Misc. Hell Responses

Originally posted by lemon lime
suit yourself

This is a spirituality debate forum Lemon Lime, being asked what your view is on a certain topic appertaining to spirituality and of which you are engaged in, is completely normal.

Originally posted by divegeester
I stand vociferously against this teaching because it is a appalling sleight on the nature of God, a barrier to the gospel, ludicrous in construct to even the simple minded, and morally bankrupt.

Unlike you I will not compromise my principles on this matter just because my buddy is a proponent of it here in this forum. You will. Other Christians lack ...[text shortened]... uscation and insults because they know the teaching is indefensible.

So who's the hypocrite?

"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eternal torment". I believe the souls of those found wanting at Judgement (those not found written in the Book of Life) will be sent to a "lake of fire" that will burn them up and this results in the "second death", or the death of the soul. The concept of "eternal torment" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But on the other side of the argument, I also believe that God's decision to remove the threat of those people living in Canaan (those who took advantage and moved in and took the land from Abraham's descendants when the Hebrews were in Egypt) when the Hebrews arrived from their time in Egypt was righteous (no matter that some others in this forum call that position "indefensible" also). I am not so sure that the teaching of "eternal torment" IS "indefensible". A case could certainly be made for it, and it would fall in line with the righteousness of God given in other examples (see above). We can certainly stand around and call God "morally bankrupt" all day long, but this of course does not mean that he is. His ways are not our ways. God is not man, and man is not God, they cannot be judged together in any similar way at all. If God decides that sending non-believers for "eternal torment" is righteous, then I am simply not equipped to argue with him. God cannot abide sin, and nothing God does can be called "sin" or "sinful". And whatever God chooses to do with them, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. It's his call, not mine. I don't think he would send people to "eternal torment" when he could just end their existence, but I could be wrong.

"it is you who repeatedly "lambasts" Rakj999, calling him a "hypocrite" and writing lengthy posts attacking his beliefs, and yet you attack me for attacking sonship because you think you think what he believes is "completely normal"." and "So who's the hypocrite?"

If there's any "hypocrisy" here, it might be that I attack Rajk for having "fringe" beliefs (that no Christian I know of supports), while I myself have the "fringe" belief (which a fair number of Christians believe also) of not believing in the concept of "eternal torment". It's just that I consider the topic of "salvation" a bit more important than where non-believers' souls end up after Judgement: "eternal torment" vs. "annihilation". Whichever it is, it probably won't affect anyone's salvation, and it is altogether possible that I could be wrong. I'd just rather talk about more interesting topics, like the "Good News" of salvation vs. taking other Christians to task publicly for believing what most Christians believe and what has been our religion's dogma for at least a couple thousand years.

You err if you think I attack your beliefs. I only attack your method of tilting at the mainstream windmill. Forum combat is fun and all, but it's most often done for the lulz and not for important topics. As lemon lime has said, you ask the same questions repeatedly, regardless of answer, hoping to finally hear what you want to hear. The tactics of FMF don't serve you very well here. In this forum, we Christians speak from the heart, sharing what we believe to be true. Arguing in the manner of those who argue just to seem better than others isn't really supposed to be an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eterna ...[text shortened]... an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

So many points! Let's take this one first because it sits at the heart of the lack of principles I see in this forum from Chrisitans every day.

As lemon lime has said, you ask the same questions repeatedly, regardless of answer, hoping to finally hear what you want to hear.

If I have been missing something then can you hand-on-heart and without conversing with Lemon Lime further, state now what he believes about eternal suffering?

Edit: several of the others also. Joesephw for example likes to chip in with posts in the "hell" threads; do you know what he believes of the subject? Because I'm sure I don't.

Why do I keep asking? If people engage on the topic and refuse to unequivocally state what they believe, I keep asking.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eterna ...[text shortened]... an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning

The phrase is not used in that way at all and certainly not by me. It is used by me to describe the teaching that Christ will torture billions of people in hell for eternity. That teaching is morally bankrupt, and you trying to twist its use to say I'm using against other posters is simply untrue.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eterna ...[text shortened]... an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

principles ok let's discuss those.

Let's discuss why Lemon Lime accuses me of all manner of unpleasant activity towards Christians because of my position on eternal suffering. He calls me awful things, I don't mind its not a problem. But he won't say wether or not he believes in what it is he is chastising me about. No principles.

