A rather rhetorical question for the "Hell is FOREVER" crowd

[Wrangler]

they send themselves there Don’t blame Jesus, He paid their debt, they rejected his gift.

While I agree, this is not the point of the thread, but rather the nature of an all-oving God as it relates to Christendom's perverion of what hell is (place the dead go) with and what hell is not (eternal suffering).

 

[Wrangler]

Because "wages of sin is death" that is a Law of God!

They ignored it and didn't seek God's forgiveness.

Because the wages of sin is death, it necessarily means the wages is not anything else - including eternal suffering.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Forever? Verse please?

When does the 2nd death end? how are they made alive after the second death?

Revelation 20:10

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

While I agree, this is not the point of the thread, but rather the nature of an all-oving God as it relates to Christendom's perverion of what hell is (place the dead go) with and what hell is not (eternal suffering).

separation from God for eternity is the ultimate in suffering.

Fire and brimestone or not

 

[Charlie24]

Because the wages of sin is death, it necessarily means the wages is not anything else - including eternal suffering.

No, it means what it says! If you don't receive forgiveness for sin, your soul will die.

And what does that mean, Wrangler! Eternal separation from God, where?

 

[Wrangler]

separation from God for eternity is the ultimate in suffering.

Fire and brimestone or not

The dead don't suffer or praise God.

 

[marks]

Now you're being rhetorical to win an argument.

No, I'm asking you a question. You seem to want it both ways. Apparently to win an argument. I want you to tell me what you think.

It's seems as though you acknowledge that there can be a valid purpose to the torments of the lake of fire. You've ascribed this as a second chance for repentance. I've ascribed this to be the cessation of sin in the unrepentant.

Much love!

 

[marks]

My point is. They had a way out. So by rejecting their way out. They in fact send themselves there.

I understand.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

No, it means what it says! If you don't receive forgiveness for sin, your soul will die.

And what does that mean, Wrangler! Eternal separation from God, where?

Non-existence is not a place.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The dead don't suffer or praise God.

They were alive at the great white thrown, they are throne alive into the lake of fire.

There will be weeping and nashing of teeth

 

[Wrangler]

Wrangler, I call into question your Christianity!

You just lost the argument, turning from the OP question to me, personally.

 

[Wrangler]

They were alive at the great white thrown, they are throne alive into the lake of fire.

There will be weeping and nashing of teeth

Yes, only because they experience 2nd death in the Lake of Fire, from which there is no recovery.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, only because they experience 2nd death in the Lake of Fire, from which there is no recovery.

Yes

But the soul will never die..

 

[Wrangler]

Yes

But the soul will never die..

This thread addresses 2 myths in Christiandom:

1. Eternal Suffering. Not only wrong theologically from an all-loving God; it is wrong logically, for 2nd death (non-existence)) is not suffering.
2. Immortal Soul. If the soul were immortal, there would not be 2nd death AND Jesus would not have said souls can die.

How do you reconcile the notion of a immortal soul with Matthew 10:28?

“Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This thread addresses 2 myths in Christiandom:

1. Eternal Suffering. Not only wrong theologically from an all-loving God; it is wrong logically, for 2nd death (non-existence)) is not suffering.
2. Immortal Soul. If the soul were immortal, there would not be 2nd death AND Jesus would not have said souls can die.

How do you reconcile the notion of a immortal soul with Matthew 10:28?

“Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28

Well you are wrong in both instances

Again, They were sent alive into the lake of fire. That was the second death

People who are dead to God here on earth have a consciousness.. They do not cease to exist.

They will not cease in eternity either. we are all made imortal from the day of our birth; Where we spend this eternity is based on how we react to the gospel..

 

[Windmillcharge]

That may be true. It's also true that they will come out of the Lake of Fire as new creatures. They too will inherit God's kingdom after being purified by fire and brimstone.

As one dies so one has an eternity.
Die as a Christian go to be with Jesus.
Die as an enemy of God spend eternal its bemoaning your loss, tormenting g yourself with, what if and if only.

There is No second chance.

 

[Wrangler]

I haven't lost anything, just wondering why you're always …

Yes, you have lost the argument. You just don’t realize it. Instead, you doubled down on your defeat.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, you have lost the argument. You just don’t realize it. Instead, you doubled down on your defeat.

Can you at least tell us why we have to argue with you on a constant basis that which is clearly obvious to us, but not you?

 

[marks]

You just lost the argument, turning from the OP question to me, personally.

Just the same, the fact that he engage in ad hominem does not mean the original assertion is false.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Just the same, the fact that he engage in ad hominem does not mean the original assertion is false.

Much love!

It means abandoned is the field to defend the original assertion. FWIW, normally the OP is the original assertion in the thread, not the counter to the OP, as you imply here. I agree with the OP.

It gets confusing when you say original assertion by don't mean the OP but a poster's counter-assertion to the OP, yes?