Eternal Hell

[amortalman]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

1) If your brand of religion teaches that unbelievers will be judged by God and cast into Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity to suffer there with no possibility of death or escape, is this action by God a just punishment, and why?

2) The second question is purely hypothetical and reaches way out there. If your God gave you permission to do as you please concerning eternal Hell, to keep it, or to abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation, would you keep it or do away with it?

NOTE: In regards to question number one I'm thinking about the story told by Jesus of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke chapter 16. The Lake of Fire is mentioned in Revelation 20:10-15 and 21:8.

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever. During my years as a Christian in an evangelical church, I've heard many preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches. I was once a part of a Biblical teaching program for children 2nd through 6th grade. I can only imagine the nightmares some of them had after being told that without Jesus they would go to Hell forever. Someone might argue that it's better that than to go to Hell. But does the fear tactic really work, and if it does, is that the best way, to scare the hell out of them?

In my understanding of the Bible, and what is being taught to millions of people in evangelical churches around the world, there are two kinds of people who will be cast into Hell. Those who have never heard the gospel and those how have rejected the gospel after having heard it. According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now because they never had an opportunity to hear about Christ. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands that are dying every day and going to Hell for lack of an opportunity to decide. Is that just?

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

What say you?

[Claire Evans]

First time posting on this thread 'cause I don't like thinking about hell. A wise guide once told me ' don't think about Satan or you will find him".

The only hell , is the hell we create for ourselves. God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, that' why God has worked so tirelessly to save us, God is all about benevolence toward us. Hell is something like being trapped in our own mind. While there is a great big mind outside, that we don't know about. Hell is like a routine , recurring thoughts memories and regrets keep circling around. That's what I think anyway. Been there , done that , not there anymore.

Satan will find people whether they think of him or not.

As Dio said, hell is like routine, ruccuring thoughts, memories, and regrets keep circling around; great that you rid y/self of it.

That doesn't come close to the greatest evil.

[Justin108]

The upshot of this situation is that verses can be interpreted to support our pre-existence

Verses can also be interpreted to suggest aliens came to earth. The fact that a verse can be interpreted a certain way is not enough to conclude that it should be interpreted this way. Can you perhaps demonstrate that the verses you are listing should be interpreted in the manner you suggest?

NOW, for those who believe that PCE cannot possible be real, here is your chance to produce even ONE VERSE which says or merely implies that PCE is impossible within YHWH's system of reality in the bible.

Shifting the burden of proof

IF Sheol is the place of the dead, that is spirits without bodies

"Death" is not defined as "spirits without bodies". Even if we assume spirits exist, "death" is usually understood as an after-life experience. That is to say in order to be "dead", you have to first have been alive at one point.

IF we were indeed created altogether before the creation of the physical universe

That's the claim you'll need to support

As for our being created before the physical universe, it is tied into the creation story in Job 38: 1-7 in which verse Job 38:7 ...while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of GOD shouted for joy? in which we learn people were there and saw the creation of the physical universe and every knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praise!

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Whether one would call angels "people" is open to debate, but this verse certainly does not support your claim that humans witnessed creation.

Rom 1:20[/color] also tells us that everyone saw the proof of HIS divinity and power by what was made so that NONE (no one was left out of this witness, that is the crowd of the morning stars and all the sons of GOD included every person every created) has an excuse.

Everyone seeing "proof" is not the same as everyone witnessing creation as it happens. I can see proof of dinosaurs without witnessing dinosaurs walking around.

So yes, since these things are true...

Wait.. what things are true?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 239 by ttruscott]

Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol ...
Kiel - Delitzsch(#16): Yea, back to Hades must the wicked return....
The spirits of the dead RETURN to Sheol where they came from, no matter what the JW interpretation is. Even Job in Job 1:2 And Job said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither. saying he was returning at death. Does it sound like he is saying he will be returning to annihilation, since that is what it would mean if he had no existence before the womb.

A reading of Psalm 9 makes it obvious what David is talking about, and it certainly isn't what you are claiming that single verse conveys.

Sheol is not a literal geographical place, but is a metaphor for the finality and futility of death .

That is why many modern translations use the term "the grave".

You mentioned Job; I suggest chapter 10 has a relevant message.

The following sums up the meaning of Psalm 9:17 rather well:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

17:

The wicked shall return to Sheol,
Even all the nations that forget God.

Sheol is not hell as the place of torment.

What is meant is that the career of the wicked in this world will be cut short by the judgement of God. Cp. Psalm 55:15, Psalm 63:9.

But why return? Man must return unto the ground from which he was taken, to the dust of which he was made, to his elementary atoms (Genesis 3:19; Psalm 104:29; Psalm 90:3). A still closer parallel is to be found in the words of Job (Job 30:23) unto death wilt thou make me return. Cp. too Job 1:21.

The shadowy existence in Sheol to which man passes at death is comparable to the state of non-existence out of which he was called at birth. From the great deep to the great deep he goes. There Job will have no more enjoyment of life, there the wicked will have no more power for evil.

[amortalman]

It may not make sense that people would want to suffer forever, but I've covered that aspect already. My bad, I didn't cover that with you. People do insane things all the time. They want to do these things, and if they do these things their entire lives then why would they all of a sudden change their minds and do what makes perfect sense? They wouldn't if they could so there's no reason to suppose that when they die they will all of a sudden want to avoid being miserable for eternity. They wanted to be miserable for their entire earthly life so it stands to reason that this is what they will want to do for eternity. I used to know a lot of people that were like that. They enjoyed being miserable. It was what they were accustomed to. It was what was familiar to them. They weren't interested in learning to behave in totally unfamiliar and uncomfortable ways.

(Sorry, I'm stumped as to how to get my reply out of the blue zone so I'll preface my response with Me:
From the perspective of my original post, my comments on hell, the kind of place I and the Christians I posed the questions to believe it is, do you still say that some people would willingly choose to go to THAT kind of hell over going to heaven? You say they enjoyed being miserable all their lives. Do you really think anyone but a raving lunatic who really didn't know what he was getting into would choose to burn alive forever? Sure, people do crazy things all the time, but that? Do you think anyone who knows exactly what they're doing would choose to go to a place of suffering, with no chance of escape, forever even it didn't consist of actual fire.

The story isn't meant to be read as if this rich man actually was in some place of torment; it's meant to be seen as a story to convict the Pharisees of their squandering their opportunity to share the oracles of God; or rather coveting and hoarding the oracles of God for themselves. In other words, what some interpret to be pointing to what happens when people die, is really about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Me:
Well, that's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But, anyone's interpretations of scripture could be wrong. My point is that we should refrain from making dogmatic statements as if it is the final truth of the matter.

The story makes no sense because the rich man asks that his brothers be notified. How could the rich man be in eternal torment when his brothers are still alive?

Me:
Because he has died and gone to a temporary hell. The story makes perfect sense if you believe that this is only a temporary hell until the end of the world and the final judgment, as millions of evangelicals do.

How can the rich man be judged and his brothers are still living as if the judgement hadn't happened at all? Do you see the problem?

Me:
Not at all. According to what I (and millions of others) have learned and been taught the rich man and all the other wicked dead will be removed from the temporary hell at the final judgment. There they will actually face God to give an account of their lives. In a sense, they were judged at their death and found themselves in the temporary hell awaiting the final judgment. If may not make sense to you, but to many Bible scholars and students it does

The Jewish mind didn't see death as some place one went to await judgment. The person just died and that was it; they're dead. Then on Judgement day they're resurrected and face their Maker.

Me:
That's right. But according to other beliefs, Jesus brought more revelation about the afterlife. Take the repentant thief on the cross, for example. Jesus said to him that on this day he would be with him in paradise. That's certainly not the grave.
Paradise is believed to be the place the repentant and righteous go to be comforted and wait for the eternal heaven just as the wicked (not because he was rich) rich man went to a temporary hell to be punished and await the final judgment and the Lake of Fire. In light of these beliefs, it makes sense.

... but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here.