You join the forum most days and start laying into other posters like Robbie carrobie or Rakj999 or FMF or me or whoever. And now here you are attacking me for attacking a belief you agree with me on! And why? Because those who support the teaching are your buddies. No principles. You allow your buddie list to dictate your posting.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eterna ...[text shortened]... an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

We can certainly stand around and call God "morally bankrupt" all day long, but this of course does not mean that he is.

I have never called God morally bankrupt as you well know, and trying to slip it in to your sonshipesque post is dishonest of you as it is simply not true.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eterna ...[text shortened]... an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

I'd just rather talk about more interesting topics, like the "Good News" of salvation vs. taking other Christians to task publicly for believing what most Christians believe and what has been our religion's dogma for at least a couple thousand years.

What have you done with the real Suzianne? 😵

Originally posted by divegeester
Let's keep it in the closet like exorcism.

Wait... what?

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.

Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eterna ...[text shortened]... an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

Finally.

There are some Christians in the thread who have told me that (despite me being a Christian) I deserve to got to hell for eternity for not believing what they think Christ taught about eternal suffering.

So I get called a christian basher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, more dangerous than satan, undermining the faith of Christians, attacking the teachings of Christianity.

Why? Because I stand against this horrible teaching which is so fiercely defended by these Christians, and I stand against it irrespective of who my buddies are.

Originally posted by divegeester
You join the forum most days and start laying into other posters like Robbie carrobie or Rakj999 or FMF or me or whoever. And now here you are attacking me for attacking a belief you agree with me on! And why? Because those who support the teaching are your buddies. No principles. You allow your buddie list to dictate your posting.

I told you what I meant and why.

Do I need to repeat myself, like you and FMF do, in order to get the idea across? Do you need to hear it again? Ok, fine...

You err if you think I attack your beliefs. I only attack your method of tilting at the mainstream windmill. Forum combat is fun and all, but it's most often done for the lulz and not for important topics. As lemon lime has said, you ask the same questions repeatedly, regardless of answer, hoping to finally hear what you want to hear. The tactics of FMF don't serve you very well here. In this forum, we Christians speak from the heart, sharing what we believe to be true. Arguing in the manner of those who argue just to seem better than others isn't really supposed to be an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.

And I daresay that this is precisely what lemon lime is "taking you to task" over, as well.

I "lay into" people for certain reasons, yet endlessly, I get people maligning those reasons, regardless of what I say, usually to suit their own ends. Did I not say you err if you think I attack your beliefs? How many times do I have to say it? I attack your methods. And I even mentioned how I am not so certain as you that I am right. And you would rather attach all kinds of external motivations to what I say. No principles? You know far better than that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I told you what I meant and why.

Do I need to repeat myself, like you and FMF do, in order to get the idea across? Do you need to hear it again? Ok, fine...

[b]You err if you think I attack your beliefs. I only attack your method of tilting at the mainstream windmill. Forum combat is fun and all, but it's most often done for the lulz and not for imp ...[text shortened]... all kinds of external motivations to what I say. No principles? You know far better than that.

In this forum, we Christians speak from the heart, sharing what we believe to be true.

I see you have appointed yourself as spokesperson for your group of "we Christians". Do you include me in that group? Do you include Rajk999? Do you include robbie carrobie?

Are those who call me: a christian basher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, more dangerous than satan, undermining the faith of Christians, attacking the teachings of Christianity, also part of this group and do they "speak from the heart, sharing what they believe to be true"?

Your hypocrisy is choking, but amusing nonetheless.

Originally posted by divegeester
So many points! Let's take this one first because it sits at the heart of the lack of principles I see in this forum from Chrisitans every day.

[b]As lemon lime has said, you ask the same questions repeatedly, regardless of answer, hoping to finally hear what you want to hear.

If I have been missing something then can you hand-on-heart and wit ...[text shortened]... f people engage on the topic and refuse to unequivocally state what they believe, I keep asking.[/b]

I think sometimes you refuse to listen to what they are saying. You have this bug up your butt about long posts, and if someone posts one, your eyes glaze over, and you just pass it by, only to ask them again a few posts later.

