‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @sonship
In the Bible there is no Plato like philosophy put forth systematically about the eternality of the soul. However, it is evident that the immaterial part of man is not non-existent when his physical life dies.

Systematically no formal teaching of eternal souls is taught.
But the evidence in many cases reveal physical death is not complete non-existence ...[text shortened]... tively proclaiming His victory over some beings in that realm of Hades, that sphere of the dead.

All these waffley posts by you go nowhere to justifying the horrible doctrine you adhere to.

Tell me sonship, you have said "the lost will glorify him (Jesus) in their woe" - how do you define "glory" in this instance? How does the eternal torture of billions of people through being burnt alive by Jesus, somehow in your twisted consciousness, bring glory to Jesus?

Originally posted by @sonship

I find your responses to my scenario wholly unsatisfactory.

I expect that.

Once I was involved in some building which required the chopping down of some trees. There was one large tree that was cut down and then cut into sections. Outside of each section the outer bark of the tree looked healthy and normal. Inside I was amazed t ...[text shortened]... on the outside. The Bible says that by works of the law no flesh will be justified before God.

Ah, got it. My kind and loving neighbour was rotten at her core, hence her eternal suffering being necessary to protect God's righteousness.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Ah, got it. My kind and loving neighbour was rotten at her core, hence her eternal suffering being necessary to protect God's righteousness.

As well as the implied suggestion that her every act of kindness was superficial and somehow without spiritual value. (yuck).

To my mind it is highly regrettable that not only that Christianity has preoccupied itself with these notions of sin, guilt and salvation, it has allowed itself to become associated with hate speech, hate crime and persecution of certain sections of society through the ages including our own. I don't believe that Jesus' message was anything like that, nor would he fail to recognise "that of God" (for want of a phrase) within any human, or human act of love and kindness.

Originally posted by @ragwort

To my mind it is highly regrettable that not only that Christianity has preoccupied itself with these notions of sin, guilt and salvation,

Salvation is the answer to the problems of sin ad guilt. It is not as if Christ only left us with sin and guilt. Christ gave to the world an accurate diagnosis of the problems WITH an rescue from them - namely salvation.

Where the "hate speech" in all this is I don't know.

Let's take the so-called Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5:1 - 7:29. Just taking this subsection, could you identify the words of "hate speech" for me there?

it has allowed itself to become associated with hate speech, hate crime and persecution of certain sections of society through the ages including our own.

It is true that hateful motives has tried to dignify itself under the banner of "Christian". This is a statement on the sin of fallen humans, that they would try to make noble their basest tendencies by proclaiming "God is on OUR side."

That's not the fault of the Gospel.
And we were given plenty of forewarning that such would happen.

I don't believe that Jesus' message was anything like that, nor would he fail to recognise "that of God" (for want of a phrase) within any human, or human act of love and kindness.

In the final analysis, Jesus' message was Himself. Ultimately He did not say He came with A way or He knew of A way or He would show A way.

He said He Himself was THE way. It is emphatic.

" Thomas said to Him, Lord, we do not know where You are going; how can we know the way?

Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:5,6)

Jesus pointed to a living Person, Himself, as "the way."

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Ah, got it. My kind and loving neighbour was rotten at her core, hence her eternal suffering being necessary to protect God's righteousness.

But Jesus gave His life for her. Your concern comes nowhere close to the concern of Jesus for her.

If you really loved her you should tell her that. Did you ever think to do that? That is that it was personal - God became a man and carried up her sins in His body on to the cross because He loved her.

It sounds like you are selfishly using her life only to rationalize your own desire to keep God out of your heart. Rather than seeking Christ's blood cleansing you from your own sins which you know, you are using her life as an excuse not to repent and believe the Son of God's dying for both of you.

It is only right for God to communicate to sinners that eternity without Him will not be enjoyable as you wish or imagine.

Originally posted by @sonship
But Jesus gave His life for her.

You seem to think she has a reason to believe this.

