‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @sonship
It is more plausible that Luke was faithful than was lying.
Now you can doubt if you wish.

He was a traveling companion with Paul. And he did journalistic research. His history has been vindicated a number of times.

The last I recall is that Luke mentions a pavement upon which Jesus stood to be judged by Pilate. For some years archeaologists said no ...[text shortened]...
I trust that the words of Jesus in [b]Luke 12 were "carefully investigated" as well.[/b]

This is not proof sonship. You are using the Bible to substantiate the Bible, it is as FMF says, circular logic.

The case against your teaching of eternal suffering is one of it violating common morality, common justice, common sense and yes, the righteousness and mercy of God as laid out throughout the Bible and withstanding your symbolisms and parables.

Originally posted by @fmf
You mean you are specifically asking Ghost of a Duke to provide a circular argument - from the text itself - that somehow trumps the circular argument that you subscribe to?

Nope. I am expecting him to go to perhaps one of the higher critics, like Professor Bart Erhman, and show why (if there is research) that those particular verses are likely latter emendations.

With absolute certainty I do not expect either of us to "prove" the authenticity or non-authenticity of the words as from Christ.

I have good reason to believe He spoke them.
Does he have good reason to believe He did not speak them?

"Well, its all bogus Judiastic cult revisionism, a new phony religion, the entire New Testament" is just throwing dust up into the air. That's your escape.

Originally posted by @sonship
Nope. I am expecting him to go to perhaps one of the higher critics, like Professor Bart Erhman, and show why (if there is research) that those particular verses are likely latter emendations.

With absolute certainty I do not expect either of us to "prove" the authenticity or non-authenticity of the words as from Christ.

I have good reason to belie ...[text shortened]... y religion, the entire New Testament" is just throwing dust up into the air. That's your escape.

Hang on. You specifically said you wanted him to "present his textural critical case that Jesus did not speak the words of Luke 12:3,4". Do you even know what a circular argument is?

Originally posted by @sonship
Nope. I am expecting him to go to perhaps one of the higher critics, like Professor Bart Erhman, and show why (if there is research) that those particular verses are likely latter emendations.

With absolute certainty I do not expect either of us to "prove" the authenticity or non-authenticity of the words as from Christ.

I have good reason to belie ...[text shortened]... y religion, the entire New Testament" is just throwing dust up into the air. That's your escape.

Your defence that the most horrible concept ever created by mankind (eternal suffering), which is infinitely worse than anything done by every despot, every torturer, every terrorist all rolled into one, is actually true and in your opinion represents “ultimate justice” for people who fail to believe in god....and because you think that is what is written in a book....is laughable and at the same time quite a scary representation of what religious indoctrination can do to a person.

Originally posted by @divegeester
This is not proof sonship. You are using the Bible to substantiate the Bible, it is as FMF says, circular logic.

The case against your teaching of eternal suffering is one of it violating common morality, common justice, common sense and yes, the righteousness and mercy of God as laid out throughout the Bible and withstanding your symbolisms and parables.

This is not proof sonship.

None of this is absolute "proof" in a mathematical sense.
Good evidence is good enough.

You are using the Bible to substantiate the Bible, it is as FMF says, circular logic.

So when I argue for the authenticity of Luke 12 it is wrong circular logic. But you, being a good Unitarian, argue for "His mercy endures forever" from Psalm 136 that that's not unreliable circular argument.

Are you selectively complaining of circular logic only with passages you hate?

The case against your teaching of eternal suffering is one of it violating common morality, common justice, common sense and yes, the righteousness and mercy of God as laid out throughout the Bible and withstanding your symbolisms and parables.

Regardless of how symbolic I take a "lake of fire" it does not remove the sense that at all costs, it is something to be avoided. And Christ's salvation is the way to saved.

I have long understood your approach to drive the literal details to see if you can arrive at the absurd.

Regardless of how a take the verses about eternal separation from God as symbolic as to their details, the overall sense remains - It is a destiny worse that physical death.

Sometimes I think that what is being shown may be that the personality is becomming in eternity, more and more just like that of Satan. I wouldn't be too dogmatic about this.

But positively, the saved are conformed to the image of Christ the Firstborn Son (Rom. 8:28,29). Maybe, the lost are morphed into what reflects exactly what Satan became.

But I don't know this. Don't press me on it.
You all think I am a piece of stone or wood without human feeling, and have not contemplated these things. You think I just go along without feeling or thinking.

I believe the Bible. But I do also consider what it is that I am being told and should believe.

Originally posted by @sonship
But you, being a good Unitarian....

Stop pouting sonship.

