What is the purpose of an everlasting punishment in hell?

[darkcgi]

its a good thing we can ALL go buy one of these from walmart

 

[doombug]

Holy shit!

Don't you ever click on the links that people provide to you?
I provided links that directly point to the verses that show hell is everlasting punishment and now Minor posted another link.

I'm not sure what else you are looking for, but you sure as hell aren't willing to look for yourself. Quit being so fucking lazy and click the link... it's real simple and requires almost zero effort.

Here is the verse and I did check it out:
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I also read where Minor Axis said he wasn't for sure if it meant souls were destroyed or if they were tortured forever. I appreciate him providing the link, that I looked at, and his honest opinion.

A little logic would tell me that humans would die, but souls can be there to endure eternal punishments...

Which means he doesn't know. No one knows so how can GIA's premise, that only a sadistic God would torture souls forever, be anything other than assumption.

So yes, I do check the links provided. I just haven't seen anything yet that backs up GIA's premise:

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

I can't believe I have to spell that out. I also can't believe that GIA posts such nonsense without being challenged much at all.

 

[BornReady]

Which means he doesn't know. No one knows so how can GIA's premise, that only a sadistic God would torture souls forever, be anything other than assumption.

I agree with you. However there are people who believe God is going to torment (they avoid the word torture for obvious reasons) people with fire forever. GIA is right in judging such behavior as sadistic.

 

[Dana]

I always thought we lived in Hell already...

 

[BornReady]

I know a guy who believes in reincarnation to other worlds. If you're good then you go to a better world. If you're bad then you go to a worse world. He said the fact you ended up in this world is evidence you were bad in a previous life. But it can still get worse so start being good. I suppose his belief is as good as any other but I'm not buying it.

 

[doombug]

I agree with you. However there are people who believe God is going to torment (they avoid the word torture for obvious reasons) people with fire forever. GIA is right in judging such behavior as sadistic.

But still this is what people believe and not what the scriptures say. To me, the people who say for sure there is eternal torture are just as wrong as GIA because no one can say this for sure. GIA is judging God without proof.

 

[Minor Axis]

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, you can't use logic when referring to religion....at least that seems to be the mantra here. What I am asking for is scripture that says this. GIA wants to take his premises from the bible but he doesn't use the bible to even back up what he says.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I am using logic to counter a statement you made, nothing more. I don't think you understand GIA's motivation. He is not trying to use the Bible to back up his beliefs, he is pointing out the problems with the truth contained within the Bible. That is all.

There are people in this world who believe in Christianity. Of those group of people, there is a substantial portion who view their Holy Book, the Bible as the authority, the truth, the Word of God. And as a book portrayed as the truth, it is anyone's right, including GIA's to question it's truth. That is all he is doing.

You seem to be arguing just to argue. For example, this thread deals with "the purpose of hell". GIA questions hell, as I do. What are you trying to accomplish- defend this premise described in the Bible, argue there is a reason for hell, or just argue cause you don't like GIA's attitude?

 

[doombug]

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I am using logic to counter a statement you made, nothing more. I don't think you understand GIA's motivation. He is not trying to use the Bible to back up his beliefs, he is pointing out the problems with the truth contained within the Bible. That is all.

No you are trying to cover up your assumption with your "logic" of what the bible says. You have sinned against your non-faith!

GIA isn't pointing out problems with the truth in the bible if he doesn't show where he gets his premise. He is reading what he wants and adding to the bible to concoct his premises. That is why he isn't defending himself he knows he is wrong.

I don't understand why anyone here would defend someone who preaches these ideas but refuses to show how he came to his conclusions.

There are people in this world who believe in Christianity. Of those group of people, there is a substantial portion who view their Holy Book, the Bible as the authority, the truth, the Word of God. And as a book portrayed as the truth, it is anyone's right, including GIA's to question it's truth. That is all he is doing.

I disagree. GIA is not questioning the truth of the bible when he makes up his own story instead of using the bible to base his premises on. He can easily show where he got his premises by quoting the scripture to back up his story. The reason he doesn't is clear: The stories he uses aren't the ones from the bible.

You seem to be arguing just to argue. For example, this thread deals with "the purpose of hell". GIA questions hell, as I do. What are you trying to accomplish- defend this premise described in the Bible, argue there is a reason for hell, or just argue cause you don't like GIA's attitude?

You can't come up with a rebuttal so you attack the source. I thought you could do better Minor Axis. Here is what I am saying:

GIA is questioning the purpose of eternal punishment in hell but he is saying it is eternal torture. This is something he doesn't know for sure so he is making assumptions and hopes no one notices. It is possible that he is ignorant of what the bible says but either way he shouldn't concoct ideas based on assumptions. Or is this something allowed here as long as it doesn't challenge anyone's non-faith?

It seems few here are interested in truth even if it goes against their world view. If a bible thumping preacher came here preaching without backing anything up I bet he would be ran out of town on a rail.

