- what's the alternative to hell? what if there is no punishment for wickedness? what if it doesn't matter what anyone does or believes, but God ignores all sin and all evil? what kind of god would that be?
- is it up to us to decide how God judges, and what is real or not? do our opinions shape or define facts? does God only do what we think He should do? does it matter at all if we approve or not?
- if we disagree with God, what are we going to do about it? sue Him in god-court before a panel of god-judges? 'punish' or 'reprimand' God by disbelieving or cursing Him, so incurring on ourselves the same wrath?
Hell Is Evil
- Thread starter Jruiz
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
For me it's not a moral dilemma as much as a scriptural one and my very limited human logic. The wage of sin to begin with is death. And there's a lot of reference to eternal death for the wicked. Death and torture aren't the same thing.
Would I sit there and argue with God if He did issue an unlimited, torturous Hell for the wicked? Nope, because He knows more about justice than I ever will.
But with my human understanding of justice, a torturous Hell doesn't make sense. Also, today's idea of this torturous Hell wasn't the universal idea in the church until Dante's Inferno was written I believe.
Would I sit there and argue with God if He did issue an unlimited, torturous Hell for the wicked? Nope, because He knows more about justice than I ever will.
But with my human understanding of justice, a torturous Hell doesn't make sense. Also, today's idea of this torturous Hell wasn't the universal idea in the church until Dante's Inferno was written I believe.
He'll isn't evil. This used to perplex me too but as we seek God and get to know His goodness it becomes apparent that He is completely justified in His judgements. Human rational thinking, I don't think can understand this, nor do I think this can be just taught to someone. They need to get it for themselves through getting to know God.
A
Are you actually falsely asserting that the original followers of Jesus Christ did not believe in the virginal conception and birth? If so, you are wrong. The virgin birth is common to all mainstream orthodox Christian confessions. In the early church it was questioned only by ebionites (who denied Jesus’ deity) and by docetists (who denied his true humanity). It was included in the early creeds and is affirmed today in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
The significance of the virginal conception indicates not merely that Jesus was God’s Son through the Holy Spirit, but that Jesus was a unique person who was the product of both the divine and the human in a manner unlike any others before or since. John saw the relationship of a virginal conception to the doctrine of the incarnation of a pre-existent Son (e.g. John 1:13).
The birth of Jesus is presented as a miraculous or supernatural occurrence. Obviously, people like yourself who reject the possibility of supernatural events in principle will obviously not be able to accept what God did. However, the evidence is clear that the early church did accept the fact of Christ's virginal conception and birth.
Though available examples are too numerous to list here, I'll offer some anyways. Paul, the companion of Luke, uses language that implies acceptance of the virgin birth. When he speaks of the coming, or birth, of Jesus Christ, he uses the general verb, ginomai, not gennao, which tends to associate the husband (e.g. Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7). This is particularly marked in Gal. 4:4, where ‘God sent forth his Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman’. By contrast, in 4:23 Ishmael ‘was born’, gegennētai (from gennao).
Matthew and Luke do not present Mary as impregnated by the Holy Spirit (as though Jesus had a human mother and a divine father) but as conceiving miraculously without male intervention at all. Their two records give the contents of what they were told, namely, that Mary was to be the mother of the promised Messiah, the Son of God and ‘God with us’. The fact that Matthew and Luke do not here reflect later theology is a further argument for the authenticity of their records.
Furthermore, this was prophesied. Isaiah’s text plainly says “the virgin” (note the definite article, denoting a specific virgin) “shall conceive.” The passage does not speak of a virgin who would marry (thus surrendering her virginity) and then conceive. She conceives as a virgin.
The significance of the virginal conception indicates not merely that Jesus was God’s Son through the Holy Spirit, but that Jesus was a unique person who was the product of both the divine and the human in a manner unlike any others before or since. John saw the relationship of a virginal conception to the doctrine of the incarnation of a pre-existent Son (e.g. John 1:13).
The birth of Jesus is presented as a miraculous or supernatural occurrence. Obviously, people like yourself who reject the possibility of supernatural events in principle will obviously not be able to accept what God did. However, the evidence is clear that the early church did accept the fact of Christ's virginal conception and birth.
