Jump to content

LuftWaffle

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by LuftWaffle

  1. I get that. You're what's called a moral subjectivist. The problem is that moral thinking is part and parcel of human experience. Morality thus, is a phenomenom that requires explaining and if your worldview has no way to account for it, so that you're ultimately forced to dismiss it as merely an illusion, then it's a problem for such a worldview. So, while you may assert that morals aren't real but that it's just an evolutionary illusion (which for atheists seems to be the only consistent option), my original question was how do you live it out, practically speaking? Do you embrace the truth and live as if there's no right or wrong? Or do you perpetuate a noble lie and live a moral life? To say that societies practised human sacrifice, yes they did, and those practises are condemned now. Society has made moral progress, but the concept of moral progress requires some kind of moral measure, doesn't it? It's only an empty word if you're committed to a worldview that doesn't have room for it and cannot account for it. Why should the sociopath care about the suffering individual? The sociopath ad his gene pool would survive just fine. How do you *know* what will or will not be favoured by evolution? How is what you're saying different from 'just-so story telling', whereby you have a theory that morality is pro-survival and you invent a tale to fit the theory by just asserting that it's unfavourable to survival because you need it to be. Right, so now morality becomes whatever is statistically preferable. So if a large number of people decide that the jews are a problem and that humanity as whole will be better off without them, then it becomes an act of moral fortitute to 'gas zee jews', not so? Except that nobody actually thinks this is how morality works. Especially not anybody who actually visits Auswitch. I've never been there but the sense of heaviness in that place is apparently overwhelming. I've never heard of anybody going there saying that, "well it's all about majority preference really. Some societies like jews and others like to kill them, just like some societies prefer sushi and other societies prefer tortillas" Yeah, but it's very pleasant for the rapist. Now suppose the rapist can rape a woman without it being unpleasant for her? Like that dentist in Florida that I heard of who used to rape women while they were unconscious during dental surgery, or whatever. According to your logic that equates immortality to harm, no harm was done, because the women didn't even know they were raped, right? If no harm is done then nothing is wrong. The same can be said for creeps in Chinese hotels who install cameras in women's bathrooms. As long as the women don't know about the peeping Tom, he's doing nothing wrong, right? You could say, "...but if the women find out", but since he's not harming them in the moment there's nothing 'to find out'. Plus you have to explaining how an act can be morally neutral and somehow become morally repugnant when it's discovered. It seems then the morality is tied to the discovery not the act itself. Can I give you one word of advice? Never become a rape counsellor The notion that the act itself isn't the problem but a loss of nutrients and attractiveness to suitable males, doesn't come close to addressing the sense of what's happened. And this is my point really. It's only suitable to talk like this if you're a middle-class, college educated atheist having a lofty philosophical chat about morality. In the real world, this kind of view is simply unlivable. You would never consistently talk like this if one of your friends were raped, would you? Because the problem isn't survival of the species. That couldn't be further from the mind of the rapist or the victim. If I were so inclined I could go out and rape a dozen women, and I know a fact that humanity will survive just fine. Plus I could get to hear how academics claim that what I did wasn't really wrong. That I don't owe justice a debt because 'morality', is just a complicated word... Saying there's a problem with an animal assumes an OUGHT about an animals behavior. Something that you do not believe in. But you haven't actually responded to an important question. If evolution is used to explain all behavior (included what's considered moral and immoral) then you cannot claim that evolution only supports 'moral' behavior. Evolutionary biologist claim that things like racism have an evolutionary source because it stems from wanting to favour the gene pool of those closest to your own gene pool. You cannot then claim that racism is considered immoral because it's evolutionarily unfavourable. This is the problem with telling evolutionary just-so stories. Evolution cannot at the same time be an explanation for so-called moral behavioral traits and also be an explanation for all behavioral traits.