No, God would never do that! I didn't say he would. It is a hypothetical question. It may be fascinating, ridiculous, "way out there" as I said, but it is NOT an invalid question. Is there such a thing as an invalid question? Might be a subject for debate.
The question was meant to try to get those Christians to THINK about what they're believing instead of sweeping the troubling issue of hell aside and hide their heads in the sand. Every believer I've ever known has had loved ones and friends who they deemed "lost" and headed for hell. IF given the chance would they abolish hell and save their loved ones and friends? I think many would start to do it and then realize that it's going to make them appear more merciful than God. So why doesn't God just annihilate all those sinners instead of torturing them forever in fire? Good question I think. Do you suppose maybe this picture of hell was man made instead of God made? But then one might ask, why would God write such a book that the concept of an eternal, blazing hell could be formed? That would be cruel. People throughout history have agonized over going to hell and lived austere lives to try to please God and keep from going there.

It (the story of the rich man) can't be about what happens after one dies. There was no question what happens after one dies. Jesus would have looked like some sort of lunatic teaching what happens after someone dies.

Me:
Jesus would, of course, teach about what happens after someone dies if the teaching was new revelation, wouldn't he? Why wasn't it taught by Moses or the prophets? You got me. There's a lot of pieces of the Bible that just don't fit.

This would be like him teaching an adult how to tie sandals, or how to draw water from a well. The Pharisees are the authorities on morality and ethical behavior.

Me:
Wasn't that a huge point of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees? They THOUGHT they were the authorities on morality and behavior. Jesus pointed out that his Father was the authority.

They, as well as everyone else in that society; knew what happened when someone died.

Me:
No, they thought they knew.

Their body went into the ground and the spirit that gave that body life went straight back to their God. That soul that died ceased to know anything from that point on.

Me:
Even the wicked people and all those who rejected God went straight back to God?
In that case, no one goes to hell, everyone goes to heaven unless you believe that the evil spirits in heaven were going to be thrown out of heaven at the end of the end of time. No wonder Jesus had to straighten them out on this!

This was not something that Jesus would be teaching about in the first place. His concern was with what happened AT the judgement; not what happened between death and the judgement. He's not teaching the Pharisees what happens after they die, he's teaching them that they are hypocrites.

Me:
No, many believe he's teaching them what happens to wicked, greedy people (like the rich man) when they die. And again, you can't just set yourself as the final authority on what Jesus was teaching. Other sincere, intelligent students of the Bible interpret scripture differently.

As far as being in hell goes, it makes no sense to say that a drop of water will cool much of anything. It's not meant to be taken literally.

Me:
There you go again. Maybe the rich man was asking for whatever he thought he might be able to get, I don't know. Maybe he was delirious. I would be if I was burning alive in a fire. I don't know how he had the presence of mind to say anything, for that matter. The whole concept of hell is outrageous as are manty other things in the Bible.

Some try to maneuver around this by saying that this is just a parable but in all of Jesus' parables he never mentioned a person's name, in this story he does.

There is nothing in the definition or usage of the figure Parable that requires names be used or excluded from the figure. This is a non sequitur.

Me:
An equal argument can be made that your position is a non sequitur. If you care to check it out you can go to got?questions.org and read about legitimate other views.

A lifetime of suffering on earth is completely logical if you believe what science has shown, that life came about by natural selection and gene mutation. Suffering is then understood to be the natural consequences of living on this planet among often hostile inhabitants of all kinds, including viruses and germs, not to mention violent weather, earthquakes, etc. But if one believes that God created us (making him responsible for us) and loves us and is full of compassion and kindness, then the terrible suffering of people including children and animals becomes a huge issue to try to justify.

I find this a bit biased to say the least. When there is no god to create everything, it's suddenly perfectly acceptable and reasonable that suffering exist, but if there is a god, then he must be a monster? If suffering makes sense without a god, why must a god do anything any different?

Me:
Because the Bible portrays God as merciful and compassionate. By definition God is love. "God loves the little children of the world." Yet, throughout history children have suffered horrible abuses and the suffering that comes from earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, storms - all the things referred to as "acts of God." How ironic. In my view, if God did create us he is responsible for us. If evolution created us no one is responsible for us and the miseries we endure here is the natural result of living in a dangerous place. That makes more sense to me than believing that a merciful, compassionate God allows all these horrible things to happen, and in the end send yo to hell for not believing in something you cannot see. hear, smell, or touch.

