Stu of Whoville

This quote is taken from the billygraham.org website - found here: https://billygraham.org/story/is-jesus-the-only-way-to-heaven/ Jesus alone can offer eternal life because He is the only one who lived a sinless life and provided the perfect sacrifice for our sins by His death on the cross. He lived on earth as man, but was also divine. Because He was divine, He rose again three days after His death—the only one ever to die and come back to life on His own—then ascended into heaven. While the founders of various non-Christian religions of the world have died and been buried, Christ is very much alive! Jesus was the only one to claim to be God and the only one to prove it. In His words, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Planning to be married is not the same thing as being married. It would be quite possible to have sex with the person you were pretty sure you would marry and end up having sex with a dozen different people. You were sure you were going to marry each of them but there was some sort of breakup and you didn't. Planning to be married requires no commitment from you beyond the planning stage. No minister has asked whether you will promise to love , comfort, honor and keep your fiance for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, and forsaking all others, be faithful only to him/her, for as long as you both shall live? In Genesis 2:24 the Bible says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." --- You will notice that there is an expectation that the man is ready to leave his parents home in order to make a new home with his wife. Therefore, there should be no sexual relationship until a person is ready to take that step of creating a home and family. Sex before marriage creates a casual attitude towards sex that remains even after a person is married. (This is basically sex without commitment.) Even though you are doing marital things you have made no marital commitment to one another. This casual attitude toward depth and commitment won't change just because you stood in front of a preacher and have a piece of paper now. The sexual activity already changed your relationship with your prospective spouse - and there is no way to undo that style of relationship just because you are "married" now. In Old Testament times the act of intercourse was also the act of being married. If you had engaged in this activity then you had become one flesh and as one flesh you were not to be separated. Exodus 22:16 says "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife." In our society we expect for a young man to make a commitment to the young woman with whom he wants to have a sexual relationship. That means expressing solemn promises in front of God, friends and family who have come to witness their union. The casual love them and leave them attitude of modern America is found nowhere within the pages of Scripture. We live in pretty much a godless society and casual, rampant sexuality is one of the reasons for that. The God of the Bible stands in opposition to a hyper-sexualized society where people use one as a means to pleasure rather than a form of committed love. Premarital sex is the prime cause of unwanted pregnancy and frequent abortions. Premarital sex is the primary reason for single-parent households. Premarital sex increases the likelihood of later divorce by about 20%. Premarital sex feels really good, but the consequences are often catastrophic. I have never seen a situation where waiting until marriage made the marriage worse, but I have seen dozens of times in which not waiting nearly brought that marriage to an end.

Those in favor of socialism often point to Sweden, Holland, Norway and Denmark as examples of successful socialist policies. However, all of those countries were significantly more socialist in the past and are now moving toward market economies because socialism had such disastrous consequences for them. You are right that in the 1970's–80's the Nordic countries experimented with tax-and-spend socialism. By 1993 they were spending 67% of their GDP on public programs (meaning that 67% of every dollar earned in Sweden was taken for welfare spending.) Since the poorest citizens have nothing to contribute, that means that upper income citizens were being taxed at a 90% income tax rate (Meaning that 90¢ out of every $1.00 they earned was confiscated in taxes). But tax-and-spending did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th by 1993. Since then, Sweden has slashed its corporate tax rate down to a much more reasonable 22%. These confiscatory tax rates have also left many people from the Nordic states deeply in debt. On average, Nordic citizens carry almost 3 times as much personal debt as American citizens do. In 1993 a decision was made to correct the staggering tax burden placed on Swiss citizens. They deliberately chose to turn back to the right in their fiscal policy. They lowered tax rates, slashed public spending and ended many of the social welfare programs. Unlike the characterization given by many in the U.S., Switzerland now has one of the most capitalist economies in the world. ----------------------- Also, I believe that your analogy is incorrect. I believe the correct analysis might be "Extreme liberalism can lead to communism, just as extreme conservatism can lead to anarchy." Fascism means control by a centralized state. No true conservative would ever support that. What we as conservatives want most is to be left alone. We believe that every person should be required to earn his or her own way in the world. We would gladly burn 95% of government programs to the ground leaving only the bare minimum behind. It could be that our policies would end in an insufficient amount of government. Extreme conservatism might cut too deeply so that needed services were slashed, but I don't believe that conservatism would ever lead to centralized government control - which is what fascism is.

