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.
The thing is, using the Bible to prove that God is Love and only Love never works, because man wrote the Bible, and in this Bible you will find also that God also condemns, hates, has jealousy, etc. Man has projected his own feelings onto a God. But mystical experiences of God show him to only be Love. If a person who has had a mystical experience (the experience of God) later on talks of a God who punishes it is because that is what he has been taught by his religion, and his mystical experience was not all encompassing. Now take St. Isaac the Syrian, this is what he experienced and KNOWS: "When that person considers all human beings are good, and no created thing appears impure or defiled. Then a person is truly pure in heart."
"God’s recompense to sinners is that, instead of a just recompense, God rewards them with resurrection."
" If the Kingdom and Gehenna had not been foreseen in the purpose of our good God as a result of the coming into being of good and evil actions, then God’s thoughts concerning these would not be eternal; but righteousness and sin were known by Him before they revealed themselves. Accordingly the Kingdom and Gehenna are matters belonging to mercy, which were conceived of in their essence by God as a result of His eternal goodness. It was not a matter of requiting, even though He gave them the name of requital.
That we should further say or think that the matter is not full of love and mingled with compassion would be an opinion full of blasphemy and insult to our Lord God. By saying that He will even hand us over to burning for the sake of sufferings, torment and all sorts of ills, we are attributing to the divine Nature an enmity towards the very rational being which He created through grace; the same is true if we say that He acts or thinks with spite and with a vengeful purpose, as though He was avenging Himself. (II.39.22)"
"Isaac claims, one should not interpret literally those Old Testament
texts where the terms wrath, anger, hatred and others are used of the Creator. If
such anthropomorphic terms occur in Scripture, they are used in a figurative
sense, for God never does anything out of wrath, anger or hatred: everything of
that sort is far removed from His Nature. We should not read everything literally
as it is written, but rather see within the bodily exterior of the Old Testament
narratives the hidden providence and eternal knowledge of God.
With God, there in no hatred towards anyone, but allembracing love,which does not distinguish between righteous and sinner, between a friend of truth and an enemy of truth, between angel and demon. Every created being is precious in God’s eyes, He cares for every creature, and everyone finds in Him a loving Father. If we turn away from God, He does not turn away from us: ‘If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself’. Whatever may happen to humankind and to the whole of creation, however far it may be removed from God, He remains faithful to it in His love, which He cannot and will not deny."
I just thought of something. - the title of this - Love is incompatible with eternal torture. I think about God, who sent his Son Jesus - so perfect, sinless, totally pure, and became a man, and then doing no wrong, he chooses the torture of the cross and all that to pay for our sins. THAT is totally incompatible with a pure holy God.
If God the Father did not spare his son, for our sins, which is TOTALLY incompatible with His nature and who he is, then that means something very important.
If the OP's title is true, then God made a way so that we would not have to endure eternal torture of hell. We have a chance now to be saved while alive. Why not take that chance now?
since sin is totally incompatible with God, then God sent a way for us to be saved so that we dont have to endure the torture. Jesus did though. in our place. hell must be an awful place so that God did all that to save us from it.
Eusebius - are you taking the eonian life theology from Leon A. Bynoe, Martin Zender, A. E. Knoch...?
A.E. Knoch and the scriptures.
Quote:
The reason it is important that a person knows Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic (the three languages the Bible was originally written in) is because this entire discussion revolves around translation.
Leon A. Bynoe, in 1954, declared that there had been a mistranslation in the KJV, and that aion (which is not the same word as aiṓnios) did not mean eternity, but simply an age. That is true - aion does mean age.
But the verses I laid out for you use the word "aiṓnios," not "aion." Aiṓnios means eternity, aion means age. They are not the same word, and do not have the same meaning.
That is why the original language is important. It has nothing to do with the Jewish traditions. A German who wants to translate an English text into German must first know the English language. Just so, someone wanting to translate the Bible into their native language must know the languages in which the Bible was written.
The benefit of using a theologian who knows the original language of the text they are commenting on (such as Dr. Fruchtenbaum) is that they don't have to rely on other sources for the translation. If he were to study a Swahili text and know Swahili he would be considered an expert on that text.
Aions (eons/ages) end. Aiṓnios, eternity, does not end.