What's so different about natural selection and gene mutation and a god that "elects" those who he decides are more suitable for life? Perhaps he uses the exact same mechanism to decide which would make your accusations seem a bit unwarranted.

Me:
Why do you propose that God used evolution to create us? That's not what Genesis teaches, in my opinion and that of most Christendom. There is no scientific evidence that God's hand was in it at all.

Why not just say that this whole process is unjustified without some god?

Me:
Because that's not what I believe and it's not what science teaches. In ancient times people didn't have the science we have today. In their efforts to explain the world they didn't understand they came up with whatever they could. In a nutshell, I think that's how religion got started.

This is interesting to me for a number of reasons, but it's really no different than the abortion issue. This isn't meant to derail your question into some tangeant, but to show that a woman has the right to abort her baby for any reason whatsoever. She doesn't need a reason to begin with. It's no different with the god of the bible. This is His world. He created it, and He's free to do with it as He likes. I'm not saying that's what he's doing though. All of the arguments that are used to justify a woman's right can be just as easily used for God and his right to justly deal with his creation as he see's fit. Given that he's a just deity, his reasons will be much better than a woman getting an abortion.

Me:
IF the God of the Bible created this world and all living things then, yes, HE can do as he pleases with it and us, including allowing the unnecessary suffering of children and animals and tossing the majority his creation in the burning hell when he's through with it.
For the record, I'm totally against abortion except in certain cases. And here again, you've stated your opinion on that subject as if it was a universal truth. It is not. Did you think I would agree with you on that subject? Is that why you put it out as a given? To many millions of women and men, the life of an unborn child is precious and should be protected by a civilized society.

If we're dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here, then a perfect human being who does one thing wrong, even if it's forgetting to say 'hello' to someone in passing is practically as evil as a Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot in relation to God. In other words, you're in no position to pass judgment on a God like that. it would be like telling us that you completely understood quantum physics and string theory when you were four years old.

Me:
But we're not dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here. We're dealing with a fictional character and that gives me the right to pass judgment on him.

[Monta]

[Replying to amortalman]

Shnarkle wrote and you quoted it:

"... but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here. "

I could not find this quote and possibly have missed the flow, but I am intrigued
that God would give someone else the opportunity to do away with hell? Who is this 'someone'?

Also. where did you get the idea that God created hell?

[amortalman]

[Replying to amortalman]

Shnarkle wrote and you quoted it:

"... but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here. "

I could not find this quote and possibly have missed the flow, but I am intrigued
that God would give someone else the opportunity to do away with hell? Who is this 'someone'?

The quote is from post 231. To understand who "someone" is you need to go back and read my original post Question 1.

Also. where did you get the idea that God created hell?

Mat 25:41
Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;"

If God didn't create hell who created it? In Protestant (and I assume Catholicism) it is understood that God created Hell.

[ttruscott]

The upshot of this situation is that verses can be interpreted to support our pre-existence

Verses can also be interpreted to suggest aliens came to earth. The fact that a verse can be interpreted a certain way is not enough to conclude that it should be interpreted this way. Can you perhaps demonstrate that the verses you are listing should be interpreted in the manner you suggest?

It deals with the subject without having to attribute any blasphemy to GOD or HIS nature. That is a superior pov in Christian theology circles. There is no proof that it is true because we are to live by faith, not proof, so we can put our faith in it or not or in the aliens as Claire does. That is not my fault, I didn't create the system nor write the book.

NOW, for those who believe that PCE cannot possible be real, here is your chance to produce even ONE VERSE which says or merely implies that PCE is impossible within YHWH's system of reality in the bible.

Shifting the burden of proof

Just giving those who accept the Bible a chance to rebut my position from the Bible in the strongest possible way. I don't depend upon their inability to prove PCE is wrongly decided to put my faith in it as probably correctly decided in the main if not in the details. But the fact that there does not seem to be any such verse making our pre-existence impossible is telling from the Christian pov.

IF Sheol is the place of the dead, that is spirits without bodies

"Death" is not defined as "spirits without bodies". Even if we assume spirits exist, "death" is usually understood as an after-life experience. That is to say in order to be "dead", you have to first have been alive at one point.

So you decide to lecture me on the non-Christian meanings of words? I thought you were asking me about my theology? I was not trying to define death but referring to Sheol as a place of spirits, whether returned from life on earth or waiting for their lives on earth.

IF we were indeed created altogether before the creation of the physical universe

That's the claim you'll need to support

The word IF was used to indicate I was not making a claim but a suggestion for perusal and logical analysis. I think as a claim that it has merit. And I do support it with dozens of Bible verses which is important to Christian theology even though you think it is deficient for proof. Christ said no proof will be given except the sign of Jonah... What is this fruitless badgering about?

As for our being created before the physical universe, it is tied into the creation story in Job 38: 1-7 in which verse Job 38:7 ...while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of GOD shouted for joy? in which we learn people were there and saw the creation of the physical universe and every knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praise!

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Whether one would call angels "people" is open to debate, but this verse certainly does not support your claim that humans witnessed creation.

It supports the idea that some people were there singing and in conjunction with Rom 1:20 which claim all humans have seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power from the things that were made so we are all without excuse certainly ties those who saw the creation to those who now live on earth.

Aside: The word angels you make so much of is in fact 3605 the sons -l-hm " of God. Daniel 9:20 Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, 21 while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. along with Luke 1:19 "I am Gabriel," replied the angel. "I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. certainly suggests angels are people in a very ordinary sense of the word. Perhaps you think angel must refer to a race of beings which would be a mistake in light of the fact it means in essence, to be a messenger, that is, it is a job description, not an ontological one. Then there is also Michael, Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" who sounds and acts like a person: wiki: A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places.

It certainly seems to me that the word angels was chosen by some translators as an interpretation of Sons of GOD to avoid the implication of our not being created here on earth as we are the sons of GOD...an implication I like to reinforce.

Rom 1:20[/color] also tells us that everyone saw the proof of HIS divinity and power by what was made so that NONE (no one was left out of this witness, that is the crowd of the morning stars and all the sons of GOD included every person every created) has an excuse.

Everyone seeing "proof" is not the same as everyone witnessing creation as it happens. I can see proof of dinosaurs without witnessing dinosaurs walking around.

Ummm....ok.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to amortalman]

Shnarkle wrote and you quoted it:

"... but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here. "

I could not find this quote and possibly have missed the flow, but I am intrigued
that God would give someone else the opportunity to do away with hell? Who is this 'someone'?

Also. where did you get the idea that God created hell?

The "someone" is from the OP, i.e. you. God is asking you if you would like to get rid of hell, would you do it?

The idea that God created hell is from some Christian denominations that gleaned this interpretation from the texts. The author of the OP is asking this hypothetical question from their perspective.

[Justin108]

It deals with the subject without having to attribute any blasphemy to GOD or HIS nature.

We've had in depth discussions about PCEC and when I ask about the details regarding how this solves the blasphemies of the Bible, you could not answer me

viewtopic.php?t=31734&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

Unless you can answer these questions (see link), you cannot claim PCEC solves the problem of blasphemy in the Bible.

Furthermore, even if PCEC solved the problem of blasphemy, it still does not mean that this is the correct interpretation. You are ignoring the possibility that the authors simply wrote about an imperfect God. Unless you can demonstrate that the likely intention of the authors were to suggest a PCEC, you cannot suppose that this is what they actually meant.

It seems to me your interpretation is more about what you want the Bible to say rather than what it actually says. You want the Bible to be free of blasphemy and so you selectively interpret it to be free of blasphemy

There is no proof that it is true because we are to live by faith, not proof, so we can put our faith in it or not or in the aliens as Claire does. That is not my fault, I didn't create the system nor write the book.

So you admit then that your interpretation is just about as likely as aliens? I mean if two interpretations are exclusively supported by faith, then one cannot consider one to be more likely than the other.

But the fact that there does not seem to be any such verse making our pre-existence impossible is telling from the Christian pov.

When it comes to a text that is open to interpretation, there is almost never a way to prove any interpretation wrong. So no, I would not regard it as "telling", I would regard it as quite normal considering the interpretive nature of the text.

Can you perhaps prove that the alien interpretation is wrong?

