And the SMOKE of their torment...No eternal damnation for anyone, except the Devil

[Runningman]

Why you continue to spew this nonsense is amazing. Rev 20 refutes all that you claim. Actually, from Rev 19:20-20:15.

They go to their second death in fire and that destroys them. The Bible says to not fear those who can kill only the body, so there shouldn’t be a problem of fear at the GWTJ, then, according to your nonsense.

Think they’ll say “The Bible says to not fear those who can only kill the body so go for it!”

It says to fear Him who can destroy soul and body in hell. That’s the first death. The second death is also having body and soul destroyed. Matthew 10:28

Your eyes and ears are shut tighter than a snare drum, but if you keep talking to me I’ll force you to open them eventually.

Well, just more of your lies. I challenge you to find ANY post where atheists were "defended". I DARE you.

Oh he dares me. How about you just be a man and admit what you and Lucy were saying a few pages ago? There’s much more integrity and respect in that. Wait, maybe I shouldn’t expect too much from you and her at this point.

 

[Runningman]

Please stop lying. No one has said that except you guys, trying to demonize us. All those terms refer to the physical body, and that ANSWERS EVERY VERSE YOU QUOTE.

Demonize like when you called me and someone else a crying drunk? Yeah you’re the problem here.

 

[Runningman]

Exactly, Thank you!!

Okay so words are subjective to you.

Can I imagine that “Exactly, Thank you!!” Means the opposite of what it says? That’s what you’re doing. You switch positions when it’s convenient, but your first example regarding destroyed was about your car being wrecked. Now destroy apparently means being dramatic. Anyone can say anything, doesn’t make them right.

I’ll just stick with what the Bible says. You’re free to believe anything you want, but don’t expect anyone else to believe it too.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Big difference between the literal definition of destroy and being dramatic.

Said the "dramatic one", who has such high sympathies for unbelievers who have NO EXCUSE for being cast into the LOF. Get real.

The Bible uses "destroy" to describe the physical body in captital punishment, and burning up in the LOF after the GWT judgment.

You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel for answers.

She wasn't seeking answers. She was pointing out how "destroy" can be used. Your understanding ignores all the other uses. And you know you don't have any verse that actually says that souls will be destroyed. Only the 1 about God being able to destroy souls, which NO ONE argues against. So you have nothing with which to defend your view.

Is that another atheist you’re quoting in the little movie you posted?

Seems you are rather bothered when someone points out that you believe what atheists believe about what happens after death. Hm.

Get used to it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

if by emotional you mean happy then yes.

No, I didn't mean that. And you know that. I mean your hyper emotional sentiments about human being being tormented for ever and ever, even though they themselves HAVE NO EXCUSE for ending up in the LOF. They have either no interest in Creator God, or they simply settled for a cheap substitute. And so God gives them what they want. You guys think ECT is CRUEL, yet He is simply allowing them to make their own decisions.

You guys think ECT is CRUEL, yet that is the warning for those not interested in salvation, or simply don't believe what God says.

So, why all your hyper-emotionalism over people who are getting what they want; no relationship with God. And that is what they will get.

Knowing about you, though, I know you mean it despairingly.

I meant it truthfully. But you are free to twist what ever you want.

We also already established that this isn’t your your original thought. I discovered researching John Stott that a common tactic used in these sorts of debates is to demonize them as emotionally unstable.

You think I used something Stott claimed? I've never read him. And before you guys, I've never had a discussion about annihilationism.

You’ve often taken it a step further, referring to me and others as drunks.

I never did, and you know that full well. Just more lies.

I said:
"The Bible is clear; those who will be cast into the LOF wil be tormented for ever and ever. That includes ALL unbelievers and ALL fallen angels. A very big group."

That’s your imagination and false assumption. The Bible is not clear about that and it doesn’t exist in the Bible.

Rev 20:10 isn't an imagination or false assumption. The Bible IS CLEAR that those who will be thrown into the LOF will suffer a second death AND be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Your refusal to accept what the Bible says is astounding.

You’re not a good judge of character.

You don't anything about me other than my view of your doctrine of annihilation, which the Bible rejects.

You have no idea what bothers me

Oh, actually, I do. You have made it very clear from many of your posts. You are as easy to read as a book.

and I’d never confide in someone like you anyway.

You already have confided in me, and everyone else who follows this thread. You've given your opinions. That is confiding in.

How about you stay on topic.

Which is what I have been doing.

It doesn’t say their bodies are destroyed in the LOF either.

This is rich. Why would it "have to" say that. I think everyone (except you 2) KNOW that when a physical body is thrown into a lake of fire, the body WILL be utterly destroyed.

So that’s what we do now? We just isolate verses and ignore the rest of scripture?

So you really don't understand what isolating verses is about? It is about giving specific verses to clearly refute the false ideas of posters.

And to even suggest that isolating a verse and ignoring the rest of Scripture seems an admission on your part that some verses (isolated ones) contradict other verses. That is pure nonsense imho.

No verse can EVER contradict any other verse. So when someone quotes an "isolated verse" to you that "seems to" contradict any verse you have quoted, you need to very seriously think about that isolated verse. Then, you need to see if you can prove that it DOESN'T actually say or mean what the other poster says it means. That is called refutation.

If you can't do that, then you really really really need to look at your own verse and see if it really does say/mean what you thought it means.

You haven't come close to refuting any verse I've quoted. Basically, you just ignore them or claim they are "isolated verses", whatever that means. As if to imply they don't count.

Oh, but they DO COUNT. Every verse counts. But we need to understand every verse that we use for support. Do they really support what we claim? They either do or they don't.

By using the Berean study method, and seeing what the Bible says, and plugging in the claims of annihilationists, I am beyond confident that it is a false doctrine.

You would have to have a verse showing:

1. God actually destroying souls.
2. Scripture clearly indicating that the GWT crowd WON'T get what the beast and FP will get.

So far, you don't have anything.

No wonder you’re so blind.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace2]

They die in the LOF, body, soul, and spirit.

The Bereans would "search the Scriptures daily to see if what Rm sais was true". And they would find that there are no verses that say this. It is only an opinion, without any support from Scripture.

In fact, your error is even worse than just your rejection of ECT. No unbeliever has a human spirit, at least not a live one. So their dead spirit is already dead anyway.

So add that to your biblical errors.

 

[FreeGrace2]

They go to their second death in fire and that destroys them.

That fire kills their resurrected body a second time. That is why the LOF is called the second death. Two times their bodies will die. That is biblical. But your PRESUMPTION about soul dying is pure and sheer speculation.

The Bible says to not fear those who can kill only the body, so there shouldn’t be a problem of fear at the GWTJ, then, according to your nonsense.

That would be called very fuzzy logic on your part. The Bible says that to believers, who shouldn't fear their physical death. Since they will be getting their body back, in MUCH BETTER condition.

Think they’ll say “The Bible says to not fear those who can only kill the body so go for it!”

I really don't care what anyone says.

It says to fear Him who can destroy soul and body in hell. That’s the first death.

There is no indication that this refers to Hades and where all dead souls of unbelievers go, awaiting their judgment at the GWT.

The "first death" is when a person dies. Period. You are way off track.

The second death is also having body and soul destroyed. Matthew 10:28

No, you know that verse doesn't say the body and soul are destroyed in the LOF. Your imagination is amazing. And your reading skills need help.

Your eyes and ears are shut tighter than a snare drum, but if you keep talking to me I’ll force you to open them eventually.

You can't force anyone to think anything. What an arrogant claim.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Demonize like when you called me and someone else a crying drunk? Yeah you’re the problem here.

I NEVER CALLED either of you a "crying drunk". That's what you 2 made up. I explained how I used that word WAY BEFORE either of you find your own dictionary.

Claiming ECT to be CRUEL is being over emotional, which is how I am using "maudlin". I really don't care how you want to use it, I already made myself clear about how I am using it, so all your blubbering about a "crying drunk" is purely your own nonsense.

 

[HeIsHere]

Okay so words are subjective to you.

Can I imagine that “Exactly, Thank you!!” Means the opposite of what it says? That’s what you’re doing. You switch positions when it’s convenient, but your first example regarding destroyed was about your car being wrecked. Now destroy apparently means being dramatic. Anyone can say anything, doesn’t make them right.

I’ll just stick with what the Bible says. You’re free to believe anything you want, but don’t expect anyone else to believe it too.

I am really thinking you are not understanding.

Many words have relative meanings depending on the context, even the word 'big" has to be specified, a cat is big compared to an ant.

One can feel "destroyed" emotionally, women do feel things more deeply than men, typically so it is not being overly dramatic to speak in those terms.

Yes, you are free to believe what you want but you are denying how to understand language/words/meaning of words/ in context in order to support your belief.

When I was challenged on something I firmly held to like eschatology, in the face of overwhelming inconsistencies that were shown to me, I was man enough to go back to the drawing board, self audit and start with fresh eyes.

I do not believe scripture supports eternal conscious torment either btw.

 

[HeIsHere]

Ashes aren’t people.

Ashes are for the physical world, a world of matter.

All of your quotes are for this world.

 

[Runningman]

Ashes are for the physical world, a world of matter.

All of your quotes are for this world.

Prove it.

There’s a temple in heaven, a stream, a tree, among other things. Spiritual things that are described using physical terms.

Matthew 10:28 says to not fear those who can only kill the body. So if, to you, all of those verses about being turned to ashes are just physical then there’s nothing to fear and literal fire won’t effect souls? So no eternal torment then?

 

[Runningman]

I am really thinking you are not understanding.

Many words have relative meanings depending on the context, even the word 'big" has to be specified, a cat is big compared to an ant.

One can feel "destroyed" emotionally, women do feel things more deeply than men, typically so it is not being overly dramatic to speak in those terms.

Yes, you are free to believe what you want but you are denying how to understand language/words/meaning of words/ in context in order to support your belief.

When I was challenged on something I firmly held to like eschatology, in the face of overwhelming inconsistencies that were shown to me, I was man enough to go back to the drawing board, self audit and start with fresh eyes.

I do not believe scripture supports eternal conscious torment either btw.

So if we’re just going according to relative meanings of words depending on context and the righteous live forever and the wicked do not live forever, but are destroyed then you can effectively apply that same logic to anything in the Bible.

So can you prove the righteous living forever is literal and the wicked perishing is not literal? How about can you prove the soul of the wicked is immortal?

When you start fiddling with words, making them not literal, then these kind of problematic renderings of scripture arise. No wonder there are thousands of denominations; people just make the Bible mean whatever they prefer.

 

[Mem]

You would have to have a verse showing:

1. God actually destroying souls.
2. Scripture clearly indicating that the GWT crowd WON'T get what the beast and FP will get.

So far, you don't have anything.

1. It is implied that we take the verse that claims Gods ability to destroy both body and soul as an immediate threat, a clear and present danger evidenced with the directive to 'fear' this. If we do not accept that God actually will, then we must adopt this danger as an empty theat.
2. Scripture clearly indicates the GWT crowd get what the antichrist, FP, and dragon will get so, logically if we accept annihilation for them, we must accept annihilation of those three also. I am in this group, and may be alone in it atm, as I currently do not accept 'torment' to be the most precisely translated term used for the original. I firmly believe that the meaning of that term, basi-something, was intended to say 'Blackstone', which was a common practice of judgment used in the time of writing in the
roman culture. This is directly correlated to the living-forever receiving a "Whitestone with their name written on it."
The Blackstone would have no name written on it or, if it does, the name will be blotted out.

I've been meditating on the subject of gratitude and, in following a Berean example of comparing others' ideas with what scripture says, I've adopted that approach comparing doctrine with its ramifications our thanksgiving in the reflection of God's glory. I.e., can everyone say, as everyone will, ultimately, give Him glory, "Thank God for this, He is rich in justice and mercy..."
And everyone can with the doctrine of annihilation, even those in the GWT crowd, as atheist currently do say of annihilation. Even so, they'll be snarling and gnashing their teeth at the GWT up to that point.

 

[Runningman]

Said the "dramatic one", who has such high sympathies for unbelievers who have NO EXCUSE for being cast into the LOF. Get real.

As opposed to you who has… no sympathy?

The Bible uses "destroy" to describe the physical body in captital punishment, and burning up in the LOF after the GWT judgment.

Revelation 19-20 doesn’t say their bodies are burned up. You want an inch? Prove it.

She wasn't seeking answers. She was pointing out how "destroy" can be used. Your understanding ignores all the other uses. And you know you don't have any verse that actually says that souls will be destroyed. Only the 1 about God being able to destroy souls, which NO ONE argues against. So you have nothing with which to defend your view.

I am not defending a view, I am just feeding you what the Bible says. God is able to destroy body and soul because based on all of the verses in the Bible about the wicked perishing it’s the alternative to being saved.

Seems you are rather bothered when someone points out that you believe what atheists believe about what happens after death. Hm.