Though available examples are too numerous to list here, I'll offer some anyways. Paul, the companion of Luke, uses language that implies acceptance of the virgin birth. When he speaks of the coming, or birth, of Jesus Christ, he uses the general verb, ginomai, not gennao, which tends to associate the husband (e.g. Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7). This is particularly marked in Gal. 4:4, where ‘God sent forth his Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman’. By contrast, in 4:23 Ishmael ‘was born’, gegennētai (from gennao).
Matthew and Luke do not present Mary as impregnated by the Holy Spirit (as though Jesus had a human mother and a divine father) but as conceiving miraculously without male intervention at all. Their two records give the contents of what they were told, namely, that Mary was to be the mother of the promised Messiah, the Son of God and ‘God with us’. The fact that Matthew and Luke do not here reflect later theology is a further argument for the authenticity of their records.
Furthermore, this was prophesied. Isaiah’s text plainly says “the virgin” (note the definite article, denoting a specific virgin) “shall conceive.” The passage does not speak of a virgin who would marry (thus surrendering her virginity) and then conceive. She conceives as a virgin.
There are people who think that when God "destroys" the wicked,
that "destroy" means nothing more or less than "cease to exist".
No hellfire, no torment... "destroy" just means to "cease to exist".
Hmmm.... ok.
Let's play a little game.
Give me one example, give me one example ANYWHERE, anywhere in the known universe,
where the word "destroy" means "cease to exist".
That simply isn't what the words means.
That simply isn't how the word is used.
Never.
Yesterday I "destroyed" a coffee cup, in fact, I "annihilated" it... and guess what?
It did NOT cease to exist.
It did however cease to be a useful coffee cup.
: )
that "destroy" means nothing more or less than "cease to exist".
No hellfire, no torment... "destroy" just means to "cease to exist".
Hmmm.... ok.
Let's play a little game.
Give me one example, give me one example ANYWHERE, anywhere in the known universe,
where the word "destroy" means "cease to exist".
That simply isn't what the words means.
That simply isn't how the word is used.
Never.
Yesterday I "destroyed" a coffee cup, in fact, I "annihilated" it... and guess what?
It did NOT cease to exist.
It did however cease to be a useful coffee cup.
: )
Last edited:
Not falsely. The original followers of Jesus were the Ebionites, as Eusebius called them. They were the Jewish Christians, though perhaps it is not really proper to give them the Christian label as they were strict followers of the Law. As Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18) and the Ebionites held to this command. These are the people who Paul persecuted. Eusebius says they did not accept the virgin birth. Note that "The Pauline epistles, the earliest surviving Christian writings, refer to Jesus' mother without stating that she was a virgin" so this might be a later development (Wikipedia). At the very least it seems not important enough to Paul for him to mention it.
Oh, Isaiah says nothing about a virgin birth. That's a mistranslation, and in any case it has nothing to do with the time of Jesus. When you read the whole passage you recognize that there is no connection.
Oh, Isaiah says nothing about a virgin birth. That's a mistranslation, and in any case it has nothing to do with the time of Jesus. When you read the whole passage you recognize that there is no connection.
And yet there are many who believe in everlasting torment in Hell, so there must be scripture somewhere that supports the view.
I imagine arguing would be fruitless and would most likely land you in Hell for insubordination.
And there's the rub, isn't it? Here's the problem, we live by higher standards of forgiveness than did the ancients who practiced a very severe form of justice. For them everlasting Hell made perfect sense. Their enemies were not being punished in their life times so they wanted God to hand out justice in death; hence, everlasting Hell.
Unless you take Matthew at his word: "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire." (Matt. 18:8). Or, if you prefer: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," (Matthew. 25:46). I believe there are more, but truly, just one passage is enough.
So whatever you choose to belief there is a scriptural passage for you.
I imagine arguing would be fruitless and would most likely land you in Hell for insubordination.
And there's the rub, isn't it? Here's the problem, we live by higher standards of forgiveness than did the ancients who practiced a very severe form of justice. For them everlasting Hell made perfect sense. Their enemies were not being punished in their life times so they wanted God to hand out justice in death; hence, everlasting Hell.
Unless you take Matthew at his word: "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire." (Matt. 18:8). Or, if you prefer: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," (Matthew. 25:46). I believe there are more, but truly, just one passage is enough.
So whatever you choose to belief there is a scriptural passage for you.
N
You stated in the OP that you watched Muslims doing this. These kinds of videos cause people to hate. Know that I am a Christian, but also know that we need to remember not ALL Muslims are heinous, violent people. (Just like most Germans are not Nazis). In fact, those who are raised Muslim in the East are raised quite differently from those raised Muslim in the West. In actuality it is a peaceful religion, as taught in the west. There are those who firmly believe if you aren't Muslim you deserve to die and if they don't do it, Allah will. There is honor in it. But MOST Muslims believe in maintaining peace, compassion, loving one another.
I am currently reading Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus; A Devout Muslims journey to Christianity (author; Nabeel Quershi) It is fascinating and hard to put down. I highly recommend it.
I am currently reading Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus; A Devout Muslims journey to Christianity (author; Nabeel Quershi) It is fascinating and hard to put down. I highly recommend it.
A
No, I'm right and you're wrong. They were a legalistic vegetarian cult that branched off the apostolic church resisting most of the apostles and violently opposing Paul falsely asserting that he had undergone a demoniacal hallucination when in reality Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus and been converted by Christ Himself.
It's completely fallacious to wrongly assert that the Ebionites represent the original Christian church when, in reality, they were a break away uber-legalistic sect from it with many of them eventually drifting into Gnosticism. You've obviously been reading the false assertions of Bauer and Ehrman. They have a completely false view of Christian history and theology so when you reassert their false assertions it's literally the blind leading the blind.
The Ebionites originated in Palestine and sought salvation through works via their unique modified version of the Mosaic law (including circumcision and the sabbath) in contradiction to Christ's fulfillment and introduction of a new covenant. They used only the Gospel of Matthew. It is possible that they also possessed a Gospel of the Hebrews, though this is reported only in later sources. By the time of Theodoret, they were extinct.
And the heretical 'Gospel of the Ebionites' is not canonical nor the earliest Christian publication. Matthew has been dated between A.D. 65 and 85; Mark, between the early A.D. 50s and 65; Luke, between the early A.D. 60s and 80s; and John, between the A.D. 60s and 90s. Though there will be some disagreement in the standard commentaries on the four Gospels about which decade in the first century a book was written, nearly all will place the time of writing in the first century.
By contrast, not one noncanonical Gospel has been dated earlier than the second century. The significance of this is that only the four Gospels were written during the apostolic age-that is, while the apostles were still alive and ministering. Other Gospels were written after this time.
The Gospel of the Ebionites itself is a non-canonical heretical "gospel" quoted by Epiphanius (fourth century) in his book Against Heresies. Epiphanius preserves seven quotations based on all three Gospels, primarily based on Matthew. Ebionite heretical teachings are evident in the quotations in contradiction to the mainstream apostolic early church.
Obviously what you omitted is that a wide gap existed between Ebionites and the orthodox early church (Origen Cont. Cels. 5.66; Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.27.17–4) SO IT IS NOT SURPISING THAT EUSEBIUS ASSERTS THAT ALL EBIONITES HAD AN ABERRANT CHRISTOLOGY (Hist. Eccl. 3.27.1.6). Church fathers wrote that the Ebionites rejected both Jesus' virgin birth and his deity (see Companion to Second-Century Christian "Heretics," 247).
Irenaeus (c. 180), who first wrote about the Ebionites, stated that the Ebionites’ use of only Matthew’s Gospel misled them in their beliefs about the Lord (Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.7); that they rejected the virginal conception of Jesus, following Theodotion and Aquila in interpreting Isaiah 7:14 (“of a young woman,” Gk neanis; Lat adulescentula), thereby dissolving the divine plan and nullifying the God-given witness of the prophets (Irenaeus Haer. 3.21.2); and that consequently they denied the incarnate union of God and humanity, failing to discern the parallel with the creation of Adam in which God-breathed life united with and vivified the human substance (Irenaeus Haer. 5.1.3; cf. 4.33.4).
Misinterpreting scripture does not help Bauer, Ehrman, or you. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant that God had with the nation of Israel, accomplishing all that was necessary, and ushered in a new covenant. As a result, Christians are justified before God in Christ and endowed with God's Holy Spirit so that “the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4).
YOU are misinterpreting Isaiah, not me. Biblical scholars like Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., and Brauch, M. T. fully support the orthodox interpretation I'm using not to mention Matthew’s well-known quotation of Isaiah 7:14 in relation to the virgin birth (Matt. 1:23) also identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises.
It's completely fallacious to wrongly assert that the Ebionites represent the original Christian church when, in reality, they were a break away uber-legalistic sect from it with many of them eventually drifting into Gnosticism. You've obviously been reading the false assertions of Bauer and Ehrman. They have a completely false view of Christian history and theology so when you reassert their false assertions it's literally the blind leading the blind.
The Ebionites originated in Palestine and sought salvation through works via their unique modified version of the Mosaic law (including circumcision and the sabbath) in contradiction to Christ's fulfillment and introduction of a new covenant. They used only the Gospel of Matthew. It is possible that they also possessed a Gospel of the Hebrews, though this is reported only in later sources. By the time of Theodoret, they were extinct.
And the heretical 'Gospel of the Ebionites' is not canonical nor the earliest Christian publication. Matthew has been dated between A.D. 65 and 85; Mark, between the early A.D. 50s and 65; Luke, between the early A.D. 60s and 80s; and John, between the A.D. 60s and 90s. Though there will be some disagreement in the standard commentaries on the four Gospels about which decade in the first century a book was written, nearly all will place the time of writing in the first century.
By contrast, not one noncanonical Gospel has been dated earlier than the second century. The significance of this is that only the four Gospels were written during the apostolic age-that is, while the apostles were still alive and ministering. Other Gospels were written after this time.
The Gospel of the Ebionites itself is a non-canonical heretical "gospel" quoted by Epiphanius (fourth century) in his book Against Heresies. Epiphanius preserves seven quotations based on all three Gospels, primarily based on Matthew. Ebionite heretical teachings are evident in the quotations in contradiction to the mainstream apostolic early church.
Obviously what you omitted is that a wide gap existed between Ebionites and the orthodox early church (Origen Cont. Cels. 5.66; Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.27.17–4) SO IT IS NOT SURPISING THAT EUSEBIUS ASSERTS THAT ALL EBIONITES HAD AN ABERRANT CHRISTOLOGY (Hist. Eccl. 3.27.1.6). Church fathers wrote that the Ebionites rejected both Jesus' virgin birth and his deity (see Companion to Second-Century Christian "Heretics," 247).
Irenaeus (c. 180), who first wrote about the Ebionites, stated that the Ebionites’ use of only Matthew’s Gospel misled them in their beliefs about the Lord (Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.7); that they rejected the virginal conception of Jesus, following Theodotion and Aquila in interpreting Isaiah 7:14 (“of a young woman,” Gk neanis; Lat adulescentula), thereby dissolving the divine plan and nullifying the God-given witness of the prophets (Irenaeus Haer. 3.21.2); and that consequently they denied the incarnate union of God and humanity, failing to discern the parallel with the creation of Adam in which God-breathed life united with and vivified the human substance (Irenaeus Haer. 5.1.3; cf. 4.33.4).
Misinterpreting scripture does not help Bauer, Ehrman, or you. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant that God had with the nation of Israel, accomplishing all that was necessary, and ushered in a new covenant. As a result, Christians are justified before God in Christ and endowed with God's Holy Spirit so that “the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4).
YOU are misinterpreting Isaiah, not me. Biblical scholars like Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., and Brauch, M. T. fully support the orthodox interpretation I'm using not to mention Matthew’s well-known quotation of Isaiah 7:14 in relation to the virgin birth (Matt. 1:23) also identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises.
Last edited:
I'm one of those people who believe that .. Being cast into the Lake of Fire is a permanent end of the body, soul, and spirit. It is not being burned and tormented forever. Eternal death is exactly that, its being dead forever. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). God brought all things into existence, so He can surely cause anything to cease to exist.
