the few seconds it takes to turn them into crispy critters and ashes. Also, to further the figure of speech, the righteous will shine like the sun is an obvious simile, and the ear remark completes the colorful way of expression. Allegorical to the Nth degree.


I was clearly not referring to the 2 Peter passage.

Yes, I know. That was obvious. The principle remained the same - that an allegory is still an allegory even when it is used to explain another allegory. My first example referred to your Jesus quote in your post 31. The next example referred to 2 Peter 2. Here is that reply by me:

If, as you contend, the 2 Peter explanation is not a parable, then you have to explain its reality. Did 2 Peter/Jesus therefore believe in Tartarus as a real place from Greek mythology? The answer to that is certainly NO.

You wrote that I "was simply wrong". No, my friend, the wrong is all yours. I trust that now you will be able to review it all again and understand what is being described.


As to tartarus as used in 2 Peter 2, it is almost universally translated as "hell".

Yes, I know that too. I would drop "almost". It's ALWAYS translated that way. That's the problem and the very issue being discussed. It is being translated incorrectly. I gave you the proof for that. Here is the proof again:

The original Greek letter has "tartarus". That has been rendered as "hell" in English. Tartarus does not mean hell. It was mistranslated into Latin as 'infernum". Infernum does not mean tartarus. Infernum means a fiery place. Infernum was rendered as hell in English. The point - tartarus was mistranslated as infernum which led to hell in English.


Pretty sure those guys know a lot more than you, so I'm content with that.

That is your privilege - to believe whatever you want. In every translation of that passage, there is a footnote telling the reader that "hell" in the passage is actually "tartarus" from the Greek.

You now have two reasons to not be so content "with those guys".


And since the angels held there are being held until a day of "judgment", then I just don't see how you have much to stand on.

On the contrary, that is additional proof that Tartarus is not hell. Hell is definitely not a place where angels are held for a day of judgment. Hell is permanent. When you get there, you are there to stay. Judgment has already occurred.

I trust all this is resonating with you, showing you the facts of the matter.


fm Athos
If you claim Tartarus has more than one meaning in the NT, (which you are claiming), then it is incumbent upon you to provide that meaning and a defense of your claim.

fm JL
Actually I did not claim that was the case.

Yes, you did make that claim. Here are your exact words:

"It's a word that has more than one meaning. When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning."

To repeat: You need to provide the other meanings you claim are there along with a defense of your claim.

No, I was right - clearly. Here's my reply from post 33:I was referring to the Matthew passage which you and WG both understood very well to be the case. The passage I quoted was, to any thinking person, plainly not an allegory but the explanation of an allegory. How do we know that? Because his disciples had just requested that he EXPLAIN the parable to them. But be stubborn if you wish.


Yes, I know that too. I would drop "almost". It's ALWAYS translated that way.Except that it's not, and if you would do your homework then you would know that. Some translations such as the HCSB actually use "tartarus" as the translation. Young's literal translation does likewise.


that an allegory is still an allegory even when it is used to explain another allegoryOh brother. Your principle seems to be this. Any passage that says something with which you are not comfortable must surely be an allegory, even if the passage is the explanation for an allegory. It's just ridiculous.


That is your privilege - to believe whatever you want. In every translation of that passage, there is a footnote telling the reader that "hell" in the passage is actually "tartarus" from the Greek.That is not true. It is true that most (not "every") do. The Amplified, for instance, says this. "For emphasis Peter uses a word (tartarus) from Greek mythology describing a hell reserved for the most horrendous of people to emphasize the terrible doom awaiting false prophets and teachers who manipulate and twist the truth of the gospel message." That footnote is not helpful to your cause.

Believe what you will about hell. It is a bad place which Christ himself said is eternal. I don't want to go there.


Yes, you did make that claim. Here are your exact words:

"It's a word that has more than one meaning. When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning."But I did not say it had more than one meaning in the NT. It has one meaning in Greek mythology, and another meaning in the one and only place it is used in the NT. Either that, or you would seriously have us believe that Peter thought angels were committed to an imaginary place that existed only in Greek literature. Surely you know that cannot be correct.

I was referring to the Matthew passage .....etc., etc., etc. The full text is immediately above for those interested.


Let me sum up this entire thread for you so it doesn't descend further into constant repetition.




Tartarus is from Greek mythology. MYTHOLOGY!
It was incorrectly translated into English as Hell via Jerome's Latin.
It continues to be translated as Hell in English with new Bible editions.



I will now give you the two most important reasons for the non-existence of Hell. One I have already provided in depth, the other is new.




The argument from the Nature of God. Presented in depth in my post # 19 in this thread. I'll repeat it here: Hell is a contradiction of the nature of God. We say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and eternal.

The contradiction lies in a God that is both perfectly loving and creator of all. For a hell to exist would mean God is not perfectly loving since as an all-powerful creator who has perfect knowledge, God would know that someone would deliberately reject God and go to hell for eternity.
This would be an unpleasant experience for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect the perfect love of God. By the act of creating someone, God has condemned that person. God chose to create the person anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending him/her to hell since he/she cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.

QED. There is no hell.


2. “I think that perhaps no single belief has done more to undercut the spiritual journey of more Western people than the belief that God could be an eternal torturer of people who do not like him or disobey him. And this after Jesus exemplified and taught us to love our enemies and forgive offenses 70 x 7 times! The very idea of Hell (with a capital ‘H’) constructs a very toxic and fear-based universe, starting at its very center and ground. Hatred, exclusion, and mistreatment of enemies is legitimated all the way down the chain of command.” -Richard Rohr



Rohr accurately points out that Hell's continuation in Christianity is essentially a form of revenge religion designed to punish our enemies and those we dislike that are not approachable in this life.

Hell, however, is being re-thought, even by the Catholic Church. John Paul II gave it a nuanced definition in a papal letter that softens the worst Dante-esque descriptions of Hell. Hell still remains a stalwart of evangelicals and fundamentalists, although some evangelicals are also reconsidering the idea.

God bless you, JL. I hope this dialogue has encouraged you to consider and examine your sources of Hell and to not follow blindly a Bible that has been translated into many languages in various editions over the centuries without employing your God-given mental faculties to discern the original core truth.

I will now bow out of the dialogue since I have said all that can be said.

Very well. I remain committed to the words of Jesus about hell which you have neglected to mention.

The primary issue is this. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting.

And who wrote down those words?

That's a completely different issue. But if you want to question the reliability of the Gospel accounts, then you have to question ALL of the words. Not just the ones that appeal to your preconceptions, but ALL of them. Do you want to go there?

And if you only want to appeal only against SOME of them, then you must have good reasons for those doubts. You never have in the past, and I feel certain you don't now.

Your response was well-written and thought-provoking until this:

You never have in the past, and I feel certain you don't now.

You never have in the past, and I feel certain you don't now.It wasn't intended to be personal. Just ignore it.

Forgive me if I offended you. I sometimes just don't know how to respond to you. This has all been talked about in abundance months ago, so I guess I don't see the point of your question now, but I did not intend to be harsh.

Let's not worry about hell. Instead, as Jesus urged, "love one another."

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/328248212_8705879319485680_650633409819592199_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=oBDOF1QilCgAX_9JpAV&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBVzNDHnRVrnwLcOZMfvjApIJbSDsxwTbl6481S41vd 1g&oe=63E67D23

I think the point is that salvation is not based upon good works, but rather is verified by our good works. Otherwise, it does not fit in with the rest of scripture.

To neglect to tell a person about a day of coming judgment, which is spoken of in that very Matthew 25 passage as well as many others, is not an act of love, but rather an act of hate.