  2. Hi Leyla, I'd like to illustrate something by highlighting all the present tense descriptive statements in your post: "We dont want to be killed or hurt because that would either remove us from the gene pool or lower our chance of survival. We dont want the people in our society to be killed or hurt because that would damage the fabric of our society and reduce the chance for survival of our species. There is no objective evil, we are just social animals that evolved to live in groups, and living in groups requires certain rules or mechanism. Stopping destructive people from doing destructive things is simply in our interest and thats why we do it. We dont technically punish people because they are bad, for example if someone is born evil (pedophiles, people with mental illnes that want to kill because of it etc), we only punish people that actually do harm to our society(child rapists, murderes etc) " Notice how you're making statements about what humans ARE doing, but morality isnt merely descriptions of what goes on on the planet right now, but rather prescriptive of what OUGHT to be done. This is called the IS-OUGHT fallacy, where one argues that since X is happening now, X is moral. One could just as easily say that human beings are greedy and murderous animals, because you needn't look to far in history to find loads of it. Also, not only are mere descriptions of human behavior inadequate explanations of the moral experience, but one can argue they're simply not true. While many human beings are social animals, many of them simply aren't. If social behavior is moral for social humans because of evolution, then it antisocial behavior should be moral for sociopaths, because their anti-social behaviour is in their genes? Who is to say that sociopaths aren't simply a new direction in human evolution? But what about behavior that promotes survival as you alluded to? If behavior that promotes increased offspring is considered moral because evolution relies on propagation, does that mean people with more children are more moral than people with less children? Should abortion be considered immoral because it's an act designed to kill human offspring? What about homosexual relationships which by design cannot produce offspring. Would their relationships be immoral if one simply substitutes morality for "what's conducive to human propagation"? But I also see no reason to take your statements at face value, for instance: What is your evidence for saying things like rape lower our chances of survival? There are many species of animals such as chimpanzees that forcefully copulate and they're surviving just fine. Lemmings kill themselves en masse, and this no doubt has an evolutionary explanation too. Cannibalism is rife in certain species, and this behavior has evolutionary benefits according to biologists. Nature is full of destructive behavior and virtually every behavior that could be considered a vice in humans can be found in the animal kingdom, and those animals thrive, and biologists invent evolutionary explanations for those behaviours. I can't help but think that a lot of the evolutionary explanations for morality are what's referred to as just-so stories. You need to explain why rape is wrong so you tell a story making rape contra to survival, with no evidence. You need to explain why cutting someone off on the highway is wrong so you invent an evolutionary explaination for how that somehow hampers human survival. But then in the same breath evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists are coming up with explanations for behaviour that's considered negative. So if morality is determined by evolutionary benefit then you can't use the same explanations based on evolutionary benefit to explain bad behavior.
  3. If evil isn't real as you say, then what should we do about laws? Do we pretend that rape, murder, child abuse, sex trafficing etc. is bad and incarcerate perpetrators of such acts, or do we let people define right and wrong as they see fit?
  4. Hi Vince, I would have to disagree with you. Objective morals are the opposite of subjective morals. Objective means 'mind-independent' such that an action will be wrong or right even if nobody thinks so. Absolute morals on the other hand refer to morals that are 'circumstance independent'. Some have argued that torturing babies for fun is a moral absolute because it always applies. The moral argument doesn't require moral absolutes, it is based on objective moral values and duties so the OP is correct. Furthermore, I'd say you're wrong that an atheist can objectively ground morals by simply tying their moral standard to some objective measure like wellbeing, because their selection of that particular measure instead of another is still subjective.
  5. I'm aware of the ECT prooftexts. It's basically two sections in Revelation that are visionary symbols, but must be read at face value to support ECT. One parable in Luke (The rich man and Lazarus) which doesn't describe the fate of the unsaved, and then about five or six passages that require eternal conscious torment to be read into them before they can be used as proof texts, but in actual fact are better support for my view when understood in their context. Is that what you're referring to? If so, I'm aware of those verses and I've studied them very carefully, but I'm always happy to discuss it with honest enquirers
  6. Isa 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
  7. As an annihilationist I voted yes. The question is rather odd, because annihilationists don't deny hell, we simply deny that hell consists of eternal conscious torment. Instead we believe that the bible clearly teaches that the fate of the unsaved is death and the word 'hell' refers to Gehenna a.k.a. the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom which is described as a place of slaughter. So I guess the question should rather have been, "who denies the idea that the fate of the unsaved is eternal conscious torment?" Neither ECT, nor Annihilationists nor Universalists deny hell, so I'm not surprised that there are no 'no' votes.
  8. No, Siegi information is not physical. What is measurable is not the information but the medium upon which information is stored/represented. If Beethoven's fifth symphony is stored (i.e. represented) on a hard-drive it can be measured in bits, if it is played on a piano it can be measured as sound waves, if it is stored on a cassette tape it can be measured as magnetic nodes, if it is written on paper with ink it can be stored as music notation, but none of those mediums ARE the information, they're merely mediums storing a tokenized version of the information. One cannot ask how magnetic Beethoven's 5th Symphony is, because it's not the information that's magnetic but a certain storage medium. etc. In short then, it seems you're conflating the message with the medium. This would be true only in a fully deterministic worldview. The problem is that you expect to be paid for the novel work that you do, likewise inventors and artists don't credit the universe (or cause-effect) for the intellectual property they produce, because they know that they, as individual minds, have produced something and that they deserve some credit for it. This is why it's so absurd that Stephen Hawking can in one book espouse determinism and yet miss the irony of then expecting royalties for selling that book. If the universe is deterministic, are people responsible for anything they do?
  9. The Bible says we shouldn't fear those who can only kill the body but not the soul, but instead we should fear Him who can completely destroy both in Gehenna. Gehenna of course being the place Jeremiah described as a valley of slaughter. The idea that facing judgement and execution by the living God is laughable, and just like going to sleep, shows that perhaps too much of popular theology is driven by the hedonistic impulse of avoiding pain, than a true desire to regain what mankind lost, which is access to the tree of life, so that one may eat and live forever. While the bible consistently describes the gospel as a life and death matter, popular theology has reduced the gospel to a matter of location, an eternal holiday resort or an eternal medieval dungeon. And then we wonder why young people nowadays don't respect the sanctity of life and instead are only concerned with seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
  10. Not only was it a parable, but it describes a scenario prior to judgement. Now you're trying to bolster the idea that the rich man will forever be tormented by referring once again going back to Revelation and reading the apocalyptic symbolism therein as non-symbolic and using it to reinterpret the rest of scripture. So when I challenged you to offer a clear didactic teaching not relying on parable or symbolism you offer a parable interpreted through the lens of the symbolism in Revelation, lol. How exactly is this supposed to show that the entire ECT doctrine isn't built on taking parable and apocalyptic symbols out of context? You don't even realise that you're actually proving my point. At least you're also trying to offer another verse, this time the undying worms and the unquenchable fire. It seems that now you're just going through the handful of ECT prooftexts and hoping something works. As such I'll leave you with an excerpt of my opening statement in the debate on annihilationism, where you can read responses to the typical ECT prooftexts including the passage you mentioned. Those text actually form part of the case for annihilationism. Unquenchable fire Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. What traditionalists do here is make logical inferences that look as follows: 1: The fire is unquenchable. 2: To be unquenchable is to burn forever. 3: To burn forever requires fuel that’ll last forever 4: It is the unsaved that fuels the fire 5: Therefore the unsaved will burn forever. This is roughly the thought process that drives the belief that this is a proof-text for the traditionalist point of view. The problem is that premise 2 is a false premise, because this is not how “Unquenchable fire” is understood in Biblical language. Let’s see if we can interpret the phrase in light of a clear passage elsewhere in scripture that might help us understand what the bible means by “unquenchable fire”: Jer 17:27 But if ye will not hearken unto Me… then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched. Eze 20:47-48 … Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it: it shall not be quenched. Scripture then, seems to define an unquenchable fire as a fire that cannot be stopped from completely devouring that which it burns. This aligns even with our English language use of the word “quench”, which means to put out a fire. It’s not a description of how long a fire burns. So if we look at how the “unquenchable fire” is used in scripture, it seems to better support the Annihilationist view, which is of a fire that consumes and devours rather than merely tormenting that which it burns. Immortal worms Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. We’ve already covered unquenchable fire, but what about these pesky immortal worms? Let’s look at the traditionalist inferences: 1: The worms don’t die 2: Worms that don’t die live forever 3: The worms are eating the unsaved 4: Therefore the unsaved are eaten forever Let’s see if we can get some clarity on what’s going on here, by looking at the passage in the Old Testament that Jesus is quoting here: Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. The scene in Isaiah 66 depicts carcases being eaten by worms and being burnt up by fire. It’s not a picture of living souls being tormented by fires that burn forever and worms that never die. The significance of the worms is rather interesting, because in Jewish culture it was considered shameful for a dead body to see decay. Bodies needed to be properly buried, not left out in the open to be devoured by scavengers, maggots and fire. The picture that Isaiah is describing, and which Jesus referencing is a picture of unstoppable decay and corruption. We see a similar situation in Jeremiah: Jer 7:33 And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. This time we have, not worms, but birds feeding on the dead bodies, and the description that there’ll be nobody to ‘shoo’ them away, and thus stopping the shameful consumption of these dead bodies. We see the emphasis on not seeing decay clearly in the following Psalm: Psa 16:9-11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. This Psalm expresses David’s desire to be protected from his enemies, to not be dishonoured by having his body rotting on the battle field, but the psalm is also looking ahead to Christ whose body didn’t see decay and corruption but was risen on the third day, as we see here: Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. So when Jesus is talking about the unsaved being burnt with unquenchable fire and eaten by worms that won’t die, he is simply saying that nothing will prevent the shameful destruction of the unsaved. The consumption of the bodies won’t be prematurely stopped by the death of the maggots, and the burning up won’t be prematurely stopped by quenching the fires.