Socialism always seems wonderful at the beginning. They tell us that the rich will pay for everything and there will be plentiful goods for everyone else. "Healthcare" - oh well, the rich will pay for that. "Free college tuition" - we'll let the rich pay. "Universal preschool" - Oh the rich just need to give a little more. It's always the same solution. Take more from the rich and give to everyone else. Of course, the money of the rich quickly runs out at which time they turn toward you to take your money in order to pay for their promises. Very quickly, your property becomes not your property anymore. No your property belongs to the government for them to redistribute as they see fit. The money you earn with your hard work will now belong to them. They will decide that for this year you get to keep 60% of your income, but come next year you will only be allowed to keep 40%. You see, the government needs your money so much more than you do. They have made so many promises and they need some way to pay for all that free stuff they intend to give away. The end result is that your wealth becomes the property of the government, not the individual. The government will then go a step further and seize not just the wealth of the individual but the wealth of corporations as well. Some government bureaucrat will be given the task to decide on behalf of Nike how many tennis shoes they get to make. A government bureaucrat will tell Apple how much of their profits they get to keep. They will put their own people in charge . They will replace the board of directors to set their own companions and cronies in their places. All of this confiscated wealth will eventually wind up as a great big pile of money sitting in Washington D.C. just waiting for someone to distribute. That pile of money will attract those who loves money and loves the control it gives over others. What better control could they have than the ability to decide who gets health care and how much healthcare they get. Why that's the power of life and death. They will decide for you whether you get to have that cancer treatment you so desperately need. And all of a sudden you're not a free person in a free country anymore. Somebody else is making your decisions for you. It sounded so good when they were promising all that free stuff, but all it really did was to give them the right to take your wealth from you and to make decisions in your place instead of you. They will protect you from making your own decisions, because after all you're neither smart nor sophisticated enough to make decisions for yourself. No you are the child of the state. The nanny state will take care of your needs (or not) as the nanny state decides. Socialism is simply another name for slavery, and thus our election choice for this year boils down to this: will we vote slavery for ourselves - or freedom.

This isn't so much a question about voting for Trump or against Trump. Instead, it's the question of what kind of country you are going to have and who will be in control of the institutions of power within that country. Voting for the conservative party, for the Libertarian party, for the US Constitution party - or not voting at all - will simply fracture the vote on the right, ensuring that one of the radical leftist now running will win the presidency. The choice you are making is only this: will you empower the party which supports life, or will you empower the party which supports death (now openly advocating infanticide.) Or how about this choice between the party who says a grown man should use the men's restroom versus the party that says a grown man can use the little girls restroom if he's feeling very womanly that day. Democrats, by and large, are openly advocating for socialism now. Bernie Sanders, who is now at the front of the pack, has openly declared himself to be a socialist. Alexandria Ocascio Cortez, who is also a socialist, is advocating in favor of the Green New Deal which would empower the government to control your actions every time you turn on a light switch, turn up the thermostat, or put the pedal to the metal in your car. This is your choice between freedom and tyranny. It's not about the candidate at the front of the ticket. It's not about his moral failings or the number of tweets he writes. It is simply about this: will you support the party of life or will you support the party of death. That is your only choice.

Are we living in the last days? That's a more difficult question than it seems. My best answer to it is - maybe - . There are some pieces of evidence you have not considered in making your conclusion. Evidence such as… Christianity in Africa is growing at a faster pace than it ever has before. Africa already has more Christians then North America and by 2050 estimates are that there will be 1.1 billion Christians living in Africa. Christianity is exploding in China. Sociologist Rodney Stark Estimates that Christianity is growing by 7% per year in China. From 1980- 2007 the number of Christians in China rose from 10 million up to a high of 70 million. That number is continuing to grow. Recent estimates indicate that 110 million (or more) Christians are now living in China. The evangelical Christian church in South America is on the rise. The percentage of evangelicals in Peru, Brazil and Costa Rica has grown exponentially in the last few years. In fact, the current president of Brazil claims to be a Christian and speaks often about his love for God. A secret, underground church is growing in the Middle East. For example, in 1910 there were only 80 known Christians in the enitre United Arab Emirates. As of 2010, an estimated 12.6% of the population has become underground Christians. In addition to the above facts, there have been times in which western nations have fallen away from their Christian roots before. During John Wesley's day, the church had become a legalistic, and powerless, shadow of itself. Most citizens of the United Kingdom didn't bother going to church at all. Children were forced into hard labor as early as six years old. It was a time in which God was virtually forgotten. Consider this statement by Bishop Gibson, an Anglican minister. Among the people of England vices abounded; drinking to excess, riot, ignorance, violence, cruelty, the neglect of the poor, the oppression of the weak; our mad-houses are a scandal- our prisons a horror; there is hardly a sign of earnestness or humanity anywhere. John Wesley himself said this whole period… was one of corruption, moral disorder, and decline. Literature was deeply tainted by licentiousness. Poetry pandered to every low desire. Innocence and truth were ridiculed instead of exalted. So, are we living in the last days? Maybe… Probably… but we must not forget that there have been times like this before.

I myself have taught your point of view, but I nonetheless find the verse troubling.

I suspected as much. I also understand you explanation and thought seriously about replacing this verse with another soon after including it. Clearly it is the contempt of the righteous for the wicked which is eternal. However, I am still troubled by the thought that eternal contempt could mean eternal conscious torment. This is the verse that I find most difficult. It seems to me that the conditionalist have to jump through a lot of hoops to make it say that this is not eternal punishment even though the text says 'eternal punishment.' I personally like the idea that this does not mean an ongoing punishment with no end but that it instead means a quick death followed by an eternity of non-living silence. However, I don't have the luxury of believing that if that isn't what the text says. I have heard the conditionalist argument for this verse and honestly, I wish their argument was better.

Okay Darren, Why don't we talk about specific verses that seem to indicate eternal conscious torment. I would like to hear your take on these verses and how they would fit into a conditionalist viewpoint. First --- Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, ’Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." & then Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Second - - - Daniel 12:1 ¶ "...everyone whose name is found written in the book — will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

Do you believe that death is not eternal (or maybe a better word would be final)? I don't understand that. How can death (or at least judgment) not be final. Hebrews 9:27 would seem to indicate that death is the final word on a person's life. Job 14:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, John 3:36, Romans 6:23 all give relevant testimony. While true that there is a resurrection of the righteous, it is also true that once the final judgment has been made there will be no resurrection for the wicked. They either go to eternal torment or to the dustbin of the universe where the soul is destroyed. Whichever is true, there is no coming back from it.

There is very compelling evidence on both sides of the debate. I have a high regard for the people who disagree with my position just as much as I have a high regard for those who agree with my position. There are somewhere around 100 Bible verses that seem to indicate that hell is the means by which the soul dies. There are fewer than 25 verses which indicate eternal conscious torment (ECT). Now, just because there are fewer verses supporting ECT doesn't mean that viewpoint is wrong, but it does help me to be willing to consider the 100 other verses and their viewpoint. Now, it seems to me, we must try to reconcile the two sides of the debate into a unified whole that faithfully supports all verses on the matter. The two arguments I have heard about this are... Eternal death and eternal torment are the same thing. When the Bible says that a wicked soul will die it really means that the wicked soul will live forever in a state of always dying. The other argument is that even though the the place (hell) may exist forever, that doesn't mean that the souls in hell necessarily endure forever. Even those verses which speak of forever and ever can be interpreted as hyperbolic language used to indicate a final and definite destruction. Their destruction is forever and ever. The eternal soul has met its end. It shall never return because it's end is a forever end. Both of these arguments seem lacking to me. I am undecided because I cannot find a theory that encompasses all of the scriptures on the topic.

It is also interesting to note that this scripture refers specifically to those who worship the beast and take his image. Therefore, in addition to the Old Testament reference you mentioned this verse seems to refer to 'not to the wicked as a whole' but only to those who worship the beast. It may, therefore, never have been intended to speak of hell for all the wicked but rather for a select few in a specific instance.

My view is kind of in transition, but for the most part I would consider myself to be an annihilationist. That would be quite similar to your second option. Yes, it is true, that Jesus talked about hell more than he talked about heaven. However, people don't seem to realize also talked about the destruction of the soul in hell. There are several places where he speaks of the death of the soul. However, there are also verses that seem to indicate eternal suffering as well. I am uncertain of which position to take because the Bible seems to indicate both options in various places. For example, Jesus speaks about the death of the soul in verses like Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Luke 9:24 “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost?" Both of those indicate death of the soul. However, there are other verses that seem to speak of eternal torment. For example Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." Thus, I am uncertain. In my heart, I am an annihilationist, but it might be that I am wrong.

I made a comment here... but... I'm going to research the topic some more before I make it.

Melinda, I don't think we know enough about your circumstance to give you the kind of advice you are asking for. Does your pastor use the Bible as his text, does he explain that text, and does he challenge you to live up to what you've heard? Does your pastor preach, and does your church teach, that you should sacrifice your desires for yourself in order to have God's desires for you? Does your pastor, and your church, emphasize a daily walk with Christ? Do you feel as if they are talking about real answers for your real situation? These things are vital. If you have found a church that teaches these things then think twice before abandoning it. You say you are not being fed at your church. Is that because… The pastor uses language that is difficult for you to understand? Because he is not really a gifted communicator? Because his life experience, and therefore his understanding of Scripture, is different from your life experiences? Because you don't feel at home among the other people who attend? Or some other reason. Please explain. I ask these questions because each church has its own unique presentation style and outreach gifts. The things that you don't like in one church may be completely absent from another church. I would encourage you to shop around rather than stop attending altogether. Pastors are men of God who do their best to craft relevant, life-changing messages. They want to be helpful. They want to speak the words of God to you. Give them that chance. Be part of that community and give as well as receive. When I was a young man attending college, I tried out about 20 different churches before I found one I liked. Try them out. See how they are different. I guarantee you're going to find something you like.