You're just projecting your own beliefs onto her, and doing so in a most sanctimonious way.

Originally posted by @sonship to Ghost of a Duke
If you really loved her you should tell her that [Jesus gave His life for her]. Did you ever think to do that?

Ghost of a Duke is an atheist.

Originally posted by @ragwort
As well as the implied suggestion that her every act of kindness was superficial and somehow without spiritual value. (yuck).

To my mind it is highly regrettable that not only that Christianity has preoccupied itself with these notions of sin, guilt and salvation, it has allowed itself to become associated with hate speech, hate crime and persecution of ...[text shortened]... ognise "that of God" (for want of a phrase) within any human, or human act of love and kindness.

A refresher in things biblical would benefit all who wish to consider the final reckoning.
The Book of Records--- the book which is opened when a person's name is not found in the Book of Lives--- is an exact accounting of a person's complete life's work.
All of it: the good, bad, the beautiful and the ugly.
Everyone receives their due credit for all of the good things they did in life.
Without question, humanity has amassed an impressive amount of good works, some of which will astound others to hear both in scope and magnitude.
No one will fail to receive their just, deserved reward.
The problem, of course, is the final disposition.
Really, who cares how much reward they get for a life lived nobly and in service to other people, if all of it is burned in the end?

Christianity has decidedly not concerned itself with "sin, guilt and salvation," except for those who would seek to profit from the scam.
The walking orders for Christians is to preach Christ and Him crucified.
Sin has been eradicated, completely removed from consideration--- even for the unbeliever.
Guilt is nothing more than an emotional reaction and otherwise void of value.
Salvation is the only issue, so there's literally nothing regrettable about any and all concentrations therein.

Any one espousing anything remotely resembling truth, reality or accountability will, in today's world, automatically be branded with the despicable and cowardly labels of "hate speech, hate crime and persecution," whether they welcome the association or not.
When intolerance becomes intolerable, we've done nothing more than exchange one religion for another.

Originally posted by @fmf
Ghost of a Duke is an atheist.

Apparently my atheism shouldn't prevent me from advising people to take Jesus in to their hearts. (To prevent eternal suffering). Not surprising, seeing as Sonship has also accused me of selfishly using the life of my 'hypothetical' neighbour.

Also worth noting Sonship's flippant underplay of 'suffering for eternity in the fires of hell', with, ' eternity without Him will not be enjoyable as you wish or imagine.'

In short, don't believe in God (irrespective of your reasons or earthly existence) and you will burn in hell.

Praise be to God. (|Who isn't at all diminished by such tyrannical cruelty).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Apparently my atheism shouldn't prevent me from advising people to take Jesus in to their hearts. (To prevent eternal suffering). Not surprising, seeing as Sonship has also accused me of selfishly using the life of my 'hypothetical' neighbour.

Also worth noting Sonship's flippant underplay of 'suffering for eternity in the fires of hell', with, ' ...[text shortened]... ll burn in hell.

Praise be to God. (|Who isn't at all diminished by such tyrannical cruelty).

sonship's recently reiterated categories of dissenters:

[1] engaged in demonic activity
[2] rotten to the core
[3] slimy
[4] engaged in sniffing strangers' lavatories

I kid you not.

Which would it be, if you were given the choice?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke

Apparently my atheism shouldn't prevent me from advising people to take Jesus in to their hearts.

The process of receiving Christ can be mysterious.
Sometimes those leading others to be killed, themselves, suddenly became Christians.
You honestly cannot tell how and how quickly that laser beam of reality will penetrate the darkness and enlighten one to the truth.

Maybe while someone are speaking to someone Christ will make Himself known to the speaker.

(To prevent eternal suffering). Not surprising, seeing as Sonship has also accused me of selfishly using the life of my 'hypothetical' neighbour.

Sonship could be completely wrong about that. I could be wrong.
Sonship does not carry out the FINAL examination of a man's heart.

But my Jesus, He will judge the secrets of men.