  11. You shouldn't teach about hermeneutics and then violate the very things you're teaching by importing speculations that simply aren't in the text. Nowhere does Rev 22:11 describe the evil of the evildoers and the righteousness of righteous continuing for all eternity. What is there, is the angel sandwiching the statement between mentioning "not to seal up the propecy of the book for the time is near", and a statement referring to the coming judgement, where obviously the aforementioned evil and good will be judged. That precisely is what judgement is for, to JUDGE the good and evil deeds. To pretend that the judgement precedes the good and evil deeds just because you're desperately looking for something that you can use to harmonise the Platonist notion that all people will spent eternity somewhere, is not warranted by the text at all. The idea that people will continue to sin in hell is nowhere in the Bible. It's a theory that theologians came up with to explain why God would infinitely torture people for finite crimes. It's a philosophical speculation, ancillary to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. You cannot read that into the text, then claim the interpretation as proof for the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. One would expect that with such shoddy exegesis, and so much question begging you'd come across as less self-assured. I guess that's the Dunning-Kruger internet for you.
  12. Firstly the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is just that, a parable not a "clear didactic passage". Secondly, the scenario depicting in the parable takes place prior to final judgement as evidenced by the rich man wanting to warn his brothers who are still alive. So it has nothing to do with the final fate of the wicked. Thirdly it mention nothing about "continuing" consciousness for all eternity. So basically none of what you're saying is actually in this passage. If only we could have clear description of what is going to happen to the ungodly (besides of course all the other plain straightforward texts I've already offered mentioning death, destruction perishing etc)... If only we could have an example so that we don't have to guess... Image that! 2Pe 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
  13. Okay, but then it cannot be used as a proof-text against death meaning ordinary death.
  14. This is a philosophical argument you're trying to run here, and my primary concern is what the Bible teaches. If the Bible throughout the Torah reserved execution for the worst of crimes and God decides to continue that at the final judgement, which I believe the text teaches, I really couldn't care less that you think it's a "sweet deal" for some whom you think deserves what you consider a worse punishment. I'm not sure why you think the execution that God has planned will only last a minute or two, but even if it does, I'm pretty certain you'd rather want you children to live forever in the new earth, than endure it. So with that I do differ from your opinion (and it is mere opinion on your part) in that I believe the glories of life on the new earth is worth living for and I believe in the inherent value of life, something you seem to place little stock in. I also don't view being condemned and executed by the living God as, "big whoop".
  15. Nothing about "dying you shall die" indicates that this excludes physical death and that it refers to some notion of spiritual death. As I mentioned all Young Earth Creationists (creation.com and answers in genesis has loads of articles on this for instance) believe that physical death entered into creation at this point. The text doesn't require that Adam die immediately because "In the day that you eat thereof" can be read as "When you eat thereof". As such there is no reason to assume the bible is introducing an esoteric definition of death here. https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/genesis-2-17-you-shall-surely-die/ So, what seems to happen is that Young Earth Creationists use Gen 2:17 as a proof-text that physical death entered as a result of the fall when talking to evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists, and they use Gen 2:17 as a proof-text against death being physical when talking to Annihilationists.
