[geocentrism] Re: What, when and where is Hell?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:31:10 -0800 (PST)
I did not attempt to address every verse of scripture regarding hell.....I
found this it seemed a good all around expose of the thinking and doctrine of
Universalism....although sometimes I am little sarcastic..
NOTE: I am not nor are my points attempting to validate or invalidate the
doctrine of purgatory which is a separate but interesting discussion in and of
itself. The primary issue here under consideration here is the assertions based
on circular fallacies of the universalist doctrine that there is no "eternal
punishment" (....as described in all of scripture:)) ... That eternal
punishment is also known or commonly referred to as hell but the name is not
nearly as important as the condition it denotes.
All of the Objections to "Hell" are either an emotional appeal or convoluted
and logically void arguments concerning the use of terminology such as Gehenna,
Hell, Sheol, or the Grave. All of the arguments miss the real issue which is
not what is "the scary term" is but rather the descriptions of the eternal
condition of the Godly vs the eternal condition of the unrighteousness. Eternal
punishment is not eternal punishment because of "hell". Rather "Hell" will be
"Hell" because scripture defines and outlines a eternal punishment for the
ungodly regardless of a name or not......The choice of the term for its
location is only "the" issue if the descriptions of the condition for the
unrighteous were based on the term used. However, the term, what ever you chose
to translate it as, gets its meaning not intrinsically but rather from the
context and the descriptions of conditions of those who are in "Sheol" or the
grave or "Hades"....even in the English language the same term
can have multiple meanings depending on context or how it is used.... Also I
can move to Phoenix but giving you the name of where I go does not tell you
what my condition is. It does not tell you if I live in a 5 million dollar
house or I live in a condemned crack house on the backside of a garbage dump.
These arguments like many others attempt to focus and define a terms external
of context and then attempt to use that definition to define and or ignore & or
invalidate the context. As of the OT we mostly have descriptions of the
afterlife not necessarily definitive names for every aspect of it. It is the
descriptions that we are to fear not a "scary" name. Context is what gives any
term its meaning. If I say I am going to the "funny farm" that would be a good
right?......... the terms "funny" and "farm" those are benign terms in and of
themselves.......could sound like I am going to some wonderful place if you
just focus on the terms external of the
context.........someone who does not know the context of how those terms are
used might think it is a wonderful place of laughter and farm
animals........... a great place for the kids and whole family right?...(
Sounds like Disney land I have been there........... great place I highly
recommend it....!?)......... It is only by virtue of context that one
understands is not some place you want to end up, particularly if someone
describes even without naming it the "funny farm".
If my daughter is in Hell because she did not get "born again" then I'd
rather go to Hell and be with her than to be with your God because there would
be more love in Hell than near your vindictive God."
Emotional argument............... it?s only bases and relevance is in the
eyes of one who Judges God as vindictive in his own mind external of how God
describes himself ...which is itself void of any scripture describing the
nature of God for God lays claim to vengeance for himself.
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place
unto wrath: for it is written,Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Sure the easiest way to demonstrate any false doctrine is ignore any
scripture that disputes it and attempt to "interprete" those scriptures in
light of your arguments....just through everything out the window that does not
agree with what you have decided it is......How do they determine that any love
will be in "hell" where did scripture imply love would be in hell? God is love
and to Love is Godly, those that go to "Hell" do not have love........ "love"
for self doesn?t count because the Love in context is love of God..and it is
God who defines terms who said that you don?t love him if you don?t obey
him..................of course if one is going to define the terms themselves
external of scripture then force God and scripture to live with their
definitions then this argument makes perfect sense...................but it
cannot be logically demonstrated outside that circular fallacy.
"How can you say burning someone alive forever is "just" or "fair" for
everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ? Even we humans fit the punishment to
the crime. According to you, Christians, people are destined to be burned in
Hell whether we are bad or not. Just being born into this world is grounds for
being endlessly tortured. You say the punishment is the same regardless of the
number of sins committed or how bad they were. This is not justice--this is
insanity!"
"Infinite punishment for finite crimes just doesn't seem just."
"Whether we are Bad or not"..Interesting How do you define those terms
external of the Commandment of Christ? If by Christ, then those who go to
"hell" are not Good by virtue of God?s definition of good......... the same
good God who gives man the opportunity to escape via his son Christ ...
"Insanity" as defined by people...but Christ did not come to preach the
Gospel according to mans reasoning....
"Even we Humans Fit the Punishment to the crime"...How does one objectively
define that? ..death or life in prison is as permanent of a situation as it
relates to this life as hell dose to the next but we put people to death or
life behind bars for a moment of murder....what is the definition of fair? Who
gets to make that determination for God.."the moral majority"..............??
"I could never torture people endlessly, especially my own children. How can
you say that God will do that to His children? This seems hideous. You make God
look like a monster worse than Hitler, not a loving Father Who would even die
for His enemies!"
Define Loving....Emotional, external of any objective definition of Who God
is and What God has already done for man...certainly not God?s definition of
Love.....evil seems good to may people and good seems evil to many..who cares
what you think? Why should God define his actions based on how it seems to you?
"If Hell is real and the greatest part of humanity went there, how could you
HONESTLY say that 'Love NEVER fails?' Seems like Love fails most of the time
according to your understanding of things." (I Cor. 13:8)
People that end up in hell do not do so as a result of love or loves
failure.........they end up in hell due to their failure to
love........2Thesolonians 2:9.................... God so loved the world that
he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth should not parish but
have everlasting life. (John 3:16)....God dose not force anyone to obey him.
"If the wages of sin is eternal punishment in Hell, then Jesus would have to
be eternally punished if in fact He died for my sins. But the Bible says the
wages of sin is death which is exactly what Jesus did--died. So how can you say
people will be eternally tortured in Hell? Is Jesus presently being eternally
tortured in place of those who accepted Him as Lord?
Hebrews 9:23: It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with
better sacrifices than these. 24: For Christ is not entered into the holy
places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25: Nor yet that he should
offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year
with blood of others; 26: For then must he often have suffered since the
foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27: And as it is appointed unto
men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28: So Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation.
..Now this may not satisfy those folk............ but then again... that is
the whole point is it not..what man states in red v Scripture in
black..........2Thesolonians 2:10: And with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the
truth, that they might be saved. 11: And for this cause God shall send them
strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12: That they all might be
damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
If Hell is real and describes a real place, why does the English word "Hell"
come from a pagan source instead of the ancient Hebrew writings of the Bible?
Why is the word "Hell" not found in the Jew's Bible which is the Christian's
Old Testament? Furthermore, the word "Hell" has completely disappeared from the
Old Testament Scriptures in most leading Bibles. Why? Because the best
scholarship demands it. (The word "Hell" comes from the Teutonic "Hele" goddess
of the underworld "Hell" of northern Europe. The description of this ancient
mythological place has very little resemblance anymore to the modern Christian
image of Hell. See any Encyclopedia or dictionary for the origin of the word.)
Seeing that the Bible is supposed to be "Holy," why have pagan religious words
been added to our modern English Bibles? Please understand, the English word
"Hell" and its concepts are NOT in the Hebrew nor Greek. They come into the
English through Northern European mythologies, NOT from
the roots of Christianity.
Its concepts are most certainly found in the OT even if it is not named
specifically "hell"
If Hell is real and it is a place of eternally being separated from God, why
does David say in the King James Bible, "Though I make my bed in Hell (Sheol)
lo, Thou art there? (Again please note, most Christian Bibles NO LONGER have
the word "Hell" in the Old Testament. The KJV written over 350 years ago is an
exception. The Jews do NOT put the word "Hell" in their English translations of
the Hebrew Scriptures, that is, the Old Testament and the leading English
Christian Bibles have removed it because it is NOT in the originals. Most
Christian scholars now acknowledge it should never have been placed there in
the first place.)
Translate the term "Hell" into the "Magic Kingdom" if you wish, .....but as
with any terminology in the OT/NT context defines the what it is...and whatever
it is, the OT as well as the NT describe it as fire kindled not quenched smoke
that rises forever...You either accept the those descriptions of what ever term
you whish to translate it as or you reject it but in any case the origins of
"root words" does not determine if the term was ever used or not assuming you
can with %100 certainty know what those origins were..since language itself
originated from God.....the question remains what you believe and why not that
this demonstrates anything except how you feel about what you have read. In
fact if you want to get rid of the term altogether you would still be left with
descriptions of a unnamed location/condition that still does not mean you would
like to be there.
If Hell as a place of everlasting tortures was the real fate of all mankind
unless they did something here on earth to prevent it, why didn't God make that
warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for
eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was DEATH. He did NOT
define death as eternal life being forever tortured in burning fire and
brimstone.
What difference does it make? Why not go one step further and demand that God
have made Adam to actually experience Death & or Hell so that he would know
exactly what he would be missing since without a frame of reference how could
ADAM possibly have understood God & or the term "death" or any term of a
consequence for that matter......what would "death" have meant to ADAM? How do
you know how Adam did or did not understand God & the term "Death"..since it
was God who was communicating with Adam in the first place?..eternal punishment
even in pagan religions was believed and goes just about as far back as far as
any thing else can be traced.....where did they get that idea?..........for
that matter,, IF heaven is a real place Why didn?t God make that plain right at
the beginning of the Bible.....Further, we should demand that God let us in
heaven first to experience/define it for us so we would at least know exactly
what we are fighting for if heaven is
real.............!!!???
If Hell was real why didn't Moses warn about this fate in the Ten
Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances,
and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings IN THIS
LIFETIME for failure to keep the Mosaic Law.
It does not specify "this lifetime" it specifies a everlasting curse and a
everlasting blessing...this lifetime is not everlasting...? Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law
If Hell is real and if good people go to heaven and bad people go to Hell,
why does EVERYONE, good or bad, go to the same place in the Old Testament? They
ALL go to Sheol which the King James Version translated "Hell" thirty-0ne
times, "grave" thirty-one times and "pit" three times? Are we all destined to
go to Hell or did the King's translators make some gross translational errors?
Everyone did go to the grave or sheol..... the same place after they died but
just like when you go to any location some live happily and some miserable. The
name of a location itself does not necessarily determine the condition under
which people exist in "the grave" the OT is replete with the condition of
unrighteous folk compared to the righteous who are in the grave or
sheol...sheol is the name of the location after death not necessarily the
condition of the one there..the ungodly are said never get out of the "what
ever you what to translate it as" the godly are promised redemption....
If Hell is real, why don't the Jews, many who know the Old Testament better
than most Christians, not believe in the modern Christian concept of Hell? They
say they don't believe it because it is not in their Scriptures. Most scholars
today can not find Hell in the Old Testament. Most leading Bible translations
no longer contain the word Hell in the entire Old Testament. (Genesis through
Malachi.) Moot point since it is the descriptions of the contrasted difference
between the Godly and ungodly that is specifically addressed as worrisome and
any terminology that would or could be used only has any meaning from those
descriptions not the other way around.
If Hell doesn't exist in the Old Testament, how could Jesus and his disciples
teach that salvation was deliverance from a place that is not even found in
their Scriptures? (There was only the Old Testament at that time.) Would that
not make Him appear like a false teacher? Or could it be that Jesus never
taught such a concept in the first place? Could it be that this concept has
been added to the church and SOME Bibles through "traditions of men?"
The statement that hell does not exist has yet to be demonstrated as correct
and is one of the underlying premise for the circular fallacy these arguments
attempt to put forward.. .........The unpleasant condition of the unrighteous
is replete throughout the OT & NT even if it is not given a specific named
location in the OT ...They are assuming that if it is not specifically named
therefore it does not exist...............the Condition is what is described in
detail even if you argue the location is not named...the condition of the
righteous and unrighteous is far more informative then a name.....Ref:
"everlasting" see how and with what it is used......If one is going to attempt
to use the OT references as proof that "Hell" does not exist then where does
the OT does it say that "Hell" does not exist? ( note the quotation
marks........ Use whatever term they like..if they don?t like "hell" then use
"fluffy bunny rabbit ears" but at the end of the day the scripture
outlines a condition of the wicked which is contrasted to the godly and it is
that condition that is the problem issue...Any term used to denote that
condition described only has meaning in relation to those descriptions not the
other way around.) They are attempting to use a non issue to define the issue.
If Hell is real, since SOME English translations use the word Hell for the
Greek word "Gehenna," in the New Testament, why didn't this same place
(Gehenna) get translated Hell in the many places where it appears in the Hebrew
form "ga ben Hinnom" in the Old Testament? If the Jews did not understand this
valley as a symbol of everlasting torture, why do SOME English translations
give this word such a meaning?
First this is not the only description for the Ungodly therefore they should
have listened to all the scripture and not as this argument attempt to do and
just focus on the "favorites" and use the favorites to supercede any and
everything else...also Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers
and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11. Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things
which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
And who burned who in this valley? And what was God's response for Israel
doing such a horrible thing to their children? (Jer. 32:33-35) And how could
God say "such a thing never entered His mind" if in fact He is going to do the
very same thing to most of His own children?
The OT may use identical translated terminology found in places of the NT or
other places found in the OT but it is defined as with everything else by
context..to be in Sheol or the grave or Hell if so translated does not
necessarily define the condition of those that are there particularly since the
judgment of "eternal Hell" did not begin until...Matthew 25:31. When the Son of
man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he
sit upon the throne of his glory: 32. And before him shall be gathered all
nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth
his sheep from the goats: 33. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but
the goats on the left. 34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world: 35. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took
me in: 36. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me. 37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying,
Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee
drink? 38. When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed
thee? 39. Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40. And
the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto
me. 41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42. For I
was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not:
sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44. Then shall they also answer
him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister
unto thee? 45. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into
life eternal.
.....................1Peter 4:17: For the time is come that judgment must
begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be
of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18: And if the righteous scarcely be
saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
The sacrificing of their Children to God in a fire is what had not entered
into God?s mind... not fire itself.....which also points out that if was not in
Gods mind how did it get in theirs?..umm,,, His own children.......None of
God?s children will be in hell only children of the devil/ rebellion/
perdition.Matthew 25:31. When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all
the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32.
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one
from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33. And he shall
set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
If Hell was real and the grave settled the matter forever, why did the early
Christians offer up prayers for the dead? (Ref. # 1)
I did not read where the Apostles taught that but I do read where we were not
to think beyond what is written...?ummm
If Hell was real, why did the first comparatively complete systematic
statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world by Clement of
Alexandria, A.D. 180, contain the tenet of universal salvation? (Ref. #1)
If Hell was real, why did the first complete presentation of Christianity
(Origen, 220 A.D.) contain the doctrine of universal salvation? (Ref #1)
Wow!...."the first complete presentation of Christianity" ........Colossians
1:6 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in
the word of the truth of the gospel;6Which is come unto you, as it is in all
the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye
heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
If Hell was real, why did the early church appoint an avowed universalist as
the President of the second council of the church in Constantinople in the
fourth century? (Gregory Nazianzen, 325-381)
If Hell was real, why did Church leaders as late as the fourth century AD
acknowledge that the majority of Christians believed in the salvation of all
mankind? (Ref, #1)
If Hell was real, why didn't the church teach it until AFTER the church
departed from reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, substituting Latin in its
stead several centuries after Christ's death? (Ref #1, 2, 7) If Hell was real,
why did not a single Christian writer of the first 3 centuries declare
universalism as a heresy? (Ref. #1)
If Hell was real why didn't a single one of the early creeds express any idea
contrary to universal restoration, or in favor of everlasting punishment in
Hell? (Ref. #1)
If Hell was real why did not a single Church council for the first five
hundred years condemn Universalism as heresy considering the fact that they
made many declarations of heresy on other teachings? (Ref. #1)
If Hell was real, why did most of the early church's leading scholars and
most revered saints advocate universal salvation? (Ref. #1)
If Hell was real, how is it that the most prominent universalists of the
early church were born into Christian families and were most highly revered by
their peers while those who advocated Hell came from paganism and confessed
they were among the vilest? (Tertullian and Augustine) (Ref. #1)
....As if the writings of the "Early Church fathers" carry as much or even
more weight and authority then the actually writings of the Prophets & Apostles
themselves....if they don?t then why do they use them while ignoring what is
found in scripture (Use the Early Church fathers to determine the meaning of
the P&A) .......if they do carry as much or more weight then how do they know
they interpreted the "early church fathers" writings correctly?
Salvation is Universal (it is for everyone) but that is not the same thing as
all mankind will be saved obedient or disobedient.....you don?t get the free
gift if you do not bother to call out.......Our adherence is not to the
"early".Christians, it is to the teachings of Christ via the written testimony
of scripture and the Apostles ..the first Christians did not believe that all
mankind was going to be saved that is why they worked tirelessly, warning folk
about the fire that did not exist..?..To say that they did not is what these
arguments are attempting to prove it therefore cannot be assumed true as the
proof that it is true (eternal punishment is specifically found in scripture
where "eternal punishment does not exist" is not,... it could only be true if
you assert it is true first then use that assertion as the premise for
ignoring/ interpreting any and all specific descriptions of eternal punishment
or curses to make that argument, ..circular fallacy)
.........Also if you are going to use the "early Christians" argument then you
have no excuse for not accepting Roman & or Greek orthodoxy since those "early
Christians" adhered/ defined them.
If Hell was real and found in the original Greek manuscripts of the Bible,
why is it that it was primarily those church leaders who either couldn't read
Greek (Minucius Felix, Tertullian), or hated Greek as in the case of Augustine,
that the doctrine of Hell was advocated? Those early church leaders familiar
with the Greek and Hebrew (the original languages of the Bible) saw universal
salvation in those texts. Those who advocated Hell got it from the Latin, NOT
from the original Greek and Hebrew. Who would more likely be correct--those who
could read the original languages of the Bible or those who read a Latin
translation made by one man (Jerome)? (Ref. #1)
If Hell was real why do most leading historians acknowledge that the early
church was dominated by universalism? (Ref. #1, 7)
So what..? The early church was not without problems nor is it the benchmark
of truth..1Chorinthians 4: 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure
transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us
not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed
up for one against another.
Again the descriptions and contrast of the eternal condition of the ungodly v
Godly is in Greek and Hebrew .............not that this question even has a
clue about greek and hebrew but there is no point here terminology is defined
by the descriptions found in the context itself...i do not have to say "hell"
to describe .............eternal torment, fire, brimstone, weeping, gashing of
teeth, where the worm does not die in total darkness. (I did not even mention a
name for that place, where ever it is.......how about that...maybe I wasn?t
talking about anything .!?)
Many are called few are chosen Matthew 22:14 ;Matthew 7:221-23..what the
moral majority is the "true" bench mark? Acts 20:29: Titus 1:10
If Hell was real then why did four out of six theological schools from 170 AD
to 430 AD teach universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in
Carthage, Africa, again were Latin was the teaching language, not Greek? (Ref.
#1, 2, 7)
If Hell was real why didn't Epiphanius (c. 315-403) the "hammer of heretics"
who listed 80 heresies of his time not list universalism among those heresies?
(Ref. #1) If Hell was real, since most historians would acknowledge today that
Origen was perhaps the most outstanding example of early universalism in the
church, when Methodius, Eusibius, Pamphilus, Marcellus, Eustathius, and Jerome
made their lists of Origen's heresies, why wasn't universalism among them?
Could it be perhaps that it wasn't a heresy in the original church? (Ref. #1)
So who is authoritative here Origen or the others..how does this prove that
scripture denies eternal punishment?
If Hell was real and a serious heresy, why was it not until the sixth century
when Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, tried to make universalism a heresy?
Interestingly, most historians will acknowledge that Justinian's reign was
among the most cruel and ruthless. (Ref. #1) And that means What? What is the
standard for doctrine men or scripture....how do know that it was not a long
over due condemnation?? The questions are meaningless unless you insist on
going outside of scriptures for a "sign" as to how to read scriptures
If Hell was real, since the early church was closest to the apostles and
since they were closest to the original manuscripts of the Bible, why did the
vast majority of the early Christian believers NOT believe in Hell as a place
of everlasting burnings? (Ref. #1, 2, 7) If closeness counts then why not just
take what the Apostles wrote? If you cant take them then how can we ensure our
interpretations of the "Early Church"....if the message of the originals is not
preserved in what we have today then how do you know that?.... and obviously we
are going to need to thought out the whole written word of God thing...
If Hell was real and all died NOT because of their transgressions but because
of Adam's transgression (Rom 5:18), why do many Christians not see what is
plainly written, that "even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift
came to ALL MEN, resulting in JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE!" (Rom. 5:18) Again the
Gift is free and it is for all men but only those men who call on the name of
the lord receive the gift of God?s Grace/work of salvation.....All men will not
receive it, but not because of God
This Scripture declares the FACT that all are justified due to Christ's
righteous act. No one "decided" to die in Adam, it was "reckoned" to us.
Equally no one "decided" to "receive eternal life," it is also "reckoned" to
us. (A thorough understanding of Romans Chapter five carefully comparing
several English translations would be a very good exercise. The omission of the
definite article "the" in Rom. 5:15 before the word "many" in some translations
has caused some great misunderstanding of this most important chapter of the
Bible.) If Hell is real, in Romans 5:19, the "many" who were made sinners were
actually "all" of the human race.......... Why is the "many" who were made
"righteous" not equally be "all" of the human race? "For as by one man's
disobedience MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience MANY will
be made righteous." ..Without going into a deep discussion ........ Maybe Just
maybe his focus here is on and referring to those people who would
latter be redeemed (like Daniel) via the Messiah and not everyone like the
"wicked" he keeps referring to in the OT that will receive an everlasting curse
for their disobedience............ummm
If Hell is real and everlasting, why does Psalm 30:5 say His anger is but for
a moment?
And once it is accomplished God nor the faithful will be concerned about
where they went
If Hell is real one would never know it by the actions of most Christians.
They go through life pretty much like atheists, pagans, etc. If they really
believed in Hell, they would spend their entire life trying to snatch their
friends and relatives from the burning flames. If Hell is real, why don't they
do this?
If that is true of Hell then why is it not true of Heaven?..o that?s right
......everyone is going to heaven so it doesn?t matter what you do or do not
do....what is the point of Christianity again??
If Hell is a real place of merciless endless torture, since God knows the
beginning from the end, why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve and end the long
terrible chain of misery that passed to their offspring before it began? After
all, the Scriptures say that all died BECAUSE of Adam. (Rom. 5:18)
"Predestination" was before the foundation of the world itself
If Hell is real, why is it not mentioned in most leading English Bible
translations until Matthew? (Most Bible translations now acknowledge Sheol
should NOT ever be translated Hell as the King James Bible incorrectly did.)
If Hell was real, and if Paul was commissioned by God to preach the gospel to
the nations, why did Paul not mention Hell even once except to declare victory
over it? (1 Cor. 15:55, the word death in this passage is the word "Hades"
which some translations of the Bible also translate Hell.) Moot....If salvation
is via Christ then we would have victory over Hades, hell and any other
negative descriptions regardless of which one or term he is referring
too...because Death or Hades itself is cast into the Lake of fire..and if you
are in Hades.??...if A is in B and B is in C then A is in C
If Hell was real and easy to define and find in the Bible, why did the
translators of the original 1611 King James Bible find it so difficult to
define Hades? They put Hell in the text at Rev. 20:13 and "Or, grave" in the
margins while putting "grave" in the text and "Or, Hell" in the margins in 1
Cor. 15:55? Seems they couldn't make up their minds whether Hades meant Hell or
grave. (Recent editions have removed the marginal readings thus avoiding the
embarrassment.)
If Hell is real, why are there many English Bible translations which do NOT
contain the word Hell at all nor do they contain the concept of "everlasting
torments"? (Ref. #6) If Hell was real and the belief that there is no Hell is a
deception from Satan, why is it that those born from above Christians who DON'T
believe in Hell seem to manifest more of the nature and fruit of the Spirit
than those who teach Hell? Surely those who believe that Jesus is the Savior of
all mankind manifest more love towards their enemies than do serious Hell-fire
types. Could it be that we begin to manifest what we worship? If we believe God
loves all mankind and plans to save it, then we have no excuse but to do the
same. However, if we believe God will cast away most of mankind, then we begin
to manifest the very same spirit here on earth. Emotional... absent of any
biblical descriptions or instructions. If there is a Hell and salvation is the
deliverance from it, why does the word appear
only a dozen times or so in most leading selling Bibles like the NIV, NASB,
NRSV, NKJV, etc. as compared to the word Heaven which appears hundreds of
times? If Hades is Hell and there is no escape from it, why is it emptied and
cast into the Lake of Fire along with death. (Rev. 20:14) If the Lake of Fire
is actually a place of everlasting burnings, why isn't it defined as such?
!?Yea!?... why cant we get everything we need from this one verse.....We should
demand that every detail of every issue/point to be found anywhere in scripture
contain all details found in every other verses that address that same
issue/point so that every verse would essentially contain the entirety of all
of scriptures descriptions in any one verse .......O wait minuet, we do have
all of scripture...!?? The Bible calls it the "second death," that is, the
death of the first death. One would think that the death of death would be
LIFE, which is a good thing! (Rev. 20:14) Even in mathematics two
negatives make a positive. If you have no life in you because you are dead and
death goes to the lake of fire .............. A is in B and B is in C then A is
in C
If there is a Hell and all who have sinned are destined to go there (which is
everyone) unless they figure out how to avoid it, does that not consign all
aborted babies and most children to Hell? (Dear Reader, while some
denominations teach a so-called "age of accountability," it is NOT found
anywhere in the Bible. It is just some people's way of trying to make God more
humane than the Hell teaching makes Him out to be.) If all things were made for
GOD'S pleasure, is it conceivable that God would derive pleasure from seeing
those He created endlessly tortured?
If there is a Hell and according to most denominations of Christianity the
majority of mankind will go there, could you really enjoy heaven knowing your
mother or father or children or best friend are suffering everlasting tortures
the likes of which would make the Holocaust seem like a picnic? If the Rich Man
and Lazarus story (Luke chapter 16) is real and NOT a parable, then we will be
able to converse with our loves ones who did not make it into heaven. Would
heaven really be paradise if this were true? If Hell is real and a place of
eternal separation from God, why would Paul the apostle say the goal of God's
creative plan was to ultimately be "all IN all?" (1 Cor. 15:28)
If Hell is real since there is only one name under heaven by which men might
be saved (Acts 4:12), why did God wait thousands of years and millions of souls
after Adam's fall to provide the name and means of salvation? Are all those
before Jesus' birth damned forever because they never heard of the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ? Would that be just? (Remember the Mosaic
Law can never "save" anyone and it was only for Israel. Rom. 3:20)
If Hell is a real place of everlasting punishment and if Jesus died in our
place to save us from this fate, wouldn't Jesus have to be eternally punished
if in fact He took our punishment upon Himself? But He's NOT being eternally
punished. He DIED which is what the penalty of the wages of sin is, DEATH, NOT
everlasting life of unending torture or eternal death (annihilation).
If Hell is real why do some of the best Bible scholars and Bible teachers say
it is NOT in the Greek or Hebrew text? (William Barclay, John A.T. Robinson,
Lightfoot, Westcott, F.W. Farrar, Marvin Vincent, etc.)
If Hell is real why is it that those who preach it the most look more like
Pharisees and the devil, while those who believe in the salvation of all
mankind seem to be more loving and merciful than strong Hell-fire believers?
It's a plain fact that the colder less loving one is the easier it is to teach
Hell while the more loving one becomes the harder it is to talk about Hell. Is
heaven full of cold unloving people?
If Hell is real and everlasting, why is it thrown into the Lake of Fire to be
destroyed? And why is Hell never called the Lake of Fire nor the Lake of Fire
ever called Hell if in fact they are the same thing? If Hell is real and the
devil and all his works and people are to be thrown into it to stay alive
forever, doesn't that violate Jesus' statement that He came to "destroy" the
works of the devil? (1 John 3:8)
Bottom line...is a lake of fire better????..regardless of the term you think
they used or were supposed to have used does anyone want to go to a "lake of
fire"?.........So wrapped up in the term "hell" you actually miss what is
described........ you can?t use "lake of fire" to argue against hell because
hell is not the term translated there as "lake of fire"... as for "He came to
destroy the works of the devil" that is what everlasting destruction is?????...
2Thes 1:9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
If Hell is real and the greatest part of mankind eventually goes there,
wouldn't Jesus be considered a great failure considering the fact He was sent
to save the whole world? And if He failed so miserably this time to accomplish
the will of the Father, can one really trust that He won't fail again? (1 Tim.
2:3,4 KJV; Heb. 10:9) We who believe that Jesus will save the world obviously
do NOT believe He failed??He will save all of us. If Hell is real it must have
been created at some time. Why doesn't the Bible tell us when Hell (as
traditionally taught) was created? Could it be that the Bible fails to mention
its creation because it was never created in the first place?
If Hell is real and it is plainly seen in the original languages of the
Bible, why is there such a great discrepancy among Bible translations as to
which words should be translated Hell? (Ref. #6) If Hell is real and most of
mankind ends up there, how can God have promised Abraham that in him ALL the
families of the earth will be blessed? (Gen. 12:3) If Hell is real and Matthew
chapter 24 says and means that the goat nations will go to "everlasting
punishment," how can God promise to Abraham that "all the nations of the earth
shall be blessed by him? (Gen. 18:18) Does God not keep His promises? If Hell
is real, does that mean that motherly love is more powerful and enduring than
God's love? Do you know of normal mothers who would endlessly torment most of
her kids. Do you know "normal" Fathers who would do such a thing? Why do we
believe our heavenly Father, who is millions of times more loving than all of
us combined, could do such an evil, wicked thing?
If Hell is real, is justice being served considering the fact that finite
crimes would receive infinite punishment? If Hell is real, since all is out of
Jesus Christ, does that mean Hell comes out of Jesus Christ? (Rom. 36:11) If
Hell is real and all the different types of crimes committed here on earth
receive the same punishment (endless torture) does "justice" not suffer? If
Hell is real and a person gets caught stealing and goes to jail for it and does
his time, is it just for God to still punish him eternally for that crime? Is
this not "double indemnity?" If Hell is real, since some people receive many
chances to "get saved," some receive only a few chances and billions have never
even received one chance, does that make God a respecter of persons? (Acts
10:34, James 3:17)
If Hell is real and is the fate of all mankind because of Adam's
transgression, if all are not saved through the last Adam, Jesus Christ, does
that not make the transgression of the first Adam greater than the redeeming
act of Jesus? (Rom. Chapter 5)
If Hell is real and most of mankind is doomed to go there, does that not
violate the declaration of Paul who said that Christ's righteous act on the
cross gave ALL mankind a free gift resulting in justification of life?! (Rom.
5:18) If Hell is real and God's wrath abides upon billions of human beings
FOREVER, some being your relatives and friends (or it could be you), doesn't
that violate the Scripture which says His anger WILL come to an end? (Isaiah
57:16-18) If Hell was real and you went there, would you consider that good?
(Psalm 145:9 says all will praise Him.) If Hell was real and you were consigned
to it, would you praise Him for sending you there? (Psalm 145:10)
If Hell is real and most of mankind will fall into this fiery pit, if there
is not escape out of it, would this not violate the Scripture that says He
raises ALL who fall? (Psalm 145:14) If Hell is really a place from which there
is no escape, why does God turn man to destruction and then give the command to
return from it? (Psalm 90:3)
If Hell is "everlasting" destruction," how can man return? (2 Thess. 1:9) If
Hell is real and most find their way to it, was Jesus lying when He said that
He would "draw" ("drag" in the original Greek) all mankind unto Himself? (John
12:32)
This is part of the whole free will issue
If Hell is real, since Jesus ultimately fills ALL things, will Jesus fill
Hell as well? ((Eph. 4:10) How can Hell be eternal separation from God is Jesus
fills Hell with Himself?
First ignores context of above all heavens.........Christ never said he was
going to fill hell with himself.......... it did not say fill all things with
himself it said he himself will fill all things ........The Great Judge will
fill "hell" with those who rejected him...cast into the lake of fire
If Hell is real and Jesus is the Heir of all things, does that mean He
inherits Hell as well? (Heb. 1:2) If Hell is real, since God will have all men
be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3 KJV), does that
mean God's power is not strong enough to have His will fulfilled? Is man's will
more powerful than God's? If Hell is real, would that not violate the plain
Scripture of the "restitution of all things?" (Acts 3:21) If Hell is real and
eternal separation from God, why does the Scripture say, "All flesh will come
to God?" (Psalm 65:2-4) If Hell is real and most people don't get "born again,"
doesn't that make abortionists the greatest evangelists of all since they kill
the babies before they can enter the world to begin their life of sin? (Gory
thought, but think about it.) If Hell is real and there is no escape from it,
how can the Scriptures speak of the gathering of all things into Christ? (Eph.
1:10) Sure pretend there is no qualifier in that
verse..........gather all things "in Christ"....How do you get in Christ? Then
if you are not in Christ ...?..........Who or where in scripture states there
is no escape from it..I rather thought the whole Gospel of Christ was about
escaping the wrath to come...I dano though maybe John the Baptist was probably
just a crazy wild man... and Jesus was one of his
disciples..?!?..~:}o..............key point: the Wrath to come is eternal but
it began in that generation just like coming of Christ and the judgment did
too..
f Hell is real and God were human, we would give Him a death sentence for all
the cruel things we say He is going to do to most of mankind? If Hell is real
and most people around you are on their way to it, how can you talk with them
and not beg them each and everyday to be saved? How can you not go crazy at
just the thought of their fate?
Now how does me going crazy or not determine what God did and did not do????
If Hell is real and you have "unsaved" family, friends, and business
associates, when was the last time you went to them on your knees begging them
to get saved? And if you haven't done this recently yet still believe their
fate is everlasting punishment, don't you deserve to go to Hell yourself for
being so callused and non-caring?
Drama!....who does not have the word of God available to them if they do and
chose not to listen to the word of God why should they give more weight to
anyone else...i am personly happy to discuss the issue when people so desire....
Luke 16:29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them.30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from
the dead, they will repent.31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
dead...Must be true! Christ rose from the dead and they don?t believe him about
the very thing under consideration here..?
...I Prefer to let God and not man determine who is "worthy" or
not.................which all these arguments really bring to the forefront
..........how mans describes how God should or would do things v How God
describes that he does things
If Hell is real, how does the threat of endlessly torturing us convince us
that God loves us and that we should love Him with all our heart, soul, mind
and strength? If Hell was real and the "full" gospel was designed to reach all
mankind, doesn't that make the results of the "full" gospel pretty "empty"
considering that fact that most people are in Hell according to traditional
theology?
Not due to God?s lack of Love ..he provided salvation because he loved man
but again does not force man to obey him .......He will force men to suffer the
consequences of mans disobedience.
If Hell was real, does that mean Jesus raised the wicked from an unconscious
state, make them alive only to be endlessly tortured? Wouldn't it be more
merciful to just leave them eternally unconscious (which some believe)? (Ecc.
9:5; John 11:11) If Hell is real and God only loves those who love Him, what
better is He than the sinner? (Luke 6:32-33) Can you REALLY call eternally
torturing your own children love? If Hell is real, since "love thinketh no
evil," can God design the ultimate evil of a single soul? (1 Cor. 13:5) If Hell
is real, since"love worketh no ill," can God inflict, or cause, or allow to be
inflicted, an endless ill? (Rom. 13:10)
If Hell is real, since we are forbidden to be overcome by evil, can we safely
suppose that God will be overcome by evil? (Rom. 12:21) Would not the
infliction of endless punishment prove that God HAD been overcome by evil? If
Hell is real, if man does wrong in returning evil for evil, would not God do
wrong if He was to do the same?
Who defines evil man or God who is the judge of when one is overcome by evil
man or God?...........Only if God is subject to God?s own ordinances he gives
to Man but God lays claim to Vengeance and ultimate authority for
himself...only if God is limited and on the same level or pecking order of
power understanding, love and righteousness as man, since God defines all those
terms anyway it is not possible to make that argument again attempts to
evaluate/ contemplate the nature of God first and then use that evaluation to
interpret of invalidate the only information about God from God....circular
fallacy..
(Rom. 12:20,21) Would not endless punishment be the return of evil for evil?
As we are commanded "to overcome evil with good," may we not safely infer that
God will do the same? Would the infliction of endless punishment be overcoming
evil with good? If Hell is real, if God hates the sinner, does the sinner do
wrong in hating Him?
If Hell is real, if God loves His enemies now, will he not always love them?
Is God a changeable being? (James 1:17) If Hell is real, is it just for God to
be "kind to the evil and unthankful," in their present life? (Luke 6:35) Would
it be unjust for God to be kind to all men in a future state? If Hell is real,
if all men justly deserve endless punishment, will not those who are saved, be
saved unjustly? If Hell is real, would it be merciful in God to inflict endless
punishment--that is, merciful to the sufferer? How and who defines Justly or
unjustly..You or God.......If he did not specifically define those terms how
can you do that for him?..this is a classic example of a evaluation of the
nature of God before the information about God is received..just as the
argument about God alone only having a free will attempts to do
If Hell is real, if the demands of divine justice are opposed to the
requirements of mercy, is not God divided against Himself? If the requirements
of mercy are opposed to the demands of the justice of God, can His kingdom
stand? -- (Mark 3:24) If Hell is real, does not judgment triumph over mercy and
thus contradict this Scripture? (James 2:13) If Hell is real, if you had
sufficient power would you not deliver all men from sin? If God WOULD save all
men, but CANNOT, is He infinite in power?
How so.....Mercy itself is conditional..at lest how God describes it and the
method by which one obtains it...
If Hell is real, if God CAN save all men, but WILL NOT, is He infinite in
goodness?
Depends on how you define "infinite in Goodness".......as well as Gods
limitations....God claims to have limitations you know...This does not exclude
a limit to it?s functionality because it would only operate within the
parameters God defines for it infinite or not it neither negates "infinite
goodness" nor does it prohibit God from determining how that "infinite
Goodness" is applied.
If Hell is real and created by God, does it not stand against God's DESIRE
the salvation of all men? (1 Tim. 2:3-4)
Again, only has meaning if you assume that God is the only one with a will of
his own
Since God is righteous, must not the desire for universal salvation be a
RIGHTEOUS desire?
Who defines what is righteous man or God if God then you cant use mans
definition to define God?s work..the point is this is man sitting in the temple
of God showing himself that he is God or makes the determination for what God
should and should not be.
Is it true, that "the desire of the righteous shall be granted?" -- (Prov.
10:24)
"To the righteous" and the righteous do not go against the dictates of God
rather they accept them...even the desire of the righteous is described as
salvation and communion with God and that is and was given just as
promised......that is the whole point of the Gospel of Christ ...this argument
only makes any sense if the desire of the righteous and what righteousness is
in the first place is defined external of scripture and then that meaning
forced on this verse.
If Hell is real, would endless misery benefit the Almighty, as the INFLICTOR?
Would endless misery benefit the saints, as SPECTATORS?
Away from his presences, outer darkness...... don?t think anyone is going to
notice their suffering.....part of the whole horror of it all.....no one will
care.
Would endless misery benefit the sinner, as the SUFFERER? If Hell is real and
endless punishment is the "wages of sin," could the sinner ever receive payment
in full? (Rom. 6:23) If Hell is real and sin is infinite, can it be true that,
"where sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound?" --(Rom. 5:20) If Hell is real,
if ONE sin deserves an eternity of punishment, how much punishment will TEN
sins deserve?
What and who defines "deserves" in the first place?..what would it matter?
If Hell is real, yet God "openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire of every
living thing" -- (Ps. 145:16), If I desire all men be saved, will God satisfy
my desire? Is it good to desire all men to be saved? "This is GOOD and
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who DESIRES ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and
to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3,4) Yes but this does not
say all men will only that God desires or is willing it ..gets back to the will
of God v the will of man......the argument could only make sense if there was
no will external of Gods will...............
If Hell is real and you are a Calvinist, were you "responsible" for getting
into heaven? Then why do you take the responsibility for those going to Hell
away from God and put it on those you say are going to Hell? Is God "sovereign"
only over the "elect?"same issue, who & how is defining Sovereign..also
demonstrates how one false doctrine leads to another.........Again, only has
meaning if you assume that God is the only one with a will of his own
If Hell is real and God is our Father and our Potter (Isaiah 64:8,9) did He
make mostly junk and are most of the children He raised misfits worthy only to
be thrown away and endlessly tortured? Only if you believe that God did not
create will external of his own so as to give man his own choice ..salvation
via Christ or eternal punishment for not
Do we not hold parents responsible for their children's outcome? If we use
the same standards towards God's "fathering" abilities, according to the
doctrine of endless punishment, our Father did a very poor job in raising His
At some point the Children become responsible for themselves.........Adam did
not sin as a child he did so as a man and eve as a woman (think about that
one).... If Hell is real and a person is considered foolish trying to build a
tower without first seeing if he has enough resources with which to complete
it, wouldn't Jesus also be foolish if He purposed to save the world but only
came away with a part of it? And wouldn't Jesus appear foolish if He came to
destroy the works of the devil but left most of the devil's work continuing
endlessly in the Lake of Fire? Wouldn't He be found guilty of not counting the
costs before He began?(Luke 14:28-32) Bazaar to attempt to use the teachings of
Christ in vague manner to invalidate the plain specific
teachings of Christ...all false doctrines do this with scripture...... If Hell
is real and since probably less than one percent of the world's population ever
got "born again" and stayed on the straight and narrow, doesn't this fly in the
face of Jesus' words which says He leaves the ninety-nine to find the one and
doesn't give up until He finds it? (Luke 15:4) ninety and nine of his sheep not
the goats or the Devils flock
If Hell is real and a place of terrible pain, why is it that we wouldn't
think of sending our pets to such a place yet don't blink an eye at the thought
of God sending His very own children to such a place? If Hell is real and
universalism is a heresy, why is it that those who believe God loves all and
will save all find it easier to love all people than those who believe most
people are going to Hell? (Think this through very carefully.)
Going to hell is not a matter of what anyone thinks or likes it is a matter
of how things worked as defined by God not man.
If Hell is real, will you judge your mother, son, or other non-believer to
Hell? "Do ye not know that the saints "shall judge the world"? and if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye
not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this
life?" 1 Corinthians 6:2-3
"Other non believer" this argument must presuppose that Christ did not mean
what he said by who soever believeth not shall be dammed..but then again what
does dammed really mean..Do we let scripture define or describe that or do we
do it?
As with anything if you only focus your attention on "your favorite
Scriptures"/ term in this case, say the scriptures that speak of God?s work and
love then use you determinations of those scriptures external of all the rest
then force your determinations of Gods love on all the rest that speak of his
vengeance then assert that those scriptures either can?t be part of the
original/true or they don?t mean what they plainly state...........this is
fallaciously circular application of scripture...this is the reason there are
so many diverse doctrines. Anyone can make the bible say just about anything
they want to if they focus on one verse or term or set of verses external of
all the rest...there are plenty of verses of scripture that can be read or
understood in many ways depending on what else you ignore or additional
commentary you ascribe to a meaning............then take your conclusions about
those verses no matter how vague they may or may not support a given
argument and then apply them to any and everything else no matter how
specific...Now the specif is subordinate to the vague..all you need is get
acceptance of a vague argument to supercede a specific statement through in a
little "was not in the originals" & or "really should be translated
as.....which really means" ( proof for this assertion, of course, is the
"obvious" conclusion itself) and anything goes! ..so how does one know when and
if that is the case....use the specific references to any given subject to
define outline that subject then and only then use logical conclusions from
that to understand where vague references appear to be move from greatest
specific to less specific to evaluate the vague and non existent..You don?t
have to produce a scripture with the term "hell" in it to produce one with
eternal punishment call it what you like it?s the eternal punishment that
should be of concern not the term "hell" itself.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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:
