Universal Salvation or Not? Heaven? Hell? Final Disposition of all who ever lived?

[Charity]

I'm thinking that I may have crossed the line by sharing my atheistic idea on a doctrinal forum by calling God's torment in the lake of fire of the unsaved/wicked (whether temporary or eternal) as being abhorrent.  My biblical critique of the doctrine would be whether the word "fire" used in Schoenheit's Appendix 4 is figurative or literal or a mixture of both.  That I do not know.

[WordWolf]

21 hours ago, Charity said:

Matthew 18 does show that without forgiveness, the debt must be paid.  Once it is paid, the person is released.  If it is not paid, the person remains in prison. 

The parable does not support his doctrine though which is "The wicked are annihilated after a period of suffering, and that period of suffering fulfills the Word of God and the justice of God."  In that sense, he is not talking about purgatory where Catholics go from there only to heaven.

He does list 9 verses that talk about being judged "according to one's works."  Do you think these verses support there is suffering according to one's works before one is destroyed in the Lake of Fire?

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it.  They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point.    The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness.  

So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid.  As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.)  Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read.  As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said.   

Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation.   I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards. 

[WordWolf]

22 hours ago, Charity said:

Matthew 18 does show that without forgiveness, the debt must be paid.  Once it is paid, the person is released.  If it is not paid, the person remains in prison. 

The parable does not support his doctrine though which is "The wicked are annihilated after a period of suffering, and that period of suffering fulfills the Word of God and the justice of God."  In that sense, he is not talking about purgatory where Catholics go from there only to heaven.

He does list 9 verses that talk about being judged "according to one's works."  Do you think these verses support there is suffering according to one's works before one is destroyed in the Lake of Fire?

*reads the 9 verses*

Even in his own version, it says people will be judged according to their works, and that's all they say.  He went from those words to "they'll suffer for some time, and then they'll be annihilated."  That was a heck of a jump on his part. It said they would be "judged" (HOW?)  and they would be judged "according to their works" (WHAT'S THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S AT STAKE, AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES?)   With no other verses, JS inserted his own ideas into the subject. -He footnoted and cross-referenced all sorts of things....but not when it came to that.  So, it seems that his ideas were more important than being truthful on this subject.   It speaks of vanity.  It's the kind of thing that you would expect of a man who would publish his own version of the Bible. 

Edited 18 hours ago by WordWolf
.

[Raf]

Charity,

I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it.

I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic.

I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

[Charity]

So, you have what JS believes about end time punishment and on the other end of the spectrum, you have what Sean Finnegan from Living Hope (Vince Finnegan's ministry) believes.  In his video The Lost Suffer Eternal Torment in Hell (after the 41:00 mark), he teaches that the lake of fire is simply the symbol for the second death and later says, “Now, you may ask the question...what about proportional justice.  What if God wants somebody to experience pain for so long before they’re executed?  I don’t know.  I don’t have a verse on that.  So maybe God is going to do that, maybe he’s just going to be merciful."  

Rhetorical question:  Why didn't the almighty God (who is not the author of confusion) not make the one topic of end time punishment clear and concise in one piece of writing (necessarily in different languages) and preserve it forever (without any changes on the threat of a lightning bolt immediately striking anyone who tried)?  That would definitely prove his existence! 

IMO, we have too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Edited 10 hours ago by Charity

[Charity]

7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

*reads the 9 verses*

Even in his own version, it says people will be judged according to their works, and that's all they say.  He went from those words to "they'll suffer for some time, and then they'll be annihilated."  That was a heck of a jump on his part. It said they would be "judged" (HOW?)  and they would be judged "according to their works" (WHAT'S THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S AT STAKE, AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES?)   With no other verses, JS inserted his own ideas into the subject. -He footnoted and cross-referenced all sorts of things....but not when it came to that.  So, it seems that his ideas were more important than being truthful on this subject.   It speaks of vanity.  It's the kind of thing that you would expect of a man who would publish his own version of the Bible. 

I suspect many people will have made that "jump" right along with JS without noticing what you have pointed out above.

[Charity]

6 hours ago, Raf said:

Charity,

I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it.

I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic.

I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

Thanks - I agree.  

[Rocky]

46 minutes ago, Charity said:

Rhetorical question:  Why didn't the almighty God (who is not the author of confusion) not make the one topic of end time punishment clear and concise in one piece of writing (necessarily in different languages) and preserve it forever (without any changes on the threat of a lightning bolt immediately striking anyone who tried)?  That would definitely prove his existence!

1) Men wrote the scriptures, not God.

2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

[Charity]

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

1) Men wrote the scriptures, not God.

2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

Considering the forum this thread is under, the serious point I was making relates to all the different doctrines there are around the same topic that theologians have come up with, all of which are supposedly based on scriptures.  It can be exhausting dealing with them all when one is wanting to find out what is the truth which Jesus himself spoke of in John 8:32, "and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

My rhetorical question is why didn't God make himself and his true word known directly without any middlemen and then prevent it from being changed, suggesting in a fantastical way the threat of a lightning strike upon anyone who tried to do.  

Jeremiah 32:17 says "Oh, Lord GOD! Behold, You Yourself have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You," 
 

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, Charity said:

My rhetorical question is why didn't God make himself and his true word known directly without any middlemen and then prevent it from being changed, suggesting in a fantastical way the threat of a lightning strike upon anyone who tried to do.  

Oh.

[Rocky]

4 hours ago, Rocky said:

1) Men wrote the scriptures, not God.

2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

 

[Charity]

33 minutes ago, Rocky said:

2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

Did God prove his existence in the garden of Eden to Adam and Eve?  Will he prove his existence to those in the afterlife?  So why couldn't/can't he prove his existence during the period between those two times in order to directly give us his word?

If I still haven't answered your question, perhaps you could state what point you are trying to make.  Thank you Rocky..