Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do Believers in Eternal Torment Have An Underlying Sadistic Streak?
I don't know about believers . . . but any God who would create and use such a punishment surely does! There is no way a God who IS Love could or would ever create such a thing.
It does not matter what one believes if it is true. Even if I were to believe different, it does not matter in the event it is true.
GOD has declared what is a JUST sentence for our rebellion against Him. Part of the gospel is JESUS spending three days and three nights in Sheol for OUR sake with the promise of the Father that He would not let His soul remain in Hell or let His Holy One see corruption (Bible paraphrase). Jesus was made a curse so WE don't have to bear this JUST punishment that HE received not only suffering physical death but spiritual death as well.
JESUS saves sinners from ETERNAL DAMNATION, What GOD has deemed as a Just punishment for our rebellion. He loved the World so much that He sent His only begotten Son to DIE both Physically and Spiritually for You and Me.
There is nothing sadistic about it. The Gospel is God's display of His love for mankind, which is why rejecting it has ETERNAL consequences.
We've gotten way off track, which usually happens on this type of discussion. We're arguing doctrine now and everybody knows that's a dead end. ET'er s are going to stick to their beliefs come hell or high water and so are the universalists.
That's my whole point, at least the one I tried to make in the OP.
I'm trying to remember, and I can't, a single time even one of the "Big Four" defenders of eternal torment on this board ever once said, "You know, it's possible I could be wrong. I know the Bible isn't absolutely 100% solid on eternal torment or annihilation or universalism, because otherwise we wouldn't have evenly divided camps among learned scholars like Piper, Fudge and Bell, three among thousands, between the three POV's. So yeah, I'm willing admit universalism is possible."
Not once. Point out to me one instance where they ever have.
But legoman, Pleroo, .sparrow, Heartsong, and myself have been on both sides of the fence, unlike the Big Four and so we have experienced both beliefs and have, after intense, rational scrunity of the scriptures, come to the belief that universalism makes the most sense with regard to God's character, with regard to a body of scripture that plainly states it, with regard to a body of literature that explains in plain detail why the purported "sacred cows" scriptures such as Matthew 13:41-43 have been unintentional misinterpreted by some and deliberately misinterpreted by powerful religious figures over the centuries for no other reason than
Quote:
"religion is in the control business. It is in the guilt-producing control business"
Now I believe anyone of the universalists I've named above is willing to acknowledge it's possible they could be wrong. I'm sure they believe it's not likely they are wrong, but anything is possible. For myself, yes, I'm willing to admit I could be wrong abut universalism.
Moderator cut: deleted
Because, you see, that's the premise I tried to lay out in the OP--that despite the mountains of evidence these hundreds of learned scholars have laid out in support of universalism, solid scripture being the biggest--supporters of eternal simple have their minds shut like a steel trap; as if even acknowledging they could be wrong and that universalism could be right would
1. be a gross sin that might throw them into such disfavor with God that in His wrath He would send them plummeting into hellfire for betraying Him simply because for a brief moment they considered universalism to be possible.
or
2. the thought of even acknowledging that their worst enemies, such as myself, has even a chance of escaping eternal hellfire and damnation for our "heresy" of denying the doctrine of eternal torment is a thought that sticks in their craw so badly that they almost want to vomit.
If they cannot even say, "It's possible I could be wrong" then I'm afraid my premise stands. Eternal tormentists who are unwilling or unable to admit it do have a mean/sadistic streak somewhere deep inside of them. It's the only logical, rational conclusion one can come to.
Last edited by june 7th; 10-02-2013 at 06:44 AM..
Reason: Please refer to new Sticky pertaining to attacks on others based on their beliefs.
We've gotten way off track, which usually happens on this type of discussion. We're arguing doctrine now and everybody knows that's a dead end. ET'er s are going to stick to their beliefs come hell or high water and so are the universalists.
That's my whole point, at least the one I tried to make in the OP.