"Death" is not defined as "spirits without bodies". Even if we assume spirits exist, "death" is usually understood as an after-life experience. That is to say in order to be "dead", you have to first have been alive at one point.

So you decide to lecture me on the non-Christian meanings of words?

I was unaware that words had special Christian-meanings... But anyway, every Christian I know (with the exception of you, of course) uses this same definition so it isn't really a non-Christian definition.

I thought you were asking me about my theology?

So in order for your theology to work, you need to start redefining words? I like how you call my definition the non-Christian meaning as though your definition is somehow the universal Christian meaning when no Christian I know of has ever used your definition. Wouldn't it be more fitting to call it the PCEC-definition?

The word IF was used to indicate I was not making a claim but a suggestion for perusal and logical analysis

Checkpoint was asking you to support your PCEC. By saying "IF we were indeed created altogether before the creation of the physical universe" then you're essentially asking us to assume for a moment that PCEC is correct in an attempt to support PCEC... this is no different from saying "IF God didn't exist, then atheists would be right". Which is stating the glaringly obvious.

And I do support it with dozens of Bible verses which is important to Christian theology even though you think it is deficient for proof

Your "support" is nothing but highly selective interpretations with a predetermined narrative in mind. Again, if I went out with the intention to interpret the Bible to support aliens then I will easily find verses to support my predetermined narrative.

Christ said no proof will be given except the sign of Jonah... What is this fruitless badgering about?

The "badgering" is about you coming to a Christian debate site on a daily basis, preaching your dogma without offering any support

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Whether one would call angels "people" is open to debate, but this verse certainly does not support your claim that humans witnessed creation.

It supports the idea that some people were there singing

Human-people or angel-people?

and in conjunction with Rom 1:20 which claim all humans have seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power from the things that were made so we are all without excuse certainly ties those who saw the creation to those who now live on earth.

Seeing proof and witnessing creation first hand are not the same thing. I can see proof of a murder without witnessing the murder first hand.

Aside: The word angels you make so much of is in fact 3605 the sons -l-hm " of God.

So only men (sons) witnessed creation?

Daniel 9:20 Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, 21 while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. along with Luke 1:19 "I am Gabriel," replied the angel. "I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. certainly suggests angels are people in a very ordinary sense of the word.

It might suggest that angels are people, but not that all people are angels.

Perhaps you think angel must refer to a race of beings which would be a mistake in light of the fact it means in essence, to be a messenger, that is, it is a job description, not an ontological one.

The fact that they are messengers does not exclude the possibility that they are a separate race as well. Suppose God asked someone on earth to deliver a message. Would that person suddenly be considered an "angel" by virtue of the fact that he is now a messenger of God? Aren't most prophets essentially messengers of God? Are you suggesting that all prophets are angels?

But let's suppose for argument sake that "angel" was just a job description. That doesn't make your argument any stronger. Essentially, that would mean that all "messengers" (Job 38: 1-7) witnessed creation and only these messengers. That means unless you held the title of angel/messenger, you would not have witnessed creation. So Job 38: 1-7 does not support your claim that all humans witnessed creation. All it does is tell us that angels/messengers witnessed creation.

Going by your earlier claim that "angel" is a mistranslation of "sons of God" then it still does not follow that all humans witnessed creation. Only the men (sons) witnessed creation according to this translation.

wiki: A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places.

Saying "an angel is a person" is not the same as saying "a human is an angel".

Your argument is essentially (correct me if I am wrong)
- Angels are people
- Humans are people
- Therefore, angels are humans

The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

To illustrate:
- Dogs are mammals
- Humans are mammals
- Therefore, dogs are humans?

Ummm....ok.

I'm pretty sure this classifies as an unconstructive one-liner

[ttruscott]

It deals with the subject without having to attribute any blasphemy to GOD or HIS nature.

We've had in depth discussions about PCEC and when I ask about the details regarding how this solves the blasphemies of the Bible, you could not answer me

viewtopic.php?t=31734&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

This baltant misrepresentation of my position is unwarranted and is a sure sign of a failing argument. Because I refuse to speculate on the personal reasons why people may have rejected GOD has no connection to Church blasphemies. I have written about them many times and if I chose not to engage with you it is not because I can't but because I measured you and found you wanting.