The reason I ask the question is because after I show the evidence from scripture that there is no eternal torment, but rather limited torment unto 2nd death, the eternal torment person still will not give up their ideology which means they have someone or someones they want to see and experience eternal torture. Their ideology was never word based, but always based in their deep seated animosity to someone they need to see tortured eternally.
I just want to know who they want to see eternally tortured? What did they do to warrant such?
You are making an accusation that there must be some other motive for not receiving your interpretation other than because you did a bad job of making your case.
There is no other motive for rejecting your hermeneutic than that it was an awful attempt at twisting many verses of scripture to try and make them mean something other than what they clearly say and those that listened / read your explanations rejected them because they were not at all convincing. Why so shocked?
Why sit around wondering why we clearly read it as eternal torment, and what motivation we have for doing so, when we wonder what
your motivation is that would allow you to have to explain away so many scriptures and why is it that no red flags awaken in your conscious screaming at you and accusing you of trying to make a bad interpretation of Ecc change every plain sounding verse in the New Testament?
Wouldn't it be more natural to reconsider your interpretation of the dead not having thoughts? That seems to be the hermeneutic rule you violated that caused you to attempt to force a different interpretation on so many other verses in the New Testament. (I am putting you in the same box with
@Phoneman-777 as it relates to the interpretation of Eccl)
That is the reason why we don't give up our interpretation that the torment is eternal. It is because it is a better hermeneutic than yours when applying all the rules of hermeneutics.
We can start all over again and address each scripture and each interpretation you present if you like.
When you use Eccl to establish a doctrine that the bible teaches that all dead people have no conscious until the resurrection you have made your first mistake. We (those who believe in the New Testament scriptures about eternal torment) do not agree that the writer of Eccl was teaching doctrine about what happens to the wicked dead. You do. Do you wonder why we differ? Is it because we have another motive than wanting to know what the correct interpretation of Eccl really is? No, we want to know what that verse means, why he said it and how we are to use it.
We find it easy to understand that he was telling us the things he said when he was searching for meaning in life. We base that on the context of the entire book and the things he as been saying before and after the statements. It was an expression of his feelings that everything was a waste and hopeless. He said the dead were better off than the living. We get it. We also understand that he probably didn't say that after he discovered that serving God made life worth living. We get it.
You refuse to concede to that kind of interpretation of Eccl and that is the first impasse between us on interpretation. We believe you are violating a rule of hermeneutics here with your attempt to use this bad interpretation as your cornerstone for your doctrine. And this rule using this very verse and others like it in ECCL and Job are examples given in books of Hermeneutics which If I must I can pull out and start posting some chapters that cover this but I have a feeling you have seen these arguments and have rejected them.
Then you find it necessary to explain why numerous scriptures in the New Testament (where Jesus gave us more revelation about things like resurrection, and afterlife than they had in the OT) must be changed from their plain meanings to something else. And you do this repeatedly over and over again. Yall keep using the verse in Eccl that the dead dont know anything therefore this verse and that verse in the NT must be reworked to say something different. And you expect us to embrace that? pffffft come on.. be serious.
You wonder why we don't accept this? You should be wondering why
YOU DO?
We wonder why you don't see the pattern of too many instances of the need to make something say something different than how it reads. Like Jesus making a point to the thief what day he was talking as though that was a necessary thing to bring up in the midst of suffering and agonizing death on a cross instead of the plain and simple truth that he was telling him he would be in paradise this day. The attempt to twist that one is pure desperation but it is not just one time. You do it over and over again and don't seem to notice. We do.
That is why we reject your bad hermeneutic and accept the doctrine of eternal torment as it is plainly taught by Jesus Christ.
Now this might be a stumbling block to your sensibilities but I think the problem lies more in your surrender to the sovereign right of a Holy God to be right in all that he has decided and not accuse Him of wrong doing because of your limited, perverted, corrupt sensibilities (which are bound to change with the revelation God will grant over time and reading the bible if you stay humble and do not accuse Him of wrong doing in his choice of administrations of judgments of the wicked.)
Quit telling God how he aught to carry out judgment on the wicked and just be thankful that He offers you escape from eternal damnation. (whatever that looks like)
No there is no hidden motive for rejecting your bad hermeneutic but we do suspect your motivation for being willing to do such a bad job of it yourself. What lurks in the hearts of those who don't notice all those attempts at explaining away the verses that contradict their doctrine? Why no red flags in your conscience?
Why would someone want to try so hard to teach others that the wicked will have eternal rest? Could it be motivated by demons who know that such a doctrine would give those who have no will to live a "Hope" for an escape by doing themselves in? I mean logically if you could get someone to believe that the writer of ECCL was being used by God to teach us that the dead are better off than the living and have no thoughts, then a certain amount of depressed people will kill themselves without fear of facing judgment?
Maybe that is the reason behind this doctrine. Maybe you are being used by demons to teach a doctrine and you don't even know it.
The demons have a plan and are using these teachers to increase suicides? I mean if we are going to wonder about motivations behind what seems to be obvious attempts to explain away scriptures without a red flag smiting ones conscience when they do so maybe it is demonic control? Think about it.
