The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Originally posted by saint4God

Again, not my quote. Here's the originator for that one - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life". (John 3:16) Need to take that one up with God.

oh, so we're saying that John was written by God? I thought at best it would be written by John.

saint4god

Originally posted by passengername
and once you start spending my tax dollars on some display or monument I'M GONNA GET PRETURBED!

I can see that. I think the original idea though was to show the earliest form of law that's still in effect for the most part, not necessarily to mandate religion upon every household. Also, I think if you watched where your tax dollars go specfically, you'd be even more perturbed at the more costly ticket items.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by saint4God]

"the road to Hell are paved with good intentions". just 'cause you didn't mean to mandate religion on every household ,which you didn't because it is illegal for you to erect monuments in my house as far as I know. But what christians are trying to do is make PUBLIC property monuments to their faith. I have absolutely no problem if you want to put the ten commandments on your lawn. Hell, if it were my house I'd probably add a couple, "thou shalt not wear dirty shoes", "thou shalt not drink the last red stripe". do as you wish to your own property. Just don't try to annex public property too.

p.s. And gold is not my motivation. I'm talking about my tax dollars from an idealogical standpoint not an economic one.



[edit on 12-9-2005 by passengername]

Originally posted by passengername
oh, so we're saying that John was written by God? I thought at best it would be written by John.

john had 'no education' (acts 4:13). hence, he would not have known how to write, let alone write in greek (the language 'john' is thought to have originally be written in).

Then you are not using it correctly and probably should come up with a new word. Creation implies that something didn't exist prior to being created. The words "didn't" and "prior" imply time.

Words are funny things, as they tend to find issues when describing things such as what I speak of. If everything before entropy happened in a single moment, that does not bar the possibility of it "HAPPENING", only that our perspective of time cannot inter-relate with the "passage" thereof of "events"

From the perspective of a static "environment", the universe exists (has, does, and will). From that perspective, the universe simply is.

The universe was created, and Is. In the same moment. A moment which has no beginning nor end, but did. I realize this is a hard concept to grasp.

From our perspective, the universe has existed for all time, and from that perspective it simply is. In neither frame of reference is the universe created.

You are correct, from our perspective the universe has existed for all time, for time is entropy and after the initial moment of becoming, we are and always were.

You are incorrect that the universe cannot both be created and exist for all time, as entropy (Time) arose after the initial pristine moment.

You're using language and concepts from spacetime. You say action and movement are not dependent on spacetime, but of course they are. You are speaking in contradictions.

No, they are not. We understand action and movement because we exist in space time, and are therefore limited to action and movement within it. As stated before, without entropy, all action and all movement happen simultaneously because time does not pass, everything simply is. It comes into being, but has always been.

People who 'grasp' contradictions are generally declared to be insane.

People who dismiss the abstract are often scientists.

"instant"? Didn't you say god was static?

Yes. See above.

Can god make himself cease to exist? If so, how do you know he hasn't?

Of course he can. He may have... but since currently the universe is, if he did he can also make himself RE-exist. Remember, an Omnipotent deity can break the rules it has laid upon reality. You are functioning within a base-set of rules and attempting to humanize an entity so foreign thought-wise that the only real way one can approach it is to try and think foreignly from what we know.

I am sure I may have only further frustrated and confused you.

Moving on then, do we live in sin?

And now, we get into the realm where I do not align with most people. I don't believe sin exists; A creator being whom is all loving must, in fact, have no conditions for its love. In fact, I would argue that the Creator is love and love alone.

I also believe that every horrible individual who ever lived, mass murderers, rapists, etc. are all "In Heaven" as it were.... not that I believe in the stereotypical heaven.

There are exceptions, however; those who sell their soul for power, those who consort with demons, those who damn themselves to suffering. These instances are not God's responsibility, they are the people who chose the other side. The side of the UNmaker. *IT* is a result of creation, a side effect, an aberration which the Omniscient Creator did not foresee (More on this later).

This duality ended the initial moment, and started entropy into the universe. The proof of an All Loving Creator is that it did not wipe away its tainted creation and start anew. The Creator is a "NON INTERFERER", and works primarily through proxy. The Unmaker is not as inclined, since it wishes only to return all things to before the initial moment, when "All was as void".