"The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away" (Psalms 37:20). That's the result of being thrown into the Lake of Fire, everlasting damnation means dead for all eternity. The torment is knowing that your judged to death, because there no coming back from it.
Also consider a description of Satan's death; "Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee" (Ezekiel 28:18).
"The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away" (Psalms 37:20). That's the result of being thrown into the Lake of Fire, everlasting damnation means dead for all eternity. The torment is knowing that your judged to death, because there no coming back from it.
Also consider a description of Satan's death; "Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee" (Ezekiel 28:18).
That's just a word game. How about this, go to the passage where Elisha challenged the prophets of Baal and built an alter to the Lord. Read the passage and tell me when the fire from God came down on that alter, what was left?
31 And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:
32 And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.
33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.
34 And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.
35 And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. {ran: Heb. went}
36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.
37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. (1Ki 18:31-38 KJV)
31 And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:
32 And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.
33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.
34 And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.
35 And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. {ran: Heb. went}
36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.
37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. (1Ki 18:31-38 KJV)
The prophet Obadiah spoke to Edom what would happen to the nations when Christ returns.
15 "For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near; As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head.
16 For as you drank on my holy mountain, So shall all the nations drink continually; Yes, they shall drink, and swallow, And they shall be as though they had never been.
17 "But on Mount Zion there shall be deliverance, And there shall be holiness; The house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 The house of Jacob shall be a fire, And the house of Joseph a flame; But the house of Esau shall be stubble; They shall kindle them and devour them, And no survivor shall remain of the house of Esau," For the LORD has spoken.
(Oba 1:15-18 NKJ)
They shall be as though they had never been. That is ceasing to exist. If one had never been, they never existed, he says that is what awaits the nations.
10 For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more. (Psa 37:10 NKJ)
Psalm 37 says the wicked shall be no more. It doesn't say they shall be burning somewhere or be in torture somewhere, it says they shall be no more.
Now, whatever passages of Scripture you want to post in reply will have to reconcile with these passages to be properly understood.
15 "For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near; As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head.
16 For as you drank on my holy mountain, So shall all the nations drink continually; Yes, they shall drink, and swallow, And they shall be as though they had never been.
17 "But on Mount Zion there shall be deliverance, And there shall be holiness; The house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 The house of Jacob shall be a fire, And the house of Joseph a flame; But the house of Esau shall be stubble; They shall kindle them and devour them, And no survivor shall remain of the house of Esau," For the LORD has spoken.
(Oba 1:15-18 NKJ)
They shall be as though they had never been. That is ceasing to exist. If one had never been, they never existed, he says that is what awaits the nations.
10 For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more. (Psa 37:10 NKJ)
Psalm 37 says the wicked shall be no more. It doesn't say they shall be burning somewhere or be in torture somewhere, it says they shall be no more.
Now, whatever passages of Scripture you want to post in reply will have to reconcile with these passages to be properly understood.
Last edited:
A
While all Germans were not Nazis, all Muslims are Muslims. So though many Germans rejected Nazism, ALL Muslims accept and do NOT reject Islam.
As Nazi epistemology condones violence to further Nazism, Islamic epistemology condones violence to further Islam.
Your assertion that Islam is a peaceful religion is false historically and epistemologically. It takes about five minutes to prove it. We can start with the seventy million Hindus the Muslims slaughtered during their expansionary campaigns if you like, or if you prefer, the 150 million Africans they enslaved and why there are few Africans in the Middle East today despite transporting 28 million of them to the Middle East (hint: they castrated the penises and testicles of the males and murdered the mixed race babies produced from their rape of the non-Muslim women [e.g. it's only wrong to rape Muslim women in Islam]).
You see the practice of genocide and the raping of female war captives was practiced by Islam’s very own prophet Muhammad. Obviously, you're not a student of history or Islamic theology.
As Nazi epistemology condones violence to further Nazism, Islamic epistemology condones violence to further Islam.
Your assertion that Islam is a peaceful religion is false historically and epistemologically. It takes about five minutes to prove it. We can start with the seventy million Hindus the Muslims slaughtered during their expansionary campaigns if you like, or if you prefer, the 150 million Africans they enslaved and why there are few Africans in the Middle East today despite transporting 28 million of them to the Middle East (hint: they castrated the penises and testicles of the males and murdered the mixed race babies produced from their rape of the non-Muslim women [e.g. it's only wrong to rape Muslim women in Islam]).