I disagree. Salvation is love in action.

What is your scripture for that? Paul makes it very clear in Romans 3 that salvation can never be earned by good works, a truth also made clear in John 3 and a number of other passages.

Jesus' death on the cross was love in action.

I didn't say anything about earning salvation. Just love. Love one another.

Sure you did. "Salvation is love in action."

Jesus did the earning by giving up His life for us. Now we are to love others with the same intensity and totality as He loved us.

Preach -- and demonstrate by your own actions -- selfless love.

Preach -- and demonstrate by your own actions -- selfless love.So in what way is neglecting to tell a person about a coming day of judgment an act of "selfless love"?

The concern about and even fear of "hell" is not the correct incentive to do good, to love. We don't say (and teach our children to say), "I'm not going to punch my sibling (or lie to Mom or kick the dog or shoplift) because then I will end up in hell."

So Jesus was wrong in what He said?

Wrong about what? A day of judgment? Judgment isn't necessarily negative.

Judgment - the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing a conclusion.

Oh come on. That's ridiculous and you know it. Your definition can fit "judgment" in some uses, but clearly not in the way it is used in Mt. 25. Every single author in the NT mentions a coming day of judgment. It's just interesting that they felt people should know about this, but you have decided otherwise. Do you know more than them?

They were male, just like you. They wanted people they considered bad to suffer in Hell FOREVER!!!! They punished their misbehaving children, made them sit on the naughty chair and spanked them so they'd be good.

You might want to consider that sometimes you're just wrong, and it has nothing to do with gender. Even worse, you have included Jesus in that plainly wrong group.

Jesus paid the price for all of us. And He didn't have children. Oh, yeah, "Scripture records few instances of Jesus interacting with children, but in each one we see Jesus treat the children with kindness and love, therefore showing how much He values them."
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-and-children.html

They were male, just like you. They wanted people they considered bad to suffer in Hell FOREVER!!!! Do you think there is some chance that they knew more than "Wondergirl"? Well, it's hard to imagine you would say that about Jesus, that being a man, he wants everyone considered bad to suffer in Hell FOREVER, but it seems to be what you do when you are plainly wrong. Rather than just change your views, you lash out.

My point was how easy it is to punish children instead of loving them and teaching them a better way. I spanked my older son once because he was about three and ran heedlessly into the street. I never spanked him again. I found loving ways to teach. I'm sure that's Jesus' way too.

I'm sure that's Jesus' way too.Why? Because Jesus would have to be just like you? Are you the example of righteous conduct now? I think you have it backwards.

You believe one thing. The writers of the NT, and Jesus as well, believed something else. I'm going with them.

Hell (perpetual fire like in the garbage dump, Gehenna) was the threat for better behavior..."If you don't believe and do good to others, you're going to hell." Like parents say to their kids, "If you don't do [X], [Y] will happen to you."

."If you don't believe and do good to others, you're going to hell."You are beginning to catch on.

You are beginning to catch on.
That's the threat. Not at all Christlike.

Not Christlike? The words came from Jesus. How much more Christlike could that be? I think you meant that the words are not Wondergirl-like.

How do you know Jesus actually said that? Those words definitely aren't His style.

If you don't know what Jesus said, then how could you possibly know what his "style" is? What you really mean is that those words are not YOUR style.

Jesus' style is love, not punishment in hell.

My younger (preschooler) son was grocery shopping with me. While waiting in the checkout line with me, he removed a candy bar off the adjacent display rack and slid the candy into his pants pocket. At home, I happened to see him pull out the candy bar and asked him where it came from. He told me what he had done. I stayed calm and told him that he'd have to pay for the candy because I hadn't paid for it when we were shopping. We immediately drove back to the grocery store and found the owner. My son explained what he had done. I then gave my son money for the candy bar, my son gave the money to the owner, the owner shook my son's hand and thanked him for his honesty. My son and I returned home. He never stole again because he understood that basic principle of shopping -- merchandise and money exchange.

Of course, I could have stayed home, spanked my son for his theft, then let him eat his ill-gotten gain. Would he have learned anything?

Jesus' style is love, not punishment in hell.But how do you know that? As you put it, "How do you know Jesus actually said that?"

Hell and threats of sending sinful humans there is the scare tactic by equally sinful humans who hope (and say) other humans are more sinful than they are.

Did Jesus actually say "Send the wicked humans to hell!"?

But you avoided the question. How do you know what his "style" was? As you put it, "How do you know Jesus actually said that?" How do you know what he said?


Hell and threats of sending sinful humans there is the scare tactic by equally sinful humans who hope (and say) other humans are more sinful than they are.So that was true of Jesus? After all, he was certainly warning us.


41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-24053e)]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

It just amazes me how far you will go to admit that your views do not align with what Jesus said. Wouldn't it be better to simply say you accept anything he said as long as it lines up with what you already believe?

How do you know Jesus said any of that?

But jesus = love. In John 13:34, Jesus mentions this phrase specifically, stating “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” He continues, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (13:35)

How do you know Jesus said that?

Faith.

Plus, He knows the human heart. He knows humans don't want to love and be loved out of fear of hellfire, because it's required.

How do you know that?

He's shown me all my life that it's true.

You’ve been guiding yourself. You accept what you like and reject the rest. Jesus certainly has not taught you to ignore his many statements which don’t suit you.

And you ignore my many statements that don't suit you. Yet, I'm right.

And you ignore my many statements that don't suit you.Uhm...you're not Jesus, so I can easily ignore your many statements that don't agree with his and are thus flat wrong.

He didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals.

He didn't make those statements.You're grasping at straws.


Were the invention of mortals.There is simply no good reason to believe that. The truth is that you only accept what agrees with your own ideas. That's why I am concerned for you. You seem to have a fantasy Jesus, one invented in your own mind and one over which you can exert control. But there is no salvation in a fantasy, and there is no Jesus who is subject to our own whims. The only Jesus is the one of whom we read in the Bible, and every word of it is to be received and believed.

Hope to see you in heaven!

He knows humans don't want to love and be loved out of fear of hellfire, because it's required.

"We love, because he first loved us."

If we can accept that quote as being reliable, and that has been far from certain, then I would imagine we can all agree with that idea.


He knows humans don't want to love and be loved out of fear of hellfire, because it's required.I'm always very suspicious of anyone who claims to know what Jesus "knows", and yet is unwilling to accept the testimony of the NT.

I'm always very suspicious of anyone who claims to know what Jesus "knows", and yet is unwilling to accept the testimony of the NT.
How many times has the NT been translated, parts rewritten, words changed and added and deleted....

That's fine if you want to make that point, but it destroys your ability to use what would be, in your view, an unreliable NT to support your ideas. It's either reliable or it isn't. Make up your mind.

That's fine if you want to make that point, but it destroys your ability to use what would be, in your view, an unreliable NT to support your ideas. It's either reliable or it isn't. Make up your mind.
All NTs fall into that category. Unfortunately, we don't have the complete original. And even then, you and I both know how unreliable notes and transcriptions and copies can be.

OK. So you claim it is unreliable, which makes me wonder how you can claim to know what Jesus "knows", or why you bother to quote from the NT. That makes no sense. Or why didn't you object when DW used a direct quote from that thoroughly unreliable NT ("We love, because he first loved us.")? For that matter, why didn't you object when YOU quoted from the NT?

I said a very similar quote, "love one another." Jesus was (and is still) all about loving ourselves just as He loves us -- so then we can love others. He's shown me throughout my life how true that is.

Except that you have no way, in your approach, of being able to know that since you consider the accounts of his life and words to be unreliable. Thus we have no reliable way, in your view, of being able to say what, "Jesus was (and still is)". Well, unless we are to send people to you and consider you authoritative. Sorry, but that is not even close to being an option. So by your system, we are reduced to personal opinion, and therefore we have nothing.

Love one another.

So by your system, we are reduced to personal opinion, and therefore we have nothing.Can't have your cake and eat it too.

"We love because He first loved us."

Unfortunately, some people are more difficult to love than others are. God, give us the strength to show love to everyone.

Is that your opinion, or is it an authoritative statement from your utterly unreliable NT?

I have finally, after much effort, gotten you to the place where you have acknowledged that you do not receive the NT as the source of your "truth". It's a sad place for you to be, for you have no greater authority than your own ideas, but it is what it is. Jesus said whatever happens to agree with your own opinions which were birthed somewhere outside of the Bible. A day is coming when we will find out if the authors of the NT are correct, or if WG is correct. It will not be both.

The NT authors didn't believe in loving one another?

According to you, we can’t know what they believed.

Which NT?

Again, from your point of view it makes no difference. They are all produced from, according to you, an unreliable source.

From many, many sources, translations....

According to you, unreliable. But I'll give you a challenge. Find the translation (even better, Greek manuscript) where Matthew 25 does not speak of judgment coming.

I'll wait.

I'll even give you a hand. This is dozens of translations of Mt. 25:41.

Matthew 25:41 - Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2025:41)

Same for verse 46.

Matthew 25:46 - Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2025:46)

Now you are trying to claim that with all the translations out there, it becomes impossible to know what the original documents said. But as can be seen by anyone willing to put some effort into it, that is simply not true. Are there some points of contention? Of course, but it is very much a small, small sliver of the NT of which that is true, and to suggest that the words of Jesus in Mt. 25 are unreliable because of all those translations out there is just silly. In fact, it is just the opposite that is true.

From Matt. 25:41(KJV) -- Then shall he [Jesus] say also unto them

"When to use shall?
Shall is sometimes used ... to express a threat. You shall regret this. They shall pay dearly."

The Gospel writer is being threatening. He doesn't actually know what Jesus will say. The writer wants to scare his listeners into salvation. The writer believes threats of everlasting punishment in a fiery hell will work better than wussy love.

@jlisenbe, your inner key board warrior is showing, again.
Quit being so combative and obnoxious, there really is no need.
Stick to the topic of the thread rather than petty point scoring.

From Matt. 25:41(KJV) -- Then shall he [Jesus] say also unto themIn your own words from post 67, "How do you know Jesus actually said that?"

My post #67:
"How do you know Jesus actually said that? Those words definitely aren't His style."

"Matthew" was claiming Jesus said that or would say it

Again, I post:

The Gospel writer (or, more likely, the translator) is being threatening. He doesn't actually know what Jesus will say. The writer wants to scare his listeners into salvation. The writer believes threats of everlasting punishment in a fiery hell will work better than wussy love.

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of certain original Hebrew and Greek words: sheol, hades, tartarus, gehenna, owlam, aion and aionios, which first occurred when Jerome translated Scripture into the Catholic Latin Vulgate in the early fifth century.

The truth of the matter is that there is not one single word in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that means hell. Hell is a man-invented, pagan, unchristian, heretical belief that was first embraced and christianised by Catholicism and incorporated into the Bible by Jerome through his Latin Vulgate in the early history of Christianity. Also, Jesus Christ never spoke about ‘everlasting’ fire and punishment, as erroneously translated in verses such as Matthew 18:8, 25:41 and 25:46 in popular versions of the Bible that support the doctrine of hell.

God’s love and the doctrine of hell are irreconcilable. It is only twisted Augustinian theology that tries to reconcile God’s love with endless punishment in hell. Hell believing preachers use absurd reasoning to say that eternal torture in hell, for the vast majority of mankind who die as unbelievers, is an act of God’s love demonstrating His perfect justice. This is totally twisted reasoning, beyond all comprehension.

Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine. What type of justice would it be for an all-knowing, all-loving God, who knows the end from the beginning and who foreknew that man would sin, then proceed to create multiple billions of people, in His own image, to have them end up being punished by Him eternally for their sins committed in the few years of their temporary existence in this life?

The Bible clearly says that God’s will is to save all men. However, hell makes Satan and man’s fallen free will out to be more powerful than God’s Sovereign will for the salvation of all people. It depicts God as a weak and powerless God who is unable to fulfil His will to save all. The truth of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive the sins of the whole world, as the Bible clearly tells us. This is indeed the true Gospel. So, how can Jesus Christ be the Saviour of all men, yet fail to save all men? This simply does not make sense. The doctrine of hell completely negates the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.


The doctrine of Hell is also a source of anti-semitism, but that's a story for another time.

Matthew was claiming Jesus said that or would say itBut how can you know that? Bear in mind that you have claimed the NT is unreliable.


The truth of the matter is that there is not one single word in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that means hell.Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the several thousand very highly educated scholars who have participated in the translation of many dozens of Bible translations over the past few centuries and disagree with your view.

Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the several thousand very highly educated scholars who have participated in the translation of many dozens of Bible translations and disagree with your view.

Your "several thousand" translators came after Jerome's translation and by that time, the doctrine of hell was a totally accepted part of Christianity. In any case, it doesn't matter how many faulty translations there were. The issue is the falsity, not the number of times it occurred.

No, the issue is your claim to know more than hundreds of scholars who were all light years ahead of you. Sorry, but you'll need a lot more than just an "Athos says so". So yeah, "falsity" is truly an issue, but not in the manner you have proposed.

It's also a highly questionable idea to suggest that these people, who were translating from Greek manuscripts and not from Jerome's Latin, an idea that would have been strange since it makes no sense to follow a translation from the Greek when they had the Greek to begin with, would have felt any obligation at all to adhere to his views.

But even if you were right, there is still the context of those passages to deal with. Mt. 25, for instance, describes this place without attaching a name to it. Call it what you will, I don't want to end up there.

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels...46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

"Matthew" was claiming Jesus said that or would say it


But you have claimed the NT books are unreliable, so you can't really know what Matthew wrote, and you CERTAINLY can't claim to know what he was claiming. It really comes down to what YOU are claiming.

Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind.


Sorry, but you'll need a lot more than just an "Athos says so"

That's your usual ad hominem argument. Why not deal with the argument itself instead of shooting the messenger.


There is still the context of those passages to deal with. Mt. 25, for instance, describes this place without attaching a name to it.
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels...46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 25. The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”.

The Greek word aionios is used in this verse to signify everlasting and is also used in this verse to signify an age – a period of time. The correct reading is “And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life.”

Why the two different uses of the same word? The word aionios has two meanings – eternal and an age (a limited period of time). The mistranslated verse first appears in the 5th century in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The mistranslation has been copied ever since in the KJV and other Bibles.

When it (aion) was translated into Latin Vulgate, aion became aeternam which means 'eternal'. The first written record of the idea of an eternal Hell comes from Tertullian, who wrote in Latin. It was Tertullian's writings, plus Augustine's views and writings on eternal Hell which overwhelmed the other views of a temporary Hell. Up until the Reformation Augustine's view of Hell as eternal was not questioned.


The following is for dwashbur to examine in case he shows up for this discussion.

About the word aion as having connotations of "age" or "temporal",


Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouranou, i. 9,15) says: "The period which includes the whole time of one's life is called the aeon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history.




The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods

Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting. Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated.

If one believes in the idea of eternal Hell, one must either let go of the idea that it is God's wish and desires to save all beings, or accept the idea that God wants to, but will not successfully accomplish his will and satisfy his own desire in this matter.



