Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Annihilationism, Nirvana and Atheism.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Timothy View Post
    I never said "if the exact word isn't in the Bible, then I don't believe in it" and you know that I didn't. If you need to put words in MY mouth just to win an argument, your proof is not very good.
    No, I don't know that you said that. Don't even bring up that "the phrase is not in the Bible" malarky unless you intend to go all the way with it. Otherwise it's nothing but rhetorical bombast.
    Originally posted by Timothy View Post
    Annihilationism says that the wicked will be destroyed and will be no more. If that is alien to the Bible, then the Bible is alien to the Bible.
    Here's the thing, The Bible actually says that the wicked will be destroyed and the wicked will be no more, but the Bible NEVER says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever. And it is not true that you have "every church father" on your side. That is absolutely false. Irenaeus said that the wicked will have a discontinuance of existence.
    No. He said they will continue in existence for a very long time. That could be annihlationism or it could be universalism. And even if he is an annihlationist, that's two, maybe three. Big whoop.
    Originally posted by Timothy View Post
    Also the rest of the Church Fathers quote the Bible, and your side has the unfortunate tendency to read eternal conscious torment into everything. If the church fathers quote Matthew 25:46, your side counts it as proof that the CFs believe in eternal conscious torment, even though Matt 25:46 doesn't say eternal torment, it says eternal punishment.
    A unitarian could make much the same argument. You really want to go down that road?
    Originally posted by Timothy View Post
    And you say that Jesus' statement that the body and soul will be destroyed in hell doesn't prove your your point wrong that the wicked can exist in hell. Jesus said that they are destroyed, that proves that they are destroyed and proves your point wrong that they are not destroyed.

    You haven't got a biblical leg to stand on for eternal conscious torment in hell.
    You've already been show that your "dead must always mean cessation of existence" line is suspect at best and insisting that the damned are "alive" just because they happen to still exist and feel rides roughshod over every connatation that the word has. Is someone who has suffered higher brain death "alive?" Technically, yes- but that's about it. You're acting like a caricature of a unitarian who's only argument is insisting over and over again that "the Bible says that there is ONE God."
    O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

    A neat video of dead languages!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Kelp(p) View Post
      No, I don't know that you said that. Don't even bring up that "the phrase is not in the Bible" malarky unless you intend to go all the way with it. Otherwise it's nothing but rhetorical bombast.
      No. He said they will continue in existence for a very long time. That could be annihlationism or it could be universalism. And even if he is an annihlationist, that's two, maybe three. Big whoop.
      A unitarian could make much the same argument. You really want to go down that road?
      You've already been show that your "dead must always mean cessation of existence" line is suspect at best and insisting that the damned are "alive" just because they happen to still exist and feel rides roughshod over every connatation that the word has. Is someone who has suffered higher brain death "alive?" Technically, yes- but that's about it. You're acting like a caricature of a unitarian who's only argument is insisting over and over again that "the Bible says that there is ONE God."
      You don't know what you are talking about. You think I'm a unitarian now? You are completely wrong and you are trying to force the Bible to say something it doesn't say, and when I point out that FACT to you, you start name calling.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by hedrick View Post
        My understanding is that the outer darkness is Sheol. Not really hell, with God tormenting people. Rather death, which was considered in the OT to be a shadowy existence. It's also possible Matthew (whose phrase this is) didn't have a specific geography of the afterlife, and the outer darkness was the ultimate exclusion from the Kingdom of God, but not a specific place. The only weeping and gnashing of teeth in Luke is 13:28, where it simply describes someone who is thrown out of the Kingdom, without a specific final resting place mentioned.

        It is in a sense the same thing as the furnace of fire, since that image refers to the furnace in Daniel, which would be death or destruction. Note that Mat 13:42 combines both.

        Jude is a reference to the myth of the Watchers. It describes a group of fallen angels. They are held under the earth until the day of Judgement. So this isn't really relevant to the ultimate fate of humans, since Jude 6 is clearly referring to angels, and says that it's temporary. (Yes, it says eternal chains. But remember that in the Bible, "eternal" isn't always everlasting. The rest of the verse says they're held in these eternal chains until Judgement.)

        As usual, I need to point out that a variety of images, all associated with death or destruction, are used. If you take them literally, the outer darkness of Sheol with a shadowy existence contradicts destruction with fire. But I don't think the images are intended to be taken so literally. This is a set of conventional images for rejection in the Judgement, just as today people talk about Peter at the pearly gates without intending that to be taken literally.
        Originally posted by hedrick View Post
        I think the imagery in the Rev is actually consistent with what I described above.

        We have Satan confined to the pit until the final judgement, as in Jude. Those who received the mark of the beast are killed but not put into the fire with the beast and false prophet. Then we have the final judgement where everyone is judged, with the rejects going into fire which is also called the second death. But in 22:15 we have people outside the city. This tells us we're dealing with multiple images, and not a literal account, since otherwise there would be no one left to be outside the city. They'd all be in the lake of fire which is the second death.

        In general we have a set of images of death, destruction and exclusion. It's pretty much the same variety as found in the Gospels.

        If you really feel the need to come up with a single, literal explanation, I think destruction is the best.
        Can you better explain how you came to your conclusion about the meaning of the "outer darkness?"
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment

        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
        Working...
        X