Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course, had you been born and raised in the far east, you would be threatening folks with different gods in different "holy" texts.
What makes you say that? There aren't Christians in Asia?
You do understand that religious belief and the gods that predominate those religious beliefs are largely a matter of geography, right?
Here's a pop quiz. There are Asians in America (and the North American continent, Europe...)
What's the predominant religion there, say, as opposed to to the Indian Subcontinent?
Exactly!That is certainly one interpretation.
The irony is that the more liberal mainstream denominations have interpreted scripture exactly that way, while the fundamentalists are still preaching the lake of fire.
I think they are both nonsense, personally.
Well, it is what the Biblical texts relate.
That's why I wondered why you left it out.
Exactly!Well, it is what the Biblical texts relate.
That's why I wondered why you left it out.
Do I need to include every description throughout the biblical texts that speak of the different aspects of eternal damnation?
How would my time in the pulpit influence our discussion here?You and your buddy Bruce, just don't get it, do you?? The very absence of God for the human soul is the cause of the eternal torture. You are separated from God for eternity, and that IS your torture. Read the Bible and educate yourself.
That is certainly one interpretation.
The irony is that the more liberal mainstream denominations have interpreted scripture exactly that way, while the fundamentalists are still preaching the lake of fire.
I think they are both nonsense, personally.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, 'lake of fire' could be a description of what the absence of God will be like that we as human beings can relate too.
When did you determine it was nonsense, how many years did you believe it to be true and teach it to congregations as such?
Exactly!
That's why I wondered why you left it out.
Do I need to include every description throughout the biblical texts that speak of the different aspects of eternal damnation?
You simply left it out altogether to paint a kinder, gentler picture than what scripture affords.
A bit of an incomplete argument, don't you agree?
Another theory.In your supposed years at seminary and as an acting pastor, you never understood the concept that the definition of 'unmercifully tortured' is an eternal existence without God? It's not an 'and' proposition, it is causal. You get unmercifully tortured for eternity because you are without God. Your lie shows with every post you make.
Again, you can interpret it that way if you like. The liberal mainstream Christians do. If you want to call your more conservative believers on here who are your allies liars, that is your choice. Many are fully invested in the "lake of fire" imagery. The bombs you throw don't care who they maim.
If you do, it doesn't change that you are eternally tortured, however you define the method of torture. That was the part missing from the post I responded to.
Perhaps you could expend a little energy explaining to that poster that eternal torture, however defined, is part of the deal.
That was my point, and you seem to agree.
No, you're not accurate at all, it is taught that way in conservative christian churches as well, it's how I've always understood it, and I don't attend a liberal church. You are confused and you really don't understand what I'm saying, which again reinforces that you were never a christian pastor of any kind.
Now that would be fair.
Why isn't that the deal being discussed here.
Instead you don't get god AND you get unmercifully tortured for eternity.
Different proposition.
Let's agree on your reading.
In your supposed years at seminary and as an acting pastor, you never understood the concept that the definition of 'unmercifully tortured' is an eternal existence without God? It's not an 'and' proposition, it is causal. You get unmercifully tortured for eternity because you are without God. Your lie shows with every post you make.
Again, you can interpret it that way if you like. The liberal mainstream Christians do. If you want to call your more conservative believers on here who are your allies liars, that is your choice. Many are fully invested in the "lake of fire" imagery. The bombs you throw don't care who they maim.
If you do, it doesn't change that you are eternally tortured, however you define the method of torture. That was the part missing from the post I responded to.
Perhaps you could expend a little energy explaining to that poster that eternal torture, however defined, is part of the deal.
That was my point, and you seem to agree.
How would my time in the pulpit influence our discussion here?That is certainly one interpretation.
The irony is that the more liberal mainstream denominations have interpreted scripture exactly that way, while the fundamentalists are still preaching the lake of fire.
I think they are both nonsense, personally.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, 'lake of fire' could be a description of what the absence of God will be like that we as human beings can relate too.
When did you determine it was nonsense, how many years did you believe it to be true and teach it to congregations as such?
What is the relevance of that question?
Another theory.Again, you can interpret it that way if you like. The liberal mainstream Christians do. If you want to call your more conservative believers on here who are your allies liars, that is your choice. Many are fully invested in the "lake of fire" imagery. The bombs you throw don't care who they maim.
If you do, it doesn't change that you are eternally tortured, however you define the method of torture. That was the part missing from the post I responded to.
Perhaps you could expend a little energy explaining to that poster that eternal torture, however defined, is part of the deal.
That was my point, and you seem to agree.
No, you're not accurate at all, it is taught that way in conservative christian churches as well, it's how I've always understood it, and I don't attend a liberal church. You are confused and you really don't understand what I'm saying, which again reinforces that you were never a christian pastor of any kind.
It says nothing about my former life as a pastor but rather speaks to your weak communication skills.
I'm going with that, as I know your theory is rubbish. I was there.
In your supposed years at seminary and as an acting pastor, you never understood the concept that the definition of 'unmercifully tortured' is an eternal existence without God? It's not an 'and' proposition, it is causal. You get unmercifully tortured for eternity because you are without God. Your lie shows with every post you make.
Again, you can interpret it that way if you like. The liberal mainstream Christians do. If you want to call your more conservative believers on here who are your allies liars, that is your choice. Many are fully invested in the "lake of fire" imagery. The bombs you throw don't care who they maim.
If you do, it doesn't change that you are eternally tortured, however you define the method of torture. That was the part missing from the post I responded to.
Perhaps you could expend a little energy explaining to that poster that eternal torture, however defined, is part of the deal.
That was my point, and you seem to agree.
It's your choice to be separated from God, not His. It's a fairly simple concept, but I understand why it eludes you. This is a typical atheist/leftist thread that's challenging why people should not be held accountable for consequences that they knowingly and willfully brought about. What is it with leftists and not wanting to face the consequences that life brings with it?
Let's use an analogy, you have an adult child that is irresponsible, can't hold a job, does drugs, and lives at home with you, basically a first class moocher. How long do you allow that situation to perpetuate without making the 'child' take responsibility for their actions or inactions? And are you an unmerciful parent should you take action that forces that child to face them? What does a loving parent do, allow the child to face the consequences they brought about on their own, or keep perpetuating the total lack of character and integrity the child shows? Which is real love and mercy? Do the parent's feelings matter? Will the child ever change their ways if there aren't any consequences to face?
Happens to preachers all the time.Another theory.No, you're not accurate at all, it is taught that way in conservative christian churches as well, it's how I've always understood it, and I don't attend a liberal church. You are confused and you really don't understand what I'm saying, which again reinforces that you were never a christian pastor of any kind.
It says nothing about my former life as a pastor but rather speaks to your weak communication skills.
I'm going with that, as I know your theory is rubbish. I was there.
Whatever Brucie, I'm not even really sure why you claim it, I guess you think that makes your 'revelations' on Christianity somehow more relevant than anyone elses or some strange notion like that. In my opinion, it makes you rather stupid. Who spends years studying scripture, spends years spreading and teaching such scripture and then suddenly has an epiphany that his entire life has been a lie? Rather pathetic if you ask me.
Happens to preachers all the time.Another theory.
It says nothing about my former life as a pastor but rather speaks to your weak communication skills.
I'm going with that, as I know your theory is rubbish. I was there.
Whatever Brucie, I'm not even really sure why you claim it, I guess you think that makes your 'revelations' on Christianity somehow more relevant than anyone elses or some strange notion like that. In my opinion, it makes you rather stupid. Who spends years studying scripture, spends years spreading and teaching such scripture and then suddenly has an epiphany that his entire life has been a lie? Rather pathetic if you ask me.
You can look it up.
Statistics and everything.
Again, you can interpret it that way if you like. The liberal mainstream Christians do. If you want to call your more conservative believers on here who are your allies liars, that is your choice. Many are fully invested in the "lake of fire" imagery. The bombs you throw don't care who they maim.
If you do, it doesn't change that you are eternally tortured, however you define the method of torture. That was the part missing from the post I responded to.
Perhaps you could expend a little energy explaining to that poster that eternal torture, however defined, is part of the deal.
That was my point, and you seem to agree.
It's your choice to be separated from God, not His. It's a fairly simple concept, but I understand why it eludes you. This is a typical atheist/leftist thread that's challenging why people should not be held accountable for consequences that they knowingly and willfully brought about. What is it with leftists and not wanting to face the consequences that life brings with it?
Let's use an analogy, you have an adult child that is irresponsible, can't hold a job, does drugs, and lives at home with you, basically a first class moocher. How long do you allow that situation to perpetuate without making the 'child' take responsibility for their actions or inactions? And are you an unmerciful parent should you take action that forces that child to face them? What does a loving parent do, allow the child to face the consequences they brought about on their own, or keep perpetuating the total lack of character and integrity the child shows? Which is real love and mercy? Do the parent's feelings matter? Will the child ever change their ways if there aren't any consequences to face?
Again you are arguing my point, scripturally.
What do you think you are rebutting?
All I said was that Smilebong left that out.
Go lose your mind on him. You're on my side in this argument!
LOL!
Yeah, let's add poor reading comprehension to that poor communication.
What makes you say that? There aren't Christians in Asia?
You do understand that religious belief and the gods that predominate those religious beliefs are largely a matter of geography, right?
Here's a pop quiz. There are Asians in America (and the North American continent, Europe...)
What's the predominant religion there, say, as opposed to to the Indian Subcontinent?
What does that have to do with the fact that there are Christians all over the planet? Are muslims contained to the middle east? Christianity was born much closer to Asia, than it was the west, i.e. the U.S., yet here it is predominant. Your 'argument' doesn't really make much sense. Not to mention that you're obviously a bit overdramatic since I haven't 'threatened' anyone with anything.
You do understand that religious belief and the gods that predominate those religious beliefs are largely a matter of geography, right?
Here's a pop quiz. There are Asians in America (and the North American continent, Europe...)
What's the predominant religion there, say, as opposed to to the Indian Subcontinent?
What does that have to do with the fact that there are Christians all over the planet? Are muslims contained to the middle east? Christianity was born much closer to Asia, than it was the west, i.e. the U.S., yet here it is predominant. Your 'argument' doesn't really make much sense. Not to mention that you're obviously a bit overdramatic since I haven't 'threatened' anyone with anything.
That was quite the sidestep. What a shame you can't be honest.
People more often than not, do not choose their theistic beliefs. Rarely do they apply very hard standards to those beliefs. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a Hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select. And of course, I'll even include the possibility (but not probability) that one selects a belief because they actually do hear directly from one or more asserted Supreme Beings.
Talk about 'side step'... You and your buddy Bruce, just don't get it, do you?? The very absence of God for the human soul is the cause of the eternal torture. You are separated from God for eternity, and that IS your torture. Read the Bible and educate yourself.
You're still on my side, and you just HATE that!It's your choice to be separated from God, not His. It's a fairly simple concept, but I understand why it eludes you. This is a typical atheist/leftist thread that's challenging why people should not be held accountable for consequences that they knowingly and willfully brought about. What is it with leftists and not wanting to face the consequences that life brings with it?
Let's use an analogy, you have an adult child that is irresponsible, can't hold a job, does drugs, and lives at home with you, basically a first class moocher. How long do you allow that situation to perpetuate without making the 'child' take responsibility for their actions or inactions? And are you an unmerciful parent should you take action that forces that child to face them? What does a loving parent do, allow the child to face the consequences they brought about on their own, or keep perpetuating the total lack of character and integrity the child shows? Which is real love and mercy? Do the parent's feelings matter? Will the child ever change their ways if there aren't any consequences to face?
Again you are arguing my point, scripturally.
What do you think you are rebutting?
All I said was that Smilebong left that out.
Go lose your mind on him. You're on my side in this argument!
LOL!
Yeah, let's add poor reading comprehension to that poor communication.
I never said that eternal torture wasn't 'part of the deal', I said that eternal torture is the result of being completely separated from God. You're the one that initially attempted to establish that there are two punishments, separation from God and eternal torture. You asked why one couldn't be enough, why torture had to be included as well as separation from God. I merely corrected you that there is only one punishment, separation from God whish IS eternal torture to the human soul, in other words you can't have separation from God without torture since they are one and the same thing. Your lack of understanding on this concept reveals that you've never been a Christian, nor will you ever be I would guess. Then you went on to babble about how I was at odds with other posters in the thread, like that was significant or something, etc... And of course the comments about how only liberal mainstream churches teach the concept I just outlined, which was also incorrect. So, in review, I agree with you on nothing, and your post above is evidence of your incoherent babble and how you can't seem to follow a conversation. Nothing new there I see.
You're still on my side, and you just HATE that!Again you are arguing my point, scripturally.
What do you think you are rebutting?
All I said was that Smilebong left that out.
Go lose your mind on him. You're on my side in this argument!
LOL!
Yeah, let's add poor reading comprehension to that poor communication.
I never said that eternal torture wasn't 'part of the deal', I said that eternal torture is the result of being completely separated from God. You're the one that initially attempted to establish that there are two punishments, separation from God and eternal torture. You asked why one couldn't be enough, why torture had to be included as well as separation from God. I merely corrected you that there is only one punishment, separation from God whish IS eternal torture to the human soul, in other words you can't have separation from God without torture since they are one and the same thing. Your lack of understanding on this concept reveals that you've never been a Christian, nor will you ever be I would guess. Then you went on to babble about how I was at odds with other posters in the thread, like that was significant or something, etc... And of course the comments about how only liberal mainstream churches teach the concept I just outlined, which was also incorrect. So, in review, I agree with you on nothing, and your post above is evidence of your incoherent babble and how you can't seem to follow a conversation. Nothing new there I see.
Do you know how many people on here believe in the literal fiery hell?I was addressing THEM and you came charging in on your white horse, all the while not realizing you were defending ME! LOL!
I NEVER said that only liberal mainstream churches teach that separation from god is the true hell of the bible. I said it is their default position. This is another example of your poor reading comprehension, or your blatant dishonesty. I leave that to you.
The God of Christianity is regarded as all-merciful and is touted as being slow to anger but fast to forgive. Why then is the punishment for eighty years of misdeeds an eternity in eternal suffering? Even the US government would not be so harsh- protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Why then is God? It should stand to reason that Hell would be some kind of final redeemer, where the amount of time spent there is equivalent to the amount of time it takes one to repent truly, ie, the ultimate tool for redemption. People face unimaginable pain and torture until they realize their sins. And once they realize their wrongs, would a true God of compassion who cares for all of his creation leave them to continue to suffer?
It is not that kind of equation.
You are basically getting what you want. You don't want God here, you don't get God there.
Now that would be fair.
Why isn't that the deal being discussed here.
Instead you don't get god AND you get unmercifully tortured for eternity.Different proposition.
Let's agree on your reading.
The point is obvious. If the afterlife for the Godless was simply a neutral situation absent of God, that would be a fair "reward" for being Godless in life.
If the reward isn't simply the absence of God, but also ETERNAL TORTURE, how is that fair?
If God is just -and- he loves each of us, how is -ETERNAL- torture a just punishment for -anything-?
You and your buddy Bruce, just don't get it, do you?? The very absence of God for the human soul is the cause of the eternal torture. You are separated from God for eternity, and that IS your torture. Read the Bible and educate yourself.
That is certainly one interpretation.
The irony is that the more liberal mainstream denominations have interpreted scripture exactly that way, while the fundamentalists are still preaching the lake of fire.I think they are both nonsense, personally.
You do understand that religious belief and the gods that predominate those religious beliefs are largely a matter of geography, right?
Here's a pop quiz. There are Asians in America (and the North American continent, Europe...)
What's the predominant religion there, say, as opposed to to the Indian Subcontinent?
What does that have to do with the fact that there are Christians all over the planet? Are muslims contained to the middle east? Christianity was born much closer to Asia, than it was the west, i.e. the U.S., yet here it is predominant. Your 'argument' doesn't really make much sense. Not to mention that you're obviously a bit overdramatic since I haven't 'threatened' anyone with anything.
That was quite the sidestep. What a shame you can't be honest.
People more often than not, do not choose their theistic beliefs. Rarely do they apply very hard standards to those beliefs. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a Hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select. And of course, I'll even include the possibility (but not probability) that one selects a belief because they actually do hear directly from one or more asserted Supreme Beings.
Do you ever have a point? Other than to try and bait Christians?
The point is obvious. If the afterlife for the Godless was simply a neutral situation absent of God, that would be a fair "reward" for being Godless in life.
If the reward isn't simply the absence of God, but also ETERNAL TORTURE, how is that fair?
If God is just -and- he loves each of us, how is -ETERNAL- torture a just punishment for -anything-?
You and your buddy Bruce, just don't get it, do you?? The very absence of God for the human soul is the cause of the eternal torture. You are separated from God for eternity, and that IS your torture. Read the Bible and educate yourself.