 

[BornReady]

GIA is questioning the purpose of eternal punishment in hell but he is saying it is eternal torture.

I'm not sure I follow your point here. But I hope you're not saying you think burning someone with fire is punishment not torture.

 

[doombug]

Born, if someone is burned to death is that everlasting torture as in forever? The death penalty is everlasting punishment because it is pretty much permanent.

 

[Minor Axis]

No you are trying to cover up your assumption with your "logic" of what the bible says. You have sinned against your non-faith!

I have no assumptions regarding religion only speculation.

GIA isn't pointing out problems with the truth in the bible if he doesn't show where he gets his premise. He is reading what he wants and adding to the bible to concoct his premises. That is why he isn't defending himself he knows he is wrong.

I'll let GIA respond to this.

I don't understand why anyone here would defend someone who preaches these ideas but refuses to show how he came to his conclusions.

How about a specific example?

I disagree. GIA is not questioning the truth of the bible when he makes up his own story instead of using the bible to base his premises on. He can easily show where he got his premises by quoting the scripture to back up his story. The reason he doesn't is clear: The stories he uses aren't the ones from the bible.

He extrapolates starting with Bible stories.

You can't come up with a rebuttal so you attack the source. I thought you could do better Minor Axis. Here is what I am saying:

GIA is questioning the purpose of eternal punishment in hell but he is saying it is eternal torture. This is something he doesn't know for sure so he is making assumptions and hopes no one notices. It is possible that he is ignorant of what the bible says but either way he shouldn't concoct ideas based on assumptions. Or is this something allowed here as long as it doesn't challenge anyone's non-faith?

It seems few here are interested in truth even if it goes against their world view. If a bible thumping preacher came here preaching without backing anything up I bet he would be ran out of town on a rail.

A couple of issues. If you are saying I'm attacking you, you are incorrect. Calling eternal burning: torture appears to be GIA's opinion that you disagree with. What else is there to prove? Finally a bible thumping preacher would be using the Bible mostly to back up his positions wouldn't he? That is using a Holy Book as a reference source, but it proves nothing and does not back up a philosophical position to people who don't believe in the Bible. It does prove the person in question believes in the Bible.

 

[doombug]

I have no assumptions regarding religion only speculation.

Either way you are guessing based on incomplete proof.

How about a specific example?

Here is an example:

I don't think you understand GIA's motivation. He is not trying to use the Bible to back up his beliefs, he is pointing out the problems with the truth contained within the Bible. That is all.

There are people in this world who believe in Christianity. Of those group of people, there is a substantial portion who view their Holy Book, the Bible as the authority, the truth, the Word of God. And as a book portrayed as the truth, it is anyone's right, including GIA's to question it's truth. That is all he is doing.

You seem to be arguing just to argue. For example, this thread deals with "the purpose of hell". GIA questions hell, as I do. What are you trying to accomplish- defend this premise described in the Bible, argue there is a reason for hell, or just argue cause you don't like GIA's attitude?

In the first two paragraphs you repeat that GIA is only questioning the truths of the bible but I say he is distorting the truth of the bible. If you do a little looking you will see this also.

In the third paragraph you say GIA is only questioning hell but this isn't true. GIA's premise is only a sadistic God would create a place of eternal torment for human souls. He refuses to show how he came to this conclusion because it will reveal how he has distorted the scriptures as he has done in many of his threads.

You are smart enough to figure this out on your own. The conclusions I come to are that you are defending GIA because either you haven't read the threads and are unaware of his shenanigans or you just don't want to face the truth.

He extrapolates starting with Bible stories.

No, he extrapolates starting with half truths. If he uses bible stories then why doesn't he quote these stories.
If there is eternal torture of human souls as he says then why doesn't he quote where the bible states this or how he came to this conclusion.

A couple of issues. If you are saying I'm attacking you, you are incorrect. Calling eternal burning: torture appears to be GIA's opinion that you disagree with. What else is there to prove? Finally a bible thumping preacher would be using the Bible mostly to back up his positions wouldn't he? That is using a Holy Book as a reference source, but it proves nothing and does not back up a philosophical position to people who don't believe in the Bible. It does prove the person in question believes in the Bible.

Saying I argue for the sake of arguing is also incorrect.
You and others here just don't agree with my opinions, no problem for me but don't assume something that isn't true.

But using the same "Holy Book" to form an opinion is Ok as long as one doesn't add to or distort what the book says. My disagreement with GIA's position is based on observational evidence of what the "Holy Book" says. Therefore if "the purpose of hell is to torture human souls forever" isn't written in said "Holy Book" GIA's premise is wrong. I have seen more scripture that suggests something contrary to GIA's opinion so I have just as much right to question the validity of his premise as he does in making it.

 

[doombug]

Now that is settled GIA prove your premise! Where does it say in this book you are using that human souls will be tortured forever? Answer for yourself for once!

 

[Minor Axis]

Now that is settled GIA prove your premise! Where does it say in this book you are using that human souls will be tortured forever? Answer for yourself for once!

You really do have a high opinion of your debating skills don't you. You keep wanting to assign "truth" and "proof" to faith. It's a non-starter.

 

[doombug]

You really do have a high opinion of your debating skills don't you. You keep wanting to assign "truth" and "proof" to faith. It's a non-starter.

.
Come on Minor Axis. I have read enough of your posts to know you aren't that stupid. You know full well what I am requesting from GIA. I consider the "debating" between you and I satisfactory enough, at least for time being, to wait for GIA to repond. I think he should speak for himself and back up what he is saying. If he can't or refuses to even make an effort then he should STFU, GTFO and take his fail with him. hahaha!

 

[Greatest I am]

.

Originally Posted by Minor Axis
A little logic would tell me that humans would die, but souls can be there to endure eternal punishments...


Which means he doesn't know. No one knows so how can GIA's premise, that only a sadistic God would torture souls forever, be anything other than assumption.

Exactly.
The premise of God's existence is impossible to prove. Only the morality of the God on offer can be known.

I have shown with a few simple questions how immoral a God would need to be if he created a hell.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

.
!

Get a search engine or read your bible.
[Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20


Regards
DL

 

[doombug]

Here is what GIA claims Matthew 11:20 says:

Get a search engine or read your bible.
[Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20


Regards
DL

Here is what Matthew 11:20-24 actually says:

" 20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done,because they repented not:

21 Woe unto thee,Chorazin! woe unto thee,Bethsaida! for if the mighty works,which were done in you,had been done in Tyre and Sidon,they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you,It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment,than for you.

23 And thou,Capernaum,which art exalted unto heaven,shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works,which have been done in thee,had been done in Sodom,it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you,That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment,than for thee."


I don't see "eternal torment of hell" anywhere in that verse. How did you reach this conclusion GIA?

The premise of God's existence is impossible to prove. Only the morality of the God on offer can be known.

Apparently the premise of eternal torment in hell for human souls is also impossible to prove. You can't even show where this claim is made in the bible so how can you offer it to represent the morality of God?

I have shown with a few simple questions how immoral a God would need to be if he created a hell.

Regards
DL

The only thing you have shown is that you have no idea what you are talking about....Regards.

 

[Minor Axis]

Here is what Matthew 11:20-24 actually says:

" 20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done,because they repented not:
21 Woe unto thee,Chorazin! woe unto thee,Bethsaida! for if the mighty works,which were done in you,had been done in Tyre and Sidon,they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I say unto you,It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment,than for you.
23 And thou,Capernaum,which art exalted unto heaven,shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works,which have been done in thee,had been done in Sodom,it would have remained until this day.

First off trading Bible quotes especially as if it reveals a truth is doomed to failure when dealing with those who have not been assimilated. However since you put great value on the truth of the bible, I'll say that all of the statements I have read in the Bible (yes I used to read the Bible on occasion), it's speaks of Hell as a final destination. If you meet God's standard you go to Heaven. If you don't, you go to Hell, period, no second chances.

As previously been pointed out Mathew 25:46 speaks of eternal punishment.

[h=3]Matthew 25:46[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[SUP]46[/SUP] “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

and in this quote:

[h=3]Matthew 11:20-24[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[h=5]Woe on Unrepentant Towns[/h] [SUP]20[/SUP] Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. [SUP]21[/SUP] “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. [SUP]22[/SUP] But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. [SUP]23[/SUP] And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[SUP][a][/SUP] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. [SUP]24[/SUP] But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

It does not mention "eternal punishment" but the inference is that a visit to Hades is a final destination. Obviously you disagree. Maybe you can help me find where it says in the Bible that after you land in Hell you might be offered a second chance for going to Heaven?

 

[doombug]

First off trading Bible quotes especially as if it reveals a truth is doomed to failure when dealing with those who have not been assimilated. However since you put great value on the truth of the bible, I'll say that all of the statements I have read in the Bible (yes I used to read the Bible on occasion), it's speaks of Hell as a final destination. If you meet God's standard you go to Heaven. If you don't, you go to Hell, period, no second chances.

I'm not questioning the truth of the bible statements I am questioning the source of GIA's conclusion. It is that simple. I'm not questioning anything other than this.

As previously been pointed out Mathew 25:46 speaks of eternal punishment.

Eternal punishment yes but where is the eternal "torture" mentioned?

It does not mention "eternal punishment" but the inference is that a visit to Hades is a final destination. Obviously you disagree. Maybe you can help me find where it says in the Bible that after you land in Hell you might be offered a second chance for going to Heaven?

Maybe you can help me find where I have made such claims? Where have I stated I disagree about a final destination and where have I stated someone in hell is offered a second chance?