[QUOTE="GabuEx"]But here's the thing: you have stated quite clearly that you do not believe kolasis to refer to punishment with the intent to improve the one being punished. And if punishment is not intended to improve the one being punished, then the only other conclusion is that it must be an end unto itself. Yet, here is where we run into a problem: the Greek word for punishment for the sake of punishment is timoria. You are thus effectively asserting that kolasis is a synonym for timoria.MatrixSamurai27
No, I think kolasis gives a clue to the nature of the punishment, unlike timoria.
Yet, there are many texts such as the one from Clement of Alexandria that draw a clear distinction between kolasis and timoria: far from being synonyms, all the evidence points to them being mutually exclusive in nature. So if you are to assert that kolasis does not refer to punishment with the intent to bring about an improvement, then to what form of punishment does it refer such that it is differentiated from timoria? This is a question that you absolutely must answer for your position to be tenable. Kolasis cannot refer to punishment for the sake of punishment, as that would make it timoria. But you assert that it also does not refer to punishment for the sake of improvement. Then what options remain?GabuEx
Timoria means what you said, but it doesn't really specify the nature of the punishment. Kolasis would refer to punishment but it also delineates the nature of the punishment. As I have argued, it can gel with my view because it deals with something being cut off. Also, as I have said, I have not seen you demonstrate scripturally that it is the wicked having their evil cut off from them, contra the wicked being cut off from the righteous which I assert and have provided scripture cites for.
No offense, but you can't just toss this aside by saying "it deals with something being cut off". We've been over this before. Yes, it comes from a verb that basically refers to the action of pruning, but the purpose of pruning is to remove that which prevents the plant from growing properly. Similarly, kolasis refers to the figurative act of removing that which prevents the one being punished from growing properly. The extrapolation from kolazo to kolasis is on the nature of the action - that it hurts at the time, but is better for the one subjected to it in the long run - not in the literal action of cutting off branches.
I mean no offense, but you're really grasping for straws here. As I have already demonstrated (and which you have not even really attempted to seriously refute), the verb kolasis refers to corrective punishment... period. That's just a fact, and if you wish to deny it, then I really don't even know what to say. You can't act as though a word means something other than what it means just by examining its etymology. Kolasis no more means "cut off" than "slavery" means "pertaining to the Slavic people" ("slave" originally came from "Slav", since they were commonly enslaved in the Middle Ages).
As for scriptural basis, I have already illustrated for you that fire carries a powerful symbolism of purification and of the transformation of the negative into the positive. At this point, if you're still asking me to provide evidence in favor of what I'm saying, I really can't help but get the sense that you're refusing to actually acknowledge anything I'm saying. I think those watching at home are quite aware of all of the evidence that I've provided, and that you have provided effectively none aside from your own blatant assumptions about the falsity of what I'm saying due to its contradicting the doctrine that you hold to be true. This conversation will be fruitless as long as you keep your fingers plugged in your ears. You may disagree with me if you wish, but please don't act as though I haven't provided anything when I quite clearly have and when it is in plain view for anyone to see.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Well, here's the thing regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. People look at Sodom and Gomorrah as though the punishment meted towards it was final and annihilatory in nature, and then conclude that the lake of burning sulfur is the same. But that just isn't so:MatrixSamurai27
Um, the actual cities were never rebuilt. Ezekiel is using them as a figure of speech.
And what figure of speech might that be, when it is said that Sodom will be restored? Either the fire and sulfur ought to be taken as a permanent destruction for all time, or they are not, and Ezekiel is clearly saying that they are not.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]For how can we declare that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) if it is the case that the vast masses will be subject to unceasing, merciless judgment for all eternity? The Greek word here translated to "triumph" is katakauchaomai, a word referring to the rejoicing at the sight of another's defeat - and until there be no sting of judgment left in existence, there can never truly be such a triumph, as clearly mercy will have had no final victory with which to lord over judgment. If it is truly the case that mercy triumphs over judgment, then we must conclude that, in the end, mercy will indeed have the last laugh.MatrixSamurai27
The problem is that you misunderstand what "mercy" meant back then. It meant "fulfillment of covenant obligation." See here. So "fulfillment of covenant obligation" will triumph over judgment because God is obliged by the terms of the new covenant to save its participants from judgment.
I'm not exactly convinced that this definition tells the whole story. What covenant obligation, for example, did the good Samaritan have with the man who was seriously injured by robbers? One could, of course, say that he was obligated by the commandment to love God and one's neighbor, but this ignores the entire point of Jesus presenting the man as a Samaritan. That term is generally almost totally integrated with the notion of goodness and selflessness in modern times, but at the time Jesus was speaking, it referred to one in whom many to whom Jesus was speaking held in contempt. Jesus, therefore, was saying not only that what the Samaritan did was good, but also that goodness is what matters, not who the person is who does it.
To claim that Jesus was describing this Samaritan as simply fulfilling a contractural obligation seems to me to be destroying the entire purpose of his message. The notion of mercy comes up many times in the Bible, and I cannot exactly see how the emotionless notion of contractural fulfillment remotely accounts for the way in which it is used.
Of course, all of this is rendered moot, anyhow, by the fact that Jesus is clearly said to be the savior of all. Even if we are to read that as "contractural obligation triumphs over judgment", then it still says that all men will eventually have their contractural obligation triumph over judgment.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
1.   It has been established that fire is a powerful symbol for the transformation of the negative to the positive.  If you are accepting the idea that the sulfur is intended as symbolism, then you must accept that the fire is symbolic as well, as they are inextricably linked.  So, then, how does the fire fit into the picture?  Where does purification fit into the picture of eternal shame and separation from God?MatrixSamurai27
It's time for you to deal with what I said above.
"They believed it purified it because they believe it drove the evil spirits out of the house whom they believed caused sickness. Going along with the judgment at the end of time, the imagery for hell would suggest the universe is purified because the wicked are driven away to hell."
If we are to believe the sulfur imagery suggests the actual people are purified, then you have to show that the ancients believed that evil spirits themselves were purified by the sulfur instead of being driven away from the home.
I already did deal with what you said above. No offense, but you seem to have a nasty habit of outright ignoring when people respond to your arguments, and then acting as though they said nothing whatsoever. Humans are not evil spirits. They are human beings in which evil dwells. The purification is indeed the removal of evil, not the removal of the human in which evil dwells. To claim that this purification implies the removal of the humans, you would also need to claim that the purification of the house implied the removal of the house.
If you wish to believe that all humans who are subject to this purification are pure evil, rather than human beings in whom evil dwells, then you are welcome to do so, but I would find that both a pitiable and an unjustifiable belief. Jesus did not come to save evil; Jesus came to save humans from evil.
Okay, now that I've finished my reply, it's time I throw something new into the discussion. Namely, if Gabu's view on hell is correct, then it throws the doctrine of atonement on its head and makes it nonsensical. Gabu says people's punishment in hell will last a certain time, in proportion to the wickedness of their deeds. This brings up the question then, if God's punishment for sin is a function of time, then how in the world did Jesus' half a day on the cross pay for all the sins of the people that would become Christians?
Now, I have proposed an honor/shame view to explain what people experience in heaven and hell. This makes perfect sense of the atonement, namely, why Jesus' "short" sufferings were enough to pay for all Christians' sins, and why people stay in hell for eternity.
First I will provide this list (Source).
1.   God is in the position of highest authority, of the highest good, and is therefore a being of the highest personal honor.
2.   All sin and evil are therefore an insult to the honor of God, a disregard of His rule and authority and an honor offense.
3.   Any who commit sin/evil, therefore, are degrading God's honor and status. Because this honor rightly belongs to God, it must be restored.
It should be noted here that some may object that it is impossible to take away honor from God. This argument fails because ancient people recognized two types of honor: Acquired honor and what we might call inherent honor.
The second type of honor is honor due someone because of what they were by nature -- their family associations, for example. This type of honor is associated with God's nature and indeed can't be taken away.
However, acquired honor is a different matter. It has to do with one's deeds and authority. This kind of honor, even if it belongs to God, can indeed be taken away, because at its core is what others (including us) think of God.
4.   God's proper response to disobedience, which dishonors Him, is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor.
5.   Jesus Christ underwent the crucifixion, a "status degradation ritual," in our place. In other words, he experienced the shame that was rightly owed to us. Crucifixion was the most shameful death in the NT world. See more on that here.
6.   As a corollary, one who accepts the payment offered by Jesus ought, sensibly, to be aware of this price that has been paid and respond accordingly. One who does not respond accordingly is not appreciative of the paid price and may not truly have accepted the gift.
7.   In the process of the crucifixion, then, Jesus acts as a broker for those who wish to enter into a covenant with God. Those who enter that covenant are expected to serve within that covenant if they have indeed made a commitment."
God, the being of highest honor, is the one doling out the shame so to speak. We are humans, and thus can only have human honor, which is not as "high" as divine honor. We can thus only ever suffer human shame (deprivation of all human honor), which would never satisfy the shame quotient punishment coming from a being of divine honor. This is why people can never be punished long enough in hell to get out. It has to do with the quality of the beings involved. To put another way, it's a qualitative matter over a quantitative one.
Now, you may already see this, but this is why Jesus crucifixion was enough to pay for all sin even though he was only up on the cross for half a day. He, having divine honor, suffered the worst shame possible in the world at the time. The Divine Son allowed himself to be shamed, thus giving the only offering that would satisfy the shame quotient punishment coming from a being of divine honor.
MatrixSamurai27
I find it interesting that you use (or rather, the author you've quoted uses) the word "accept" here. I find it interesting because that is a word that is the cornerstone of what is perhaps the most fundamental doctrine in Christianity today, and yet is a word that is never once used in the entire New Testament in the sense that this doctrine demands. What Christ brings is indeed called a gift. Yet we are told that, in order to receive this gift, we must do as God says. The Greek term here, however, is charisma, which refers to that which one receives (note: receives, not simply "is presented for acceptance") without any merit of one's own. The very word itself is utterly incompatible with the idea that one must do something before one is deemed worthy of receiving it - if one is presented with a charisma, then one has already received it, no strings attached, no action necessary.
You present a standard argument that I have heard before, and it has one fundamentally weak link: namely, that we must do something before receiving this charisma, and therefore that this charisma is not even a charisma at all.
(Of course, this does not even mention the absurdity of the idea that humans can never suffer enough shame in hell, and that they must therefore stay there for eternity, but that those who "accept" Jesus' sacrifice somehow are now A-OK and ready to go to heaven when they die. Nor does it mention the absurdity of the ever-unspoken idea that those who die without having done so can then never, ever do so and that God will turn them away forever no matter what. God is love indeed...)
Again, this does not mean that all men will be whisked away to heaven the moment they die. What it means, however, is that the receipt of God's love into one's heart is not something that God cruelly refuses to allow after our eighty short years on Earth. It is something that is always there, and it is something that God will, in the end, bring all men to, so that he may truly be "all in all".  The idea that Christ came to save the world and ended up only saving a small bundle of saints is, and has always been, nothing more than dragging God down to our level, muttering to ourselves that surely God would not, or could not, save all of those people. But he could, and he did. For centuries people have tried to come up with arguments that tie God's hands and prevent him from being able to save most of the world... but in the end, they do not work.
Log in to comment