You and others kept asking Mike555 for proof of eternity past. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning of time (of this age, if you will) God created. But God was there before the beginning. Therefore there was eternity outside of time before the beginning.
Immortal life and eternal life are the same thing. When the world ends, when this “eon” is complete, we put on immortality and live for eternity.
Sorry, I should have cleared that up earlier.
I realize aionios is not the same word as aion. AIWN/aion/eon is a noun. AIWNIOS/aionios/eonian is the adjectival form of aiwn/eon.
A.E. Knoch did not translate aion nor aionios in the Concordant Literal New Testament. Instead he transliterated those words in their Anglicized form. He cannot be accused of mistranslating them.
No adjective in the Sacred Scriptures can be greater than the noun it was derived from. One of the duties of the adjective is to modify the noun. That is a law of grammar. My Greek studies books say the same. The problem arises when some go contrary to that grammatical law and try to get the noun to modify the adjective. Here is a classic example of this breaking of the grammatical law: "Aionios when used of God means "eternal" because God is eternal." But adjectives are not like chameleons which change their color based on the noun they modify. The adjective modifies the noun, not the noun modifies the adjective.
For instance, in Matthew 5:48 it says "heavenly Father." In Acts 26:19 it says "heavenly apparition" in the Concordant Version. Is the adjective "heavenly" supposed to have a different meaning when used with "Father" than when used with "apparition"? No. The noun is not supposed to modify the adjective.
All eonian does in being the adjectival form of eon is to tell us concerning that which pertains to the eon(s). That is all it does. (period)
Plato, who invented the adjectival form "aionios," tells us in Timaeus in KRONOS (TIME) that there is "is, was and will be." He informs us that God "is" because God always is. However he also states that "was" and "will be" are properly ascribed to aionios because aionios marks out time. Therefore, according to the inventor of the word, "aionios" does not mean "always existing" or "eternal."
Since the Bible tells us all the eons end, that which is eonian cannot possibly be endless. It just can't be any more than "American" can mean anything other than "pertaining to America." For aionios to be pertaining to "endless" or "eternity" its noun "aion" would have to be "endless" or "eternal." Aion is NEVER used as "unending" or "eternal."
I hope this helps. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Ok, Finally got around to giving some kind of response. Thank you for your patience. I do want to make clear that I don't completey discount the "ES" belief as a possibility, but I find many of the philosophical arguments used to support it inadiqute without sacrificing much of God omnipotence. Therefore I'm somewhat playing devils advocate here...without actually advocating for the devil so I guess thats not the best phrasing to use Anyways, I'm focusing on the philosophical "big picture" side of this and why the ES perspective is likely philosopically inferior to Universal Reconciliation (UR). You and Eusebius can debate the the bible verse meaning side of that for the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliciaWilliams
Thanks!
Sorry this took me a few days. I didn't want to write some ideas that I just pulled out of the air, especially since much of it I have not extensively studied - and still haven't. I have, however, done a small scale study over the past couple days, just reading an article series (which is highly biased in one direction), and re-reading, and re-reading, Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus is the Only Way to God in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith. I have not yet had the opportunity to re-read Objection #6:A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell. What I have read has enough substance to dwell on as it is.
I know you have read Lee Strobel, and after years of reflecting on it, you now disagree with some/much of it. From what I gather in your post, you must especially disagree with what Ravi Zacharias has to say. But, as it pertains to what we are discussing, I'll quote from it anyway.
Hope you don't mind. I am simply not an authority on this subject, and therefore must look to more experienced theologians.
OH! And I apologize for not reading carefully and making incorrect assumptions about you in my last post.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," (emphasis added). That statement is absolute. It doesn't leave any room for only a specific people group. Jesus himself said that the only way to salvation is through him. John 3:17-18 states that "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
So, really, what about those who haven't heard? What of those who have grown up in a culture that is hostile toward/hasn't heard about Christ? As you, Jrhockney, stated, why would someone see nature, which is stated to declare the glory of God, and think of the Christian God? How would they know about Christ?
Besides Romans 1:19-20, which speaks of nature, Paul also states something interesting in Romans 2. Speaking of the law, he says that it is written on hearts and our consciousness, that if we seek, that God will make himself known.
This is not like some of the Eastern religions, that state that you can find truth within yourself - which is a humanistic belief. Humanism elevates human-beings to the position of god. Rather Romans 2:14-15 is saying that the Creator of the universe placed inside of every human-being morality, and the knowledge of him.
As Ravi Zacharias said, "the danger of a Western perspective is thinking that if something isn't neatly packaged, it's no good," (163).
Western culture has, for the most part, condemned the idea that the truth of God can come from visions, dreams, or simply sudden understanding as "primitive" or "non-scientific," and therefore not real. However, much of the non-Western world still believes that truth can come from those things. Zacharias has personally spoken to Muslims who became Christians after having a dream or vision. God reaches out to people where they are, and uses the understanding and beliefs they hold culturally to reach them.
When speaking to Greek philosophers, Paul said, "From one man [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
Wherever a person is they "will know enough truth so that if they respond to that known truth, God will reveal more to them. ...if a person genuinely and sincerely seeks after him, there will be some way God makes available for that person to hear of him. If that person would not have responded to God under any circumstance, then perhaps he will not hear of him. But all people know enough to condemn them; they do not need to hear John 3:16 in order to be lost. They are lost because they've already rejected what God has spoken to them through creation, their conscience, and other ways," (Zacharias, 162).
So what Paul spoke was not culturally sensitive, nor was his head not on straight. He said that everyone can see God, and around the world people who, rationally, should not have been Christians become followers.
God created and sustains the universe. On earth, Jesus turned water into wine, healed the sick, and was raised from the dead. He has shown his power since the beginning. Is it such a stretch to say that he could reveal himself to people who already subconsciously know him?
Um...yeah actually, at least for alot of people. If you walk up to most atheists and tell them "you don't know it yet, but you have subconsciously always known the Christian God" most of them will either laugh at you or say something like "well, I suppose if its subconscious, but that doesn't really reflect anything in my conscious or subconscious experience and if you God thinks not picking up on this "subconscious knowing of him" is worthy of neverending conscious separation from him, then he doesn't really sound like he likes me very much." It probably wouldn't be in those exact words, but I've heard very similar things said.
And honestly, what real proof do you have that Paul was speaking about the entire world "subconsciously knowing the Christian God" rather than a specific group of people? Paul talking to the Greeks about "God's plan" of hoping people would seek him is a far cry from Paul saying "all the worlds people are without excuse for not knowing Him." Here we see that God putting these people in different parts of the world were they are much less likely if not impossible to find him to the extent most mainstream Christians believe is neccessary for salvation as part of his Plan. This goes back to the whole "He made the rules" thing and under the traditionalist model, it still looks very shady...kinda like God being a Casino who has stacked the decks so very few people will win but then saying "no really! we want you to win!"
A quick note on Jesus saying "no one comes through the father but me", even UR believers believe that, but some to varying degrees as far as what "through me" means and how/when that is accomplished. Just nothing interesting thought, most non URs love to point out Matthew 25:46 to try to prove their belief about the "at death permanency of judgment...and they say nothing about the passage above which says virtually nothing about believing and everything about "doing." If we look at our lives, 90% of Christians have both sheep and goat in us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliciaWilliams
In Acts 17 the Bereans were called more noble than those in Thessalonica because they not only accepted the Good News, but also studied the Scriptures daily to see if they were true. The ones called noble used critical thinking when looking at the Scriptures. They ensured what they believed was not false. Likewise, we should test the Scriptures - it's what we are doing now, isn't it?
As for the consequences of sin:
I'm going to just quote a couple paragraphs from Strobel's book because I have no illusions about who can say this better.
Context: Strobel has just asked Zacharias about Gandhi, whom people say lived a virtuous life. The question was "Why should he be sent to hell just because he wasn't a follower of Jesus?"
This is Zacharias' answer (page 157):
It's important to know that no human being consigns anybody to heaven or hell. In fact, God himself does not send anybody to heaven or to hell; the person chooses to respond to the grace of God or to reject the grace of God, although even that decision is enabled by his grace.
...Abraham asked God in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah whether he was going to let the righteous die with the unrighteous, and it was wonderful how Abraham answered his own question. He said, 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?' This means we can be absolutely confident that whatever God does in the case of Gandhi or any other person , he will do what is right.
Now, think about this: the Bible says anyone spending eternity with God in heaven is there because of the grace and provision of Jesus Christ, which the person has trusted and received. If the person has rejected that grace, then was he a good man or a bad man? That's a interesting question, because Scripture tells us nobody is really good until he or she is first redeemed.
On the next page:
Because we are moral human beings, we want to see equity. But when we reduce equity to issues of who behaved in what way during a given span of time, we miss the whole concept of equity. We are judging this from the point of view of our system. If God were to truly give what every one of us deserved, none of us would get to heaven.
To say that a sin is "finite" is to judge by our human standards. No where in the Bible, in God's Word, is sin considered finite.
Imagine there are two parallel cliffs with a chasm between them. One cliff is earth, the other heaven. Our sin is the chasm between us and God. Jesus built a bridge between us and God with his sacrifice. It's right there, and everyone who seeks it will find it. If we choose to walk across that bridge we are made holy - what kept us from God (our sin here on earth) is left behind. If we choose not to walk across the bridge we will never reach God and heaven.
Humans cannot tell the future. We don't really know what will happen tomorrow - or even if tomorrow will come! So if we don't know exactly what tomorrow holds will we refrain from making plans? Will we say that what we do today doesn't affect tomorrow, so we can do anything we want without consequence?
Humans may see sin as finite. God doesn't. Humans are not the judges. God is. And even a human judge would say that a crime committed without the full knowledge of the consequence is still the same crime, and the full consequence will be dolled out accordingly.
We may not be capable of perceiving eternity, but we are told, and/or intrinsically know that sin is spiritual death. The way to life is through a relationship with Christ.
There's really a simple response to all of this that makes it still look very shady: "God made the Rules." He made that chasm you are descibing or at least the "Chasm rules" if thats just a metaphor. God would having decided what is infinite and finite at the beginning of the universe. If he made the consequences of one sin not only eternal (infinite) but the cause of everyone being born into sin, thats his rule and it by nature is a very questionable one sided rule. He simply cannot escape some if not most responsibility of the vast majority of humans being separated from him....There are only a few possible counters to this. I'll be curious to see if you can come up with one
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliciaWilliams
So "damage-control." I talked before about the difference between doctrine and dogma. In this conversation the doctrine is whether or not hell is a place of fiery torture. Whether or not salvation is available after death - I'm not sure whether that is doctrine or dogma. See, there are three viewpoints, four if you include pluralism. There is inclusivism, postmortem evangelism (PME), and exclusivism (PME and exclusivism are both drawn out in the article hyperlinked to PME). You seem to land somewhere between inclusivism and PME, if I'm reading correctly. Because each can technically be backed up by scripture (except pluralism - that one is just completely unbiblical) they could all be considered doctrines. However, there is a danger to believing people will get another chance after death.
There is that question of 'why pray, if God already knows what you will pray and also already has a plan?' I heard the answer to that once. Don't remember it. But anyway - this is also what we face with missions: 'why risk our reputations or our very lives to bring the Gospel to people God can already reach?'. And for inclusivists it's 'why...if their own beliefs bring them to heaven?' And for postmortem evangelists there is 'why...if they have a second chance after death?" As I have laid out, God doesn't actually need us to reach people. But he does use us to reach people. We can be the one God uses to bring the truth out for someone to see. For the doctrines of inclusivism and PME there is no urgency to "go out into all the world and preach the Gospel."
Truth is exclusive - as in, two conflicting "truths" cannot both be true. Within a set of doctrines there is one that is true. More often then not, it really doesn't matter all that much in the whole scheme of things. But some doctrines can be very dangerous.
And what we believe affecting the way we view the world - yeah, I've taken six of the eight required Biblical Worldview courses for my Bible minor. It's also referenced in nearly every class, and I'm up to around 90 credits. Believe me, I know all about our beliefs affecting the way we view the world.
Don't fall into the all or nothing "urgency" trap. Under most models of UR, there is still plenty of urgency and plenty of reason to spread the gospel....If there wasn't would there be this many threads of pages and pages of URs debating Eters? I think not. Infact, most URs I know personally are excited to share their faith because they get to disprove Atheist notions of God creating justice systems of eternal torture/torment/whatever. Under most UR models, the people who don't accept Christ are still potentially screwed for several ages after this one and that should be more than enough reason even on top of the fact that Jesus told us directly to make deciples of nations. I think someone having hope of seeing their unsaved loved one again at some point in the ages is alot more benefitial then trying to scare people with "you only have one chance to escape eternal misery!" arguments. UR's believe that Jesus Truly died for everyone because all will come to believe in his sacrifice at some point in the ages and God will be all in all.
Another problem with these all or nothing arguments is simply the fact that people in this day and age are learning alot of the arguments or logic that I've posted above and the traditional idea of the Christian God just looks like an irrational desiger to alot of people. It looks much more rational under ES than it does ET, but still a far cry from any kind of rational justice system we've ever known because its based entirely on pnishment and retribution rather than restoration and correction. Justifying it by telling people to trust in God because he's smarter than us and is perfectly just doesn't cut it because a terrorist can say the same thing to reassure another terrorist strapping a bomb to themselves. If something sounds morally far fetched, it probably is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliciaWilliams
"'never changing' is relative." All I'm seeing is "truth is relative," which cannot, logically, be true (because saying "truth is relative" is an absolute truth statement).
I get that God is beyond our understanding. But we are also told of his attributes in the Bible and told he is never changing. So attributes + never changing = those attributes will never change. And he doesn't change his mind. He has already set everything into motion from the beginning.
Did you by chance hear about God saying eating shellfish is an abomination from President Obama or The West Wing tv show? This is the second time I have had someone bring up shellfish in the Bible (the last time it was for simple mockery), and I couldn't figure out why people weren't using the example of pork, or something more commonplace! And then I learned about the comments the real and faux presidents spoke.
In my opinion, You only see "'never changing' is relative" as "truth is relative" because you've been programmed that way by mainstream Christian thinking! ...just as I was and partially still am. My point about relative sin and a multidimentional God is mostly about Truth not so much being relative to him, but partially to us because only he can see true...um..Truth... I believe it is and was to his advantage to only allow us to see potions of the truth a few at a time because of his overall plan for humanity and he only reveals portions of the truth to in the bible as apart of his plan. Modern Christians like to think their understanding of scripture and God is superior to the Christians in the earlier Church....what about the middle ages?...the Enlightment?...the Renaissance?....the Reformation? What if in certain ways, their theology was all true at the time because God didn't want us seeing any more of it for the sake of his plan. As limited finite beings without all the knowledge in the universe at our disposal, we can only do the best we can. If this is the case, when it comes to ideal Christian theology and perhaps many other things, God can only judge our hearts and intentions rather than our perfect understand of what only he can truly comprehend as the truth.....in other words ultimate truth for Christians may be set in stone right here right now for one particular theology, but may be a gradual discovery for us as intended by God for the sake of his plan....this may or may not mean UR is one of these discoveries for this day and age.
Was eating shellfish a sin at the time? Well, yes and no. You actually partially made my point for me with your words about Torah sacrifice system versus New Testament "paid in full with belief" system. A Hebrew Priest or even Moses at the time of the Shellfish law would likely have said: "This law is unchanging because it by its very nature is offensive to God!"...then came the new testament and a new understanding which shattered preconceptions of how God truly viewed that law. I think modern Mainstream Christianity often has the same problem. Too much "it is the way it is and thats the way it is" thinking without making room for revelations either of what the bible is saying or even what God is saying outside the bible through the Holy Spirit. We are so afraid of losing our Christian "anchors" that we don't consider the possibility that the ground the anchors have attached to has intentially shifted..or something like that. I'm mostly just being abstract here
I think I've already address most of what was written in the next section so I'll skip to here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliciaWilliams
So will the fact that so many people will choose not to accept God's gift of salvation be a victory for Satan? Well, at the end he's going to be burning in the lake of fire for all eternity, so.....
Remember, without Jesus' sacrifice we would all be going to hell (whatever hell is). Jesus has already kept Satan from his victory.
...Ok I actually stand by what I originally wrote in this section and lean on what I've already written in this post as more backup...namely: God made the rules. He designed the game. He cannot escape some or most responsibility even if we do have free will. Yes, we own our Salvation to Jesus, but it is only by God's design that his sacrifice naturally results in comparatively so few being saved under the traditionalist model. If Satan truly is God's adversary, he still has a partial victory in deceiving the vast majority of souls. UR intends to rob him of that victory over the next several ages and though I'm not 100% convinced by it, I hope you see why I consider it a morally and philosophically superior theology/narrative of Gods plan for the ages.
