Beware of false Christian theologies

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue in question is the nature of hell: an existence there vs. annihilation. My point was this:

What you say above doesn't deal with this point: quantity doesn't necessitate quality. Let's see how you deal with the quality issue below..

The issue was your assumption that "destroy" necessarily = "annihilation". I have pointed out before how something can be destroyed (Berlin at the end of WWII, for example) yet not be annihilated.

So let's look at how you tackle that issue below

Fair enough - but destroy = annihilation not addressed

There is agreement (from me) that Hell does involve getting rid of something forever. But that something need not be the whole of the personhood. And the getting rid of can mean something gotten rid of as rubbish: out of the house and home and out of sight. Onto the rubbish tip (one Biblical picture used, as you know)

Annihilation is taken to mean every aspect of the personhood is obliterated. See the definition

annihilation: complete destruction or obliteration.

Whilst I wouldn't pretend to comprehend what eternal existence is like to experience, the closest sense that we have of it is time everlasting. The destruction has duration / dynamism, but that doesn't itself speak of annihilation.

Getting rid of sinners forever can be achieved without annihilation. Berlin, to continue with that analogy, if refused reconstruction forever, would remain destroyed and inoperable as a city forever. It would not be annihilated, rather, it's capacity to operate as a city (or a sinner) is forever removed it.

Your response here is mere dancing around on the head of a pin. I don't think you are being fully evasive - I think you genuinely think you are making your case.

However, the points made to you here are essentially the same as have been made to you before. You are stuck on the issue of necessarily rendering destroy = annihilation when other options easily exist (Berlin). Which means you are forced to assume your way over the hurdle.

This isn't an irrelevancy: the nature of Hell is one of the most important questions on which to obtain an answer on. The support need be clear as day to render the view substantiated.

In the whole of your last post you only made two points, which were repeats of what you said before, regarding the analogy you have created with Berlin, and your infatuation with the word "annihilation". I respond as follows

When people die at the end of this life, they can only live again if they are resurrected to life by God or Jesus Christ (see John 5:21-22). God has stipulated that the wicked die for a second time in the lake of fire thereby denying them any further existence. A second resurrection performed by either God or Jesus Christ would need to take place to bring them back to life again, which clearly isn't going to happen due to God's future plans for the earth. Your analogy with Berlin is therefore wholly inappropriate: a city can be rebuilt by the mere actions of man over time, but only God or Jesus Christ can bring a person, or persons, back from the dead.

Paul stated in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (NIV) the following regarding the wicked: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." There is no difference in meaning between the word " annihilation " and the two words " everlasting destruction" in this context. You are just playing about with mere semantics to suggest there is.

What happens concerning the resurrection of the dead is a complex area of the Bible, and for the benefit of readers of this thread, I give you a link to the best information on the Internet I have found on this subject, as follows: http://tinyurl.com/yaeqhso8

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

In the whole of your last post you only made two points, which were repeats of what you said before, regarding the analogy you have created with Berlin, and your infatuation with the word "annihilation". I respond as follows

I made two points mainly:

1. Quantity doesn't add to quality of substantiation, if the quantity rests on a problematic assumption

2. The problematic assumption is that destroy ( the biblical word used) = annihilate (the word you assume the biblical word destroy means)

The word annihilate was introduced by yourself early on. My "infatuation" with it stems only from your repeating the same assumption (destroy=annihilate) to the present day.

Sans substantiation for your position I might add.

When people die at the end of this life, they can only live again if they are resurrected to life by God or Jesus Christ. God has stipulated that the wicked die for a second time in the lake of fire thereby denying them any further existence.

An assumption very similar to the destroy=annihilation. Die is assumed to mean non-existence. We covered this already and there, as here, no substantiation is given for the actual assumption being made.

In other words: you're attempting to substantiate destroy=annihilate by assuming die=non-existence

A second resurrection performed by either God or Jesus Christ would need to take place to bring them back to life again, which clearly isn't going to happen due to God's future plans for the earth. Your analogy with Berlin is therefore wholly inappropriate: a city can be rebuilt by the mere actions of man over time, but only God or Jesus Christ can bring a person, or persons, back from the dead.

I was merely pointing out that something can be destroyed without being annihilated. And was pointing out that something can be held forever in a state of destroyance (to coin a phrase) without annihilation.

Indeed only God can bring a person back from the dead but I've not agreed with your dead=non-existing assumption for this point to matter.


-

Perhaps you can stick to substantiating destroy=annihilation rather than hopping from that to die=non-existence?

-

Paul stated in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (NIV) the following regarding the wicked: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." There is no difference in meaning between the word " annihilation " and the two words " everlasting destruction" in this context. You are just playing about with mere semantics to suggest there is.

