LuftWaffle

Yip, this is modern Christianity in a nutshell, I guess. People can lie, deceive, misrepresent, twist words, grand stand and be a arrogant sollipsistic fools, but if somebody actually calls them any of those, then it's just too much to bear.

Again this was posted to someone else. How solipsistic can one individual be who can't even acknowledge that there are people besides themselves in thread.

Lol, my post wasn't even directed at you, and yet here you are again triggered and responding with statements like It must be really embarassing talking about reading skills when you cannot even figure out that I was responding to someone else in that post.

Sure, immortality is just a way of saying possessing eternal life. Mortal would be the opposite of that. My belief is that immortality is granted only to the saved. You want scriptural evidence for that, sure: Joh 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. The immortality is conditional upon belief in God. Those who believe are given immortality and those who don't remain moral and thus are subject to death.

Well that's really interesting because when I asked whether you're pro-life you claimed it was a ridiculous question and appealed to the title of the forum. Do you now concede that the title of the forum doesn't in fact guarantee where someone lands on the pro-life issue? So you agree that the visions seen by John do not depict the literal events of the fate of the unsaved, but are in fact symbolic. "What will be "no more" are the mortal resurrected bodies of the unsaved. What neither John NOR the Bible says anywhere is that souls will cease to exist." Ah, so only the bodies are destroyed in the lake of fire, the souls are not destroyed, even though Jesus said that both the body and soul will be destroyed in hell? Please show me where in the verse it claims that God will destroy the bodies of the wicked but not the souls. Matt 7:13-14 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Is it your claim that Jesus is predominantly concerned with the bodies of people here, since he promises life to the one group and destruction to the unbelievers? Quit strawmanning my argument: Can capital punishment have varying degrees of duration, pain and suffering i.e. bearableness? You're conflating the process of the punishment with the outcome of it. I never claimed the process of the punishment is eternal and neither does the bible require such a view. The OUTCOME of the punishment is eternal. The eternal punishment refers to a punishment that is permanent, irreversible and final. That's all. Matthew 25:46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. So if the unsaved are destroyed both body and soul, and never resurrected again like with the first death, the punishment is eternal. You still need to square the verse with your view since you believe that both the saved and the unsaved are immortal, and cannot be destroyed. So according to you both the saved and the unsaved live eternally albeit in different places. Ok, so would losing your life and not partaking of that union with your savior in His kingdom then be worthy to be called a punishment? The reason I ask these questions are because you keep avoiding the pointing and going after strawmen. Explain what it is that you think I believe since I keep saying God will kill and destroy the wicked and you keep claiming that I believe they will cease to exist. Do you believe that killing and destroying something is synonymous with causing it to cease to exist? If not, then why when I speak of the mortality and death of the wicked, do you pretend that it means something it doesn't? Show me where I used the words "ceasing to exist is a punishment". C'mon let's see it.

It's not going anywhere because you're not engaging with scripture or the arguments I'm making. Of course the discussion won't go anywhere if you keep avoiding the actual words of scripture and you keep misrepresenting what I say. We could, of course, easily have had a good faith discussion between two adults where we weigh the evidence for each side and consider the two views with care, honesty, courtesy but you chose not to. For instance how many times have I shown you that the Lazarus and the richman story doesn't support your view because the brothers are still alive. Yet you keep ignoring that refutation and simply rehash the same argument again hoping that the readers might fall for the poor exegesis next time, or the next time or the next time. It's not honest, I'm afraid. Likewise you know full well where the historic notion of death meaning separation comes from, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Again, not honest. So I'm going to keep refuting your man-made doctrine and deal with the strawmen, and misquoting of scripture, and you'll keep skulking away as your house of cards crumbles only to return again hoping that maybe tomorrow nobody will call out the bad interpretations and strawmen....

