Evidence for God from Science

Sudsy wrote:

But I am sure that there is more than enough info to consider now.

J. Davis, how about you, will you agree to make only one more post on this thread and let all this information on the subject stand ? I asked B.W. the same.

You both have presented tons of stuff to support the 'T' view and I am willing to allow what I have offered regarding the 'A' view to stand if you guys will agree to now allow people to decide for themselves.

If you don't then you are forcing more repeated posts and at some point, I suppose, a moderator will have to close this thread or perhaps not as I am unfamiliar with thread closings on this forum.

Hey guys, I think we have presented these two views quite thoroughly, can we let it rest ?

There is no reason to curb discussion in any way or lock the thread so long as things are progressing in a respectful manner (even if repetitious). If anyone is done with the discussion they can restrict themselves from posting. We usually tend to keep threads open indefinitely and often months or even years later have new members post something new in the threads. Like Bart mentioned before, please keep it clean and keep the sermonizing to a minimum, just discuss the issues.

I had posted this earlier but no one commented so here it is again, in case it is something worthy of discussion:

Byblos wrote:

Sudsy wrote:It will have an end for each person after the wrath of God is satisfied for their sinning.

Perhaps this is an area we can explore. What scriptures would you use in support of that?

No problem, I was just trying to avoid so much repetition by making a deal with repetitive posters for the sake of the readers. Regarding your question, I believe the answer to this can be found in the latest link I provided along with many other questions. Any further exploration on this question, I'll leave to others.

As for that lake of fire mentioned in Revelation, I believe it is a figure of speech, describing our God.

Wheels, how am I misinterpreting?

+
+
Sudsy, for some reason you do not read what I have written several times:

B. W. wrote:I am only going to make a few points to the readers to ponder and move on, my intent is for the Reader to think with reason on these matters through and reach their own conclusions…

B. W. wrote:...all I am asking is for you to check your doctrines measured to scriptures that objectively reveal God's Character and Nature and Attributes. If you chose to do so or not, is your own choice. I am not forcing you or anyone as to what to believe but seeking for readers to investigate and come to their own conclusions

B. W. wrote:I’ll touch only in part on this because this has already has been reviewed. I’ll add a little bit more then stop, and continue on concerning the other definitions. I am only going to make a few points to the readers to ponder and move on, my intent is for the Reader to think with reason on these matters through and reach their own conclusions…

B. W. wrote: That is why I responded in the manners I did. From it, the reader can decide what they believe by hearing either side of the debate and noting which side seeks what is best for men and the other that seeks what is best for God.

B. W. wrote: Remember, I am not the one trying to force annihilationism onto people as they only way to believe. I can only present a manner by which one can come to terms with the Truth’s about God. Doing so allows each to come to their-own conclusions. The rest is between them and the Lord.

B. W. wrote: Annihilationism verses eternal cognizant just punishment can be disagreed upon between Christians. Christian Annihilationist and Christians who hold the Orthodox view agree on points of salvation through Christ thus this debate is a non-essential doctrine.

Please stop with the false accusations...

Next Point:

Sudsy wrote:I find your summary on God's character interesting in that an Annihilationist would agree with it. So this exercise proves nothing with regard to eternal torment. We don't agree with what you mean to imply by certain terms about God nor what you suggest God must do with regard to this summary.

Let’s apply annihilationist thought to the summary and see if it fits? Deal?

B. W. wrote:

Sudsy wrote: Say what ? . God is just in giving out whatever punishment fits the crimes as He determines not as you determine. What we sow, we reap. After that occurs, there is non-existence. God, in no way, is therefore impartial. You are really wrestling alright but wrestling to hold unto your reasonings.

Not really Sudsy - how does ‘What we sow, we reap’ fit into justification for non-existence if what one sown does not deserve non-existence?

What we sow, we reap fits eternal punishment as well as eternal banishment for beings created and purposed by God to live eternally.

How does the summary you agree with substantiate your claims cited above? How’s that for a new direction for the readers to take?

Next question: what of repetitive links you are leading people to read (hummm brainwash them)? Cuts both ways Sudsy…

Sudsy wrote:No problem, I was just trying to avoid so much repetition by making a deal with repetitive posters for the sake of the readers. Regarding your question, I believe the answer to this can be found in the latest link I provided along with many other questions. Any further exploration on this question, I'll leave to others.