Torturing people in hell by burning them alive for eternity is a disgusting notion. That Jesus, the prince of peace, the man/god who so loved the “world” and who’s mercy endures forever...will be present and overseeing is a laughable interpretation of the spirit of God’s redemption, his character and justice.


In Isaiah god says to man: “Come let us reason together....”

In Deuteronomy (I think): “Will not the god of all the earth do what is right?”

Originally posted by @sonship
So when I argue for the authenticity of Luke 12 it is wrong circular logic.

When you argue that a text is true because the text itself says it is true, or you declare a text is true therefore the things it says are true, that is circular logic. You must have encountered the concept of circular logic before. When you say you want Ghost of a Duke to "present his textural critical case that Jesus did not speak the words of Luke 12:3,4", what are you expecting from him?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Stop pouting sonship.

Torturing people in hell by burning them alive for eternity is a disgusting notion. That Jesus, the prince of peace, the man/god who so loved the “world” and who’s mercy endures forever...will be present and overseeing is laughable interpretation of the spirit of ?God’s redemption, his character and justice.

With you being debunk is the other person "pouting". Got it.

Originally posted by @sonship
With you being debunk is the other person "pouting". Got it.

No, you calling me a “good Unitarian” is a silly comment which has nothing to do with me as moral/good person nor has it anything to do with the teaching of eternal suffering. It is YOU pouting and sounding off.

Originally posted by @sonship
With you being debunk is the other person "pouting". Got it.

Address the content of my post if you want to, argue your case for Jesus torturing one person for eternity for them rejecting him from a moral or common sense standpoint and stop hiding behind a bunch of pseudo-academic text which does not address the point.

The Jesus I know will NEVER be in hell supervising the eternal torture of billions of people he has predestined to be there. It’s horrendous nonsense.

Originally posted by @sonship

Is not the true indication of power in knowing when not to use it? Isn't it a tyrant who deploys every ounce of their authority,....not a wise and loving God?

First things first ... Do you believe the traveling companion of the Apostle Paul, [b]Luke, was faithful to write what were words of Jesus there in Luke 12 ?

...[text shortened]... a bit. Now can you provide evidence that all these words (Luke 12:1-7 or so) Jesus didn't say ?[/b]

Your post positively wreaks of churlishness. To aid discussion I have already agreed to accept the words of Jesus were his own, even though (for reasons given) I find this extremely unlikely and in the knowledge that you can not evidence that the words 'were' his own. (Irrespective of how much you want them to be). I am far more interested in discussing your perceived understanding of those words rather than being stuck on your silly merry go round of trying to prove or disprove their veracity. (Which we'll never agree on and is clearly a delaying tactic).

Originally posted by @divegeester
Stop pouting sonship.

Torturing people in hell by burning them alive for eternity is a disgusting notion. That Jesus, the prince of peace, the man/god who so loved the “world” and who’s mercy endures forever...will be present and overseeing is a laughable interpretation of the spirit of God’s redemption, his character and justice.


In Isaiah god ...[text shortened]... together....”

In Deuteronomy (I think): “Will not the god of all the earth do what is right?”

I'd even go a step further than that.

Take for example my (hypothetical) elderly neighbour, a woman who, although not perfect, has spent her life caring for others and is genuinely loving and kind. She is however a non-believer, perhaps having suffered much in her life and unable to reconcile this with the notion of an an omnibenevolent deity. - Now to burn anybody alive for all eternity is indeed a disgusting concept, but sonship's God would do the same to this kind and loving neighbour, simply because she didn't believe in him,......and wait for it,.........in accordance with his righteousness. She simply would have to burn to keep Him righteous.

Awful, just awful.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I'd even go a step further than that.

Take for example my (hypothetical) elderly neighbour, a woman who, although not perfect, has spent her life caring for others and is genuinely loving and kind. She is however a non-believer, perhaps having suffered much in her life and unable to reconcile this with the notion of an an omnibenevolent deity. - ...[text shortened]... h his righteousness. She simply would have to burn to keep Him righteous.

Awful, just awful.

It’s a fine thing that god isn’t really like that.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Oh so you don’t have any issue with my OP then?

Btw Your avoidance of answering the original question is noted.

Why are you arguing against what you already know?
Your OP was in error.
It is not a small matter.

Originally posted by @rajk999
The Bible according to Freaky

[i]Q : Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life.

A: It is not divine righteousness which leads to salvation: it is divine justice. God's righteousness was satisfied by the work performed on the cross by the Christ when He bore ALL sin in His body. This body was specifically designed for that express purpos ...[text shortened]... the Bible and certainly you will find nowhere that Jesus says anything remotely resembling this.

Please tell me the chord I struck which you find in error.