  16. Why on earth would you think that losing out on eternal life in God's kingdom and being with Him versus facing judgement and execution at the hands of God is of no consequence? But since you think that ceasing to live is of no consequence, why then did Jesus have to die in our place if death isn't really the punishment that we would face? Did Jesus breathing his last breath on that cross take upon himself an inconsequential punishment, because according to you only eternal corporal punishment counts as 'real punishment'? Exactly, this is why it's so strange that God would say to Adam "In the day you eat thereof you will surely die", when He really meant, "In the day you eat thereof you will live forever in torment". Joh 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this? Perhaps Jesus should have mentioned that by "die" He meant 'living forever in torment' so as not to blow smoke, right before He physically raised Lazarus from the dead, yes? And why did Jesus weep at the death of His friend Lazarus? Did He not understand that death is of no consequence? This is one of the sad repercussions of the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. It makes people view the gift of life as inconsequential, because they've been desensitised by torture obsessed Roman influence and cartoonish images of Dante etc. Instead of a gift of life vs death as the gospel presents it, the church gradually changed it to a hedonistic choice of eternal torture vs eternal bliss.
  17. Actually the opposite is true. John saw a vision of a lake of fire and the interpreting angel interpreted the images as referring to the second death. So you're confusing image with interpretation. You treat the lake of fire as real and the second death as symbolic whereas the bible does the exact opposite. I've dealt with Rev 20 already. These are visionary images depicting the end of dominions. Just like the Harlot being thrown into the lake of fire is interpreted by the angel to John as the end of Mystery Babilon, and just as death and hades thrown into the lake of fire signifies the end of death, so too it is reasonable that the images of the dragon, the multiheaded beast and the false prophet thrown into the lake of fire and tormented, refers in real life to the end of these dominions. The only play the eternal conscious torment camp has is to treat the visionary symbols of Revelation as if they're literal. I am not denying everlasting punishment. I believe the punishment of the unsaved is permanent death not temporary death, so annihilationists affirm an everlasting punishment. It is Universalists who deny everlasting punishment. I am not one of them. You claimed everybody, those in heaven and those in hell will get eternal bodies. Are you now denying you said that. Ok, so you've gone from confidently claiming that the bible teaches that all people are immortal, to now, after being unable to find a single verse supporting that, admitting that what you know is what your pastor taught you. This is the problem, I too was convinced that all people lived forever and that death meant separation, because I was also taught those things in Sunday school. It's only when I started looking into it myself that I realised that what I've been taught just isn't there. The reason you're having a hard time finding verses proving your claims is because you've been told what is 'biblical' instead of testing the things you've been taught against scripture, and when you read the bible you're filtering it by the received doctrine you've been taught instead of what he words actually say. This is why you cannot answer why the bible talks about life and death and yet you believe everybody is immortal, because you auto-replace life and death with popular doctrine. For instance when you read John 3:16 you read it as follows: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish live forever in hell but live forever (in heaven).
  18. On one hand you're saying Paul was urging people to seek after immortal bodies, but on the other you claim everybody will have immortal bodies: My point is that Paul urging people to seek immortality makes no sense in such a case. It would be like Paul urging people to seek having 10 fingers and toes. Why seek what you will get anyway? If human beings are immortal by default, then there is nothing to seek after. The key issue here is why is Paul talking as if life and death is at stake when you believe it's not about life or death, since everybody lives forever anyway? None of the verses you offer demonstrate that the unsaved will live forever: Luke 16:22 is the parable about the rich man and Lazarus and it takes place prior to final judgement in Hades. Nothing there about the unsaved living forever. 2 Cor 5:1-8 speaks of believers. Nothing there about the unsaved living forever Phil 1:23 Is Paul's desire to be with the Lord. Surely you're not using Paul as an example of an unsaved person who will live forever? Rev 6:9 Prior to final judgement. Nothing here about the unsaved living forever. Rev 7:9 Refers to the great multitude standing before the throne and praising and worshiping God. They are not unbelievers. So instead of pretending that you have a point which I don't understand, why don't you actually provide scripture that supports your assertion that all people (including the unsaved) will live forever. To recap: Your claim is that both the saved and the unsaved are bodily and soul immortal. You claimed that the Bible teaches it. I countered by saying the offer of immortality is only for the saved. Your response was to provide verses referring to: a) the saved - These do not help you b) pre-judgement verses - these do not help you either.