So any readers need to become aware and warned of brainwashing through use of extremely wordy links Sudsy Posted… Fair?

Fact of the matter we have answered many of those arguments already contained within your links. Like this one worth repeating regarding:

Mat 25:46, "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life." RV

So we sound repetitive because there is No need to explain away the simple words of Christ grammatically grounded to read annihilationism into Mat 25 text like your links do to have the text read like this:

Mat 25:41, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the ending-eternal fire lasting but a mere few ages then exterminates into eternal non-existence forever which is prepared for the devil and his angels..." RV

Mat 25:46, "And these shall go away into non-eternal punishment lasting but a mere few ages then exterminates into eternal non-existence forever: but the righteous into eternal life." RV

You know, looking through the lens of Christ - Jesus did not say nor did he use expanded definitions in Matthew 25:41, 46 like the annihilationist contend. Jesus was more forth right and extremely clear in his manner of speech regarding this matter. He could have used different words but he did not. Eternal life with God last forever without end just as eternal punishment last forever without end. The grammar structure is clear the words eternal both have the same meaning according to context and grammar structure. PERIOD.

What do you do Sudsy? You provide repetitive links that use far more words than I do to explain away the meaning of the text. We addressed these concisely. Jesus put the lens of himself upon eternal matters regarding heaven and hell, without any needed wordy secret explanations needed to properly interpret the text from the annihilationist links that were posted.
-
-
-

The examples I used in my previous post were to point out that God's judgment is quick and fair. The result in those examples was death. Utter destruction. He ordered the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite peoples. He used the flood in the Noah story to destroy the ungodly. He burned Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes. He used the angel of the Lord to slay the Assyrian army.

Who is responsible for the destruction of souls at the end of this age? God is. As Jesus says:

Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (KJV)

As stated in the Old Testament:

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

And as a second witness:

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

It doesn't say that the soul that sins will burn forever. As a few have said and as the New Testament concurs, the wages of sin is death. Not eternal torture.

Jesus claims:

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

What happens when something perishes? It dies. Jesus is not speaking in these verses about physical death but soul death because I believe in Christ but I still know I'm going to physically die someday and being a Christian isn't going to prevent my physical demise.

Scripture states:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Notice in this verse that those who believe not shall not see life. No life means death.

The one example I did use which blatantly points out annihilation is Ezekiel 28:19; the lamentation for the king of Tyre.


Ezekiel 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

That phrase, "and never shalt thou be any more" clearly shows that his destruction will result in him becoming nothing.

In the beginning God spoke and nothing became everything. At the great white throne judgment, God will speak again and some things shall become nothing.

And yes I do believe that the lake of fire, metaphorically spoken of by Jesus as the fires of Gehenna or 'Hell' is God himself because as God describes himself as a consuming fire, He created all souls. I don't see why He'd leave it up to anyone or anything else, including a lake (which really means 'harbour' in the Greek) to destroy souls. God is that consuming hellfire once His wrath is kindled.

Bavarian, if you want put up a post regarding what happens during those thousand years I would love to comment and or discuss it. I wasn't including those who lived and died as Christians because they are immune to the second death as scripture says. And I'm male btw.

I know those of you who follow the Hell doctrine of eternal torment in a fire probably won't be convinced by anything I've said. Frankly, I believe the Hell doctrine has been taught for so long as a tradition of men that many Christians believe it to be true. It has been my experience when speaking to those who are interested in Christianity, searching for spiritual truth or new Christians, that as soon as Hell doctrine is mentioned it drives them completely away from following the faith. I tell them that if a person dies who doesn't believe in Christ, they will have to suffer a thousand years of being taught, during the day of the Lord and it won't be nice.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

I believe in a God of love, who at the end will quickly dispatch those who fail the final judgment. And I look forward to a future, not a future where I see the ones I loved who didn't believe burning in a fire but as scripture says:

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Good luck Katabole. <Moderator snipped>

I think some people forget that people like Martin Luther and others had to take a stand against unsound, unscriptural beliefs to get back on track with what scripture was really saying. I believe this subject, although it will take a lot of abuse from some 'T' viewers, will someday become the dominant view as this concept of never ending torment is destroyed. When you tackle traditional beliefs like this one, you can really hit a nerve with some people. However, it is necessary to get some to quit being sheep and start thinking it out for themselves.

Katabole, if Bav doesn't create a post regarding the thousand year period, I hope you will. I look forward to seeing your scriptural support for whatever you believe about it.

Mat 25:41, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the ending-eternal fire lasting but a mere few ages then exterminates into eternal non-existence forever which is prepared for the devil and his angels..." RV

Mat 25:46, "And these shall go away into non-eternal punishment lasting but a mere few ages then exterminates into eternal non-existence forever: but the righteous into eternal life." RV

These are the latest two scriptures that have been re-written to attempt to say what one man thinks Annihilation is saying. But the annihilationist view does not need to re-write scripture as it maintains the fire is eternal (and this has been explained what this means and how it works in harmony with other scriptures that speak of destruction) and also there is nothing that suggests it last 'but a mere few ages'. Nor does the annihilationist view need to re-write any scripture concerning the nature and character of God. Who God is works in perfect harmony with what God will do in His method of judging and sentencing. There is no contradiction in who God is and how He acts with the 'A' view. I can't say that though with the 'T' view.

So, to be fair, if we are going to re-translate the scriptures here is what some 'T' viewers read into what these chapters say -

Mat 25:41, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into a lake of fire where punishing is never ending in a body that will never be consumed but always be in torment which is prepared for the devil and his angels..." BV

Mat 25:46, "And these shall go away into never ending punishing of the worst unimaginable type of burning torment: but the righteous into eternal life where they will look upon this endless punishing and see it as a just sentence. " BV

Jesus was more forth right and extremely clear in his manner of speech regarding this matter.

I think the reader can decide for themselves if this reflects the God of scripture and if Jesus made this extremely clear by what these scriptures do say. Or, as many believe, this is not reflective of the God of the scriptures and when considered along with all the instances regarding the second death ending in destruction, as Katabole has recently pointed out, it is quite a valid view to consider.

After much sword fighting, some 'T' viewers had to concede (although I doubt they will admit it) to the fact that there is nothing in the NT written in the 22 books between the Gospels and Revelation regarding endless torment. They tried to bring hell into the picture but that was not the issue. The issue is endless torment and all these books said nothing about it. So, why not ? How could a subject of such importance be kept quiet in all of these evangelistic efforts in Acts and in all the letters to the churches ? Again, the reader can think about this point and ponder what the apostles really believed on this subject. What did they understand Jesus to be saying.

And looking at it in these most explict terms, how can one say they believe this to be truth and not be begging and pleading for everyone and anyone to escape such a destiny, is way beyond my reasoning ability. I cannot fathom how one can love their neighbour as themselves and not be doing everything in their power to save them from such a state. However, that is my reasoning problem to deal with because others do not see it that way. Perhaps just my wife and I, and a few others, are all screwed up with this line of reasoning.

These are the kind of issues that Christians killed each other over in centuries past. Now it is just a battle of words. It would be nice though if we could present views without any put down remarks regarding the other view. I know people that just don't get on these forums because Christians can't express their differences in a friendly way. And I get caught up in this battle of words as much as anyone. Sometimes I find unbelievers being much more cordial in sharing their differences than Christians. O well, thats another subject.

Sudsy wrote:And looking at it in these most explict terms, how can one say they believe this to be truth and not be begging and pleading for everyone and anyone to escape such a destiny, is way beyond my reasoning ability. I cannot fathom how one can love their neighbour as themselves and not be doing everything in their power to save them from such a state. However, that is my reasoning problem to deal with because others do not see it that way. Perhaps just my wife and I, and a few others, are all screwed up with this line of reasoning.

Here we go again, complete with the rolling eyes emoticon to boot. This has got to be by far the most disingenuous, single-sided argument I have ever encountered.

+
+
I did not catch this but Katabole comment struck me in the use of the Letter 'T' to stand for Traditional stemming from Sudsy's term found on Page Nine:

Sudsy wrote:Thanks bart for pointing out that there 'is not an "official" doctrine with regard to hell stated on the home page and statement of faith of the board.' I hadn't yet noticed that this site had these and I appreciate you pointing this out.

I realize that the annihilationst view is not a majority view within Christianity, at least not yet.