Getting back to SIN, though... I believe that guilt weighs the soul down, and in the end we judge OURSELVES of our own guilt. Those who are guiltless and do not forsake their soul to oblivion return to the cycle of life, whether that is Heaven or reincarnation doesn't matter to me.

Of course, most humans feel guilt and must work to cleanse their own soul. The Creator turns nobody away, nobody at all. Most people find this interpretation disconcerting, to say the least.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Words are funny things, as they tend to find issues when describing things such as what I speak of. If everything before entropy happened in a single moment, that does not bar the possibility of it "HAPPENING", only that our perspective of time cannot inter-relate with the "passage" thereof of "events"

You use words such as things happening without time, and of a "before entropy", which is a euphamism for the more obvioulsy contradiction "before time". This is not a combination of words that makes any sense as far as I can see.

Do you see why I claim that god can not be consistently defined?

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
The universe was created, and Is. In the same moment. A moment which has no beginning nor end, but did. I realize this is a hard concept to grasp.

I don't think it's so much the level of difficulty of understanding, but rather a contradiction that is not possible to grasp.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
You are incorrect that the universe cannot both be created and exist for all time, as entropy (Time) arose after the initial pristine moment.

It can't be created because the term "created" implies time. The best you can do is to say the universe exists contingently, and not try to explain how or why.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
As stated before, without entropy, all action and all movement happen simultaneously because time does not pass, everything simply is. It comes into being, but has always been.

Without time there is no action or movement. These are not seperable concepts.


[edit on 12-9-2005 by spamandham]

Spamandham:

Your thoughts = square peg, round hole.

my thoughts = star-shaped peg, star-shaped hole.

You are trying to fit the concept to your understanding of reality, you are not accepting that such a reality would be fundamentally different.

It isn't that it is hard to grasp, I understand it intuitively. However, you may find it impossible for you to grasp because you are trying to apply real world physics to an event which transpired before time.

"Let us first give everyone their slice and THEN Cut the cake, that way everyone gets a piece" -Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll.

Time does not dictate happenstance, time only dictates change from static. The statement "LET THERE BE LIGHT" does not mean that light comes gradually to be, it means it is... not was, not became, but is. "IS" in a non-entropic universe defines creation. Creation itself does not happen, it "IS".

God "IS", but that does not presume that there was not formulation, only that the formulation happened in the same "IS" as everything else. You cold say that God, the universe, and everything came to be at once, but always were because time itself did not occur. Before paradigm shift and differentiation of entropy and extropy, everything that was... was. It is a realm without causation, and without movement, but with. It both is and is not, it is contradiction itself. Think of what doesn't make sense, and that is a foreign concept.

Serving cake before cutting it is a concept of "IS" rather than orderly systems of reality. For by distributing the cake, you have both distributed it AND cut it without doing EITHER. Action becomes, but no action was taken. Thought becomes reality, and thought itself is a single moment "I AM". "I AM" together, embodies the moment where all things become. Becoming is not a process, but a statement. "I AM" is action, motion, movement, production, and final result all at once. So truly, it does not require action, motion, movement, production... you only have the final result for it "IS" and became in the same "Instant".

If you can't understand this, I am sorry, I can never help you to. If you can't understand this, you are too stuck in the realm of real-world physics and the mind of "GOD" is forever a mystery.

I was thinking this would be a division point between our beliefs. I was surprised to hear madman's response was similiar.

It is a warm, fuzzy thought and wish it were so but I have been told otherwise. So, who am I to argue with God?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 12-9-2005 by saint4God]

I also think that most people only behave/act good because they perceive God's love to be conditional... and are afraid of hell.

This results in the most problems in society. People who are truly good require no reward from doing the right thing, the good thing. People who are truly good know there is no punishment, but do the right thing anyways not because they're afraid of doing the wrong thing, but because it's the right thing to do.

This is a complex idea, but it is also why I firmly believe there is no hell... because otherwise, my own "GOODNESS" would be invalidated by a bunch of people only pretending to be "GOOD" for god.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
You are trying to fit the concept to your understanding of reality, you are not accepting that such a reality would be fundamentally different.

I am not understanding because you are using words from nature to describe that which is not describable using such words. The best you can hope for is analogies and statements of what god isn't.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
However, you may find it impossible for you to grasp because you are trying to apply real world physics to an event which transpired before time.