  19. What about my burden of proof? Do you think Annihilationists could offer some didactic teaching that describes the fate of the unsaved as death and describes them as not living forever and that eternal life is a gift only of the saved? Do you think I would also need to incorporate pagan definitions into the text and redefine half the New Testament, or could I make my case that the unsaved will die, by simply letting the text speak for itself? What do you think? What if death just meant death, and eternal life, just meant living forever? 2Ti 1:10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:13: For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. John 6:50: This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. John 11:25–26: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 1 John 2:17: The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
  20. As I mentioned before Matt 25:46 is compatible with annihilation, but not compatible with eternal conscious torment. The reason being that the fate of the unsaved is juxtaposed against eternal life. Eternal Conscious Torment proponents claim that both the saved and the unsaved live forever. So instead of a didactic text supporting eternal conscious torment you have offered one that contradicts it. You have also offered 'eternal fire' which Jude uses to reference what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, so if Jude doesn't think 'eternal fire' means 'eternal conscious torment' then I'm certainly not obliged to, just because your view requires it. Moreover Jeremiah described Gehenna as a valley of slaughter. He could have described it as a valley where people live forever in torment if that were true, but he didn't. Then you've tried to use the Imago Dei (Image of God) in an attempt to argue that mankind is immortal, whereby you directly contradicted scripture and made a logical fallacy (Gen 9:6) So when you say that I rejected what you offered 'outside of hermeneutic process' you're simply being dishonest. You have offered nothing coming close to a didactic teaching that the fate of the unsaved is eternal conscious torment. Here we get to the core of problem with Eternal Conscious Torment. The Hellenic baggage that has crept into the church mainly through Augustine who was an admirer of Plato. History Warning! The Ancient Greeks believed that human souls were inherently immortal. This was the mainstream view in ancient Greece, I believe Epicurious was one of the few Greek scholars who didn't hold that view. So, since the Greeks believed all souls were immortal they needed a definition of death consistent with souls being immortal, as such Plato stated that death is a separation of body and soul. So when Christians state that death is a separation they're not quoting the bible, they're quoting Plato. This is why you will not find death defined anywhere in scripture as "separation". Instead death is used in conjunction with perishing, decay, returning to dust, worms eating corpses and so on. "And they are right, Simmias, in saying this, with the exception of the words “They have found them out”; for they have not found out what is the nature of this death which the true philosopher desires, or how he deserves or desires death. But let us leave them and have a word with ourselves: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? To be sure, replied Simmias. And is this anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul—that is death?" - Plato's Phaeo 61-64 So it's not so much that I misunderstand death, I simply do not see any need to incorporate pagan notions into my interpretive framework of scripture. Plus this admission on your part that 'death' must be *understood* as 'separation' just demonstrates that Matt 25:46 is only a proof-text for eternal conscious torment, if words like life, death, destruction and perishing are harmonised with eternal conscious torment. So eternal conscious torment is read into Matt 25:46 and then Matt 25:46 is used as a prooftext for it. Young Earth Creationists believe that physical death entered into creation as a result of the fall. They cite the very verse you're referencing as proof of this. As a YEC yourself, are you now disagreeing with them? Are you saying that the fall had nothing to do with physical death, because you now need to find a way to shoehorn Plato's definition of death into scripture somewhere? Wow, this is demonstrably false. The surrounding verses provide clarity: Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Rev 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. So this isn't a statement that the evil doer will to evil forever, or an 'eternal state', 'after judgement' as you claim, because the part you're quoting is joined to "for the time is near", "I am coming soon" and "repay each one for what he has done". Clearly before judgement then and not after judgement as you say. So you're blatantly contradicting the text here. Now, doesn't it strike you as significant the lengths that you must go to find just one didactic verse that teaches eternal conscious torment, or just one verse that teaches that all people (including the unsaved) are inherently immortal? Apart from two visionary images in Revelation, which must be read as if they're not symbolic, you have nothing. So for all the overconfident, self-righteous claims that the bible 'clearly' teaches eternal torment and those who disagree are just "humanists, theological liberals or John Lennon", it seems when we actually get down to what the Bible says, the only conscious tormenting happening here is the ECT camp torturing the text.
  21. Well yes, but I think my view explains the omission. It's because they're dead. They're not lonely or sad after they're been executed, they're just dead. Either way I don't think this line of reasoning is problematic for eternal conscious torment, either. It could just be an omission, so to be charitable to those who disagree with me, I would find it too compelling if I was on the other side of the discussion, so I won't count it in my favour either.
