- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jul 15
6 edits
Originally posted by divegeester- The loving God who created the universe, the earth and all human beings has also created and maintains in functioning order a place of the most unimaginable horror where billion of men and women who have not believed in him will be tortured by God for ETERNITY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know the numbers nor the intensity of suffering of the lost.
I do not know if it is as easy to be lost as some assume.
And I do not know if the exact same amount of suffering is measured out to all the lost.
I do know that apparently God has prepared a destiny for all those angels, demons, and fallen people who do not want to have anything to do with God. He has prepared their own place.
Whether symbolic, and whether symbolic to a great degree or a lesser degree or not at all or completely so, I do not know. What I do know is that God has taken up His responsibility to inform us that that place will not be to the liking of any creature.
My guess is that the pain of the conscience self condemning the one who has turned his back on Christ's love, is probably the worst "burning" of that place.
I also think that to leave that place and be where God is everywhere will be worse for the lost than to stay where they suffer and God is not. The rich man in Luke 16:19-31 did not ask to be taken out of that place of torment. He only asked for some temporary relief. "Why?" I ask. I have no other answer than that he accepted that that place of punishment is where he knew he should be.
It is conceivable that he still did not want to have anything to do with God or be with God.
It doesn't matter if trillions go there. It doesn't matter if only 10 or 12 go there or 10 or 12 octillion. God has a place where all those who want nothing to do with Him, His righteousness, His holiness, His glory and His redeeming love, can go and be away from Him.
If He warns us on no uncertain terms, which no one is able to misunderstand that that place will be a suffering forever, I count that as His faithfulness to communicate to us the truth.
You said you wanted to know how a Christian who believes in eternal punishment could think about it. That's how I think.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jul 15
3 edits
You are prolifically published in your beliefs
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are aspects that I have not touched on at all, even though you say I am "prolific".
which are grotesque in the extreme, so I think calling me "dishonest" in my intention with the "Spectators in Hell" thread is rather pathetic effort to cast the spotlight away from yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you have said this repeatedly or something like it. If it is "grotesque in the extreme" to you than it is "grotesque in the extreme" according to the teaching words that came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ and according to the pure word of God.
Maybe you are involved in an idolatry which exalts your sense of decency above God Himself. Peter thought that for Jesus to go to execution on the cross was an unthinkable grotesque act. He rebuked the Son of God and demanded that He have pity on Himself.
Jesus, whose perception is totally without obscurity, discerned the enemy of God lurking out in Peter's good feelings. He spoke to Satan concealed in Peter's seeming good intentions.
"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised.
And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be merciful to You, Lord! This shall by no means happen to You!
But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men." (Matt. 16:21-23)
What is the point?
The enemy of God can lurk concealed in our human sentiments which sometimes are more focused on the things of men rather than the will of God. Peter was the leading disciple. And his sense of what was grotesque to the extreme could not always be trusted.
I don't recall whether you answered the question:
Do you think that YOU are more concerned for the fate of sinners than the Son of God is ?
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonshipI get it, you think since I am obviously bound for hell, you continue to ignore my posts. Fine, I can live with that.
[b]
You are prolifically published in your beliefs
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are aspects that I have not touched on at all, even though you say I am "prolific".
which are grotesque in the extreme, so I think calling me "dishonest" in my intention with the "Spectators in Hell" thread is rather pat ...[text shortened]... on:
Do you think that YOU are more concerned for the fate of sinners than the Son of God is ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhousesonhouse, YOU said that, not me. I didn't say "There's no hope for ANYONE on this Forum as far as becoming a believer in Christ, saved under the precious blood of Jesus.
I get it, you think since I am obviously bound for hell, you continue to ignore my posts. Fine, I can live with that.
He saved me didn't He ????
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIm not sure I got your question right but here goes.
After judgment day....
God's grace to us will cover all sins?
God's mercy to us will be complete?
Will we see any judgment, condemnation mixed into either His grace or mercy then?
Basically, what is it you think it will be like and why?
After judgment day then there will be a separation of all people. As Christ himself put it, the sheep and the goats, The good and righteous sheep will get eternal life and the evil goats will get eternal damnation.
Yes Gods mercy covers all sins to those God considers deserving ,, hence the word JUDGMENT. All will be judged according to their works.
The details of judgment and condemnation is not clear in the Bible and deliberately so. Our purpose as professsed Christians is to follow Christ and wait in hope that on that day we would be accounted worthy .. as Paul clearly said.
Do you need references?
08 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999As I read what you wrote I believe we are in agreement, so unless something comes up
Im not sure I got your question right but here goes.
After judgment day then there will be a separation of all people. As Christ himself put it, the sheep and the goats, The good and righteous sheep will get eternal life and the evil goats will get eternal damnation.
Yes Gods mercy covers all sins to those God considers deserving ,, hence the word JUDG ...[text shortened]... hat on that day we would be accounted worthy .. as Paul clearly said.
Do you need references?
later where I question it, I think we agree.
Thank you for taking the time and working through this!!
With respect to those deserving...we may disagree, but that wasn't part of my question.
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks for taking the time to word the question more clearly 😀
As I read what you wrote I believe we are in agreement, so unless something comes up
later where I question it, I think we agree.
Thank you for taking the time and working through this!!
With respect to those deserving...we may disagree, but that wasn't part of my question.
As for those deserving .. that is known only to God and Christ. There are some writings in the NT where Christ makes it clear that certain disciples or apostles names are written in the book of life because they have done certain things successfully.
In the teachings of Christ and the Aposltes, there is a course to complete, a lifestyle to be lived, work to be done, temptation to be resisted, sin to avoid, or even hardship to endure. Those who endure to the end .. those shall be rewarded. Those who follow Christ .. those shall be rewarded.
It certainly not as simple as accept Christ with your mouth and you are saved eternally.. That has to be the most narrow and delusional doctrine ever devised. Im not saying that you believe that necessarily.
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by KellyJayAfter my last experience with you, I had similarly low hopes, but tried nonetheless.
Listen if you wish to just cut me off feel free, when we entered into this discussion I had very low hopes you'd follow through. If we cannot even talk about what I thought we agreed on, I doubt we will ever be able to come to terms and understanding on what we may not agree on.
However, you must admit that when I initiated this discussion, I stipulated the conditions, i.e. starting from First Principles.
However, you insisted repeatedly to jump right into a theological discussion on Grace, and even AFTER judgement, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered First Principles.
Do you agree that it was YOU that broke our agreed conditions for this debate?
Can you understand why I am getting frustrated with you?
08 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJust"Okay, we can start with mercy and grace. Can you describe God's mercy and grace with
After my last experience with you, I had similarly low hopes, but tried nonetheless.
However, you must admit that when I initiated this discussion, I stipulated the conditions, i.e. starting from First Principles.
However, you insisted repeatedly to jump right into a theological discussion on Grace, and even AFTER judgement, which cannot by any stretc ...[text shortened]... agreed conditions for this debate?
Can you understand why I am getting frustrated with you?
respect to God's limitations for both if there are limitations?"
This was my opening line with you after I asked if we could do this without insults.
You brought up First Principles to someone else not me, I responded to your post
with my opening line, you did not come to me with the First Principles, I believe it
was sonship. Now if you want to suggest I am bound to what you two were talking
about....I think we can end....I will follow our conversation, I will not follow you with
everyone you are talking to.
So I do not agree I broke our agreement, we didn't have one in my opinion.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by KellyJayyou did not come to me with the First Principles, I believe it
"Okay, we can start with mercy and grace. Can you describe God's mercy and grace with
respect to God's limitations for both if there are limitations?"
This was my opening line with you after I asked if we could do this without insults.
You brought up First Principles to someone else not me, I responded to your post
with my opening line, you did not c ...[text shortened]... ou are talking to.
So I do not agree I broke our agreement, we didn't have one in my opinion.
was sonship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? What are First Principles?
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonshipThat is a CalJust question and it seems to be an important one to him.
[b] you did not come to me with the First Principles, I believe it
was sonship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? What are First Principles?[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ and sonship,
That is a CalJust question and it seems to be an important one to him.
Yes, it is a very important one to me.
My challenge, if you may, to sonship was if he could discuss any spiritual matter in "normal" language, without referring to scriptural quotations to make a case.
What I meant (and tried to explain on several occasions in this thread) was that if we want to use concepts that we apply to complicated spiritual matters, we should first establish what we mean by them, and see if we can agree on THAT, and only THEN apply them to the matter at hand, for example (in this case) eternal punishment.
Sonship declined the invitation, but then when KJ jumped in, I was under the impression that you wanted to take over from sonship ON THE SAME TERMS THAT I SUGGESTED. Clearly, if you now say that that assumption on my part that was a mistake, then I apologise. It was a misunderstanding.