I stated that I doubted you could define god consistently (in a noncontradictory fashion), and you proceeded to attempt to define god using contradictory language. Why was I not justified with my claim then? Why am I not justified in rejecting anything that can not even be consistently defined? If it isn't comprehensible, I can't be expected to believe it. I don't even know what 'it' is that I should believe.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Creation itself does not happen, it "IS".

Then don't use the word creation. Use something else. What you are doing is using a word and immediately redefining it, and then insisting the original definition applies. It doesn't make sense. That which simply is, is not created.

If god simply 'is', and is timeless/spaceless (sometimes referred to as nothing), then his 'creations' simply 'are' as well and are in no sense created. I don't see any resolution to this unless you give up the 'created' language and instead use words like 'necessary' and 'contingient'.

Yes, but you see... it was created. Creation took place. It all was made, and all was created.

Hmmm.... let us say that reality is like a video tape. Let us then say that "CREATION" is like, rather than pressing play, retroactively inserting frames into the tape without starting the tape. Physically adding a frame without beginning the tape.

In our reality, we would have to take time out to insert the frame, it would consume our time, and we could not do anything else while we are fiddling around with it because our hands or what-not are busy.

In the "TIME BEFORE TIME" (Yes, Time doesn't work well in this context, perhaps "ABSTRACTION BEFORE TIME" is better, or "NON-ENTROPIC EXISTENCE") If you were to modify the tape by adding a frame, it would already be done. Before even the thought entered your head it would be done, because in order for it NOT to be done you would have to have a sequence of events... with a sequence of events you are required to go through the motions.

Also, in this state, let us say you wanted to grow a tree. It would be done. It would be done because everything you have to do would take exactly the same amount of effort; nothing.

Or, let us try another method of explanation; Let us say that in this particular existence, no matter how much energy it would take in our reality, it takes the least possible amount of energy in this alternate existence. Likewise, let us assume that "TIME" exists in a finite sense, everything takes one second. However, let us now assume that you can project an infinite number of selves to take care of an infinite number of tasks. Now, everything you have made has taken only one second of overall time, and required the least amount of effort.

This is the concept I am attempting to illustrate to you; at the inception of the universe, entropy (Time) did not pass. As such, even a finite being in such a situation becomes infinite... they can be everywhere at once, they can learn everything, they can make everything because everything is instantaneous, and simultaneous.

A thousand years has no meaning in such an existence because nothing decays. Spending a thousand years thinking is precisely identical to spending just a second, or a femtosecond, or five billion years. All measures of "TIME" are equal because the very concept of "TIME" hasn't come into existence yet. Everything is infinitely probable and possible, to such an extent that everything simply "IS".

"I AM AS I AM".

Originally posted by saint4God
Gladiator was very good. I saw it on a saturday afternoon at the movies...and when I got out it was saturday evening!

Seriously though, good epic.

Ill admit its long, but one of Russel Crowes finest preformances.

Originally posted by saint4God
Announcing to the world or a friend that you're going to do it is plead for help. If that help isn't extended, then the person feels there truly is no reason to live because nobody cares.

I dont think were on the same page--
Read below

Originally posted by saint4God
Even though it seems like it would have no affect on others, the truth is it does. Suicide doubly so. How much more negative can you get than making your family and friends live with that kind of daily pain. They start to wonder why they're left alive if they couldn't even help someone in their family or their friend.

You would have to do a case-by-case basis, because I can't make a blanket statment to cover everything. My original statement was actually about terminally ill people.

Originally posted by saint4God
So why chance it? So many people say that killing yourself will cause bad things. Then there are the people who don't know. Who then says that killing yourself will result in something good?

I never said killing youself was good, I said some people will take the chance of not having to suffer everyday.

Originally posted by saint4God
Suicide is a natural progression from depression. One can only take being down for so long until you want it over in a hurry. A person doesn't just "snap out of it" without some kind of external assistance.

I started this discussion talking about doctor-assisted suicide and you have chancged it to depression. My statement had nothing to do with morality, but to do with a persons rights. If a person does not want to live in pain, they should no have to.

Originally posted by saint4God
I try to keep it clean though, which often has me turning the channel. Usually at the point he says "I'm Rick James, Bi-" *click*

Really? Its just a word....