  22. Okay so I asked for a single didactic teaching not reliant on parable or symbolism showing that God will eternally torment the unsaved. What you offer is a pseudo-philosophical argument that man is made in God's image and since God is immortal man must be immortal too. Firstly this is a flawed reasoning because being in God's image doesn't mean that you can pick and choose which properties of God and included in the Imago Dei . So you're simply assuming that what the Bible means by "In God's image" is immortality. Another problem with this reasoning is that God told us not to kill, specifically because your neighbour bears the image of God. Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. So you're contradicting scripture because you claim man cannot be killed because of the image of God, whereas the Bible explicitly says do not kill, because you'd be killing the image of God, which obviously implies that the image of God can be killed, otherwise Gen 9:6 is nonsensical. In terms of Matt 25:41-46. Eternal fire and everlasting fire refers to fire from an eternal or everlasting source, not necessarily a fire of eternal or everlasting duration. For example, the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was also called eternal fire, and Sodom and Gormorrah isn't burning now. The reason it's eternal is because it's divine in origin, not because it burns forever, and the verse says nothing at all about the unsaved living forever in torment within this fire. So even if we grant the fire does burn forever, you're simply reading into the text that anybody thrown into the fire will be tormented forever. Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jesus uses the same turn of phrase of eternal fire in Matt 18:8-9 where he likens the eternal fire to the Gehenna, which was to become a valley of slaughter according to Jer 7:32-33 Jer 7:32 Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere. Jer 7:33 And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away. It stands to reason that Jesus' audience would have been familiar with the OT references to Gehenna, and thus wouldn't have leaped to the Augustinian understanding of Gehenna as a place of eternal torment, but instead would have recognised it as a place of divine judgement and slaughter. Moreover, verse 46 directly contradicts eternal conscious torment because the saved get eternal life and the unsaved get an eternal punishment which is not eternal life. If you don't get life, then you get death. Eternal conscious torment proponents believe both the saved and the unsaved live forever, right? So how do you square Jesus' teaching that only the righteous get eternal life, with the view that all people live forever either in heaven or hell? My view is perfectly consistent with Matt 25:46 because I believe that the saved get to live forever and the unsaved do not, but instead will receive the death penalty as an eternal punishment. So, you didn't really offer anything remotely close to a didactic teaching that the fate of the unsaved is eternal conscious torment.
  23. I already did, but I'm happy to elaborate. The section in Revelation you're quoting is an amalgamation of 3 prophetic images from the Old Testament. 1. The cup of wine. Referring to God's wrath and when drunk always refers to death. Think about Jesus drinking the same cup before His death. So this doesn't help you at all. 2. Fire and brimson. Referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. This image refers to the destruction and the slaughter that happened there. 3. Smoke rising forever. Taken from Isaiah and referring to God dealing with Edom, not by eternal torture but by wiping them out, leaving an empty wasteland. So all three parts that make up the section in Revelation refers to Old Testament images which means judgement by death. This of course is perfectly consistent with all the didactic teaching referring to the wages of sin being death, John 3:16 giving everlasting life to the believer and the unsaved perishing. etc. etc. How convenient. So when the images referred to in Revelation mean something different than what you claim they mean, it's because the Old Testament was veiled. This is the part where "progressive revelation" is used as a magic wand to do the heavy lifting. Lol, so your interpretation of Revelation relies or an interpretation of Isaiah which relies on a commentary interpreting Isaiah according to an eternal conscious torment reading of Revelation?
  24. Okay, so both the saved and the unsaved have immortal bodies and souls? That contradicts what you said earlier where you claimed that Paul was talking about how our souls are immortal but we must seek bodily immortality. It seems now you're saying that the unsaved will get immortal bodies anyway? Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; What need then to seek glory and immortality (body or soul), it seems the unsaved already have it. Why does the Bible claim the wages of sin is death if nobody actually dies, since as you claim both the unsaved's bodies and their souls are immortal? What makes you think that Paul is referring to the unsaved in 1 Cor 15:51-53?
  25. How does that work? So both the saved and the unsaved are immortal but only the saved will have bodies that live forever, is that what you're saying? So the unsaved in hell will be disembodied spirits?
×
×
  • Create New...