" In the day when God judges the secrets of men according to my gospel through Jesus Christ" (Rom .2:16)

Also worth noting Sonship's flippant underplay of 'suffering for eternity in the fires of hell', with, ' eternity without Him will not be enjoyable as you wish or imagine.'

I really think you should forget about sonship. To get to what you really want to figure out, you should see HOW Jesus took all this. Why did He do the things He did?

I think you should read through a couple of gospels though it may pain you to do so. And ask yourself -

"Why not did Jesus GO THROUGH these things? What was HIS thought as to why these things He went through were necessary?"

You should try to ascertain why it seemed important to Christ.
Then I trust you'll discover that Christ took our need to be redeemed seriously to the point of sacrificing Himself to the uttermost.

Then you might contemplate was He deceived. Was He mad. Or is there something vital and serious about what He did which we need to also take seriously.

In short, don't believe in God (irrespective of your reasons or earthly existence) and you will burn in hell.

Praise be to God. (Who isn't at all diminished by such tyrannical cruelty).

There are rapists and thieves who consider it tyrannical tyranny also that they must be punished with imprisonment. Could they convene a congress, they might vote that the punishment of their crimes be nonexistent of much less.

The Bible say God went to the uttermost to save us from our sins. He bore them as a man under the divine judgment of God.

There seems a strong correlation between failing to realize WHO it was nailed to that cross saying "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" and not understanding an "eternal sin".

You are trying to trivialize something that Someone, some extraordinary ONE, took seriously to the uttermost. And I don't mean sonship. I mean Jesus Who said and acted as the Son of God.

If there was nothing to it, you should explain to me why Jesus Christ took His need to die and rise for us SO utterly seriously. If it was not necessary and He was completely unworthy of execution, WHY did He under go it?

This is one thing He said just before going to Calvary.

"For this is My blood of the covenant which is being poured out for many for forgivenesss of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

And again in Luke.

"And He took the loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying,

This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, this cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:19-20)

I have to consider what KIND of person Jesus is.
I have to consider whether He seems deluded, lying, or mad.
Or if He speaks of a need of significance of a universal and eternal sense.

Don't trust atheism.

Originally posted by @sonship

Apparently my atheism shouldn't prevent me from advising people to take Jesus in to their hearts.

The process of receiving Christ can be mysterious.
Sometimes those leading others to be killed, themselves, suddenly became Christians.
You honestly cannot tell how and how quickly that laser beam of reality will penetrate the darkness and en ...[text shortened]... f He speaks of a need of significance of a universal and eternal sense.

Don't trust atheism.

There are two kinds of people in this world, those who are welcomed into the Kingdom of God and those who are cast out.

DOERS ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD
TALKERS ONLY WILL BE CAST OUT.

In this scenario of the woman was a doer, a helper, and one who showed LOVE AND COMPASSION to those in need. This the essence of the teachings of Christ. All that BS you wrote will get you nowhere except closer to damnation. Those who follow your doctrine will end up with the mouth worshiping hypocrites in the lake of fire.

Originally posted by @sonship

Let's take the so-called Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5:1 - 7:29. Just taking this subsection, could you identify the words of "hate speech" for me there?

No, because that's not the point I was making...

It is true that hateful motives has tried to dignify itself under the banner of "Christian".

but this was closer to it.

In the final analysis, Jesus' message was Himself. Ultimately He did not say He came with A way or He knew of A way or He would show A way.
He said He Himself was THE way. It is emphatic.

But he did also give teaching that applies to the way faithful lives could be lived in the here and now.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Ah, got it. My kind and loving neighbour was rotten at her core, hence her eternal suffering being necessary to protect God's righteousness.

Assuming you were intrinsically good would you ever love evil or would you hate it?

Originally posted by @freakykbh

The problem, of course, is the final disposition.
Really, who cares how much reward they get for a life lived nobly and in service to other people, if all of it is burned in the end?

Really? "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in" ?