The Fires of Hell Have Gone Out: No Eternal Torment

In the context of this topic, my point is that jaywill always falls back on the Revelation to explain (away) what the other books say. I have asked him more than once to make a case for eternal torment that doesn't depend on the Revelation. If he is, in fact, interpreting all the books in relation to all the others, he should be able to make some sort of a case without reference to the Revelation at all. I have yet to see him do that.(Since some people do not accept that the Revelation is about our future, I feel that an interpretation based on that assumption is rather weak.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

How many times do I have to say it? I am not excluding the Revelation. I am asking for evidence of eternal torment that doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the Revelation.If there is so much of it, jaywill (or anybody) should have no problem producing some of it.My position is simple and clear: Matthew 25 says that there is hope for everybody, based on their actions, not on their profession of faith. Even for the goats, the fire may be everlasting, but the logs on the fire are not.The only response that I have heard is that the Revelation says something different. What I am asking is: why does the Revelation trump Matthew?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Deja vu all over again:

quote:

---

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever

---

quote:

---

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

---

Revelation mentions torment for the devil, the beast and the false prophet - not for the general public. Matthew mentions no torment at all for the goats. Even assuming that the two passages are talking about the same fire, I see little or no overlap between them.As I have said and said and said: The fire may be everlasting, but the fuel is consumed. The fire lasts as long as there is fuel, but the individual fuel units do not. There is nothing in your "evidence" to indicate otherwise.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Your case would be more persuasive if you did (or if you could). If you're trying to persuade somebody (not necessarily me), why wouldn't you present your strongest case?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Once again, instead of blustering, why not at least post a link to what you have "already stated" and "already written"? Newcomers to the board would find it easier to decide if your claims are true.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There's another oppurtunity for you to post a link to where I have denied the deity of Jesus.But that's way off topic. The question here is: can you make a Biblical case for eternal torment that doesn't depend on your pet interpretation of the Revelation?So far, the answer seems to be that you can't.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Fire is fire and fuel is consumed. If you are postulating some kind of "special" fire that doesn't consume its fuel, then you would have to back that up Biblically. Does it say that the rich man was "not consumed"? Does it say that he was tormented eternally?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC