<<< A question for you, Scott. You believe in hell of limited duration; hell that purifies till they give up and say yes God, you are right. If you consider eternal torment to be torture, is your view not also torture till you give up ? Is such not actually coercion? How in your mind is your view different, in this respect, from a biblical view of eternal separation from God.>>>





Let me get this straight Hank. Lets put it on human terms. Let suppose you have a disobedient child. Are you suggesting to me that you don't see the difference between limited correction with the purpose to restore (this gives hope), versus unlimited punishment without end, the sole purpose of which is to inflict pain and suffering (no hope)? Hope is the mainspring of human existence. Eternal punishment is the doctrinal, legal, formal, removal of all hope. Your point in question is the difference between hope and no hope, or in other words, the difference between north and south. Do you understand this simple but extremely important concept? yes/no

Yes Scott, I understand the concept of bringing up children and how parents need to always build up, show confidence, bring hope and praise for a child... even though discipline is also necessary. My wife and I have raised 5 children... but made our mistakes.

The gospel I embrace gives hope in Jesus Christ and He is the one who brings peace, security and eternal hope to those who believe. This hope is here and now and the Bible is clear that it is for this life... now.

I read you to say that you hold out the gospel, Jesus the Kinsman Redeemer and say ok... if you miss this you can also have hope in the fires of hell. Further, I read you to say that eternal separation from God is torture and coercive, and your view is not torture nor coercive. Am I correct with this assumption ?

Hank, you asked me a clear direct question of whether you view of eternal torment was the same as my view of correction/restoration since they both used "force". I gave a very clear answer and showed the difference between them was huge because one gave hope, one eradicated hope. Can you acknowledge that you understand what I said. You gave me another sermon on personal beliefs. Sermon is fine but can you please acknowlege the validity of what I said. Once you do that, I will answer your question.

Well Scott; even though you ask me to answer you before you respond (and in the wrong order), I will oblige. Yes, I believe I see through your human reasoning and can see the merits of what you say. Whether it is biblical or not, it is not where I am at. If you are correct, humanly, I suppose it could be construed as a good view. But plenty of the learned theologians have spoken why the Bible teaches of a view of hell other then yours. And I do not see the view you do.

However, my exposure to spreading the gospel seems to be totally different then what you are talking about. Hell is not part of the "good news" of the gospel. In fact, Jesus said he did not come to condemn the world, but to save it, John 3:19. When preaching the gospel we speak of the deliverance of believers in the here and now, including in the life to come. The gospel offers a life of hope, peace, deliverance from sin and bad habits & addictions, offers positive and uplifting friendships, open communication with the "Higher Power" and ONE that is merciful, loving & caring, One who can bring satisfaction even when all around us fails. And a huge thing, Christ offers peace about what happens after the grave. I have never in the last 30 years heard the threats of hell preached when the gospel is presented. You may have, but I have not.

In my work with teenage girls from a drug rehab center, I can recall only once that we were asked about hell. I was not prepared for it; but I tried to turn it into a positive message of the deliverance the grace of Christ brings. The Bible says that hell was for the devil and his angels, Matt 25:41; (and I take it to mean it was not made for man). Man may go there, but that is not God's intent at all. God sent Christ to seek and save that which was lost. This is the message of the hope of the gospel and I have personally seen the results of it many times. (We always recommended that when the girls returned home that they connect with their priest or pastor, and we told this girl the same.)

I just do not think it is good for one to go around wailing about unfairness, torture, hell, etc; to me it just seems out of kilter. If the gospel cannot do here and now what it is meant to do, then according to the Lazarus and rich man event, it will not work in the hereafter.

"I gave a very clear answer and showed the difference between them was huge because one gave hope, one eradicated hope."

Scott, have you ever thought about trying "hope"? You act like just because something gives hope, it is automatically right. And if it eradicated hope, it is automatically wrong. What's the foreground or situations in you for these causes of hope or lost of it?

A gang goes out to commit a crime one night and one of the members gets cut off in the raid. In his fear cut off from his gang in the territory of another gang, his hope is on his initiation and loyalty of his gang friends that they will come back for him, not on the other gang and the cops coming down the street to break up the war.

Your feeling don't make hope right or wrong.

Your hope seems to be based on sitting on your laurels and the preaching of that, which if true, is a false hope.

Brent

Scott can answer your question and he should.

It appears to me that you both agree that the idea or preaching of torment which lasts forever is not a part of the Gospel of Jesus!

What you do not agree on is while one believes that this fire is refining and redemptive ultimately, the other believes the torment is forever with no redemptive qualities in it and that no one whose works are bad can be saved as by fire. I think that that is the difference here. Sometimes men must finally agree to disagree. However we do well to Love one another warmly!

Sometimes things are reduced to beliefs. Sometimes we do not [know] how things actually are. Our enviroment and our experiences cause one man to think differently than the other, while both have their anchor in the scriptures, at least in degree.

Truth [is] of such nature that a natural truth does run parallel with a spiritual truth, hence the value on parables. The one is the shadow of the other. Mark said something like this and said it well; lets get on with living out of the riches of Christ rather than living in the shadows.

<<< Well Scott; even though you ask me to answer you before you respond (and in the wrong order),>>>



Hank, why do you test and challenge integrity at every point? Your methods weary me. Now you asked me a question, and I gave you a crystal clear answer, and you did not acknowledge my answer, but breezed by it like you didn't see it, and asked me more questions. So I told you to go back and acknowledge my answer before I would answer your next question, and then you twist this with your above comment. You challenge integrity, not understanding. You show signs of what a man does when he is losing an argument.

<<< Hell is not part of the "good news" of the gospel. >>>

I'm pissed now. That is a lie. The jews didn't know a damn thing about hell until the new testament was written. Hell (AS YOU BELIEVE IT WAS TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT) was unheard of in the old. So if IF Jesus came teaching a glorious new Good News, and it also comes with a new teaching on consequences to horrible to even contemplate, then the Good news better damn well be preached with the Bad News. Otherwise, you are guilty of a colossal lack of full disclosure. This type of sh*t would void a contract under current federal contract law. How dare you advance the idea that a punishment exists too horrible to even contemplate and you don't fully disclose this? Speak no more to me Hank. Bullsh*t with your brand of integrity. I admit it. I am mad as hell now. All I can say is that if heaven is full of Christian with your brand of integrity, then I side with Mark Twain for sure.

Scott; I did overlook your answer so my response was in the correct order. You said the following and though it is missing my point, you nevertheless answered.

" I gave a very clear answer and showed the difference between them was huge because one gave hope, one eradicated hope."

And so readers, Scott says that what determines coercion and torture has to do with what the purpose is, regardless of the method used. So, when Scott says that my view of hell as endless separation from God is torture and coercion, he does not accept that burning with fire till one gives up is the same. I submit that Scott's reasoning is flawed.

As to hell not being part of the "good news", I stand with this statement. Hell is bad news for those who reject God, and it clearly is spelled out in the NT.

To repeat what I said yesterday, I believe the issue with Scott and Doug is not so much hell as it is other beliefs that are outside of orthodox Christianity. In order for them to give reason to those beliefs, they need to eliminate everlasting hell from their belief system. The top of this list is universalism (the belief that all will ultimately be saved) and a lower view of God and what/how he can create. Scott views God only as his reason allows him; whereas the Bible says that the character of God is above what man may understand of Him. I believe we must be careful not to limit God to only what we can understand. I invite Scott to carefully rethink his total positions... and if he cannot, at least respect orthodox Christianity for what it teaches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

The "man behind the curtain" represents what unbridled Church authority will lead to. Toto represents the one who unveils the truth about unwarranted religious dogma.

Hank,

Would you clearly interpret this verse.

James 3:6

And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

I have never seen with my literal eyes people walking around with fire dancing on their tongues (other than fire blowers, which I don't believe is what James is talking about). But I have "seen" many a fire started by the tongues of people with my spiritual eyes. In the same way I have seen many a people living in "hell" today. Most of the time after the "hell" has done it's work and people exit out of it the response is something like this, "I wouldn't trade a million dollars for what I learned but I never want to go though that again." Just read Locklady's account and tell me she didn't go through "hell".

Scott and Doug (as I understand) do not deny the existence of "a hell". What I understand them to question is "when this hell occurs" and "where it occurs" and the "purpose of it". It's our insistence of everything being literal that get's us into trouble.

You said,

whereas the Bible says that the character of God is above what man may understand of Him.

LOL But you clearly understand his method of torture.

Micah 4:2

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Clearly prophetic of new testament living.

Mark; James 3:1-6 clearly says that we tend to be unruly and out of control with our speech, and this creates problems for us and others. V 10, "...Brethren, these things aught not to be so."

I too, have had my "hell on earth" times. However, the peace of God gives rest when we trust in Him, and accept the things/circumstances we cannot change.

I do not view the Bible to be read all literally. Jesus Himself said there were certain things He spoke in figurative language, (John 16:25).

Scott.
For someone who is constantly talking of the love and reconciliation of God to man, you show an incredible lack of abilty to be reconciled on a human to human level. You seriously need help.

Doyle, Scott can be pretty direct and to the point when battling ideas, but I dont see his attacks as being on a personal level. I have never witnessed an Ad Hominem attack from him. An Ad Hominem attack is where a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting it. (Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false.)

I see his point as being quite valid. Christianity teaches love, forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption, but yet those who accept this teaching also claim to worship and love a creator who does a poor job of displaying these characteristics. According to traditional beliefs, a much higher percentage of people who just happen to be born in the Bible belt to believing parents are spared the eternal torture chambers, than those who are unfortunate enough to be born in some country where Christianity is not practiced.

I believe it is time for a paradigm shift. Such irrational beliefs (as a loving God who sentences eternal torture to good people who didnt quite jump through all the correct hoops because of unclear information) can not be constructive to society as a whole. You dont get a paradigm shift without people like Scott shaking things up and causing people to question their own beliefs. Throughout history we have examples of people who irritated the establishment with a persistent appeal to reason. They were a pain in the neck, but they ended practices like slavery, human sacrifice, and bigotry.

It may seem on the surface that a belief in eternal torment for your neighbor whose life doesnt fit into the Christian mold is not on par with those practices mentioned above. Maybe not, but it shares the same irrational thought process. How can a person be a light and inspiration to all of humanity when in their heart they believe almost all of humanity deserves the eternal torment they will receive?

If you believe this irrational concept of eternal torture only because you think the Bible says so, then its time to look at that book with a little more of a critical eye. Every civilization in the history of man has been duped into believing something false about the afterlife. Isnt it a little arrogant to believe that we are now above the past fallacies of the human race?

Stan:

That was an excellent post! Thank-you.

What Scott misses is that hell was in place BEFORE man. Man switched allegence to the hell bound prince. Hell is not redemptive at all. It is not intended to be. Redemption is neccessary to keep us out.

Judgement day isn't about who's blest and who's busted, but who is your boss. Devil is going left; Jesus goes right. Get in line. Credentials are mandetory.

The pre world eternity is what it is folks. I say, "Thank God He made a plan to allow us out of Adam's mess."

If anyone is choosing to be away from God, reconsider. Any where God isn't will be Hell. Imagine what this world would be like with none of the features of God. Couple that with eternal life and.......