HumanBeing
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What is there to debate? All I was saying is that hell is an important part of Christianity. You can say it isn't, but that certainly isn't a view that's worth of debate. It simply means you haven't read the books you claim to worship.Give me a verse, If you wan't to debate hell we can do that.
Their debate is about whether the suffering is eternal (because they like to ignore Matthew 25:46). There is no academic debate as to whether the concept of hell as punishment exists in the bible, that would be ridiculous.My point is you have many theologians that take the fact that the bible doesn't teach eternal suffering in a hell.
You're not a Christian, you just like to think you are. You don't follow the bible, ergo facto, you're just another spiritualist who puts the Christian label on himself. We didn't get to any quotes and you're already talking about how to "interpret" stuff. Just read it for what it is.I'm a Christian, and I understand that the bible DOESN'T teach eternal suffering in hell. The reason I ask about the Hades and Gehenna distinction is because it matters when your trying to interperate verses.
christianty has no fault
christians have
hi remov :2wave:Medusa...at first sight of your post I thought...bammmmm!...a hit out of the ballpark. Meaning...yeah, that's sounds right.
But really, I have to say that all 3 of the so-called Western God Religions, and why it's called that, don't know. But all 3 (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim)...in my opinion...do have some faults and problems, which have caused some serious issues on this planet. I'm not really a fan of any of these. Well, to be totally honest I'm not a fan of religion per se. Now some of the philosophical disciplines like Taoism. Interesting to read. Dunno, girl. The whole world is crazy.
hi remov
i believe if people were more honest and less selfish ,no religion would harm the humanity
What is there to debate? All I was saying is that hell is an important part of Christianity. You can say it isn't, but that certainly isn't a view that's worth of debate. It simply means you haven't read the books you claim to worship.
Their debate is about whether the suffering is eternal (because they like to ignore Matthew 25:46). There is no academic debate as to whether the concept of hell as punishment exists in the bible, that would be ridiculous.
You're not a Christian, you just like to think you are. You don't follow the bible, ergo facto, you're just another spiritualist who puts the Christian label on himself. We didn't get to any quotes and you're already talking about how to "interpret" stuff. Just read it for what it is.
1. You claim to worship the Christian God, the only way you could possibly claim to do that is through the books he supposedly wrote. If you don't believe he wrote them or disagree with the contents, you aren't a Christian no matter what you claim.I don't worship books, I worship God.
If you're going to simply dismiss my claim, not citing scripture, not arguing from scripture, and not wanting any debate, that's fine, but it makes you look weak.
Again, there is no academic debate among respected scholars regarding the existence of hell as a biblical concept. Such a debate would be laughable. You can call it destruction, damnation, "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), whatever you want if you prefer it over the word hell. It's just playing semantics.Yes there is academic debate, what's the opposite of eternal punishment, eternal life, what's the punishment, according to Paul "the wages sin pays is death." Other times in the NT, it discusses eternal "cutting off" or eternal "destruction." So it's obvious, what that verse is talking about, not eternal hell, but eternal destruction.
Lemmeguess: When you say "I do follow the bible", you're only referring to the sequel right? And you're ignoring the part where Jesus said he came to uphold the laws of the Old Testament? Thought so :roll: The thing is, it doesn't even help your argument. Jesus himself stated that most people will go to hell (or "destruction" as you prefer to call it).No, I'm a Christian, and I do follow the bible, and it's a bit weak to make statemenets like that and not be willing to back them up.
1. You claim to worship the Christian God, the only way you could possibly claim to do that is through the books he supposedly wrote. If you don't believe he wrote them or disagree with the contents, you aren't a Christian no matter what you claim.
2. If you really want a debate about whether the concept of hell is discussed in the bible, start a new thread for it. I may or may not bother joining. That doesn't make me look weak anymore than not getting into a discussion about whether the earth is flat makes me look weak. The argument that hell isn't in the bible is simply a pathetic waste of time based on a patently false premise.
Again, there is no academic debate among respected scholars regarding the existence of hell as a biblical concept. Such a debate would be laughable. You can call it destruction, damnation, "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), whatever you want if you prefer it over the word hell. It's just playing semantics.
Lemmeguess: When you say "I do follow the bible", you're only referring to the sequel right? And you're ignoring the part where Jesus said he came to uphold the laws of the Old Testament? Thought so :roll: The thing is, it doesn't even help your argument. Jesus himself stated that most people will go to hell (or "destruction" as you prefer to call it).
Again, you're already going into semantics while deliberately avoiding the point you were originally trying to make, which is that non Christians aren't punished in the afterlife for not believing in Jesus. It's nonsense and you know it.1. I'm a biblical christian, and I can back up my beliefs with the bible ... can you?
2. Again, which word are you arguing is "hell" hades? or Gehennah?
Unquenchable fire is a direct quote from Matthew, when you say he's "obviously" not talking about hell. It's the very definition of arguing semantics, and it's a waste of my time as well as yours.No it isn't playing semantics, because destruction mean's "cutting off" i.e. no longer conscious, and thus no longer able to suffer ... There are plenty of theologians and biblical scholars that understand that hellfire is not in the scriptures.
So unquenchable fire is an agricultural reference, destruction was some other reference, and none of it is for punishing people who don't believe in your God? I repeat the fact you aren't a Christian and that there is no debate to be had on this subject because that's really all there is to say. I gave references to unquenchable fire, and you made some lame connection to agriculture. Obviously you're going to act in the same way no matter what references are given to you. It's a delusional way of debating.It seams all you have is calling me "not a christian" or saying "there is no debate," give me some scriptures if you're claiming it's biblical, Matthew 3:12, is talking about burning the leftovers of agriculture ... such as would be done in the literal Gehennah, i.e. it's destroyed, no longer existing.
Nicely cherrypicked, however proving that the bible contradicts itself doesn't help your point. It's just more evidence that it was written by mere man.Romans 6:7 - when you're dead your sin is gone ... because Romans 6:23 "the wages sin pays is death."
When eternal destruction is mentioned its contrasted with eternal life
Again semantics with regards to fulfilling or upholding, though the fact is he did neither. Fulfilling the old law would have meant stoning adulterers, which he didn't have the balls for. Clearly you aren't claiming that you live by the laws of the whole bible, as that would be absurd and highly illegal.I'm refering to the whole bible, and he didn't say he came to uphold the laws of the OT, he said he came to fullfill them. Also the difference detween "destruction" and "hell" is huge, the former means non existance, the latter is some concept of eternal torment.
Again, you're already going into semantics while deliberately avoiding the point you were originally trying to make, which is that non Christians aren't punished in the afterlife for not believing in Jesus. It's nonsense and you know it.
Unquenchable fire is a direct quote from Matthew, when you say he's "obviously" not talking about hell. It's the very definition of arguing semantics, and it's a waste of my time as well as yours.
So unquenchable fire is an agricultural reference, destruction was some other reference, and none of it is for punishing people who don't believe in your God? I repeat the fact you aren't a Christian and that there is no debate to be had on this subject because that's really all there is to say. I gave references to unquenchable fire, and you made some lame connection to agriculture. Obviously you're going to act in the same way no matter what references are given to you. It's a delusional way of debating.
Nicely cherrypicked, however proving that the bible contradicts itself doesn't help your point. It's just more evidence that it was written by mere man.
Only if you cherrypick in the right way. Like how at different points in the Bible God claims he is a "God of war" and then a "God of peace". I suppose you're going to tell me that balances out so he's a God of "potentially violent peace"?
Again semantics with regards to fulfilling or upholding, though the fact is he did neither. Fulfilling the old law would have meant stoning adulterers, which he didn't have the balls for. Clearly you aren't claiming that you live by the laws of the whole bible, as that would be absurd and highly illegal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?