[geocentrism] Re: What, when and where is Hell?

OK,.. Give me a few more days I am a little behind on some other things 
.....Let me just say this to maybe open the door for anyone else to comment 
on........ I affirm that Hell is a real Place of eternal torment for those who 
reject Christ.
  
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Thanks Allen!
   
  I have a couple articles I would appreciate your comment on any of them 
(since they are all similar), whenever you have time. About hell not being at 
all what is commonly taught.
   www.myth-one.com/chapter_26.htm
   www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm
   www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/fromhellseternaldeath.htm
   www.helltruth.com/home/hathhellnofury/tabid/253/default.aspx
   
  Thanks,
  James...
  

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Thanks Ja,  This is the best I could do with the time I have ..I am happy 
to address anything else in here that anyone feels I missed or that I have 
written..........
   
  ..the existence of evil poses no challenge to the Christian concept of God, 
or to any aspect of
  Christianity. Instead, it is the non-Christian worldviews that cannot make 
sense of the
  existence of evil, if they can have a concept of evil at all.Good so far....
  
  .He concludes his essay with
  Although many people are fond of challenging Christians with the problem of 
evil, the
  truth is that Christianity is the only worldview in which the existence of 
evil does not
  create a logical problem.
   
   
  .............However, Much of what is between is a mess of logical 
contradictions and invalid methodologies.... 
  The doctrine of "free will" is unbiblical and heretical, and some have even 
followed the doctrine to its
  next logical step in saying that if man were to be truly free, then God 
cannot really know for certain what
  man would do, thus denying the omniscience of God. But even then, God knew 
that it was possible for free
  will to produce extreme and horrendous evil, so that the same problem remains.
   
   
   
  Scripture teaches that God's will determines everything. Nothing exists or 
happens
  without God, not merely permitting, but actively willing it to exist or 
happen:
  This position effectively states that God is either unable to create freewill 
by virtue of his "Omnipotence" or He did not decree man to have free 
will....fine.. But that is the issue that he must demonstrate first .....the 
problem is his methodology is backwards with scripture. He attempts to define 
the meaning of scripture based on his logical conclusions about GOD'S 
SOVEREIGNTY...Here is where he does it..
  The Bible teaches that the non-Christian is a sinner, and at the same time 
teaches that he lacks the ability to obey God. This means that man is morally 
responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if 
he cannot obey God. It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he 
has the ability to do otherwise. Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on 
moral ability or on free will; rather, moral responsibility 6 is grounded on 
God's sovereignty ? man must obey God's commands because God says that man must 
obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant.If it is mans 
capacity is truly irrelevant for Gods commands then why does he use mans 
capacity to attempt to argue the nature of God?s command..? Even Hittler gave 
orders that could not be kept did not mean that some of the orders he gave 
could be kept...so what? Its only irrelevant if all commands can't be kept... 
As I have pointed out the law was never meant to save
 anyone in that it was predestined that Jesus would do that.......He then makes 
quite a leap here. Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability 
or on free will..If it does not matter whether or not he has the ability to do 
otherwise and ability is irrelevant then why wouldn?t God command what man is 
able...better yet , if he commands it how can they not do it...... if all is by 
God?s command in the first place ,..you must demonstrate that all commands 
cannot be kept not just assert that man can?t keep any command because there 
are commands he could not...!?.. If man obeys because of God?s Sovereignty to 
command it then why don?t all men obey since he command all men everywhere to 
repent?Acts17:30 and More importantly if as he latter asserts God decrees evil 
too then how is anything that anyone does contrary to God?s command or will 
?....Latter he asserts that God decrees evil as well...obedience as well as 
disobedience (whatever disobedience would mean if
 everything is by God?s decree/command how is it disobedient or contrary to his 
will ..?)...even the evil and sinners in the world would be obeying God by his 
definition of God's SOVEREIGNTY... ( keep the Commandment of God if as the 
argument goes he commands everything)......if it is not contrary to his will or 
he does not command disobedience  then what is the argument?..... how does the 
fact that we have the responsibility to obey even if we cant obey exclude the 
possibility that we can obey? ... if God Commands/decrees all to obey then how 
could anyone not obey since he commanded it?....If God Decrees all then there 
is no such thing as "Against his will" or "in accordance with his will" since 
as they argue everything is by SOVEREIGN decree anyway....this is foolishness 
of the highest order and rejects any and all of Gods Descriptions of his own 
nature....... this is the epitome of man siting in the temple of God showing 
himself that he is God....forget what God states
 hear how I reason it..!?
   
  Although many professing Christians use the free will defense, and to some 
people the explanation may sound reasonable, it is an irrational and unbiblical 
theodicy ? it fails to answer the problem of evil, and it contradicts 
Scripture. First, this approach only postpones addressing the problem, in that 
it transforms the debate from why evil exists in God's universe to why God 
created a universe with the potential for such great evil.Second, Christians 
affirm that God is omniscient, so that he did not create the universe and 
humankind realizing only that they had the potential to become evil; rather, he 
knew for certain that there would be evil. Thus either directly or indirectly, 
God created evil.
   
  Which is exactly what he asserts at toward the end that God is the cause of 
evil
  If and only if God did not or could not created free will external of his own 
will to be "Against his will"...the fact that He is God and Doesn?t not have to 
give man choice is not a valid argument that he did not...........these are not 
arguments, they are just assertions that he did not create free will by virtue 
of the fact that he dose not have to....!!!!????.If by the end anyone feels I 
have not answered the question of Evil please bring that to my attention with a 
specific question
  2 We may distinguish between natural evil and moral evil ? natural evil 
includes natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods, whereas moral evil 
refers to the wicked actions that rational creatures commit. Now, even if the 
free will defense provides a satisfactory explanation for moral evil, it fails 
to adequately address natural evil. Some Christians may claim that it is moral 
evil that leads to natural evil; however, only God has the power to create a 
relationship between the two, so that earthquakes and floods do not have any 
necessary connections with murder and theft unless God makes it so ? that is, 
unless God decides to cause earthquakes and floods because of murder and theft 
committed by hiscreatures. Thus God again appears to be the ultimate cause of 
evil, whether natural or moral.Even if Adam's sin had brought death and decay, 
not only to mankind but also to the animals, Scripture insists that not one 
sparrow can die apart from God's will (Matthew
  10:29). That is, if there is any connection between moral evil and natural 
evil, the connection is not inherent (as if anything is inherent apart from 
God's will), but rather sovereignly imposed by God. Even the seemingly 
insignificant cannot occur without, not merely the permission, but the active 
will and decree of God. Christians are not deists ?
  we do not believe that this universe operates by a set of natural laws that 
are independent from God. The Bible shows us that God is now actively running 
the universe, so that nothing can happen or continue apart from God's active 
power and decree (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). If we should use the term at 
all, what we call "natural laws" are only descriptions about how God regularly 
acts, although he is by no means bound to act in those ways.
  If that is true Then God really is the Author and Progenitor of evil, which 
is argument toward the end..... . But what necessitates that God is the author 
of evil?....Ironically many who argue against free will miss that if God did 
not create free will eternal of God?s own will there can be no "against his 
will" or even evil that God does not create..... Because to argue that there is 
no free will external of God?s own will and as he claims here God is now 
actively running the universe, so that nothing can happen or continue apart 
from God's active power and decree ..(the devil lies murders ect)...really does 
make God specifically and directly responsible for, author, creator and 
sustainer of all evil.. Because as he asserts nothing can happen without God 
decreeing it ..only a created free will external of God?s own will could keep 
God innocent of the lies and murder that he (God himself) has decreed and 
created if in fact God created it..........God stated John 8:44.He
 was a murder from the beginning....when he speaketh a lie, he specketh of his 
own for he is the father of it ....where did Satan get his own unless God gave 
him the ability to make his own?.If God Gave him the ability to make his own 
then truly it is Satan?s own but if Satan and man cannot do anything external 
of God?s will then God is the only one who can will and creates anything that 
exist....then everything that exist is in accordance with God?s will ther is no 
such thing as contrary to the will of God.. lies murder ect........unless of 
course God did not really mean that it was from Satan?s own..maybe God is just 
passing the buck on to Satan..... He?s God he can do that right? But if God is 
just playing with words then does it change who actually created and sustains 
all the evil?.....ummmmm..latter we see that is exactly what Mr Cheung argues.
  
  Therefore, although we may affirm that man has a will as a function of the 
mind, so that the mind indeed makes choices, these are never free choices, 
because everything that has to do with every decision is determined by God. 
Since the will is never free, we should never use the free will theodicy when 
addressing the problem of evil.
  This is a important premises for his arguments.....It is based on something 
........but what is it based on?....his experience of and with God? How does he 
know that God has determined every decision? To know something beforehand is 
not the same thing as determine it any more then I know before hand everyone 
will not agree with what i say........ I am not determining/controlling 
that............or maybe I am..ummm.......God claimed foreknowledge He does not 
claim to be the progenitor of evil or of everything in the universe...He simply 
concludes that (at the end of his free will arguments) based on his assertions 
here to make his case ...How does he know that God cannot create "free will" 
external of God?s own will? When did God tell him that? In fact if God cannot 
create "free will" external of Gods will, by virtue of the fact that God is so 
Sovereign and Omnipotent then how can God be Sovereign & or Omnipotent? How 
does he define God?s determination external of
 scripture then use that to define What the scriptures states to justify his 
argument...!? This is his circular fallacy. The only way to define what God can 
and cannot do or what God has and has not done is if God tell us. We can not 
logically deduce it from our understanding first and then use that to define 
Gods word because the only and all understanding we have of what God did or did 
not do or can and cannot do comes from God?s word in the first place. 
  
   
  Christians must reject the free will defense simply because Scripture rejects 
free will; rather, Scripture teaches that God is the only one who possesses 
free will. He says in Isaiah 46:10, "My purpose will stand, and I will do all 
that I please." 
  ...this verse does not state that God is the only one who possess free 
will...nor does his next reference...
  On the other hand,man's will is always enslaved either to sin or to 
righteousness: "But thanks be to God that,
  though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of 
teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have 
become slaves to righteousness" (Romans 6:17-18). Free will does not exist ? it 
is a concept assumed by many professing Christians without biblical warrant.
   
   
   
  ...otherwise all he has done is made assertions and evoked a circular 
fallacy, by imposing his "ultimate logical conclusion" of a concept or a verse 
or set of scriptures on all the rest of scriptures regardless of what they 
state....The imposed "ultimate logical conclusion" is true if and only if the 
verses you imposed that "ultimate logical conclusion" do in fact support that 
conclusion but by this time you have used the conclusion to define what they 
mean so did not demonstrate that as such you have simply reached a "ultimate 
logical conclusion" from verses that can support your position and then forced 
the meaning of any other verses to conform to your "ultimate logical 
conclusion" that presupposed everything else that 
followed.........................If God had not given us his word in the first 
place we wouldn?t "know" anything anyway to be able to reason or use logic to 
evaluate the methodology,.. The information cannot be logical evaluated itself 
first because the
 information is needed first to do the evaluation We can evaluate/ employ logic 
in the methodology we use for a determination in what is the information or how 
we interpret the information but the information must be received & or accepted 
first ............So how and why folk think they can go beyond scripture to 
ascertain anything that they have never experienced is contemptuous at 
best...... Rather then let scripture define the nature of God, men go to a lot 
of trouble of contemplating the nature of God and then use their contemplations 
of the nature of God (& or with favorite sets of scripture) to then define what 
scripture "really" means when it makes specific statements about God his work 
or his nature....example we use terms like omnipresent, Sovereign, omniscience, 
Omnipotence......(nothing wrong with the terms themselves, although we might be 
hard pressed to find some of them in scripture)...........But who is defining 
those terms?,........what do they mean and how
 do/can we know that?...well one might say that God is everywhere and all/ has 
unlimited power..... means He can do anything....that is certainly consistent 
with Websters & or any logical definition external of scripture for those terms 
and one could use those definitions to define or "interpret" what scripture 
states about God and that is a logical definition eternal of scripture 
.......but that is not how scripture defines the nature of God because God 
cannot do just anything!............ God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)....... I can 
lie ..I can do something God cannot...........therefore one could argue that 
God is not Omnipotence .........if we used just our definitions & or logic to 
define that term in relation to God then God cant?t be omniscience either for 
he states Hebrews 8:12..and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no 
more...But God is supposed to know everything, you can debate what the measns 
all day long at the end of the day you either accept it as
 true or reject it because it is not "Logical"...or...... God is not in hell 
therefore he can?t be omnipresent...or ..... God is so Sovereign that anything 
He commands will happen then what ever he commands will happen but God commands 
all men everywhere to repent(Acts 17:30) but they don?t and in fact God also 
stated everyone would not do that.......The "real" philosophical question is 
that if He commands they all to repent but states everyone will not which one 
of his attributes gets compromised his Omnipotence for making the command or 
his Omniscience for knowing everyone would not.........is God therefore 
contradictory,...nonsense! The problem was with the "Ultimate logical 
conclusion/definitions" of those terms, not God!............Since the 
information must come first and God is the ultimate source for that information 
there is no logical deductive path that one can make for a nature of God where 
God can do anything, knows everything and O by the way, create evil
 without having really created it. 
   
  The Bible teaches that the non-Christian is a sinner, and at the same time 
teaches that he lacks the ability to obey God. This means that man is morally 
responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if 
he cannot obey God. It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he 
has the ability to do otherwise. Thus moral
  responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will; rather, 
moral responsibility 6 is grounded on God's sovereignty ? man must obey God's 
commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the 
ability to obey is irrelevant. In the first place, free will is logically 
impossible. If we picture the exercise of the will as a movement of the mind 
toward a certain direction, the question arises as to what moves
  the mind, and why it moves toward where it moves. To answer that the "self" 
moves the mind begs the question, since the mind is the self, and thus the same 
question remains.
   
   
   
  Does not Christ himself point out the Plalms "Ye are all gods"..is not man 
made in the image of God then why would anyone believe that God did not or 
rather cannot by virtue of his sovereignty not create free will external of his 
will..........John 8:44.He was a murder from the beginning....when he speaketh 
a lie, he specketh of his own for he is the father of it ....How is he the 
father of it if God Decrees it and or God did not give free will external of 
God?s own will?...........That is the whole point to being made in the image of 
God..?!....begs the question..only if you beilve that God did not create man in 
his image or a free will eternal of Gods own will...free will is logically 
impossible...He should have stated the opposite........It is not possible to 
exist or know that ones exist in the first place without a free will external 
of God?s own will and without God being the creator of all evil and even 
perpetuating it by God?s own decree!.......... God
 demonstrates (states) that he does and has acted without time and within time, 
he can limit Himself or He can chose not to.......the point being only God can 
define for man his nature. You cannot reason out Gods nature or logically 
evaluate it external of the claims God Himself makes........ certainly not in 
philosophy and philosophers...and you can only know his nature from what God 
(in scripture) tells you, not from what it does not state, and certainly not 
from any philosophical reasoning......where is the wise the disputer of the 
age?(1Chorinthians 1:20) ....This is the importance of using all the scriptures 
first and not reason among yourselves what a given set of scripture means and 
then force the "ultimate logical conclusion" on all the others...Logic & or 
Logical principles can only be used to evaluate methodology Logic cannot 
evaluate the substance of anything itself.........We can use logic to 
demonstrate the value of starting with what you have not with what you
 do not have ........If there is a question as to what scripture teaches on a 
subject start with the scriptures that actually mention the subject in question 
first not use others that can be interpreted in many ways depending on your 
theology and then use your interpretation to define scripture that make 
specific statements about the question at hand.... that is methodology 
..............However to use Websters and or logic to reason out first the 
nature of omnipresent, Sovereign, omniscience nature of God and then use the 
"Ultimate logical conclusions" of your arguments to interpret scripture is to 
use logic to evaluate substance, which logic cannot do!..Because logically the 
information logically proceeds any evaluation of the information.....otherwise 
the evaluation cannot be demonstrated as a logically valid one.
   
  The census of Israel taken by David provides an example of evil decreed by 
God and performed through secondary agents:Again the anger of the LORD burned 
against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a 
census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan rose up against Israel and 
incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1) The two verses 
refer to the same incident. There is no contradiction if the view being 
presented here is true. God decreed that David would sin by taking the census, 
but he 10 caused Satan to perform the temptation as a secondary agent.3
   
   
  there is no contradiction if free will exist of God?s own will..he is using 
this tho make a point but he does so just like a relativist might use missile 
trajectories or Pendulum as proof for HC....... this does not exclude free will 
if you take them at face value...?..Although, what he states could be true it 
is not exclusive....so what. .!?..If free will exist eternal of God?s will then 
who is to stop Bob and joe and sally sue from all provoking the same person at 
the same time?..This does not demonstrate anything except how he chooses to 
"read" it.
   
  However, since God calls himself good, and since God has defined goodness for 
us byrevealing his nature and commands, evil is thus defined as anything that 
is contrary to his nature and commands..............Since God is good, and 
since he is the only definition of goodness,it is also good that he decreed the 
existence of evil
  Since we derive our very concept and definition of goodness from God, to 
accuse him of evil would be like saying that good is evil, which is a 
contradiction. If God is all there is to creation of everything and as his 
argument attempts to assert there is no "real" evil ( just a human concept) in 
relationship to God..... since God decrees all/everything then how can a 
contradiction really exist?...How can you define anything as contray to his 
commands if the very thing you give that defintion to is his 
command...!?....This is utterly ridiculous nonsense!.....
  Show where God decreed the existence and sustains evil.... quite telling us 
that he could and must by virtue of the necessity of your reasoning of how to 
read scripture rather then what can be acutely read in scripture....
  ....God does claims that a lie came from Satan?s own ( where ever did he get 
his own?...his own what?...... unless God is lying Satan does not have his own 
its really God?s or God gave Satan the ability for his own external of God..one 
makes god a liar the other simply takes it at face value) ...The real and only 
contradiction here is his.... If God decrees and determines all and If there is 
no free will external of God?s own will, then nothing can be contrary to his 
will since His will as Mr Cheung attempts to argue constitutes everything and 
all that is!..Maybe we should all debate what is "really" is ..worked for 
Clinton didn?t it....?
  He Goes to a lot of effort to address "free will" and even seems to lose 
sight of the whole evil in the world thing. In the end though, at least here, 
he makes the same logical and doctrinal error as I demonstrated before namely 
He reasons first to interpret scripture rather then using what scripture states 
to evaluate ones reasoning of scripture.........That is the error he is 
employing in his arguments on free will....Logic & or Logical principles can 
only be used to evaluate ones methodology. Logic cannot evaluate the substance 
of anything itself.....& or ..Logic can validate it cannot describe or create ( 
this is also the reason why the proof for God would/is/does not necessitate 
being preeminent or above God Himself) ....... ........ Put your faith in what 
Gods word tells you first... then use logic to evaluate the methodology in the 
reasoning you used in arriving at your conclusions,........Philosophize at your 
own risk.............Logic cannot create valid
 conclusions themselves, which is what you attempt when you evaluate first and 
on that basis accept the information that you are attempting to 
evaluate......When anyone "interprets" scripture based on how they argue 
logically external of the source document for the argument in question they are 
bound to eventual engage in the same circular fallacy......When scripture 
explains when and how God works throughout all of time you either accept it or 
you add your "ultimate logical conclusion" to it. When folk do that they 
inevitably get so caught up in the "ultimate logical conclusion" of a given 
argument they see in a given verse or set of verses that they then become blind 
to anything else the scripture states no mater how emphatically anything else 
states about the very questions that might affect that "ultimate logical 
conclusion" if they had proceed logically to begin with ...( Logical 
Methodology starts with the specific and moves to the nonspecific)....what his 
argument
 like all the others attempt is use non specific verses about what God can and 
or cannot do or has and has not done to define the very verses that do 
specifically specify what God stated he has and has not done...& or worse make 
claims about what God can or cannot do based on what scripture does not state 
via there "Reasoning".........The specific references in scripture take logical 
preference over vague arguments about scriptures where i could just as easily 
make any number of numerous arguments with if you asume that my conclusion of 
my argument is valid in the first place.
   
   
  .....Although you may logically make conclusions external of any & or all 
relevant scripture then use your conclusions to "read" scripture .....that is 
all that these arguments do.....There simply is no logical argument for the 
absence of free will, certainly no logical way to demonstrate that there is no 
such thing so that anyone could be "aware" of it, even if you could, since all 
is just decrees from God.....Nor is there any scripture that can logically lead 
anyone to that conclusion either without invoking circular fallacious first.


j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:     Allen,
   
  Have you read http://www.rmiweb.org/other/problemevil.pdf ? Seems 
appropriate, given the recent lengthy discussions on predestination and 
freewill. If you find the time, I would appreciate your take on this article.
   
  JA
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Martin and Bernie..............excellent very good!..Demonstrates that when 
they attempt to show arguments Pro God & morality as foolishness they 
invariably must invoke the very "foolishness" they claim to avoid as the 
foundation for their own arguments,... the only difference, of course, being in 
what they put their faith in and why, not whether or not they live by "faith" 
......very good 


"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     And if you liked 
Cheung's "Professional Morons," you'd enjoy this debate between him and 
apostate Christian Derek Sansone here, which illustrates the principles Cheung 
enunciates in real-world action:
  

  http://www.rmiweb.org/other/sansone-cheung.htm
  

  -- Martin
  

  


    On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:04 PM, bernie brauer wrote:

    http://www.rmiweb.org/other/promorons.pdf by Vincent Cheung
   
  Professional Morons 
Last modified: 08-26-2005 / Download PDF
Examples on how non-Christian philosophers are really no better than the most 
incompetent non-Christians in the substance of their arguments.
  

  
---------------------------------
  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

    Martin G. Selbrede
  Chief Scientist
  Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
  8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
  The Woodlands, TX 77381
  281-825-4500 main line  (281) 825-4507 direct line  (281) 825-4599 fax   
(512) 422-4919 cell
  mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx





    
---------------------------------
  Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.


    
---------------------------------
  Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

Other related posts: