Why do people believe in hell?

[ruby sparks]

We were discussing Matthew 25....

Wrong.

Someone (not me) asked you something about the NT. You replied, about the NT.

The Matthew citation was after that.

Are you in fact being open and honest here? It does not appear so.

 

[Politesse]

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

 

[Politesse]

We were discussing Matthew 25....

Wrong.

Am I to take it that when you explicitly say the NT does not say something, that you don’t in fact mean the NT?

Are you in fact being honest here?

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

 

[ruby sparks]

We were discussing Matthew 25....

Wrong.

Am I to take it that when you explicitly say the NT does not say something, that you don’t in fact mean the NT?

Are you in fact being honest here?

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

You are very confused. Not only did I not mention Matthew 25, but it was cited, by someone else, after what you said about the NT.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

Irrelevant. You said that in the NT, god was not supposed to be the source of suffering, that’s all.

You were incorrect. It is amazing that you could make that interpretation of the NT.

 

[Politesse]

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

You are very confused. Not only did I not mention Matthew 25, but it was cited, by someone else, after what you said about the NT.

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

 

[Politesse]

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

Irrelevant. You said that in the NT, god was not supposed to be the source of suffering, that’s all.

You were incorrect. It is amazing that you could make that interpretation of the NT.

So you admit that your own proposed piece of evidence is "irrelevant" to the discussion? Good, let's move on from John as well then. Is the Jude passage "irrelevant" as well, or should we explore it?

 

[ruby sparks]

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

You are very confused. Not only did I not mention Matthew 25, but it was cited, by someone else, after what you said about the NT.

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

Yeah. Let’s change the subject and move quickly on. Let’s not dwell on the fact that you made an interpretation about the god of the NT that is not just wrong but bizarre.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

You are very confused. Not only did I not mention Matthew 25, but it was cited, by someone else, after what you said about the NT.

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

Irrelevant. You said that in the NT, god was not supposed to be the source of suffering, that’s all.

You were incorrect. It is amazing that you could make that interpretation of the NT.

So you admit that your own proposed piece of evidence is "irrelevant" to the discussion? Good, let's move on from John as well then. Is the Jude passage "irrelevant" as well, or should we explore it?

You are making no sense. I didn’t propose anything from Matthew. And no I don’t agree my quotes are irrelevant. What are you even talking about?

I’m done with this.

 

[Politesse]

We aren't discussing "the God of the NT", but rather what the NT says about God. So far, you haven't produced a single phrase of evidence to support what you claim is "obvious" about the text, despite the millennia of discussion and argument about this specific topic.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

You are very confused. Not only did I not mention Matthew 25, but it was cited, by someone else, after what you said about the NT.

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

We aren't discussing "the God of the NT", but rather what the NT says about God. So far, you haven't produced a single phrase of evidence to support what you claim is "obvious" about the text, despite the millennia of discussion and argument about this specific topic.

This is bonkers. I did produce a quote, which you then dismissed, only because it wasn’t from some supposed particular book we were discussing, when we weren’t.

 

[Politesse]

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

Irrelevant. You said that in the NT, god was not supposed to be the source of suffering, that’s all.

You were incorrect. It is amazing that you could make that interpretation of the NT.

So you admit that your own proposed piece of evidence is "irrelevant" to the discussion? Good, let's move on from John as well then. Is the Jude passage "irrelevant" as well, or should we explore it?

You are making no sense. I didn’t propose anything from Matthew. What are you even talking about?

I’m done with this.

You're responding there to a post about the John passage that you brought into the discussion as evidence for your position eight posts back, not Matthew.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just admit that you were wrong about Matthew 25 and move on to John, eh? Accusing me of lying while discarding your own arguments once you see that they don't hold water is not a very convincing strategy.

You are very confused. Not only did I not mention Matthew 25, but it was cited, by someone else, after what you said about the NT.

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

Irrelevant. You said that in the NT, god was not supposed to be the source of suffering, that’s all.