Finally, the verse in question (Matthew 25:46) is incorrectly thought to prove an endless punishment for evil doers. The faulty logic goes like this, “Since the same adjective (aionios) is used to describe both life and punishment, if eternal punishment isn’t forever, then eternal life also isn’t forever. But if eternal life is forever, then eternal punishment must also be forever.”

This argument is lacking. It's as illogical as saying that, “If the adjective ‘tall’ is used to describe both basket ball players and sky scrapers then they must both be the same size. Either the basket ball player is thousands of feet tall, or the sky scraper is only 6-7 feet tall.” The fault with such logic is clear.

Those thousands were pre-disposedYou have no way of knowing that. The primary bias I see is with your treatment of aionios.

This was discussed at length many months ago. Virtually no one agrees with your definition of the word. No English translation renders it in Mt. 25 as something short of eternal other than, so far as I know, Robert Young. He rendered the passage, quite honestly I think, as follows. "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during." He fully well understood that when aionios is used in the same manner and in the same context, then it must be translated in the same way. To do otherwise is really questionable. Your explanation for your differing treatment of the word is likewise questionable. Both the building and the man are indeed tall, but tall is a relative term. That is not true of aionios. And certainly you would need some plausible reason for the differing translations other than mere speculation that heaven must surely be eternal while hell must surely be otherwise.

But even at that, if you want to suggest that hell is not eternal but rather is only an enormously long period of time, you still have a hell, and it is still a place of punishment for sin. So you have done nothing to do away with this place which you so earnestly wish not to exist.

Might add that I'm at least glad you are not taking the direction of Wondergirl and trying to argue that the NT is not reliable and so we can't really know who said what.

Might add that I'm at least glad you are not taking the direction of Wondergirl and trying to argue that the NT is not reliable and so we can't really know who said what.
Well, someone certainly has problems with understanding what the NT is and how it came about.

Well, someone certainly has problems with understanding what the NT is and how it came about.You certainly do. We agree again!

You certainly do. We agree again!
Read what Athos wrote. There will be a test next Tuesday.

You have no way of knowing that.

Of course I do. Are you seriously contending that the thousands of Bible translators were NOT believers in the Bible? Seriously?


Virtually no one agrees with your definition of the word.

Naturally you mean no one who is a literal Bible believer. They would not be expected to believe in the definition I provided.


No English translation renders it in Mt. 25 as something short of eternal

For the reasons I have already noted above.


Robert Young. He rendered the passage, quite honestly I think, as follows. "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

In English, "age-during" is a stilted phrase, which is natural when transliterating. The translator must use his ingenuity and command of language to make it palatable to English speakers. Apparently, that was not Young's intention. The Greek phrase transliterated as "age-during" needs to be seen in various contexts which I have done citing Plato and Homer. This is in order to devise its proper meaning in English.


He fully well understood that when aionios is used in the same manner and in the same context, then it must be translated in the same way.

Are you now doing the very thing you have accused WG of doing - knowing the mind of another?


To do otherwise is really questionable. Your explanation for your differing treatment of the word is likewise questionable. Both the building and the man are indeed tall, but tall is a relative term.

That is irrelevant. You need to explain exactly WHY a "relative term" matters. In any case, I think you meant "adjective", not "relative term".


That is not true of aionios.

You are WAY over your head with this - with all due respect, linguistics is not your forte.


And certainly you would need some plausible reason for the differing translations other than mere speculation that heaven must surely be eternal while hell must surely be otherwise.

I have given you reasons - bad translation, misinterpretation, logical fallacy, and the sheer impossibility of Hell, considering the nature of God and the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ. .


But even at that, if you want to suggest that hell is not eternal but rather is only an enormously long period of time, you still have a hell, and it is still a place of punishment for sin. So you have done nothing to do away with this place which you so earnestly wish not to exist.

That's called a Straw-man argument. This entire discussion has been about denying the ETERNAL nature of Hell. Other aspects of Hell may fall by the wayside in examining the claimed eternal nature of it, but those were never the primary focus of the discussion here.


Might add that I'm at least glad you are not taking the direction of Wondergirl and trying to argue that the NT is not reliable and so we can't really know who said what.

WG is 100% correct. The NT is NOT reliable, but only in isolated, yet important, parts. I don't think WG ever claimed that we can never know who said what, especially since she quotes Christ so frequently.

If you wish, a new thread can examine the NT lack of perfect reliability.

Of course I do. Are you seriously contending that the thousands of Bible translators were NOT believers in the Bible? Seriously?Except that's not what you said. You claimed they were predisposed (biased) to render certain words as "hell". Now you are claiming that a "believer in the Bible" (whatever that means) cannot be an honest, intelligent translator. Well, your two claims are not the same. Might add that it is quite possible that many of the translators were far from being solidly conservative Christians and would hardly have been eager to render any word as "hell".

You have been able to find only one scholar used in Bible translations who agrees with you and that is R. Young. Period. And even he only half-way agreed with you.


I think you meant "adjective", not "relative term".It is both, so tall is a relative term. The man is tall only when compared to other men. That is not true of aionios, so your comparison, in my view, was not useful.


You are WAY over your head with this - with all due respect, linguistics is not your forte.
For a variety of good reasons, I never, ever just accept your opinion about anything. This comment of yours is typical. Athos says something, so it just has to be true. I have found that not to be the case, and even now when you are trying to advance a meaning of a Greek word that is accepted by virtually no one else. Is that your forte?


That's called a Straw-man argument. This entire discussion has been about denying the ETERNAL nature of Hell. Other aspects of Hell may fall by the wayside in examining the claimed eternal nature of it, but those were never the primary focus of the discussion here.But that is plainly not true. You asked two questions to start the discussion with a wide-ranging array of content. The "entire discussion" has certainly not been limited to the eternal extent of hell. But since it now seems to be accepted that hell is a real place of punishment for sin, and not the garbage dump of Jerusalem, then that is definite progress.

I don't agree with Young's translation of aionios, but I do admire his willingness to be honest and consistent with his treatment of the word. Your rendering (And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life) seems to be inconsistent and a little difficult to picture as straightforward. Even worse, if you consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable, then I have no idea why you would engage in a discussion about the meaning of a particular word when it would be completely impossible to know if Jesus ever used that word or not, thus rendering the entire discussion meaningless.

It strikes me that WG's objection to the reliability of the NT has nothing to do with a genuine interest in textual criticism and everything to do with a desire to have a NT that can be largely and selectively ignored.


Read what Athos wrote. There will be a test next Tuesday.I have read his post. The test answers would all have to be "false".

Your reply is riddled with errors. I will explain why point-by-point so you can understand each error.



Except that's not what you said. You claimed they were predisposed (biased) to render certain words as "hell".

Error #1. I never said they were predisposed to render certain words as hell. Here's what I did say, Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind.

The gist of that is not debatable - that the Bible translators were already Christians and would accept handed-down doctrine and dogma. The point being translators were not from a neutral group of translators skilled only in ancient languages.


Now you are claiming that a "believer in the Bible" (whatever that means) cannot be an honest, intelligent translator.

Error #2. I never claimed "a believer in the Bible" cannot be an intelligent, honest translator. Btw, you indicated a lack of understanding by "whatever that means" referring to Bible believers. It means those who believe in the Bible.


Well, your two claims are not the same.

Error #3. I never said they were the same, you said that (that I said they were the same).


Might add that it is quite possible that many of the translators were far from being solidly conservative Christians and would hardly have been eager to render any word as "hell".

This is a contradiction to your complaint against WG about knowing what others think.