If someone says "On this matter I believe God. I believe the Bible." I'm pretty sure that what they are saying is that you can jot down on your little list keeping track of what others believe (like a scorecard of who you can attack for not believing as you do) that they believe exactly what the mainstream believes about whatever that topic is. To some, the Bible seems quite clear that it means what everybody else thinks it means, and when they say something like "I believe what God says in the Bible", then this is what they mean. Unless directly asked, it is NOT up to those in the mainstream to defend their beliefs. For those of us on the "fringe" it is up to us to convince others, not the other way around. They already hold the majority opinion.

As evidence for what I say, I'm pretty sure that both josephw and lemon lime agree with the mainstream and believe in the doctrine of "eternal torment" for unrepentant sinners (which includes non-believers, btw). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that KellyJay and sonship also believe it, and that they all (all 4 of these) share the same opinion of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage and evolution. Not so sure about YEC, I'm guessing they would split 2-2 on that one. They can both chime in here with their statements of disagreement if I have their positions wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. They call it the "mainstream" for a reason. The "mainstream" IS what most people (the majority) believe.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think sometimes you refuse to listen to what they are saying. You have this bug up your butt about long posts, and if someone posts one, your eyes glaze over, and you just pass it by, only to ask them again a few posts later.

If someone says "On this matter I believe God. I believe the Bible." I'm pretty sure that what they are saying is that you ca ...[text shortened]... it the "mainstream" for a reason. The "mainstream" IS what most people (the majority) believe.

Unless directly asked, it is NOT up to those in the mainstream to defend their beliefs. For those of us on the "fringe" it is up to us to convince others, not the other way around. They already hold the majority opinion.

What utter nonsense. Surely you you are not proposing here that those in the mainstream are not to be challenged about thier beliefs on an Internet forum board designed for debating that very thing?

Edit: besides, I am "directly asking them".

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think sometimes you refuse to listen to what they are saying. You have this bug up your butt about long posts, and if someone posts one, your eyes glaze over, and you just pass it by, only to ask them again a few posts later.

If someone says "On this matter I believe God. I believe the Bible." I'm pretty sure that what they are saying is that you ca ...[text shortened]... it the "mainstream" for a reason. The "mainstream" IS what most people (the majority) believe.

For those of us on the "fringe" it is up to us to convince others, not the other way around. They already hold the majority opinion.

The subject of the teaching of what happens to unbelievers after death is one of the most important issues after the deity of Christ, the attonement etc.

For you to call call it a "minor point of Chrisitan doctrine" and put up an argument that because the "mainstream" (whoever they are - surely you don't mean the Christian representatives in this forum do you!) believe X then those with opposing views should prove Y first is an unbelievably naive thing to say.

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]In this forum, we Christians speak from the heart, sharing what we believe to be true.

I see you have appointed yourself as spokesperson for your group of "we Christians". Do you include me in that group? Do you include Rajk999? Do you include robbie carrobie?

Are those who call me: a christian basher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, more dange ...[text shortened]... t, sharing what they believe to be true"?

Your hypocrisy is choking, but amusing nonetheless.[/b]

"I see you have appointed yourself as spokesperson for your group of "we Christians". Do you include me in that group? Do you include Rajk999? Do you include robbie carrobie?"

Yes, you, me, Rajk, robbie. All Christians. When I say "we Christians", obviously I am talking about "all Christians". I'm obviously part of that group, and so I use the pronoun "we". Don't go this way. This is how FMF argues, with semantics. What I mean is like that commercial for "Hebrew National Hot Dogs"... "We answer to a higher authority."

"Are those who call me: a christian basher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, more dangerous than satan, undermining the faith of Christians, attacking the teachings of Christianity, also part of this group and do they "speak from the heart, sharing what they believe to be true"?

Clearly, if they are Christian, then they are included. My point is that Christians, as a group, and especially when they speak to one another, don't make a point of "lying". We understand the injunction against "bearing false witness". And it's not exactly part of "loving your neighbor".

And still, it's my contention that you receive this negative attention due mainly to your *methods*, NOT your *message*.

"Your hypocrisy is choking, but amusing nonetheless."

Sorry, I don't see the hypocrisy. If you think I'm lying, then come right out and say I'm lying, don't couch it in weaker words.