Originally posted by passengername
oh, so we're saying that John was written by God? I thought at best it would be written by John.

Well, if you don't like that version, there's 3 other gospels there. Then I guess all the books written after John as well. On second thought, put down the Book and talk to God directly.

Originally posted by passengername
"the road to Hell are paved with good intentions". just 'cause you didn't mean to mandate religion on every household ,which you didn't because it is illegal for you to erect monuments in my house as far as I know. But what christians are trying to do is make PUBLIC property monuments to their faith. I have absolutely no problem if you want to put the ten commandments on your lawn. Hell, if it were my house I'd probably add a couple, "thou shalt not wear dirty shoes", "thou shalt not drink the last red stripe".

That thar is funny.

Originally posted by passengername
do as you wish to your own property. Just don't try to annex public property too.

I see your point *nods*. If they had Hamurabi's Code it'd make no difference to me or Verses of the Satanic Bible, though not my code of ethics, it'd probably made me roll my eyes glad I'm not part of this kingdom. As a matter of fact, I'd probably pray a plead to have a less self-centric society.

Originally posted by passengername
p.s. And gold is not my motivation. I'm talking about my tax dollars from an idealogical standpoint not an economic one.

I with it, just saying there's a lot of amazingly abundant superfluous spending in our great land. The fact that the State of Louisiana knowning let the canals go without repair or upgrade since 1935 resulting in the death of thousands makes me nauseas. In the end though, I should not be surprised, because we value money more than people.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
People who dismiss the abstract are often scientists.

*wipes tears from eyes* You're killin' me CrystalSword! You're going to make everyone around me think I'm a nut! That was beautiful my friend. Simply beautiful.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I started this discussion talking about doctor-assisted suicide and you have chancged it to depression. My statement had nothing to do with morality, but to do with a persons rights. If a person does not want to live in pain, they should no have to.

My bad, thought we went into a general discussion from there. I'll refer back to the "where there is life there is hope" statement, though I agree it's hard to see anyone suffer and would do all I could the help and alleviate.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by saint4God
I try to keep it clean though, which often has me turning the channel. Usually at the point he says "I'm Rick James, Bi-" *click*

Really? Its just a word....

The word doesn't bother me, he could say "you female dog!" means the same thing and am typically not alone watching tv. There were years of just watching whatever and filtering it out in my head but one day noticed a trend. The more I ignored it and watched, the more TV shows were doing it. Now I boycott on principle, because I'm tired of hearing that sh*t. Ooops! Who says TV doesn't have an effect on people? Now none of these Saxon words are "curse words" in origins, I know they were changed by the invading French, so there's really no devilry involved (exception damning someone, especially when God is included, which is indeed a most severe curse) in most of them, but most of the time when you say them it produces negative imagery to the listener, especially if they're a literalist or not used to hearing these words. I used "cuss words" all the time because I knew the history and what they meant therefore didn't care, but met someone who would wince when I said them. After some questioning on it, I realized this so try to respect their mental space and try to kick the habit all together.


[edit on 13-9-2005 by saint4God]

As hard as it may seem to realize women look and lust pretty much on an equal basis as men. They just don't say much about it for fear of "being out of place".

No GOD would create his children for conditional love. You have children. Do you have a condition for your love to them? The answer is, of course, NO. You may hate like heck some of the thing they do, however your love never diminishes. Why would the #1 father be any different?

This again is something that man has conjured up to establish control over the masses. Put in a long time ago. Scare the HELL into them, and they follow like sheep.

Yes, GOD did give man the ability to "reason" etc. However, basic animal instincts run through out this planet. Yes, we are animals. You are not giving much credit to the rest of the species of the world. They are far more intelligent than given credit for. After all, they were smart enough not to create a lot of the things man has created to the detriment of our species.

There is nothing wrong with looking at a good looking person. The "eye candy" is there for a reason. Despite what many try to teach man is one of the few monogamous animals on this planet. Why? Control.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
As hard as it may seem to realize women look and lust pretty much on an equal basis as men. They just don't say much about it for fear of "being out of place".