You have been able to find only one scholar used in Bible translations who agrees with you and that is R. Young.

Error #4. I have not cited a single scholar who "agrees with me". Oddly, YOU are the one who found R. Young, not me! Unless you can read my mind, you do not know whether I have found zero scholars or one scholar or more than one who agree with me. This is your second contradiction referencing your complaint against WG about knowing what others think.


It is both, so tall is a relative term. The man is tall only when compared to other men. That is not true of aionios, so your comparison, in my view, was not useful.

Error #5. The letter "a" is the second letter in "tall". The letter "a" is the first letter in "anionos", so your claim, in my view, is not useful. Point being, your "relative term" comment is irrelevant as is mine re "a".


For a variety of good reasons, I never, ever just accept your opinion about anything.

Error #6. There are no good reasons to reject an opinion before seeing the opinion. To never accept an opinion before seeing the opinion is a clear example of bias leading to an invalid conclusion. I could give you two errors on this one, but I'll leave it as one.


This comment of yours is typical. Athos says something, so it just has to be true.

Error #7. I have never said that a comment of mine must be true because I said it. My comments are true because they are backed by evidence OR factual information OR on the internal logic of the comment OR many other reasons.


even now when you are trying to advance a meaning of a Greek word that is accepted by virtually no one else. Is that your forte?

Your use of "forte" is an error, but I'll skip over it. Error #7. Your claim that "virtually no one else" accepts the meaning of a Greek word I am defending is false on its face. You can easily verify the truth of the issue by googling.


You asked two questions to start the discussion with a wide-ranging array of content.

Congratulations! That's true.


The "entire discussion" has certainly not been limited to the eternal extent of hell.

Woops - you're back in the error column again, #8. The PRIMARY FOCUS has ALWAYS been the eternal aspect of hell. Other aspects were discussed without ever denying the primary focus.


But since it now seems to be accepted that hell is a real place of punishment for sin

If you're implying that is my belief, you are wrong. For the record, I do not believe Hell is a real place. Since it's unclear whom you're referencing, I won't cite an error for this one.


and not the garbage dump of Jerusalem

The garbage dump of Jerusalem - Gehenna - was a metaphor Jesus used. You're confusing two different words.


Your rendering (And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life) seems to be inconsistent and a little difficult to picture as straightforward.

It is not my rendering although I am in agreement with it or something very like it. I understand that you find it difficult to picture. It's not your fault, but some serious examination will help you understand it.


Even worse, if you consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable

Error #9. This is a BIG error. I never said I consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable. I never said anything remotely like that. In fact, I resent you defaming me like you have with no evidence. Here's what I said, "The NT is NOT reliable, but only in isolated, yet important parts". To repeat with emphasis, "...but only in isolated, yet important, parts". Key words obviously, are ONLY and ISOLATED. How could you possibly miss that?


then I have no idea why you would engage in a discussion about the meaning of a particular word when it would be completely impossible to know if Jesus ever used that word or not, thus rendering the entire discussion meaningless.

That's not an error, but it is a deeply flawed understanding how discussions can be carried out when the participant's words are not on an audio or video recording. We know Jesus' words are not always rendered word-for-word perfectly. We know this because the Gospels quote Jesus differently depending on author. But we can still get the meaning by examining the whole picture (the forest) and not getting bogged down in the details (the trees).


It strikes me that WG's objection to the reliability of the NT has nothing to do with a genuine interest in textual criticism and everything to do with a desire to have a NT that can be largely and selectively ignored.

That is a terrible thing to say about a fellow Christian, one who demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus far better than you do.


I have read his post. The test answers would all have to be "false".

That is not nearly as bad as your comment about WG, but it is still an unnecessary slam coming from a self-identified Christian. You would do well to follow the example of WG.

Summary: 9 errors and two contradictions.

Error #4. I have not cited a single scholar who "agrees with me". Oddly, YOU are the one who found R. Young, not me!Nope. You brought him up many months ago when we first discussed all of this.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847246&p=3847480#post3847480

For all the multiplied responses at the top, I was referring to this statement of yours. "Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind." You claimed they had a bias because of their Christian faith and that, incredibly enough, would explain how many hundreds of translators would come to the same conclusion over several centuries. I would instead suggest that honest people tend to come up with honest results.


Error #6. There are no good reasons to reject an opinion before seeing the opinion. To never accept an opinion before seeing the opinion is a clear example of bias leading to an invalid conclusion.You have a history. Nuff said.


Error #7. Your claim that "virtually no one else" accepts the meaning of a Greek word I am defending is false on its face. You can easily verify the truth of the issue by googling.I'm the only one who has. No English translation follows your idea other than Young, and he followed just half of your "rule".


That is a terrible thing to say about a fellow Christian, one who demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus far better than you do.Oh? So we should do as you have done on this critical comment? Follow your example?


That is not nearly as bad as your comment about WG, but it is still an unnecessary slam coming from a self-identified Christian. You would do well to follow the example of WG.It was a joke. I made that clear in my original post which was deleted by the watchful eye of whoever for who knows what reason. That has happened to several of my posts in the past few days. It started when I quoted a vulgar comment by you. I was told it was deleted because it was a cross thread reference. Right.


Error #9. This is a BIG error. I never said I consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable. I never said anything remotely like that. In fact, I resent you defaming me like you have with no evidence. Here's what I said, "The NT is NOT reliable, but only in isolated, yet important parts". To repeat with emphasis, "...but only in isolated, yet important, parts". Key words obviously, are ONLY and ISOLATED. How could you possibly miss that?
That's a fair criticism. I did not read your response carefully enough. It is, however, not a fair summary of WG's views on the subject. I have questioned her about it several times and she has agreed that she considers the NT unreliable. She has not gone beyond that.

I'll also add this. You posted a number of months ago that you had an ability to tell which of the statements of Jesus were authentic. You claimed you had developed this ability over years of reading the NT. Correct?

Summary. 1 error and no contradictions.

Meaningful summary. You have presented no support for your contention about the meaning of aionios other than Robert Young. But even at that, it still leaves hell a very real place of punishment for a very long period of time. I think your criticism of NT scholars is more a reaction about your own biased view of aionios than it is a valid observation.

she has agreed that she considers the NT unreliable. She has not gone beyond that.
No, she hasn't. You're generalizing what I said.

Remember this? "He didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals." Remember this? "How do you know Jesus said any of that?" Remember this? "How many times has the NT been translated, parts rewritten, words changed and added and deleted." Remember this? "Unfortunately, we don't have the complete original. And even then, you and I both know how unreliable notes and transcriptions and copies can be." And lastly, remember this? "From many, many sources, translations...."

Too late to go back now. You had many chances to explain your view, and all I got was what I posted above.

But if you want to change your mind, then by all means do so.

What I said is true, but that doesn't delete the entire NT or make many parts of it "unreliable".

So being the "invention" of mortals does not make the NT unreliable? I think that's a strange statement. But here's your chance. What is your view of the reliability of the NT?

I said, "He [meaning Jesus] didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals."

Stop twisting. And as you know, I had specified certain statements.

Nope. You brought him up many months ago when we first discussed all of this.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847246&p=3847480#post3847480

I did not associate your R. Young with Young's Concordance. Since if that is the case, you should have made note of the prior reference. However, I will take one error off even though in the larger scheme of things, it is a minor point. By minor point I mean that an error is an error no matter how many agree or disagree with it.

Also, here's a nice point from that old post that bears repeating: Also, and importantly, the Greek word kolasis used in this verse means “corrective punishment” - not eternal punishment.


I was referring to this statement of yours. "Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind."

Yes, I know. I included that exact quote describing my point.


You claimed they had a bias because of their Christian faith and that, incredibly enough, would explain how many hundreds of translators would come to the same conclusion over several centuries.

All religious believers are inclined to believe the tenets of their faith. If you want to call that bias, you are free to do so.


I would instead suggest that honest people tend to come up with honest results.

There is no reason why an honest belief cannot be a mistaken belief. Look around you - it's everywhere.


You have a history. Nuff said.

No, not "nuff said". There's more to be said. For starters, when you revert to the argument called ad hominem, you are displaying an ignorance that prevents you arguing from facts or carefully constructed opinion.


I'm the only one who has. No English translation follows your idea other than Young

Again, you have missed the point. Look at it this way - what Christian publisher would ever publish a Bible which denied the existence of Hell? I will answer for you - none. Google again - this time with better key words.


Oh? So we should do as you have done on this critical comment? Follow your example?

I have never suggested anyone follow my example. I suggested YOU follow WG's example. You are turning words around again. That's a bad habit of yours. You should try to argue with facts and/or carefully thought out opinions. For example, your comment about Young was a valid comment because it was supported by facts which you presented.


It was a joke. (This refers to a comment about WG)

It didn't read like a joke. But you do seem to be apologizing for it now. Good.


I made that clear in my original post which was deleted by the watchful eye of whoever for who knows what reason. That has happened to several of my posts in the past few days.

I will now go off on a tangent that may be lengthy and possibly convoluted but will help to explain the mystery of your post disappearing - at least one of them.

I contacted the moderator Curlyben and asked - note ASKED - if a post of yours in reply to me was allowed under the rules. It was your post #20 in the category Current Events within the thread entitled "House Members Praise mass Shooting". Curlyben instructed me to select RIP (Report Inappropriate Post) and he would consider it "over a beer", he said.

I said I am not asking the thread to be closed. I only want to know how the rules apply to the post which I inquired about. Also, I advised him there was no RIP on the post location, only an RP (Report Post without the "inappropriate""). I emphasized this because I did not want your post deleted. I intended to make a full reply, and wanted only an explanation of the rules.

I was again instructed to make an RIP. I said the instructions at the link specifically stated that the RP was ONLY to be used for "advertising, wrong topic or hateful/obscene speech". I repeated that all I wanted was an explanation of the rules and with my request I was not claiming any of those things. This went back and forth until I complied with his instructions and asked for his supervisor's email address to escalate my question since Curlyben was not forthcoming with an answer. He replied as follows: "As to escalation, it's me". I then asked him if he were the owner of the site. He never replied and I'm still waiting.

So that's probably the reason you found a least one of your posts deleted. It's too bad because I had a good reply.

Back to the issue at hand.


That's a fair criticism. I did not read your response carefully enough.

Ok.


It is, however, not a fair summary of WG's views on the subject.

You will have to take that up with WG.


I'll also add this. You posted a number of months ago that you had an ability to tell which of the statements of Jesus were authentic. You claimed you had developed this ability over years of reading the NT. Correct?

No, not correct. At least the slant you have put on what I may have said. You're making me sound like some sort of magician. I'm sure I would never say something in the manner you describe. It would help if you cited the location as you did earlier in this thread.


Summary. 1 error and no contradictions.

You get partial credit for the R. Young comment. Of the original 9 errors and two contradictions, your new summary is 8 errors and two contradictions. Hell, you didn't even address several of the errors. No credit is given for non-addressment. (Yeah, I know, I made up that word).


You have presented no support for your contention about the meaning of aionios other than Robert Young.

You insist on support for every contention of mine. By support, you mean others who can confirm my claims. It doesn't always work that way. In fact, it rarely works that way. You were given the Greek, several facts, how to satisfy yourself by googling with proper research tools, and the logical consistency of any argument. You are free to disagree but you are not free to deny simply because you say so.

(Your claim that I insist on my point simply because I say so has been debunked. See above.)


But even at that, it still leaves hell a very real place of punishment for a very long period of time.

Only in the mind of believers like yourself.


I think your criticism of NT scholars is more a reaction about your own biased view of aionios than it is a valid observation.

You are free to think whatever you want. But you give no evidence of any bias on my part. My view is based on the facts as presented and the opinions I have shared with you, which together make for valid observation.

I thought this was supposed to be a thread about hell, not a personal pot-shot-fest. That's all I'm seeing right now.

Athos, I'm afraid you're pulling a fast one with two different meanings of aionios in Matt 25:40. Those lines are basic Jewish parallelism. It was a common thing in their writing and speaking. In a parallelism like this, the word is going to have the same meaning in both.

JL, you just can't resist getting personal and working yourself into a lather.

Here's the short version on that word beginning with Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, the authoritative lexicon of the Greek New Testament.*
1. Without beginning 2 Tim 1:9
2. Without beginning or end Rom 16:26
3. Without end Lk 16:9; Heb 13:20

They list several others, of course. Of greater interest are the non-theological uses. This is from Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the New Testament. This is THE book for seeing how the secular world used the language. It's illustrated from the papyri and other sources that we have discovered. The Oxyrhynchus papyri are especially important in this regard.

"In classical Greek...it never loses the sense of perpetuus." It was often attributed to the emperor. Tiberius had an "eternal house" for example. "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be it at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Caesar's life."

In Matt 25:40 we know it doesn't mean "without beginning" because there's a definite beginning to the people's dwelling wherever they end up. Hence it can't mean without beginning or end, either, for the same reason. I think M-M (that's how we abbreviate it because "Moulton-Milligan" takes too long to type) has it correct: it means beyond the temporal horizon. How far beyond? I leave that for the theologians to take up. I'm just a language nerd.

*second edition. I never bought the next edition because the print was smaller and the typefaces are weird.

In Matt 25:40 we know it doesn't mean "without beginning" because there's a definite beginning to the people's dwelling wherever they end up. Hence it can't mean without beginning or end, either, for the same reason. I think M-M (that's how we abbreviate it because "Moulton-Milligan" takes too long to type) has it correct: it means beyond the temporal horizon. How far beyond? I leave that for the theologians to take up. I'm just a language nerd.That seems fair enough, other than to note that no translator is willing to go there other than RY. Still, as long as the word is applied equally to heaven/hell, it is at least consistent.


JL, you just can't resist getting personal and working yourself into a lather.I can see how I would come across that way. This is a passion for me and no game. Believe it or not, I do try to keep from letting it get personal, but the line there is sometimes blurry. I would only contend that it is very much a two-way street.

WG

Not true. A God of Love is going to threaten hellfire to make humans love each other?Yes, but that is what I mean. There is no historical/textual reason to doubt that Jesus said those words. There is only the idea that you don't think they fit, and that's just not sufficient to convince others. It just strikes me as a very weak argument. Besides, I don't think that's what Jesus was doing at all. He is not using a threat to motivate, and He is not referring to works as much as He is referencing the fruit of genuine faith vs. a lack of fruit. In other words, those who genuinely trust him will do his will, while those who don't will follow their selfish instincts. It is a very serious warning, but not really a threat.

Think of it this way. When I was a teacher I would tell my students, "Those who pay attention and study make good grades while those who neglect their studies do poorly and possibly fail." Is that a threat or a warning?

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of certain original Hebrew and Greek words: sheol, hades, tartarus, gehenna, owlam, aion and aionios, which first occurred when Jerome translated Scripture into the Catholic Latin Vulgate in the early fifth century.

The truth of the matter is that there is not one single word in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that means hell.

Got a bit of circular reasoning here.

No words mean hell. How do you know?
Because these words don't mean hell. How do you know?
Because no words mean hell.



Hell is a man-invented, pagan, unchristian, heretical belief that was first embraced and christianised by Catholicism and incorporated into the Bible by Jerome through his Latin Vulgate in the early history of Christianity. Also, Jesus Christ never spoke about ‘everlasting’ fire and punishment, as erroneously translated in verses such as Matthew 18:8, 25:41 and 25:46 in popular versions of the Bible that support the doctrine of hell.

The War Scroll from Qumran suggests otherwise. At least some Jewish sects had a fairly defined concept of an afterlife of torment, regardless of what one calls it.



God’s love and the doctrine of hell are irreconcilable.

Hardly. For one thing, God has many attributes and love is only one of them. I love my family, but if one of them commits a crime, I'm turning them in because there's also justice, which you decry below. What do you suggest God do with people who simply refuse to be reconciled with shim?


It is only twisted Augustinian theology that tries to reconcile God’s love with endless punishment in hell. Hell believing preachers use absurd reasoning to say that eternal torture in hell, for the vast majority of mankind who die as unbelievers, is an act of God’s love demonstrating His perfect justice. This is totally twisted reasoning, beyond all comprehension.

Having once been one of those preachers, you're mistaken. Letting someone go their own way even if it means eternal separation is an act of love, releasing the person to their own will rather than forcing something on them. Again, we have to balance all of God's attributes.


Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine. What type of justice would it be for an all-knowing, all-loving God, who knows the end from the beginning and who foreknew that man would sin, then proceed to create multiple billions of people, in His own image, to have them end up being punished by Him eternally for their sins committed in the few years of their temporary existence in this life?

Please define "justice".

Falling back on foreknowledge betrays the weakness of your argument. I know what will happen if my bipolar daughter ever goes off her medication. If she ever does, she'll have to suffer the consequences and I won't intervene. Does that make a mockery of my love for her? Try to imply that and I'll show you what nasty things I can do with a wet noodle. I'm giving her her head, letting her run her own life and make her own mistakes. God willing she'll never go off her medications, she's properly terrified of the idea. But you get the idea.


The Bible clearly says that God’s will is to save all men. However, hell makes Satan and man’s fallen free will out to be more powerful than God’s Sovereign will for the salvation of all people.

I assume you're talking about 1 Tim 2:4. God θέλει (thelei) all men to be saved. Wishes, desires, would like to have it so. Not a statement about God's sovereign will, an expression of wish, not necessarily fulfilled. And the context says, pray for these people that they will be saved, then get out there and tell them how. Paul knew not everyone would receive the gospel, such people were the reason he was in prison. He would have loved to see everyone know the truth, but it wasn't to be. People have freedom. This is not a theological statement. It's an expression of wish.



It depicts God as a weak and powerless God who is unable to fulfil His will to save all.


See above on "will".



The truth of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive the sins of the whole world, as the Bible clearly tells us. This is indeed the true Gospel. So, how can Jesus Christ be the Saviour of all men, yet fail to save all men? This simply does not make sense. The doctrine of hell completely negates the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.


A gift isn't yours until you take it. If you refuse to take it, the giver can do one of two things: force it on you, or respect your wishes. God chooses to do the latter.



The doctrine of Hell is also a source of anti-semitism, but that's a story for another time.


Well, don't just sit there. TELL!

DW - thanks for your reply. I am not going to reply point-by-point because it's all been done before and, in my opinion, debunks every point you made. A small "complaint" about you - had you been here on a regular basis, you would have been apprised of those points. I understand that other matters intervened preventing you from being here more often, but I hope YOU understand we can't rehash all the previous material to satisfy you. If you're really interested, you can always research backwards in this category.

However, having said that, I'll make an exception for what I believe to be the most important point about this discussion on eternal Hell. But first, a minor point easily dismissed.


I love my family, but if one of them commits a crime, I'm turning them in because there's also justice, which you decry below. What do you suggest God do with people who simply refuse to be reconciled with shim?

I decry nothing, especially justice which you claim I decry without a bit of evidence quoting where I made that statement. Please don't start putting words in my mouth like Jl has been prone to do for the longest time. He never learns - best not to use him as a role model.


Responding as promised:

1. Do you sentence your child to an eternity of painful cruel torture for committing that crime?
2. For people who refuse to be reconciled with him, I suggest he treat them with understanding and kindness (you asked for my suggestion). That does not include an eternity of torture as noted in #1.

I further suggest he treat all those who never heard of him or believe in a different God to be treated exactly the same way. We've been over this ground before, but bringing your child into it makes it more personal.


The most important point:


Falling back on foreknowledge betrays the weakness of your argument.

By omitting the creation aspect of God, YOUR argument betrays a weakness that is unforgivable. Sorry if that is pot-shotting, but the strongest word possible is required. The rest of your argument using your bipolar daughter as a proof of your position is irrelevant when referencing foreknowledge as it applies in the present discussion. I don't know what the wet noodle thing is supposed to mean.

In the plainest language I can muster, God's foreknowledge of a person is combined with his creating that person. You can't have one without the other. Therefore, God knows (foreknowledge) what that person will do, and yet God creates that person fully knowing what that person will do resulting in his being sent to hell. God, by his act of creation, knows that person will go to hell, yet God creates him anyway. Excuse the repetition - sometimes it helps to get the point across. IN EFFECT, GOD HAS ENSURED THAT THE PERSON WILL GO TO HELL BY CREATING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

There is not a single Bible verse in the world that can refute that.

2. For people who refuse to be reconciled with him, I suggest he treat them with understanding and kindness (you asked for my suggestion). That does not include an eternity of torture as noted in #1.

This doesn't answer the question. They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?


The most important point:

Falling back on foreknowledge betrays the weakness of your argument.
By omitting the creation aspect of God, YOUR argument betrays a weakness that is unforgivable.

Foreknowledge does not imply causation, contrary to your unspoken connection. You say God is sending them to hell just by creating them. But those people are free and responsible to behave according to God's principles. You're describing robots, not people. People make choices. God may not like those choices, but he makes people free to make them or not make them. Yes, he knows how it'll turn out. But he gives them the chance and the responsibility out of love. How do these things reconcile? I don't know, and if God explained it to us our heads would probably explode.
The best image I ever saw came from my favorite Bible college teacher. He drew a railroad track vanishing over the horizon. One rail was labeled Sovereignty and the other was labeled Free Will. He said, somewhere beyond the vanishing point, these things reconcile. I don't know how or where, and it's probably just as well.

As for justice:


Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine.

Yet, that appears to be the kind of justice the Bible presents. I asked you to define "justice". Still waiting.

The best image I ever saw came from my favorite Bible college teacher. He drew a railroad track vanishing over the horizon. One rail was labeled Sovereignty and the other was labeled Free Will.I've seen that as well. It is a difficult area, and quite possibly one where God's thoughts are so much higher and more elegant/sophisticated than ours that we can never understand them.


They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?Perhaps it is more basic than just that. Justice requires law. What does God do with lawbreakers?

This doesn't answer the question. They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?

Of course, I answered the question - treat them with understanding and kindness if they don't want to be in his presence. Surely, "...people who refuse to be reconciled with him" covers those who "... don't want to be in his presence."

What God does with them case-by-case (is that what you're asking?) is God's business. How about just ignoring them and respect their free will which is what you say sinks my next point. Or you can pick anything for God to do that suits you - except, of course, eternal hell.


Foreknowledge does not imply causation

It certainly does when the foreknow-er also creates the foreseen-ee.


contrary to your unspoken connection.

There was nothing "unspoken" about it. I spoke loudly. You either didn't see it, or didn't understand it.