You were incorrect. It is amazing that you could make that interpretation of the NT.

So you admit that your own proposed piece of evidence is "irrelevant" to the discussion? Good, let's move on from John as well then. Is the Jude passage "irrelevant" as well, or should we explore it?

You are making no sense. I didn’t propose anything from Matthew. What are you even talking about?

I’m done with this.

You're responding there to a post about the John passage that you brought into the discussion as evidence for your position eight posts back, not Matthew.

You are making no sense. I did not admit my John quote was irrelevant. It’s completely relevant.

What is wrong with you?

 

[Politesse]

So you concede that Matthew 25 is not evidence in favor of your position? Good, we can move on.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." ~John 3

So this passage does not actually reference an afterlife at all, unless you assume that's what's meant by "eternal life" (is an "ageless" life the same thing as a new life later after death? Or does it just mean that the person doesn't die in the first place?) In the converse case it says nothing about keeping some alive (but torturing them) for eternity, it just says that they will die. Which is only a punishment at all if you thought that you might have a chance of not dying. Suggesting, again, that a more literal interpretation of "eternal life" explains the passage a lot better. Only those upon whom God's favor rests are immune to death itself, a recurring theme in John as it happens. Not only is the modern conception of Hell not mentioned here, it's logically incompatible, as this verse very clearly states that you will die if God's wrath is upon you, and the popular conception of hell is a place where people are alive and conscious for all eternity. How can this be, if the only people who can expect an eternal destiny are those upon whom God's favor rests? This very verse has, for this reason, been used by Annihilationist theologians to support their views, since at least the 7th century. While there are some arguments Catholic theologians have made to defend their read of this verse, all of them rely on referencing other verses elsewhere in the Bible. Inductively, they could not be arrived at from this passage alone. Indeed, thry are forced by their assumptions to interpret "death" in this and manh other Johannine passages as a pure metaphor, and I know how you feel about metaphors in Scripture.

Irrelevant. You said that in the NT, god was not supposed to be the source of suffering, that’s all.

You were incorrect. It is amazing that you could make that interpretation of the NT.

So you admit that your own proposed piece of evidence is "irrelevant" to the discussion? Good, let's move on from John as well then. Is the Jude passage "irrelevant" as well, or should we explore it?

You are making no sense. I didn’t propose anything from Matthew. What are you even talking about?

I’m done with this.

You're responding there to a post about the John passage that you brought into the discussion as evidence for your position eight posts back, not Matthew.

You are making no sense. I did not admit my John quote was irrelevant. It’s completely relevant.

What is wrong with you?

Are you even reading before posting? Look at your post very carefully. I treated the verse you brought up to an extended analysis, to which you responded "irrelevant". I agree, but it's your evidence, not mine...

 

[ruby sparks]

Your extended analysis was irrelevant because it was not related to what you said on page 3.

I think part of the problem here is that you are misrepresenting the actual order of posting events.

 

[Politesse]

I propose that we take as given that the Jude passage is also irrelevant, since you conceded as you were introducing it that it doesn't explicitly mention God.

 

[ruby sparks]

I propose that we take as given that the Jude passage is also irrelevant, since you conceded as you were introducing it that it doesn't explicitly mention God.

I would of course not go along with that.

It clearly relates to punishments by god.

 

[Politesse]

Your extended analysis was not related to what you said on page 3.

No, it was about the verse that you claimed as support for your position. So I discussed why I disagreed. I continue to stand by my original statement, which you have not been able to contradict with substantial textual evidence. I furthermore would like to request an apology for all of the personal insults you've thrown at me to avoid conceding the point.

 

[Politesse]

I propose that we take as given that the Jude passage is also irrelevant, since you conceded as you were introducing it that it doesn't explicitly mention God.

I would of course not go along with that.

If it doesn't mention God, I don't see how it is relevant.

 

[ruby sparks]

Wow.

Who on earth do you think you’re kidding?

It clearly relates to punishments by god.