I think women suffer more of a mental beating in their upbringing on the whole than men, so this discipline is more easily achieved. Men are practically encouraged to be a "playah" or be "pimpin" where as women would be "sluts" or "ho's" for the same line of thinking. Why this is, I do not know. I could be wrong, but has been my perception. Perhaps this is a result of a male-dominant (historically speaking) society.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
No GOD would create his children for conditional love. You have children. Do you have a condition for your love to them? The answer is, of course, NO. You may hate like heck some of the thing they do, however your love never diminishes. Why would the #1 father be any different?

This again is something that man has conjured up to establish control over the masses. Put in a long time ago. Scare the HELL into them, and they follow like sheep.

The reason why I was surprised by your view was because I'd heard you use the word Christian previously, and Christ clearly states Hell exists and the punishment of sin, else there's no reason for him to be nailed to a cross. It ain't no church control thing my friend. It'd be correct to say the church is a sheep to Christ's words, and righfully so.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Yes, GOD did give man the ability to "reason" etc. However, basic animal instincts run through out this planet. Yes, we are animals. You are not giving much credit to the rest of the species of the world. They are far more intelligent than given credit for. After all, they were smart enough not to create a lot of the things man has created to the detriment of our species.

I love animals, but don't think they'd do any better running the planet.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
There is nothing wrong with looking at a good looking person. The "eye candy" is there for a reason. Despite what many try to teach man is one of the few monogamous animals on this planet. Why? Control.

All I have to say then is if you're married, then brace yourself for consequence...and often one doesn't have to wait for afterlife to feel the effect . I'm speaking from experience on this one. Just a warning from a caring friend . Also consider, there's not a big chasm between thought and action as many of us think.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
The reason why I was surprised by your view was because I'd heard you use the word Christian previously, and Christ clearly states Hell exists and the punishment of sin,

Here's another perspective on that. Jesus' teaching on hell.

Jesus never used the word 'hell', he used the word 'Gehenna', which would have been understood by his audience to be a physical place outside Jerusalem. There is no basis for linking it to a metaphysical place of eternal torture.

Originally posted by saint4God
else there's no reason for him to be nailed to a cross.

If you accept what Jesus actually said, you have been promised resurrection. No such promise exists (from Jesus' words) for anyone else. From a Christian perspective, that's what the crucifixion is all about - justification so that you may be resurrected.

Originally posted by spamandham
Here's another perspective on that. Jesus' teaching on hell.

Wow, I hadn't seen so much spin since my trip to an amusement park:



Seriously, hell is not a metaphor. It's mentioned in the places the website is cited, and well as here: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown in hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:29)

Interestingly enough madman, this is where Jesus is talking about adultery. Now, how can your right eye commit adultry without the rest of your body? Good question answered shortly before by Jesus, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

But surely there's no fire, right?

"And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it our and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." (Matthew 18:9)

Okay, so there's hell, with fire, but we're gonna party there, right?

"But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:48)

These quotes are not in the middle of parables and I'm only going by one book in the Bible so far. I don't like talking about pain and suffering as an outcome, but to deny danger as if it does not exist is inviting harm. Rather, I'd much rather hear of someone come to God because of the good news, of eternal life and love. By doing this, then you have the proper relationship, seeking good instead of fearing punishment.

Read it for yourself, never take a website's interpretation when it has an agenda.

Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus never used the word 'hell', he used the word 'Gehenna', which would have been understood by his audience to be a physical place outside Jerusalem. There is no basis for linking it to a metaphysical place of eternal torture.

Whatever word he uses, he describes it well - eternal, fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Originally posted by spamandham
If you accept what Jesus actually said, you have been promised resurrection. No such promise exists (from Jesus' words) for anyone else. From a Christian perspective, that's what the crucifixion is all about - justification so that you may be resurrected.

Christ did say "..whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) so in that sense if you believe now, you are saved. Christ and Revelation both speak of judgement. If it were an automatic decisioning process, there'd be no need for a judgement. *Looks over Revelation* Yep, they're judged according to what they had done according to the book opened in Revelation 20:11 and anyone not written in the book of life "...was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). What a remarkable resemblence to the hell Jesus spoke of. It doesn't sound to me from the gospels and Revelation that this judgement will go easily. *Closes the book* So why would anyone chance it when eternal life can be guarenteed right now?



[edit on 13-9-2005 by saint4God]

The reason why I was surprised by your view was because I'd heard you use the word Christian previously, and Christ clearly states Hell exists and the punishment of sin, else there's no reason for him to be nailed to a cross. It ain't no church control thing my friend. It'd be correct to say the church is a sheep to Christ's words, and righfully so.

My friend saint. You and I have a different aspect of what is "hell". One thinking is that one will live forever in a hot furnace for their sins.

My thinking is another way. Haven't we both been through "hell"? Yes, "hell" is what one goes through, and lives with when one can find no direction. We both have experienced it. We all have experienced it. That is the true hell that Jesus spoke of. Burns doesn't it? Hurts doesn't it?

I am often criticized for not "learning" the Bible, etc. I have on the job knowledge of what Jesus said with his parables. That is why he spoke the way he did. Everyone is different. Everyone is the same. We all have the energy that runs through us that keeps this illusion running. That energy is of course the power of GOD.

This much I know. When my physical existence ceases I shall have no trouble leaping into the light. The light is the life force for everything. It is GOD and the power of GOD. It is Christ, and the power of Christ.

I read nothing in the Bible except the words of Christ. That is what makes me "Christian". Christ spoke of nothing but LOVE and respect for fellow man. Somethng I have followed all my life. I don't care about a person's religion, race, social class, standing, etc. I respect each as if they were me for they are a part of me. I at times give a hard time to many. There is a reason for this. Many give me a hard time. I accept this. However, in the end we are all GOD's "children". I don't even like to use that word because we are not actually the "children" of GOD. We are all a piece of him.

I guess I do owe you a writing. Perhaps you could understand more when I get it to you. Just tremendously exhausted from the current situation.

I would respectfully submit that you turn on the TV and see what some are doing to Christianity. It is a sickening, stomach turning thing. One can't sit in self righteousness and then call themselves a follower of the Lord. We are all human. It is a quality GOD gave us. Our own morality is a testament to what GOD gave us to better understand not only each other, but himself also. Heresy? Hardly.

Originally posted by saint4God
Seriously, hell is not a metaphor. It's mentioned in the places the website is cited, and well as here: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown in hell."

Saint, you do realize you're reading a translation don't you? The word in the Greek text is not hell, but Gehenna, a physical place outside Jerusalem where the corpses of criminals were disposed of unceremoniously. It was a refuse dump where fires burned continuously.

It's up to those who claim this is a metaphor for a supernatural place of torment to justify that position.

Mat 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

(hell is translated from Gehenna here as well)

Note that this passage talks about the destruction of the soul, not the eternal torment of the soul.

Originally posted by saint4God
Whatever word he uses, he describes it well - eternal, fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Does he actually say these things in one context, or are you meshing together multiple thoughts as if they were one? Gnashing of teeth can refer to the grimace of death. Weeping can be the sorrow of those who do not believe in resurrection. 'worm does not burn' can simply be a reference back to Gehenna where corpses were eaten by worms even among the continuous fires.

At the time Jesus spoke, Revelation had not been written, neither had The Inferno. His audience would have understood his reference to Gehenna to be a physical place, not a metaphor. If you disagree with the straighforward interpretation, explain why from the perspective of an early 1st century audience, which is who he was talking to.

Originally posted by saint4God
*Looks over Revelation* Yep, they're judged according to what they had done according to the book opened in Revelation 20:11 and anyone not written in the book of life "...was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15).

If you're willing to claim that Gehenna is a metaphor for hell, why are you not willing to consider that the lake of fire is a metaphor for annihilation? Fire burns things until they are annihilated, it does not merely keep them hot forever. This interpretation is consistent with Jesus' words that the soul is destroyed, whereas your interpretation is in direct opposition to Jesus' words.

Name two things Revelation says will be cast into the lake of fire? Did you say death and hell (Gehenna again)?

If the lake of fire is hell, then Revelation is saying that hell is cast into itself. Surely this makes no sense. Death is also cast into the lake of fire. But death is not an actual thing that can be cast into a lake of fire. So that makes no sense either, unless the lake of fire is a metaphor for total destruction (annihilation). Then both of these make sense as well. Both death and Gehenna will cease to exist.

Revelation is filled with figurative language. There's no reason to presume the lake of fire is not figurative as well, and the fact that it states death and hell will be cast into the lake compells a figurative interpretation.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by spamandham]

[edit on 13-9-2005 by spamandham]