Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Really? Because for me that idea seems like it would be derived from the plain reading of the text. And it is actually the traditionally, warped idea of hell that requires much extrapolation, manipulation and misinterpretation of scripture.
Why shouldn't it? Or more to the point, which scriptures SHOULD be considered when determining how to interpret the nature of hell?
That's an interesting perspective, but I think it is also one that kind of misses the point. Who would not choose God? There are plenty of atheists who believe that they should live life to satisfy themselves, at the expense of others. It's not just that many of them don't "believe" in God, it's that
What about them? People are held accountable to what they know, not what they don't know. In our inferior system of justice people can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why would you assume it would be different in a superior form a justice?
What about them? People are held accountable to what they know, not what they don't know. In our inferior system of justice people can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why would you assume it would be different in a superior form a justice?
Most Christians consider the book of Revelation to be "prophetic" (that's why it's called a revelation). The question is in how literally we take it. Yes, it is largely told through symbolism and allegory, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the content of the text, ESPECIALLY since it is essentially reinforcing ideas that come from other scripture.
Correct! There will be no doubt that he exists once this happens.
Yes, I was making a broad generalization intentionally. I don't know what the exact numbers are. But even if the exact number is only ONE percent of all people on the fact of the earth, one percent of 7 billion is still 70 million people. While the term "many" is subjective and relative, hopefully you can see the point I am making now. It was not my intent to suggest that most atheists would fall into this category.
I do as well. :yes:
Was it?
Do you mind elaborating on that?
I'm talking about the war in heaven when Satan and his angels rebelled against God, and fought against Michael and his angels before being cast out of heaven. There are references in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation.
If they have already died, the state of their soul is "death". That is, they are "asleep" in death until the resurrection of the dead, at which point their soul will be alive again during final judgement. If you want to know what the state of their mind is after resurrection, I'd imagine that it would be a much better state at that point than they are now. If they have the metal capacity to choose to accept Jesus and they do, then they are saved. If they do not, then they most likely will have the same opportunity that everyone else will come final judgement. Since we will all have that opportunity, it is reasonable to assume that they would not suffer from the same mentally debilitating state then as they do now. Scripture says that the Lord judges in righteousness and that the deceptive influences will be removed. That suggests (to me at least) that there will be no "mentally ill" after the resurrection. And then there is Isa 35:4-6, which James already quoted.
Reinforcing or using for justification? For instance many Jews feel that Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah out of Context, could James not have done the same thing? But even further the allegory mix would work well given taht both Daniel and Ezekial were written at a time of oppression, so wouldn't
In the context of 7 billion however, 70 million is not many though. you are just using it to mean an undefined large number but is that actually true that it is large when looking at the overall population of 7 billion. Because that number can be less than one percent of the population as well.
I do as well. :yes:
Was it?
I've seen that before but we still have matters were God would still harden Pharoahs heart. God hardens pharoahs heart way more times than pharoah hardens his own and grows stubborn....
Do you mind elaborating on that?
I figured that was what you were mention but I wanted to be sure. Isaiah mentions Lucifer which when read in it's entirity is talking about a Bablyonian King. Ezekial as well I guess you are talking about Ezekial 28? Which was about the City of Tyre? Mind you the story of being cast down in Ezekial is also found in Bablyonian mythology of Ethanu and Zu.
Revelations is the only one that makes a statement about Satan and his Demons, this came to be during the 2nd temple restoration where the Devil (Satan) began to take a more "I am the great evil f", rather than God sending the Devil to do it's duty of being the the one that accuses/opposes.
What's the difference between the mind and the soul? More specifically what is the soul?
To be honest I only read about 5 or 10 posts before the one I replied to, my bad.
Well that sounds like a good direction to go in.
Reinforcing.
You mean John?
We are essentially saying the same thing, just in a different way.
I think you're still ignoring what "God hardening Pharaoh's heart" actually means.
They are all referencing the same event. The stories are analogous. Satan, Lucifer, King of Tyre, the Serpent, etc. they all represent the same being, the opposer/accuser/adversary. In any case, this is getting off topic. The issue is, whether or not Christians should accept John's revelation to be authentic. My answer to that is, there is no reason why we shouldn't, unless you have some biblical evidence to suggest that we shouldn't.
Nothing.
The quality which endows living beings with self-awareness, free-will, and emotions. Also known as "consciousness".
Because some people who claim to believe in Christ, and claim to act in accordance with his teachings, continue to do the opposite. Just because someone is aware of Jesus Christ and his message doesn't mean that they are saved.
Reinforcing.
You mean John?
Could he have done the same thing? Sure. The question is DID he! And one requires evidence that this was indeed the case in order to justify the assumption that he did. In other words, is there some scripture out there (either New Testament or Old) that directly contradicts what the Book of Revelation says?
We are essentially saying the same thing, just in a different way.
I think you're still ignoring what "God hardening Pharaoh's heart" actually means.
They are all referencing the same event. The stories are analogous. Satan, Lucifer, King of Tyre, the Serpent, etc. they all represent the same being, the opposer/accuser/adversary. In any case, this is getting off topic. The issue is, whether or not Christians should accept John's revelation to be authentic. My answer to that is, there is no reason why we shouldn't, unless you have some biblical evidence to suggest that we shouldn't.
Nothing.
The quality which endows living beings with self-awareness, free-will, and emotions. Also known as "consciousness".
Why would I need to separate my soul from my brain?
No, that's NOT what it means. Did you even read the link I posted that explains this?
Come on! There is really no evidence of that. It is merely an expression, and a rather common one that is still used today. (ie: "home is where the heart is", "don't go breakin my heart", etc)
Everything you said here is wrong. And it ultimately demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scriptures.
Why would I need to separate my soul from my brain?
No, that's NOT what it means. Did you even read the link I posted that explains this?
Come on! There is really no evidence of that. It is merely an expression, and a rather common one that is still used today. (ie: "home is where the heart is", "don't go breakin my heart", etc)
Everything you said here is wrong. And it ultimately demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scriptures.