Get used to it.

What. You want me to get used to people quoting atheists?

 

[Runningman]

No, I didn't mean that. And you know that. I mean your hyper emotional sentiments about human being being tormented for ever and ever, even though they themselves HAVE NO EXCUSE for ending up in the LOF.

That isn’t how I feel though, but you continue to insist on misrepresenting how I feel even after being corrected. You’re doing something called projecting. Big difference between your thoughts and feelings and other peoples. The word is a big place and not everyone experiences things the way you do.

For me I just see the truth needs to be preserved. My horse in the race is protecting the Bible and God knows.

They have either no interest in Creator God, or they simply settled for a cheap substitute. And so God gives them what they want. You guys think ECT is CRUEL, yet He is simply allowing them to make their own decisions.

Obviously we disagree that ECT exists for all of the unsaved so why would we think what you’re saying? Also, why do you capitalize random words? On the Internet that means screaming. Speaking of emotions, how is your temperament?

You guys think ECT is CRUEL, yet that is the warning for those not interested in salvation, or simply don't believe what God says.

Death is the warning not ECT.

So, why all your hyper-emotionalism over people who are getting what they want; no relationship with God. And that is what they will get.

ECT doesn’t mean someone didn’t want a relationship with God.

I meant it truthfully. But you are free to twist what ever you want.

Your intentions don’t override the plain definitions of words.

You think I used something Stott claimed? I've never read him. And before you guys, I've never had a discussion about annihilationism.

You’re using something those who oppose conditional immortality use.

I never did, and you know that full well. Just more lies.

Yawn.

I said:
"The Bible is clear; those who will be cast into the LOF wil be tormented for ever and ever. That includes ALL unbelievers and ALL fallen angels. A very big group."

And the Bible doesn’t support what you said.

Rev 20:10 isn't an imagination or false assumption. The Bible IS CLEAR that those who will be thrown into the LOF will suffer a second death AND be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

That’s not exact what it says. You’re adding words to Revelation.

Your refusal to accept what the Bible says is astounding.

Ditto.

You don't anything about me

Good let’s keep it that way.

Oh, actually, I do. You have made it very clear from many of your posts. You are as easy to read as a book.

Only in your imagination.

You already have confided in me, and everyone else who follows this thread. You've given your opinions. That is confiding in.

You don’t know what confide means.

It means this:

tell someone about a secret or private matter while trusting them not to repeat it to others.

This is rich. Why would it "have to" say that. I think everyone (except you 2) KNOW that when a physical body is thrown into a lake of fire, the body WILL be utterly destroyed.

so you think you get a free pass and don’t have to quote the Bible to prove your point. Astounding.

So you really don't understand what isolating verses is about? It is about giving specific verses to clearly refute the false ideas of posters.

Which you’ve failed to do and I’ve succeeded in.

And to even suggest that isolating a verse and ignoring the rest of Scripture seems an admission on your part that some verses (isolated ones) contradict other verses. That is pure nonsense imho.

No. You’re wrong so when I talk about “isolating verses” and ignoring context I’m talking about you.

No verse can EVER contradict any other verse. So when someone quotes an "isolated verse" to you that "seems to" contradict any verse you have quoted, you need to very seriously think about that isolated verse. Then, you need to see if you can prove that it DOESN'T actually say or mean what the other poster says it means. That is called refutation.

If you can't do that, then you really really really need to look at your own verse and see if it really does say/mean what you thought it means.

You haven't come close to refuting any verse I've quoted. Basically, you just ignore them or claim they are "isolated verses", whatever that means. As if to imply they don't count.

Oh, but they DO COUNT. Every verse counts. But we need to understand every verse that we use for support. Do they really support what we claim? They either do or they don't.

By using the Berean study method, and seeing what the Bible says, and plugging in the claims of annihilationists, I am beyond confident that it is a false doctrine.

You would have to have a verse showing:

1. God actually destroying souls.
2. Scripture clearly indicating that the GWT crowd WON'T get what the beast and FP will get.

So far, you don't have anything.

No wonder you’re so blind.

[/QUOTE]

Matthew 10:28 proves God destroys souls.

 

[Runningman]

The Bereans would "search the Scriptures daily to see if what Rm sais was true". And they would find that there are no verses that say this. It is only an opinion, without any support from Scripture.

In fact, your error is even worse than just your rejection of ECT. No unbeliever has a human spirit, at least not a live one. So their dead spirit is already dead anyway.

So add that to your biblical errors.

The Bereans had access to the Old Testament which is what they would have searched. The scriptures they had to search would have included all of the OT scripture about the fate of the wicked being destroyed, killed, reduced to ash, and the soul who sins dying.

You really don’t have any clue.

 

[Runningman]

I NEVER CALLED either of you a "crying drunk". That's what you 2 made up. I explained how I used that word WAY BEFORE either of you find your own dictionary.

Claiming ECT to be CRUEL is being over emotional, which is how I am using "maudlin". I really don't care how you want to use it, I already made myself clear about how I am using it, so all your blubbering about a "crying drunk" is purely your own nonsense.

Look up the word maudlin and be intellectually honest for a change. It means someone is emotional and tearful through drunkenness. A man would say “you’re right, it was a bad choice of word,” but you dig in your heels, double down, triple down, quadruple down, etc. You don’t have the authority to redefine words; your judgements and words will be held against you unless you repent.

 

[Runningman]

When I was challenged on something I firmly held to like eschatology, in the face of overwhelming inconsistencies that were shown to me, I was man enough to go back to the drawing board, self audit and start with fresh eyes.

I respect that attitude, but I’m just very curious about this. Please don’t tell me you’re a pre-tribber. If you are then okay, I won’t debate it here, just curious.

 

[Runningman]

1. It is implied that we take the verse that claims Gods ability to destroy both body and soul as an immediate threat, a clear and present danger evidenced with the directive to 'fear' this. If we do not accept that God actually will, then we must adopt this danger as an empty theat.
2. Scripture clearly indicates the GWT crowd get what the antichrist, FP, and dragon will get so, logically if we accept annihilation for them, we must accept annihilation of those three also. I am in this group, and may be alone in it atm, as I currently do not accept 'torment' to be the most precisely translated term used for the original. I firmly believe that the meaning of that term, basi-something, was intended to say 'Blackstone', which was a common practice of judgment used in the time of writing in the
roman culture. This is directly correlated to the living-forever receiving a "Whitestone with their name written on it."
The Blackstone would have no name written on it or, if it does, the name will be blotted out.

I've been meditating on the subject of gratitude and, in following a Berean example of comparing others' ideas with what scripture says, I've adopted that approach comparing doctrine with its ramifications our thanksgiving in the reflection of God's glory. I.e., can everyone say, as everyone will, ultimately, give Him glory, "Thank God for this, He is rich in justice and mercy..."
And everyone can with the doctrine of annihilation, even those in the GWT crowd, as atheist currently do say of annihilation. Even so, they'll be snarling and gnashing their teeth at the GWT up to that point.

very nicely said and very clear. The more I have discussed and studied this the more I am not far off from your point about 3 persons not literally being tormented forever.

There are more things I didn’t notice before. Why is the lake of fire literal fire if the bodies are burned up? How can they gnash literal teeth or be tormented if all that remains is an immaterial soul not being effected by flames? Maybe many of those people didn’t like God anyway? Maybe it’s more like a prison, as some verses suggest? Mentally rotting away decade after decade, waiting, until one is driven to insanity?

One thing is clear is that all of the unsaved don’t experience this. They say the verses about being reduced to ashes or being destroyed only apply to the physical body, but Matthew 10:28 says to not fear the body being killed. So why would a soul remaining alive in literal fire have any fear?

These are just some of my thoughts about the inconsistencies I’ve noticed so far.

I basically 99% agree with you. The other 1% I remain open to.

 

[Runningman]

I firmly believe that the meaning of that term, basi-something, was intended to say 'Blackstone', which was a common practice of judgment used in the time of writing in the
roman culture. This is directly correlated to the living-forever receiving a "Whitestone with their name written on it."
The Blackstone would have no name written on it or, if it does, the name will be blotted out.

The word for torment in Revelation 20:10 can be translated many ways and it isn’t always torment:

G928 (BibleHub Link) basanizó
Strong's Concordance
basanizó: to torture
Original Word: βασανίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: basanizó
Phonetic Spelling: (bas-an-id'-zo)
Definition: to torture
Usage: I examine, as by torture; I torment;
I buffet, as of waves.

See these verses to see how it is used differently than torment:

Matthew 14:24
Mark 6:48
2 Peter 2:8
Revelation 12:2