To clarify and respond to sonship's question again, by First Principles I mean the concepts of Grace, Mercy, Punishment, Debt, etc, which are all words in common usage. If we cannot agree a priori what we mean by them, then there is no point in jumping into a discussion of them as they may apply to God, as KJ continuously demands.
So, far from me abandoning a topic that I proposed, I am ditching a subject that was never accepted, rather than trying to flog a totally dead horse.
No harm done and hopefully no feathers ruffled.
But, in closing, I am rather sad that there were no takers...
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by CalJustI'll tell you what I did not join this discussion to talk about First Principles, but I will.
KJ and sonship,
Yes, it is a very important one to me.
My challenge, if you may, to sonship was if he could discuss any spiritual matter in "normal" language, without referring to scriptural quotations to make a case.
What I meant (and tried to explain on several occasions in this thread) was that if we want to use concepts that we apply to complic ...[text shortened]... hopefully no feathers ruffled.
But, in closing, I am rather sad that there were no takers...
We did start off with a misunderstanding, but I'll drop all of my complaints, because I think
we both agree what was what occurred.
You start, tell me what is you want from me hopefully I'll grasp your question and answer
it according to your satisfaction.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jul 15
3 edits
Originally posted by CalJustMy challenge, if you may, to sonship was if he could discuss any spiritual matter in "normal" language, without referring to scriptural quotations to make a case.
KJ and sonship,
Yes, it is a very important one to me.
My challenge, if you may, to sonship was if he could discuss any spiritual matter in "normal" language, without referring to scriptural quotations to make a case.
What I meant (and tried to explain on several occasions in this thread) was that if we want to use concepts that we apply to complic ...[text shortened]... hopefully no feathers ruffled.
But, in closing, I am rather sad that there were no takers...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want people to know that God is speaking to human beings.
In this area where a curtain covers the realm that none have gone to and come back with a report, (none except Jesus of Nazareth) it is significant that revelation has informed us of things we otherwise couldn't know.
There are apologist who have a talent for defeating atheists on their own sociological / philsophical grounds. I would refer you to debates between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'souze. After a while the athiest is practically praying that he would go back to quoting bible verses.
On this topic, I want to explain with the naysayer how Scripture addresses the concerns voiced. This was not originally a Christian / Atheist debate.
What I meant (and tried to explain on several occasions in this thread) was that if we want to use concepts that we apply to complicated spiritual matters, we should first establish what we mean by them, and see if we can agree on THAT, and only THEN apply them to the matter at hand, for example (in this case) eternal punishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see. However, I think divegeester understands the matters involved. He intensely doesn't think they should be.
The only other bystander I think, I addressed is FMF. And I think he also has no problem understanding the terms being used.
Others who come into the discussion may need some definition.
The "second death" can be understood as God's final dealing with people after the first death has occurred, if the need arises.
And some may want to slow things up completely by demanding a definition for God. And some even may want a definition for "define" for all I know.
Sonship declined the invitation, but then when KJ jumped in, I was under the impression that you wanted to take over from sonship ON THE SAME TERMS THAT I SUGGESTED. Clearly, if you now say that that assumption on my part that was a mistake, then I apologise. It was a misunderstanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify and respond to sonship's question again, by First Principles I mean the concepts of Grace, Mercy, Punishment, Debt, etc, which are all words in common usage. If we cannot agree a priori what we mean by them, then there is no point in jumping into a discussion of them as they may apply to God, as KJ continuously demands.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace is the enjoyment of God Himself coming in to be what man needs. That's a big subject Caljust.
Mercy - is like grace but I think reaches down to an even lower position.
The Dept - is owed to the law of God. To put things back in balance when they are unbalanced, the sin committed owes a dept to the law of God. God is the ultimate moral Governor.
Punishment - is intructive in some instance but retributive in others. The moral scales of the moral universe being put out of balance by the sins of a man can incur from God either:
1.) Instructive punishment for the purpose of correction.
2.) Retributive vengence for the ones beyond remedy, beyond reconciliation.
This thread was mostly about the latter case. This is not instructive remedial punishment for correction. The eternal punishment is retribution never ending for the sinner beyond possibility of correction.
That is brief. And that is off the top of my head.
So, far from me abandoning a topic that I proposed, I am ditching a subject that was never accepted, rather than trying to flog a totally dead horse.
No harm done and hopefully no feathers ruffled.
But, in closing, I am rather sad that there were no takers...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe a whole different thread opened up with stipulations in your OP might generate the discussion you want.