What context are you pointing to? You've merely got the issue under discussion (does destroy = annihilation), a timeline (everlasting) and something said about being shut out. I don't see any context that helps your case here. (Indeed, being shut out from something suggests existence but barred entry. But I won't labour that point. The issue is you substantiating destroy = annihilation.)

I've already analogized how a state of destruction maintained forever merely adds a timeline to the destruction. If destruction merely means incapacitated (as with Berlin incapacitated as a functioning, but existing city end WWII) and we add everlasting to it we do not "annihilation" obtain

hinault

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I opened this thread in order to inform the public about how traditional Christian churches contradict the Bible on various subjects, and I feel, at least in the case of hell, I have substantiated this position adequately.

You've managed to get yourself involved in protracted, and very tedious, exchanges with your fellow protestants here instead.

kieranwaldron

hinault wrote: »

You've managed to get yourself involved in protracted, and very tedious, exchanges with your fellow protestants here instead.

What led you to believe that I was a protestant ?

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

What led you to believe that I was a protestant ?

Are you a Roman Catholic? If not then by default (in hinault's view at least)

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you a Roman Catholic? If not then by default (in hinault's view at least)

I don't belong to any church at the current time. I would sooner not belong to a church than belong to one teaching a false Christianity.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I don't belong to any church at the current time. I would sooner not belong to a church than belong to one teaching a false Christianity.

Assuming none of the mainstream churches and none of the cults preach the theology you espouse then you're pretty likely to remain a church of one.

It is possible to congregate with people who share central views (none of which, in my view, involve the yet-to-be-substantiated false teachings you embarked upon in this thread) but who differ at the fringes.

Which strikes you at belonging to a different league than the other:

-worshipping with others before a great God

- avoiding congregation worship because the leaders and some in the congregation happen to suppose an eternal existence in Hell whereas you don't?

Perhaps your theology doesn't involve any personal sense of God, in which case you're probably left with just the theology to argue the toss with..

-

Anyway, you were in the process of substantiating destroy = annihilate with a detour down die = non-existence...?

hinault

kieranwaldron wrote: »

What led you to believe that I was a protestant ?

You're not Catholic.

Therefore any claim that you have to be Christian is protestant.
Separately, you're replies here are filled with protestant tenets.

kieranwaldron

hinault wrote: »

You're not Catholic.

Therefore any claim that you have to be Christian is protestant.
Separately, you're replies here are filled with protestant tenets.

It does not necessarily follow that if a person is not a catholic, then he/she must be a protestant. As I stated above, I currently do not belong to any Christian church though there may be traces of protestant doctrine in my posts.

The reason I opened this thread in the first instance was to expose false Christian theologies. The issue of hell has been the subject of most of the recent exchanges here, and on that particular topic I have exposed the doctrine of " punishment of the wicked for eternity in a hellfire " to be false and contrary to what the Bible teaches. Do you agree ?

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I have exposed the doctrine of " punishment of the wicked for eternity in a hellfire " to be false and contrary to what the Bible teaches.

It would be more accurate to state that you have attempted to expose a falsity but are struggling to substantiate your position. This doesn't mean you're wrong of course but...

kieranwaldron

On the doctrine of hell, the Catholic Church is one of the chief proponents of torture for eternity in a hellfire as the destiny of the wicked, which contradicts Peter's input in the Bible on the same subject. God destroyed the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah with fire and brimstone killing everybody therein as outlined in the Old Testament. Peter in the New Testament said the following : " he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;" (2 Peter 2:6 -NIV). Peter therefore was clearly an advocate of the destruction of the wicked, and the false Christian church claiming him as their leader contradicts the Bible on this subject with false doctrine.

kelly1

Kieran,

I only read you opening post and it makes me wonder what prompted you to do it? Where did you learn your theology from? Did you ever study Christian/Catholic theology? It's one of the most bizarre posts I've seen in a while.

I suggest you pray to Jesus and ask him to guide you into the truth because what you've posted it just heresy. It's not the gospel preached by the apostles.

God bless you!

kieranwaldron

kelly1 wrote: »

Kieran,

I only read you opening post and it makes me wonder what prompted you to do it? Where did you learn your theology from? Did you ever study Christian/Catholic theology? It's one of the most bizarre posts I've seen in a while.

I suggest you pray to Jesus and ask him to guide you into the truth because what you've posted it just heresy. It's not the gospel preached by the apostles.

God bless you!

I never studied " Christian/Catholic Theology " but I have studied the Bible. The reference that I quoted in my post is straight from the Bible, and furthermore it is from the mouth of Peter.

jigglypuffstuff

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I never studied " Christian/Catholic Theology " but I have studied the Bible. The reference that I quoted in my post is straight from the Bible, and furthermore it is from the mouth of Peter.

Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

Or can you understand layers of metaphors, analogies and whatnot embedded throughout?

kieranwaldron

pone2012 wrote: »

Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

Or can you understand layers of metaphors, analogies and whatnot embedded throughout?

Not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, such as the parables of Jesus Christ for example.

I do accept that there are metaphors, analogies etc in the Bible, and therefore these should be interpreted in the context used.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I never studied " Christian/Catholic Theology " but I have studied the Bible. The reference that I quoted in my post is straight from the Bible, and furthermore it is from the mouth of Peter.

So you have a theology of one. A single view uninformed by any external input. No iron to sharpen iron, no building on the shoulders of giants. You've hit on the truth all on your own.

Definitely possible. Highly improbable.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you have a theology of one. A single view uninformed by any external input. No iron to sharpen iron, no building on the shoulders of giants. You've hit on the truth all on your own.

Definitely possible. Highly improbable.

Paul in his letter to Timothy said the following about the Bible : "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16). A person only needs the Bible as the source of the truth in this context.

Furthermore, my conclusion on the destiny of the wicked is not " a theology of one" as several Christian denominations agree with me that there is no such place as hell.

jigglypuffstuff

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, such as the parables of Jesus Christ for example.

I do accept that there are metaphors, analogies etc in the Bible, and therefore these should be interpreted in the context used.

What about the seven seals, the apple etc etc?

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Paul in his letter to Timothy said the following about the Bible : "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16). A person only needs the Bible as the source of the truth in this context.

Non sequitur. The need or lack of need of cooperation with others or input from the spirit so as to construct a more complete view isn't indicated.

As ever, you assume your way to the conclusions you do

Furthermore, my conclusion on the destiny of the wicked is not " a theology of one" as several Christian denominations agree with me that there is no such place as hell.

You must have studied their theology to conclude that. I thought you said you hadn't studied theology.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non sequitur. The need or lack of need of cooperation with others or input from the spirit so as to construct a more complete view isn't indicated.

As ever, you assume your way to the conclusions you do



You must have studied their theology to conclude that. I thought you said you hadn't studied theology.

There is no need for any other source of belief other than the Bible. If a Christian denomination has come up with a belief on a subject other than that stated in the Bible, then it is contradicting it.

I did not follow any theology other than that worked out for myself from the Bible, although I have compared my conclusions with the beliefs of various denominations as stated on their websites.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

There is no need for any other source of belief other than the Bible. If a Christian denomination has come up with a belief on a subject other than that stated in the Bible, then it is contradicting it.

You usually find folk link their beliefs back to somewhere in the Bible - even if you find you can argue of the validity of it. The RCC, for example, if actually having biblical authority to guide and determine and interpret, would be able to pronounce on things not necessarily found in the Bible.

I don't believe they have that authority, but if the Bible did give it then your point would fail.

I did not follow any theology other than that worked out for myself from the Bible, although I have compared my conclusions with the beliefs of various denominations as stated on their websites.

Fair enough. I do the same as you - even if being prepared to go a bit further and study what others have to say and the arguments they put forward to see if they ought be included in my own theology.

kieranwaldron

Two other Bible verses, one from the OT and one from the NT, regarding the destiny of the wicked came to my attention during the week. Using the NIV version of the Bible here they are:

" The Lord watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy ". ( Psalm 145: 20 )

"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9 ) .

The clear Scripture used in the above quotations cannot put anybody in doubt as to what happens to evildoers.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The clear Scripture used in the above quotations cannot put anybody in doubt as to what happens to evildoers.

Like Berlin was destroyed in WWII. Still existing, but ruined as a city?

Or did you mean the Great Leap Forward from destroy to annihilation?

Clear as mud

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like Berlin was destroyed in WWII. Still existing, but ruined as a city?

Or did you mean the Great Leap Forward from destroy to annihilation?

Clear as mud

The destruction of a wicked person cannot be compared to that of a city, which can always be rebuilt, therefore the analogy you used doesn't work. From once a person dies at the end of this life, he/she can only live again as a result of a resurrection authorised by God. The wicked are resurrected, judged and die again in the lake of fire known as the second death. God makes it plain though various verses in the Bible the latter is the end of them .i.e everlasting destruction.

If the Bible is as "clear as mud" , then you are engaging in criticism of God as He is the overall author of it.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The destruction of a wicked person cannot be compared to that of a city, which can always be rebuilt, therefore the analogy you used doesn't work.

The downside of analogies is that they can be stretched beyond the original intent.

There is nothing preventing God from reconstructing a ruined-but-not annhiliated person. That he indicates he won't do that means they will remain ruined. But reconstructed they could be if he so choose

The point was that destruction can't be taken to mean annhilation unless you've evidence to support it. Else you're reading your meaning into the script.

Eisegesis.

From once a person dies at the end of this life, he/she can only live again as a result of a resurrection authorised by God. The wicked are resurrected, judged and die again in the lake of fire known as the second death. God makes it plain though various verses in the Bible the latter is the end of them .i.e everlasting destruction.

We have already seen (and you agree) that the word "die" can't automatically be take to mean the end of a persons existence.

They can die and they can be destroyed, everlastingly .. without that meaning annihilation.

Your missing a of your jigsaw and continue dancing around on the head of a pin. I take it at this stage the missing piece will never be found?

If the Bible is as "clear as mud" , then you are engaging in criticism of God as He is the overall author of it.

Your take on it is what I was referring to. You can't make annihilation stick without assuming of the words used.

Clarity comes when all the pieces are in place. Not when bits are missing.

kelly1

Kieran, what is the point of "eternal fire" (Mt 25:41) if souls are destroyed in hell? The fire would be burning for nothing for eternity.

Also verse 46 says "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life".

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

The downside of analogies is that they can be stretched beyond the original intent.

There is nothing preventing God from reconstructing a ruined-but-not annhiliated person. That he indicates he won't do that means they will remain ruined. But reconstructed they could be if he so choose

The point was that destruction can't be taken to mean annhilation unless you've evidence to support it. Else you're reading your meaning into the script.

Eisegesis.


We have already seen (and you agree) that the word "die" can't automatically be take to mean the end of a persons existence.

They can die and they can be destroyed, everlastingly .. without that meaning annihilation.

Your missing a of your jigsaw and continue dancing around on the head of a pin. I take it at this stage the missing piece will never be found?


Your take on it is what I was referring to. You can't make annihilation stick without assuming of the words used.

Clarity comes when all the pieces are in place. Not when bits are missing.

The Bible makes it clear that the wicked suffer the second death in the lake of fire. The only possibility that they will ever live again is that God resurrects them. This will not happen because God has instructed that they die a second time because they are unworthy of everlasting life.

Your infatuation with the word " annihilation " is not necessary here. Furthermore, one online dictionary defines annihilation as follows:
" completely destroying or defeating someone or something "
Completely destroying the wicked is what God has outlined for them as stated
in numerous Bible verses.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Bible makes it clear that the wicked suffer the second death in the lake of fire.

And we know the word death can't necessarily be taken to mean non-existent. We know a person is dead before they are born again. Dead, yet existing.

We don't know what a persons existence status is between the time they die and the time they are resurrected. Do they exist or don't they?

Yet you carry on supposing "death" means non-existence.

Your infatuation with the word " annihilation " is not necessary here.

My infatuation with it stems from your constantly asserting death = utter non-existence. Annihilation is a word which encapsulates utter non-existance. It's your position isn't it?

You have a tendency to ignore the problem when challenged, leave boards for a while, then come back repeating the same old problematic position. Why are you maintaining a position you can't actually defend?

Furthermore, one online dictionary defines annihilation as follows:
" completely destroying or defeating someone or something "
Completely destroying the wicked is what God has outlined for them as stated
in numerous Bible verses.

Which verse uses words which indicate utter/complete/total destruction. Non-existance, in other words

Verses which use the word destroy and the word death don't count - for the reasons already given.

kieranwaldron

kelly1 wrote: »

Kieran, what is the point of "eternal fire" (Mt 25:41) if souls are destroyed in hell? The fire would be burning for nothing for eternity.

Also verse 46 says "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life".

Man does not have an immortal soul and there is no such place as hell -it is a mistranslation in the Bible. You have misinterpreted Matthew 25:41 which states : "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ". The fire isn't prepared for mankind but for the devil and his angles.

The " eternal punishment " in Matthew 25:46 is the separation of the wicked from God which lasts forever.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

And we know the word death can't necessarily be taken to mean non-existent. We know a person is dead before they are born again. Dead, yet existing.

We don't know what a persons existence status is between the time they die and the time they are resurrected. Do they exist or don't they?

Yet you carry on supposing "death" means non-existence.

My infatuation with it stems from your constantly asserting death = utter non-existence. Annihilation is a word which encapsulates utter non-existance. It's your position isn't it?

You have a tendency to ignore the problem when challenged, leave boards for a while, then come back repeating the same old problematic position. Why are you maintaining a position you can't actually defend?


Which verse uses words which indicate utter/complete/total destruction. Non-existance, in other words

Verses which use the word destroy and the word death don't count - for the reasons already given.

I answer your points in the order you made them as follows:

Dictionary.com online defines death as follows: " The end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism." That definition is good enough for me. I don't know where you got your assertion that " a person is dead before they are born again" from. You certainly did not get it from the Bible. Please reveal where you got it from ?

Death means in this context that a person has ceased to exist as a live functioning human.

This is an example of a Bible verse which implies the total destruction of the wicked: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." ( 2 Thess 1:9) ( The verse didn't say "total destruction" but that is what is meant by it.