To J.Davis - Firstly you shared a text regarding 'another Gospel'. Surely you are not implying that an annihiliationist point of view is preaching another gospel, right ? For brevity, I'll refer to the annihilationist view as a the 'A' view and the traditional view as the 'T' view.

You claim that some 'A' view folk are implying Jesus is evil if He is saying what the 'T' view people understand Him to say. Is it not true that some 'T' view folk are implying that God is not true to Himself if He acts out the 'A' view ? So one is calling God evil while the other is calling God a liar. We are all striving to find an understanding of God and what He will do with our understandings of who He is. 'A' views suggest God is infinitely loving and merciful and to punish forever and ever does not reflect the character of God. 'T' viewers say that God must act this way as finite sins are against an infinite God and therefore deserve infinite punishment....

By painting with a broad brush the Christian Orthodox doctrine under the broad disguise as Traditional you are implying that Tradition as defined by Jesus refers to the doctrines of men! You even had some people trading compliment shots earlier on how bad Tradition is and can become, and in need of repentance, and I would even agree but the definitions we use for traditional differ entirely.

From Sudsy’s comments and Links – Traditional now has come to stand for Old Fashion, Obsolete, hokey, old fashion, not hip and the Traditional view of eternal recompense is subtly termed in a derogatory fashion as Tradition. Wow, should have caught the Saul Alinsky method earlier. You changed the game by redefining the terms of words to cast doubt into people. After all, who wants to be call traditional after you define it?? ... Nice try Sudsy…

You slanted the word Traditional to mean Old Fashion, Obsolete, hokey, old fashion, not hip, hypocrites because they do not witness 24/7 - 365 days a year on hell. Anyone holding the Traditional view is well, stupid, and unenlightened and supports Torture. Your links support this view as well and stated by leaders of annihilationism as well - you deny this? Like for me to cite direct quotes?

You thus labeled anyone who holds to with the Orthodox Christian doctrine of eternal recompense, which is based on sound bible study and linguistics as Traditional. By labeling as Traditional subtly implies in the mind of readers as Old Fashion, Obsolete, hokey, old fashion, not hip, hypocrites, and needing a purposeful thoughtful change, as it is Traditional of men.

You then go on citing the Annihilationist A view suggest God is infinitely loving and merciful and to punish forever and ever does not reflect the character of God So I purposed a manner in which to test this by uses of exploring what the bible actually says about God’s Character, you decline and call it Traditionally based and without merit because it is Traditional!

Sudsy, you sated this on this thread regarding the word translated, perishing, and your point was what was best to support your view on this word…

Sudsy wrote:..I remain unconvinced at this point that eternal torment is a valid belief when you look at God's character throughout the entire scriptures

When you look at God's character throughout the entire scriptures- hmmm when I suggest that we do, you turned to concept of the Lens of Jesus approach to deflect from looking at the hard scripture based objective facts. You even had others agree to only go the logic of the Jesus Lens method despite what you stated earlier…

Looking back, you even had people beginning to agree on your definition of Tradition and the need to change men’s Traditional approach to Bible study based on Greek Logic. There is some truth in this that we all can agree on, since there is, don’t manipulate people. Objective biblical truth remains the same and defies actual Traditions of men. What Orthodox Christian terms as traditional is not the same as you are trying to imply.

Therefore, Please no Longer Use The “T” to imply Traditional as that is very underhanded and devious.

Orthodox Christian doctrine is and was not founded on Traditions of men as you wrongly imply but on a thorough review of scripture thru the lens of Christ and the entire bible. We do not go to great lengths to explain away and reinterpreted the words of Christ as in Matthew 25:41, 46 and elsewhere.

Please Stop implying the word Tradition to us. The Gig is up… very Saul Alinsky like…

Therefore please no longer use ‘T’ or Traditional …
-
-
-

For the record ... I stand by the "lens of Jesus" statement I've made and I've come to and held that position long before hearing from Sudsy. I'm not an annihilationist, but I'm also not entirely sure the traditional view of hell held by a majority of people is completely scriptural and not influenced by other traditions over time, at least in the western world.

Canuckster1127 wrote:For the record ... I stand by the "lens of Jesus" statement I've made and I've come to and held that position long before hearing from Sudsy. I'm not an annihilationist, but I'm also not entirely sure the traditional view of hell held by a majority of people is completely scriptural and not influenced by other traditions over time, at least in the western world.