You see the practice of genocide and the raping of female war captives was practiced by Islam’s very own prophet Muhammad. Obviously, you're not a student of history or Islamic theology.
Many liberals (Christian and otherwise) have affirmed the value of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and there is a study center for Jonathan Edwards at Yale University in New Haven CT USA. Link: The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University. Edwards was a scholar with extensive writings which include numerous demonstrations of deep intellect and logical reasoning.
The works of Jonathan Edwards include this sermon:
God is honorable and must punish sin. To leave sin unpunished would not be honorable. The punishment must not be excessive. However, Almighty God has infinite attributes and trangressions by finite creatures against an infinite God take on attributes of infinite heinousness.
Consider this extended quotation from: The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners by Jonathan Edwards:
Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful.
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.
Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.
But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.
So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving infinite punishment.—Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, 1 Sam. 2:25. “If one man sin against another, the Judge shall judge him;” (i. e. shall judge him, and inflict a finite punishment, such as finite judges can inflict “but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?” This was the aggravation of sin that made Joseph afraid of it, Gen. 39:9. “How shall I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God?” This was the aggravation of David’s sin, in comparison of which he esteemed all others as nothing, because they were infinitely exceeded by it. Psalm 51:4. “Against thee, thee only have I sinned.”—The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.
If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.
So that the objections made against the infinite punishment of sin, from the necessity, or rather previous certainty, of the futurition of sin, arising from the unavoidable original corruption of nature, if they argue any thing, argue against any faultiness at all: for if this necessity or certainty leaves any evil at all in sin, that fault must be infinite by reason of the infinite object.
Edwards, J. (2008). The works of Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 1, p. 669). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
Perhaps you have heard this cadence (or variations of it) sometimes used in the context of youth cheerleading:
Don't mess, don't mess,
Don't mess with the best
'Cause the best don't mess
Don't fool, don't fool,
Don't fool with the cool
'Cause the cool don't fool
(Team mascot) we rule!
Almighty God is a Sovereign Ruler who is higher in rank and authority than any military officer, executive, judge or legislator. You don't want to "mess with" or offend an infinite Sovereign. (But, we all have sinned and we all have offended Him).
Admonition: Repent from known sin and cry out for mercy to the invisible but nonetheless real, sovereign and infinite God.
The works of Jonathan Edwards include this sermon:
- The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners - The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
God is honorable and must punish sin. To leave sin unpunished would not be honorable. The punishment must not be excessive. However, Almighty God has infinite attributes and trangressions by finite creatures against an infinite God take on attributes of infinite heinousness.
Consider this extended quotation from: The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners by Jonathan Edwards:
Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful.
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.
Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.
But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.
So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving infinite punishment.—Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, 1 Sam. 2:25. “If one man sin against another, the Judge shall judge him;” (i. e. shall judge him, and inflict a finite punishment, such as finite judges can inflict “but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?” This was the aggravation of sin that made Joseph afraid of it, Gen. 39:9. “How shall I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God?” This was the aggravation of David’s sin, in comparison of which he esteemed all others as nothing, because they were infinitely exceeded by it. Psalm 51:4. “Against thee, thee only have I sinned.”—The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.
If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.
So that the objections made against the infinite punishment of sin, from the necessity, or rather previous certainty, of the futurition of sin, arising from the unavoidable original corruption of nature, if they argue any thing, argue against any faultiness at all: for if this necessity or certainty leaves any evil at all in sin, that fault must be infinite by reason of the infinite object.
Edwards, J. (2008). The works of Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 1, p. 669). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
Perhaps you have heard this cadence (or variations of it) sometimes used in the context of youth cheerleading:
Don't mess, don't mess,
Don't mess with the best
'Cause the best don't mess
Don't fool, don't fool,
Don't fool with the cool
'Cause the cool don't fool
(Team mascot) we rule!
Almighty God is a Sovereign Ruler who is higher in rank and authority than any military officer, executive, judge or legislator. You don't want to "mess with" or offend an infinite Sovereign. (But, we all have sinned and we all have offended Him).
Admonition: Repent from known sin and cry out for mercy to the invisible but nonetheless real, sovereign and infinite God.
I used to believe in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment). I used to even defend it at one time. I used to think that if the majority of the church today accepts it as true, then it must be correct. For surely most evangelical churches can't be wrong, right? Well, first, most evangelcal churches are not like the churches back in the times of the early apostles (after the church was formed). Most Christians were persecuted back then. So it's not like they all could have a sign out front notifying folks of the worship service times followed up by coffee and treats. It was not a clean atmosphere with clean people always. They didn't have fancy movie screens with electrical guitars and stage lights. Some people who gathered with them were poor. But they distributed the wealth amongst themselves as a body of believers to have financial equality. So one person did not have too little and another did not have too much. In fact, if you were to read Revelation 2-3, Jesus' report card on all the different churches in the body were not good. Only a small few were doing it right.
ECT is both a Biblical issue and a moral issue. From my experience in walking with the Lord and in reading His Word, I have discovered that God is good and that God is love. I discovered that God is also righteous and will not tolerate sin forever, too. That God being just and right must punish sin and put an end to evil. For a true victory in the Old Testament against ones enemies usually involved a complete and utter destruction of them. Nobody was kept alive to be tortured. Think about it. If God tortured people, then why didn't He give his believers the right to torture others, too? In other words, where is the Biblical example or real world illustration for ECT? Also, how is it fair and just to punish someone for a finite amount of crimes for an infinite amount of time? What if there was a Law today that said that if you broke such and such Law you would be tortured for the rest of your life? How would you feel about that Law? Would you think it would be fair and just? Now this is where I would here the ECT proponent say,
"Yeah, see, when you sin, you are sinning against an eternal God so your punishment must be eternal, too. Really? What Scripture verse says that?"
It's like they given cookie cutter answers that really don't exist in the Bible. I believe people are afraid to think that their Pastor they love is wrong or that their Christian friends could be wrong or that the majority of evangelical churches are wrong. But tell me. Where do you see the poor being welcome to your worship services? Where are they? Are they not good enough to be next to the clean people? I think most people really don't want to think about such things and would rather just think happy thoughts at church every week, play soft ball with their church group, and eat good food, and that's it. Sure, they might give for a cause. But they are not involved in that cause. I say this not because I am perfect. No, no. I say this because we all as a body of believers need to be humble and loving with people and ever seeking and testing the Scriptures for what God wants to teach us. Yeah, but where's the Scripture verses? I will provide them in my next post.
ECT is both a Biblical issue and a moral issue. From my experience in walking with the Lord and in reading His Word, I have discovered that God is good and that God is love. I discovered that God is also righteous and will not tolerate sin forever, too. That God being just and right must punish sin and put an end to evil. For a true victory in the Old Testament against ones enemies usually involved a complete and utter destruction of them. Nobody was kept alive to be tortured. Think about it. If God tortured people, then why didn't He give his believers the right to torture others, too? In other words, where is the Biblical example or real world illustration for ECT? Also, how is it fair and just to punish someone for a finite amount of crimes for an infinite amount of time? What if there was a Law today that said that if you broke such and such Law you would be tortured for the rest of your life? How would you feel about that Law? Would you think it would be fair and just? Now this is where I would here the ECT proponent say,
"Yeah, see, when you sin, you are sinning against an eternal God so your punishment must be eternal, too. Really? What Scripture verse says that?"
It's like they given cookie cutter answers that really don't exist in the Bible. I believe people are afraid to think that their Pastor they love is wrong or that their Christian friends could be wrong or that the majority of evangelical churches are wrong. But tell me. Where do you see the poor being welcome to your worship services? Where are they? Are they not good enough to be next to the clean people? I think most people really don't want to think about such things and would rather just think happy thoughts at church every week, play soft ball with their church group, and eat good food, and that's it. Sure, they might give for a cause. But they are not involved in that cause. I say this not because I am perfect. No, no. I say this because we all as a body of believers need to be humble and loving with people and ever seeking and testing the Scriptures for what God wants to teach us. Yeah, but where's the Scripture verses? I will provide them in my next post.
Last edited: