|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God the father | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No. Hell is nothing more than the grave, which is where we all end up eventually. If one was to receive eternal torment as taught, then the person would still be "living".IOW being tormented throughout his eternal life, but only the righteous receive eternal life. Therefore the punishment is death, which is eternal in the sense that it is a permanent judgment. No resurrection. Eternal life is for the righteous and all others just cease to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:By Rich Man, I'm assuming you mean the parable that starts at Luke 16:20. The point of the Beggar Man/Rich Man story is that our final judgment is not based on our wealth or position in society. We can be condemned for misusing our resources. The Greek Hades is just the backdrop to the story. Both the Beggar and the Rich Man were in Hades. All the dead go to Hades. Mark 9:47-48 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' The reference here is Gehenna, not Hades. The valley became the cities incinerator and a vivid symbol of destruction and an abomination. Apparently they even added sulphur or brimstone to keep the fires burning continuously. The fire burned continuously, the criminals weren't tortured continuously. If one was thrown into Gehenna, one was a criminal. The point was to get rid of that which causes one to stumble and prevent one from becoming a criminal. This was not a visual of eternal torment. It was a visual of a dishonorable death. You need to provide the specific scriptures. I think you're paraphrasing and it is difficult to address an issue when you're mixing pieces.
quote:Where does Jesus teach this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I don't really understand your point. We all die. quote:A hypothetical situation doesn't really work well if the scenario isn't the same. It isn't about God stopping anyone from dying, everyone dies; it is about who will be restored to life. A parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. Ultimately the child has to want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Why does that make a difference? Until they are adults, parents are the authority or ruler over their children. One parent ruling more "kingdoms" doesn't change that we can only do so much to influence our children. At some point it is up to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You didn't answer the question. Why does omnipotence make a difference? Why would an omnipotent parent be able to do more? As I said in Message 47: Ultimately the child has to want to.It isn't about God stopping anyone from dying, everyone dies; it is about who will be restored to life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I didn't say their "wants", I said they have to want to. IOW, people have to want to change their behavior. Babies and toddlers learning about the dangers around them is not the issue. You're moving away from the original point I was addressing in Message 47. The scenario given wasn't necessarily about a dependent child. It wasn't specific, but could go either way. It was an analogy concerning eternal torment.
quote:You still haven't explained why. Why does omnipotence make a difference? This is the second time I've asked. Why would an omnipotent parent ensure that all their children were restored to life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That doesn't answer the question. quote:Saying that doesn't mean that they can or explain what an omnipotent parent would do that a human parent wouldn't. quote:You're the one that says there's a difference. What is the difference? This is my third request.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:All you've said is one can and one can't, but you haven't explained why one can and one can't. You've also not provided any support for your reasoning. The Judeo/Christian God is described as El Shaddai in the Old Testament and pantodrator in the New Testament. These are the words that lead to the idea of omnipotence.
The meaning of Shaddai is difficult to establish. Septuagint and Vulgate translate with Almighty (pantokrator and omnipotens) but that's probably more out of enthusiasm than out of sound etymology (it really doesn't mean that). Some say that this name is derived from the verb shadad (shadad), meaning to destroy, hence: My Destroyer. Others furiously refute this because this meaning would go against the nature of God. Isaiah, however, seems to be in the camp of the first when he writes, "Wail, for the day of YHWH is near. It will come as destruction (shad) from Shaddai (13:6)" Pantokrator deals more with ruling authority, supreme authority. God gave them rules and consequences to guide their behavior, just like human parents.