I'm trying to remember, and I can't, a single time even one of the "Big Four" defenders of eternal torment on this board ever once said, "You know, it's possible I could be wrong. I know the Bible isn't absolutely 100% solid on eternal torment or annihilation or universalism, because otherwise we wouldn't have evenly divided camps among learned scholars like Piper, Fudge and Bell, three among thousands, between the three POV's. So yeah, I'm willing admit universalism is possible."
Not once. Point out to me one instance where they ever have.
But legoman, Pleroo, .sparrow, Heartsong, and myself have been on both sides of the fence, unlike the Big Four and so we have experienced both beliefs and have, after intense, rational scrunity of the scriptures, come to the belief that universalism makes the most sense with regard to God's character, with regard to a body of scripture that plainly states it, with regard to a body of literature that explains in plain detail why the purported "sacred cows" scriptures such as Matthew 13:41-43 have been unintentional misinterpreted by some and deliberately misinterpreted by powerful religious figures over the centuries for no other reason than
Now I believe anyone of the universalists I've named above is willing to acknowledge it's possible they could be wrong. I'm sure they believe it's not likely they are wrong, but anything is possible. For myself, yes, I'm willing to admit I could be wrong abut universalism.
Moderator cut: Orphaned
Because, you see, that's the premise I tried to lay out in the OP--that despite the mountains of evidence these hundreds of learned scholars have laid out in support of universalism, solid scripture being the biggest--supporters of eternal simple have their minds shut like a steel trap; as if even acknowledging they could be wrong and that universalism could be right would
1. be a gross sin that might throw them into such disfavor with God that in His wrath He would send them plummeting into hellfire for betraying Him simply because for a brief moment they considered universalism to be possible.
or
2. the thought of even acknowledging that their worst enemies, such as myself, has even a chance of escaping eternal hellfire and damnation for our "heresy" of denying the doctrine of eternal torment is a thought that sticks in their craw so badly that they almost want to vomit.
If they cannot even say, "It's possible I could be wrong" then I'm afraid my premise stands. Eternal tormentists who are unwilling or unable to admit it do have a mean/sadistic streak somewhere deep inside of them. It's the only logical, rational conclusion one can come to.
I do think many in the system are coming around and at least admitting that hell might be a place where God's presence is not there. Many are now admitting that hell is not literal fire, but the absence of God. But don't ask then how can God not be somewhere. You will get the deer in headlight look.
What?!! A Popular Christian Tradition that just happens to be a great way to scare people into the faith and infinitely extreme/insane beyond any known standard of justice couldn't possibly be wrong!!.....
How does that answer my question: Do those who believe we die a physical death have a sadistic streak?
Why would you equate something that is observable and undeniable, and common to all people, with a doctrine that is based on the reading of a book, the interpretation of which is debatable and, according to those who believe in ET, is reserved for those who disagree with what they think everyone else should believe that book means?
What the OP has done is to create a different god for himself/herself. This is not the God of the Bible. For He says.
Mt 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Mk 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, Mk 9:48 where “ ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
2Pe 2:17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
To say that those who take God's word seriously are sadistic is to say God is sadistic, which is to call the God of the Bible evil.
What the OP has done is to create a different god for himself/herself. This is not the God of the Bible. For He says.
Mt 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Mk 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, Mk 9:48 where “ ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
2Pe 2:17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
To say that those who take God's word seriously are sadistic is to say God is sadistic, which is to call the God of the Bible evil.
augiedogie, why do you equate the phrase "Blackest darkness is reserved for them" with eternal punishment?
In regards to the other verses you've posted, they've been discussed many times before. Try to realize Jesus did not speak English. He never actually said the word 'hell'. In Mk 9:47 and Mt 10:28 the correct translation is 'gehenna' - referring to the valley outside of Jerusalem where the garbage was burned up. Fire is used as a symbol of judgment and purging and refining in the bible. Judgment is for setting things right, not torturing people forever.
Matt 25:46 is a parable speaking about a judgment of works.
If you are interested in finding the truth, you can research these verses more; there has been many studies on them in this forum and elsewhere. But don't think that someone who believes in universal salvation is not looking at these verses or not taking them seriously. They are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do Believers in Eternal Torment Have An Underlying Sadistic Streak?
.....
say it isn't so!