Anyways...this took me a very long time to get this out and I'm not even sure if it was as good or coherent as my previous drafts I lost and I'm sure I missed a few things, but this should keep you busy for a while. Tried to keep your responses a little shorter if possible so I don't get freaked out over how long it will take me to respond lol. Infact, if you think you can response to several of my points with one paragraph or concept, feel free because thats some of what I did in this post.
Love is patient, is kind. Love is not jealous. Love is not bragging, is not puffed up, is not indecent, is not
self-seeking, is not incensed, is not taking account of evil, is not rejoicing in injustice, yet is rejoicing
together with the truth, is forgoing all, is believing all, is expecting all, is enduring all." Love is never
lapsing: yet, whether prophecies, they will be discarded, or languages, they will cease, or knowledge, it
will be discarded." (1Co 13:4-8)
How can eternal torture be compatible with love? Since love never gives up on anyone and always seeks the highest for the person.
Sounds like a simplistic way to view creation. So, you're saying everybody should go to heaven, regardless of how evil, rotten, hateful, and scornful they are toward Him? He give most of us YEARS and YEARS to accept Him and follow a righteous path. What more do you want? I say, do it while you still have time on Earth. There's no turning back and climbing back into the womb. Get with the program.
Sounds like a simplistic way to view creation. So, you're saying everybody should go to heaven, regardless of how evil, rotten, hateful, and scornful they are toward Him? He give most of us YEARS and YEARS to accept Him and follow a righteous path. What more do you want? I say, do it while you still have time on Earth. There's no turning back and climbing back into the womb. Get with the program.
Sounds like a simplistic way to view creation. So, you're saying everybody should go to heaven, regardless of how evil, rotten, hateful, and scornful they are toward Him? He give most of us YEARS and YEARS to accept Him and follow a righteous path. What more do you want? I say, do it while you still have time on Earth. There's no turning back and climbing back into the womb. Get with the program.
Hello CDJudge,
I would rather consider it a simplistic way to view the salvific effects which come out of Christ's obedience to the cross.
I believe God gives us YEARS and YEARS to prove mankind won't accept Him unless He chooses them to be believing that which Christ has already done for them. Their belief does not make what Christ did to be so. It is so. We just believe it is so.
You mean God doesn't save the evil, rotten, hateful and scornful people? Did He wait for you to be perfect before He gave you faith?
I just thought of something. - the title of this - Love is incompatible with eternal torture. I think about God, who sent his Son Jesus - so perfect, sinless, totally pure, and became a man, and then doing no wrong, he chooses the torture of the cross and all that to pay for our sins. THAT is totally incompatible with a pure holy God.
Saying it is totally incompatible with God and proving so are two different things.
The bible says it is compatible with a loving God for the bible says "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." So His love is the defining motive behind the giving of His Son to the cross.
Quote:
If God the Father did not spare his son, for our sins, which is TOTALLY incompatible with His nature and who he is, then that means something very important.
Per what I said above, it is compatible with a loving God.
Quote:
If the OP's title is true, then God made a way so that we would not have to endure eternal torture of hell. We have a chance now to be saved while alive. Why not take that chance now?
There is no eternal torture to begin with. So how can God make a way of avoiding something which does not exist?
Quote:
since sin is totally incompatible with God, then God sent a way for us to be saved so that we dont have to endure the torture. Jesus did though. in our place. hell must be an awful place so that God did all that to save us from it.
Which "hell" are you talking about?
If God did all to save all of mankind from the second death then no one would go into the second death. The second death is not the final, eternal resting place of some of mankind. Death will be abolished (1 Cor.15:26). God will eventually be All in all due to Christ's obedience.
Sounds like a simplistic way to view creation. So, you're saying everybody should go to heaven, regardless of how evil, rotten, hateful, and scornful they are toward Him? He gives most of us YEARS and YEARS to accept Him and follow a righteous path. What more do you want? I say, do it while you still have time on Earth. There's no turning back and climbing back into the womb. Get with the program.
The software will be updated in due time.
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.
Anyways, I'm focusing on the philosophical "big picture" side of this and why the ES perspective is likely philosopically inferior to Universal Reconciliation (UR). You and Eusebius can debate the the bible verse meaning side of that for the moment.
Infact, if you think you can response to several of my points with one paragraph or concept, feel free because thats some of what I did in this post.