Panda writes: An omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life.Whereas an omnipotent parent would do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. Omnipotence has nothing to do with whether one would or could do any more to help their "child" survive or succeed in life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Omnipotence is more about ruling authority. See Message 70. quote:But he didn't. How do you know an omnipotent creator could have done that? You're presenting all these characteristics for an omnipotent being. What omnipotent being are they based on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You need to show me that omnipotence does mean the ability to do anything. Saying it doesn't mean it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Excuse me, but I'm not the one who brought up omnipotence. Rahvin did. You jumped on my Message 54 which said: Until they are adults, parents are the authority or ruler over their children. One parent ruling more "kingdoms" doesn't change that we can only do so much to influence our children. At some point it is up to them. Deals with ruling. Just because you didn't read or comprehend the whole post is not my problem. I asked you three times to explain the difference and you provided no support or meanings. How dare you insinuate that I'm being deceitful because you didn't read carefully. You had your chance to explain and didn't. Well, Pot, perhaps if you had explained what definition you were using we could have made some headway. Since it pertains to God, I look to see how it is used in the Bible when referring to God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Love that movie! The definition doesn't say the ability to do anything. God can do what he is able to do and wants to do. God was unable to remove evil from the world or didn't want to. I would say unable given his disappointment. The New Testament deals more with dominion, not ability. In relation to this topic, I was trying to give subbie answers supported by the Bible. I wasn't trying to support dogma or tradition. Not my style. IMO, it is easier to withstand a sales pitch when one has more facts at their disposal. If we're just making stuff up, then anything goes. The churches still have to have some basis for claiming God can do anything. I'm saying it isn't supported in the Bible. So saying an omnipotent parent could or would do more than a human parent has no basis. It's fiction. God uses rules and consequences just like human parents.Everyone dies and God decides who he wants to bring back. Hopefully Christians have been reading the right rule book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Children weren't quite so "sacred" in the first century. Ancient Rome The paterfamilias had absolute rule over his household and children. If they angered him, he had the legal right to disown his children, sell them into slavery or even kill them. Ancient Greeks The historical Greeks considered the practice of adult and child sacrifice barbarous.[26] However, exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece. In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father's, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders.[27] Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.[28] This very situation was a recurring motif in Greek mythology.[29] To notify the neighbors of a birth of a child, a woolen strip was hung over the front door - this indicated a female baby. An olive branch indicated a boy had been born. Families did not always keep their new child. After a woman had a baby, she would show it to her husband. If the husband accepted it, it would live, but if he refused it, it would die. Babies would often be rejected if they were illegitimate, unhealthy or deformed, the wrong sex (female for example), or too great a burden on the family. These babies would not be directly killed, but put in a clay pot or jar and deserted outside the front door or on the roadway. In ancient Greek religion, this practice took the responsibility away from the parents because the child would die of natural causes, for example hunger, asphyxiation or exposure to the elements. The Jews considered infanticide to be a crime for humans. From what I've read in the Bible, I don't think the same applied to God. This is the backdrop for the New Testament. Religion evolves with society. It may lag a bit, but if we bring God up to today's standards, odds are he will bring everyone to life since we don't like seeing anyone lose out or not bring anyone back at all. Of course that would depend on when he decides to do this. A few ages from now, who knows what the prevailing feelings will be. Another possibility since people feel that omnipotent means God can do whatever we dream up, God will probably wake up from this horrible vision and rethink his plans for this planet.
Types of love in the Bible The Greek words Eros (sensual love) and Storge (family love) are not used in relation to God or Jesus in the New Testament. Agape (selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love) is used in relation to God.
1 John 4:16 (90-120CE) And so we know and rely on the love (agape) God has for us. God is love (agape). Whoever lives in love (agape) lives in God, and God in him. Parents try to train their children to behave a certain way. Some children are easier to train than others. We set rules and consequences. When our child breaks the rules, we still love them; but they still suffer the consequences. One child breaks the rules and one doesn't; then one child suffers the consequences and the other receives the "prize". The idea that everyone gets candy no matter how they behave isn't an incentive to behave. The idea is that if you want to go to the after party, your name has to be on the list. To make the list you have to meet a certain criteria. It's one way to get adults to behave and play well together. Hopefully Christians have the right set of instructions. As with any parent; God can always change his mind at any time. Edited by purpledawn, : Changed Subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Once our children become adults and choose their lifestyle, we still love them unconditionally; but they may or may not be welcome visitors without behavior changes. quote:Yes it is a way to control people. Jesus' Teaching On Hell Where Did the Concept of Endless Torment Originate?As we’ve seen, it most certainly did not originate in the Old Testament, either before or during the Mosaic Law. A great deal of evidence (more than we’ll give here) suggests that it originated in Egypt, and the concept was widespread in the religious world. Augustine, commenting on the purpose of such doctrines, said: This seems to have been done on no other account, but as it was the business of princes, out of their wisdom and civil prudence, to deceive the people in their religion; princes, under the name of religion, persuaded the people to believe those things true, which they themselves knew to be idle fables; by this means, for their own ease in government, tying them the more closely to civil society. (Augustine, City of God, Book IV, p. 32, cited by Thayer, Origin & History, p. 37.) Contriving doctrines to control people? Who would have believed it? Well, the Greek world did, the Roman world did, and evidently between the testaments, the Jews got involved, as well, as the concept of endless torment began appearing in the apocryphal books written by Egyptian Jews. The picture Jesus painted with Gehenna was the destruction of the criminal's body in the fire. The idea being that the body is destroyed so there isn't anything to resurrect. So behave so you don't get burned up as a criminal. For all we know God may have a good reason for not wanting to resurrect wicked people. Maybe the process doesn't work right with a wicked soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The OP presented the issue of eternal suffering. I showed that the Bible writings don't support that the wicked suffer eternally. Message 34
Truth About Hell quote:They have a life time to change their behavior and don't, then they have an eternity to change their behavior. What's the incentive to change? What is taking place in your Purgatory to cause them to change their behavior?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024