You say God is sending them to hell just by creating them.

No, that is NOT what I'm saying (now I think the problem is your not reading (seeing) what I wrote). It's NOT "just by creating them" - it is by creating them (omnipotence) and KNOWING (omniscience) they will go to hell. God's knowledge is PERFECT. If God is wrong because their free will prevents their going to hell, then God's knowledge is not perfect. God was wrong. But that cannot be - if God is wrong, he is not God.


But those people are free and responsible to behave according to God's principles.

In that case, God did not foresee what would happen to them. God's foreknowledge was in error. I hope by now you are seeing that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time under your example. If what you say is true, then God is not God.


You're describing robots, not people.

No not robots. Simply people who cannot thwart God's will because God is all-powerful (omnipotent) and cannot err. If people change what god has foreseen (omniscient) via free will, then God is not all-knowing and his omniscience was in error. God cannot be in error, else God is not God.

Sorry for so much repeating, but it seems to be necessary to clarify as much as possible.


People make choices.

Yes, and God has foreseen those choices because he is omniscient (all-knowing).


God may not like those choices, but he makes people free to make them or not make them.

Yes, they are free to make or not make those choices, but (here's the key). God knows beforehand (omniscience) what those choices will be because he is God and is all-knowing (omniscient).


Yes, he knows how it'll turn out.

YES, YES, YES, YES.


But he gives them the chance and the responsibility out of love.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.


How do these things reconcile?

They do not and cannot reconcile. Surely, you must see that.


I don't know

Finally, you are admitting you don't know. If you had said that in the beginning instead of saying what you did, we could have ended this at the beginning. By now, it must be glaringly obvious to you that they CANNOT reconcile.


and if God explained it to us our heads would probably explode.

By assuming that God could "explain it to us", you are limiting God to your understanding or, more accurately, to your lack of understanding. It's like saying God can make a square circle because he's God. But God cannot violate his own rules that he (as Creator) has put in motion.


The best image I ever saw came from my favorite Bible college teacher. He drew a railroad track vanishing over the horizon. One rail was labeled Sovereignty and the other was labeled Free Will. He said, somewhere beyond the vanishing point, these things reconcile.

He was wrong. I hope you see that now.

My comment:

Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine.

Your reply:

Yet, that appears to be the kind of justice the Bible presents.

That is another topic - the reliability of the Bible considering its many translations and editions and languages, etc., etc. That has been discussed at length elsewhere on these pages.


I asked you to define "justice". Still waiting.

Justice is the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. That's from Merriam-Webster.

The part related to this discussion is "...the assignment of merited rewards or punishments". In what universe could anyone possibly believe that not believing in God (for any of dozens of reasons) or refusing to believe in God (for any of dozens of reasons) merits being locked in a torture chamber and being horribly burned in a never-consuming fire for all eternity? Or in some other Hell where punishment goes on for eternity?

I have answered in every possible way to ensure that I covered every one of your points. I am sorry if it's been tedious, but I saw no other way to reply fully. I beg you to read carefully all that I've written, and not to read carelessly or merely scan over what I wrote - or worse, skip what I wrote. Thank you.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
This doesn't answer the question. They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?
Of course, I answered the question - treat them with understanding and kindness if they don't want to be in his presence. Surely, "...people who refuse to be reconciled with him" covers those who "... don't want to be in his presence."

What God does with them case-by-case (is that what you're asking?) is God's business. How about just ignoring them and respect their free will which is what you say sinks my next point. Or you can pick anything for God to do that suits you - except, of course, eternal hell.

No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go? If God is omnipresent and they don't want to be in his presence, there's no alternative but to make a place for them to go where he's not. Where is it and what is it like? You've ruled out the only alternative Jesus ever talked about, so we need to hear yours.

We're never going to get anywhere with this because we can't come together on the foreknowledge question, so I'm bowing out of this. When I was in high school I ran track one year. I couldn't get past the fact that I ran a mile or so and wound up back in the same place. That's what we're doing here, and I don't want to do it any more.

No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go?

I DID answer. I said God can put them anywhere he wants. They go where God sends them.


If God is omnipresent and they don't want to be in his presence, there's no alternative but to make a place for them to go where he's not.

How about if God just sends them out of existence? If God brought them into existence, surely God can send them out of existence. That solves your omnipresent problem which really is a semantic problem, else we're dealing with pantheism which we don't want to do.


You've ruled out the only alternative Jesus ever talked about, so we need to hear yours.

Do you mean Hell being the only alternative Jesus ever talked about? I don't believe Jesus ever said that, but let's not get bogged down in that topic, what Jesus did or did not say - plenty of room for that in another thread.

Anyway, I answered your question in my reply above - out of existence.


We're never going to get anywhere with this because we can't come together on the foreknowledge question

The reason for that is your refusal to accept the obvious. Sorry if that's harsh, but there's no other answer to the dilemma you expressed. I explained foreknowledge so that anyone can understand it. So, when someone (you) says he disagrees with the explanation, I have to look elsewhere for his reasoning.

That also is plain to see. You feel it undermines your faith/understanding of God. Whenever that happens, you, as a man of God, reject whatever is doing the undermining. This is common and well understood.

Many fervently held beliefs have been challenged, for example, as science reveals the natural world to be the cause of what had previously been held as divine handiwork. Most people, sooner or later, come to accept the new paradigm without losing their strong faith. The essential core of the nature of God can never be eliminated by science because science cannot examine/analyze at that deep level. But science can and does eliminate much of the literal understanding surrounding religious myths and allegories.

Some people grasp this sooner than others. Some never grasp it.


so I'm bowing out of this....That's what we're doing here (running in circles), and I don't want to do it any more.

Perfectly understood. But I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't note some home truths about your occasional participation here. Offered as help, not criticism.

Bowing out is never the answer. Facing difficulties is far better. Your tendency to bow out (three or four times now) when your faith is shaken or you cannot come up with an answer (as here) will not serve you in the long run. I'm certain your FB page says something very similar at times.

If you confront challenges to your faith, you will find that you can work through them and find yourself with a deeper and stronger faith for having done that. That's a nice thing about religious faith - it is always revealing itself in new and deeper ways.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go?
I DID answer. I said God can put them anywhere he wants. They go where God sends them.

That's the question, isn't it? Where exactly does he send them?

That's the question, isn't it? Where exactly does he send them?

My answer is quoted right there in your question:


Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go?
I DID answer. I said God can put them anywhere he wants. They go where God sends them.

Are you suggesting YOU know where God sends them? If so, where? God doesn't tell me what he does.

I'm asking what YOUR belief is, what one believes God would do.I can't speak for God. One thing I do know; God became a Man...question; What would man do? Look, we all live within a kingdom of this World. If we are of this World then we will be judged according to the functions of this World...the Judges of this World do not acquit the guilty...all are guilty.

If you so choose not to live according to this world and enter into the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, you will choose the only Judge, that is able to acquit the guilty...being nonexistent according to this (physical) world. In fact, we are in a cell, right now, waiting for Judgement.
Where exactly does he send them? Should never think of it as "them," It only pertains to you.

Welcome back, Walter.

Thank you JL. No need to welcome me back, I am always here.

Once I see the discussion going off into la, la, land I am forced to step away.

Thank you JL. No need to welcome me back, I am always here.

Once I see the discussion going off into la, la, land I am forced to step away.
Then please suggest ways for us to restrain JL so threads don't unravel.

Are you suggesting YOU know where God sends them? If so, where? God doesn't tell me what he does.

I suggested no such thing. Please see my oft-repeated "Idunno" that you constantly seem to overlook.