So what you're saying then is that those who aren't saved do not have immortality. Why then do you claim that the unsaved are immortal? Nope, I know what I support and what I support is that the unsaved will be killed by God. I said it from the beginning of my participation in this thread. You're being dishonest. No you're moving the goalposts by saying the bible teaches separation from life. I agree that death is separation from life. What I don't agree with, is that the unsaved are immortal, living separated from God, which is what you originally claimed, but failed to provide scriptural evidence for. It's perfectly consistent with MY worldview that God is the giver and sustainer of life, and that those who reject God will not have everlasting life. They will indeed die.

I asked you two questions: 1. Do you believe Jesus took our punishment on the cross? 2. Jesus' death on the cross an avoidance of punishment too? You said: So since you believe that Jesus took our punishment on the cross, was Jesus eternally consciously tormented for our sins, or did He die on the cross for our sins? Are the wages of sin death or eternal conscious torment? If the wages of sin is eternal conscious torment, why did Jesus have to die? If the wages of sin is death, then why do you deny it?

Ah, this is so funny. You claim that death is defined as separation and then offer as proof, verses that don't define death as separation. You do realise that you'll actually have to find proof of your claim and not just do a word search for 'separation' and hope that it's enough. I never claimed death is cessation of existence, this is YOUR strawman. I have never claimed that death is cessation of existence and I have always claimed that death is cessation of LIFE. Try to be good faith and respond to what I'm actually claiming. So, according to Revelation Tell us what happens to death after it's thrown into the lake of fire, hmmmm?

1. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the definition of death is separation from God. This is the teachings of men. 2. Man being made in the image of God, doesn't imply that man has every single attribute of God, including immortality. Fallen man is mortal based on a gigantic pile of scriptures which I have at my disposal. Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” Fallen man's access to the tree of life has been cut off, so fallen man no longer has access to that which let's them live forever. When you claim that fallen man will live forever you're contradicting scripture. When you claim that fallen man is immortal you're contradicting scripture. When you claim that God cannot destroy the bodies and souls of the wicked you're...you guessed it....contradicting scripture. 3. As pointed out a million times before, the rich man and Lazarus has nothing to do with the final fate of the unsaved, since the man wants to warn his brothers who are still alive, and who still has access to Moses and the prophets. Pretending this non-argument will magically become a valid argument if you repeat it enough remains at best irrational and at worst dishonest. 4. "[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" Correct the visionary image of the lake of fire refers to the second death. I have been saying all along that the unsaved will die a second time, have I not? I agree with Revelation 20, because the things thrown into the lake of fire are destroyed, even death itself ultimately get destroyed when it too is thrown into the lake. The interpretation of which is that there will be an end to death itself. So, once again nothing you have put forth contradicts my view, in fact it affirms it.

The connection is that both verses describe the state of the unsaved as mortal and that immortality aka everlasting life is given only to the saved. I'm not connecting the verses, other than them being two separate lines of evidence for conditional immortality.

It's literally in the first chapter of Revelation, lol Rev 1:1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

In terms of asking whether you're pro-life, Is it your claim that every person on this forum must be pro-life because the title of the forum is "Worthy Christian Forums"? Revelation 20: 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Since you believe that the depiction of the lake of fire is not symbolic of the second death, please explain to me how death and Hades can be thrown into a literal fire? Also when death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, what is the fate of death and Hades? Does being thrown into the lake of fire spell the end to death itself? Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Gee, isn't that weird. When things are thrown into the lake of fire, John's explanation is that those things will be 'no more'. You asked about the harlot representing Babylon Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. In terms of my pointing out that death can have degrees, your only response seems to be that you used the word 'bearable'. If one situation is more bearable than another, then it follows there are degrees of bearableness or suffering. Since you undermined your own argument by refering how excruciating the cross is, you seem aware that some deaths can be worse than others. "Do you actually think that a dead person feels stones being thrown at the corpse????" Nope, which is why I asked YOU whether the Old Testament punishment is a punishment or not, since those punished with death do no keep feeling the pain of death. Do you believe life has value and that being killed means losing out on something that has value? Do you believe everlasting life has value, or do you believe the only good thing about heaven is avoiding hell? Is it possible that a loss of something valuable can be a punishment or do you think that corporal punishment is the only valid form of punishment?

No, what most annihilationists believe is that the unsaved will cease to live. It is a common defense of those, such as yourself, believing in eternal conscious torment to attempt to reframe the Annihilationist view to be the cessation of existence instead of cessation of life. They do this because they know full well there are tons of scripture from Genesis to Revelation stating clearly that the fate of the unsaved is death and that immortality is a gift granted only to the saved. Because they cannot argue against this mountain of scriptural evidence, and because they know they cannot dismiss every single verse with 'muh Lake Of Fire', they resort to low tier strawman arguments.

You're the one who brought up Gehenna not me. So now you blame the Sadducees because the prooftext you offered, in order to reinterpret Paul backfired.

The angel tells John that the symbol of the lake of fire, refers to the second death. So this again affirm what I've been saying, that the unsaved will die. Just like the Lamb in Revelation refers to Jesus, so does the lake of fire refer to the second death. These are symbols and it's incorrect to treat symbolism as literal and to reinterpret plain text according to those symbols.

Ok, so you didn't actually respond to the two verses I posted, the one in Corinthians stating that immortality is given to the saved, or that the unsaved will be destroyed in both body and soul in hell, which directly contradicts your claim that souls cannot be destroyed. Instead you offered a word search of the word Gehenna. I'm not sure why, because it supports Annihilationism and not eternal conscious torment. Gehenna was known as 'the valley of slaughter', where people were EXECUTED and the DEAD bodies were CONSUMED by fire. How exactly does any of this support the idea of living forever while being tormented and never being destroyed?

Oh, sure. You could answer me, but you're not going to bother, because I have so much to learn. Instead I must go forth and learn some Greek, and read some Matthew and study and grow and eventually I'll realise that you are correct. And if not, I guess I should study some more until I do? OR You can stop obfuscating, wasting time and pretending to be some kind of sage and actually respond to a simple case made in simple English using plain scripture. If the Bible has been mistranslated then offer the evidence that it meant to say 'immortal' when it meant 'mortal' or 'destroy' when it meant 'everlasting torment'.

Ok, so your explanation is that Paul thought that salvation in Christ would grant him immortality, but really he didn't know what he was talking about, but because the Corinthians kept bothering him with questions, he had to just write them some nonsense. Poor Paul, if only he knew what you know, eh? I'm assuming when Jesus said that God can destroy both body and soul in hell, He too didn't really know what He was talking about either, right?

So Paul was wrong?

corruptible - means the ability to rot, or to decay mortal - means having the ability to die. These are simple English definitions. What do you believe these terms mean and why?

This is not what the Bible teaches: 1Co 15:53-57 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

You say souls cannot be destroyed, but the Bible teaches the exact opposite. Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The link I sent you was a formal debate between myself and Shiloh. While you cannot ask Shiloh anything, I presume you can read my opening statement in that debate about the topic? I assumed you were interested in what I believed, so I offered the link, that's all. Annihilationism is also referred to as Conditional Immortality, because we believe that immortality is a gift given only to the saved. As such the unsaved will not have immortality but will be cut off from Christ who sustains and gives life. Ergo they will die, and since this punishment is permanent, their death will be permanent. I believe this comports with what most Annihilationists believe, though I certainly cannot speak for all of them. Do you believe that unsaved are immortal?

Could you perhaps clarify what you're asking me to do here? My view, simply put, is that the fate of the unsaved is that they will be completed killed/slain/destroyed by God and remain dead forever as opposed to living forever in torment. I believe the case for this in scripture is far stronger than the traditionalist view of eternal conscious torment. I have laid out this case here: In terms of quoting the other poster, I did that because my response was directed at him/her.