Yes, and I do too Bart...

Some traditions of men are in the church world and we can agree on that. We agree how Greek logic forms and systems crepted in also...for both bad and good.

James 3:1 - you know... is very true - if we lived our lives to it much if the wrongful traditions would vanish...
-
-
-

Sudsy.

Have you read 'Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue' with Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson? If not, I recommend this book to you and anyone else.

It covers a lot of Scripture on both sides. I do not agree with all Peterson believes or says, but I do think he successfully shows Annihilation is a real hard fit with a fuller view of Scripture. I was also expecting Peterson to be setting up strawmans and ad hominems, but was surprised to see it be the other way around. That is not to say Fudge did not do a good job for his part. For as reading chapter to chapter (Fudge and Peterson take turns), I was swinging back and forward between positions and questioning both along the way with my own knowledge.

In any case, I'd recommend it.

Byblos wrote:

Sudsy wrote:And looking at it in these most explict terms, how can one say they believe this to be truth and not be begging and pleading for everyone and anyone to escape such a destiny, is way beyond my reasoning ability. I cannot fathom how one can love their neighbour as themselves and not be doing everything in their power to save them from such a state. However, that is my reasoning problem to deal with because others do not see it that way. Perhaps just my wife and I, and a few others, are all screwed up with this line of reasoning.

Here we go again, complete with the rolling eyes emoticon to boot. This has got to be by far the most disingenuous, single-sided argument I have ever encountered.

So Byblos, I challenge you to consider this video by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort - http://www.wayofthemaster.com/videolessons.shtml

Go to the section called The Firefighter and take some time to watch this video. These guys believe in the never ending torment view and this is how they think the response should be for those who believe in it.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that an annihilationist should not still care about people being saved from whatever punishment God determines to be just but rather if the punishment is never ending torment in fire then it only stands to reason that it should make hell even more scary and cause one to be even more diligent in the salvation of the lost. I don't know why this is hard to understand.

And the rolling eyes emoticon was only used to indicate I was pondering the issue of why our reasoning on this is not shared. I think you are reading something into this that this is some kind of unfair personal slam. All I'm saying is that one can believe something in their head but not in their heart as things believed in one's heart will drive how one responds. Nothing more than that. I can say I believe Jesus is Lord but if I don't show some indication that He is Lord in my life, then I only have a head belief and not one that affects how I live. I believe we live out our beliefs to the extent that they have gripped our hearts.

To B.W. -

Here are some very personal slams on me that you conclude by what I posted -

By painting with a broad brush the Christian Orthodox doctrine under the broad disguise as Traditional you are implying that Tradition as defined by Jesus refers to the doctrines of men!

I made no such implication. Why do you treat what I say with such disrespect ?

From Sudsy’s comments and Links – Traditional now has come to stand for Old Fashion, Obsolete, hokey, old fashion, not hip and the Traditional view of eternal recompense is subtly termed in a derogatory fashion as Tradition.

Unbelievable. Why do you go to such extremes to try to make this out to be some subtle trick I'm supposedly using ? When I started using the 'T' view identifiers it was just to save me key strokes. I could have just as easy called it the 'U' view for unending punishment.

Anyone holding the Traditional view is well, stupid, and unenlightened and supports Torture.

Again, this I have never said. On the other hand, I could dig up some previous posts that suggest the 'A' viewers are considered to be these kind of slams. Why go to these extremes ? I think you really owe an apology.

I purposed a manner in which to test this by uses of exploring what the bible actually says about God’s Character, you decline and call it Traditionally based and without merit because it is Traditional!

I call here on a moderator to consider where I have done what is implied here. I have never indicated that I declined from this 'exploring' because the 'T' view is a traditional view without merit. How much abuse do I need to take ?

Therefore, Please no Longer Use The “T” to imply Traditional as that is very underhanded and devious.

Again, no respect and being called 'underhanded and devious'. How much of this does one have to tolerate ?

The Gig is up… very Saul Alinsky like…

How disrespectful !!!!

B.W. why can't you just agree to present your views and not slam other views ? Is that too much to agree to so we can make this more civil. And I do think you need to apologize and withdraw some of your latest mis-representations on what I said and what my intentions were.