Bible does not teach that God tortures people forever with greatest pain in fire of Hell

See a Mod. I'm done with bullshit excuses and claims. Get it?

We can read whole Bible, and nowhere will we find words "tortured with greatest pain in Hell", which both you and Con conceded was truism. Now, truism is something which must be true, so saying that I made a claim which must be true, while also saying claim isnt true, is nonsense.

Now, if you want to punish me in your vote for making a truism, fine. But then dont at same time pretend Con proved anything. If topic is truism, then topic is true, and if you want to punish a truism, thats something different entirely.

You do not need to teach me about interpretation of words of a Resolve. I am fluent in English, and have a PhD in English Lit and a BA in Linguistics. You, apparently, did not understand either my explanation in the vote, nor my message #11 that while I get it that your BoP was that The "Bible does not teach that God tortures people forever with greatest pain in fire of Hell," but you merely made the claim and offered no argument of evidence showing the truth of the statement. Sorry, your BoP is to show the evidence, not merely to make the claim. But stop arguing with me. If you think my vote was not correct, refer to a Mod, pls. Your arguing with me now its pointless.

Also, saying that my claim is a truism while giving win to opponent? "Your side of debate must be true, so I will vote for your opponent"

I don't know how someone can cast a vote and mistake me for my opponent. You are literally blaming me for not proving opponent's position in your vote.

Alright, so it seems that words are confusing you. My position isn't to prove greatest possible pain in hell.
My position argues that Bible doesn't teach that.
Now, saying cats aren't greatest animals isn't same as saying cats aren't animals.

No. Your example is a simple statement, "cats are animals." A better example would have been "cats are the greatest of animals," but then, your BoOP is to prove the point Your Resolve is complicated by degree of condition, of not just "pain in the fires of hell," but "greatest pain in the fires of hell," but then failed to prove the point. Merely making the claim is not good enough. By the mere claim, your statement falls into the truism bucket, because the Bible does teach there is pain in the fires of hell. Show me evidence of such degree. You did not, and Con caught you in the error. Every word in a Resolve has meaning and importance.

"Whether or not this amounts to "greatest pain in the fires of hell" is inconsequential, "


I am starting to think these voters are trolls. this is like having topic "cats are animals", and voter saying "whether cats are animals or not is inconsequential".

Thank you very much

Words mean things, and certainly6, the worlds of the Resolution have specific and understandable meaning in their context, which is a condition experienced by people who ignore or dismiss "rules of the road" we travel in mortality. However, pro seems to imply by his argument that the Resolution must be taken in its own context, ignoring possible alternative words that say much the same thing, but without using the words of the Resolve. There, in Pro's case, the Bible does not read "greatest pain in the fires of hell," and, as a statement of factual reality, the Bible does not say this string of words in this words. There is great pain suffered, Pro acknowledges, but no "greatest pain."

However, Con's argument effectively shuts down the argument because Pro's claim is effectively a truism, which is a failed debate tactic. Con allows for, and cites several biblical passages, Old and New Testament, which acknowledge pain suffered as a consequence of sin, as a path to glory, and as a test of faith. Whether or not this amounts to "greatest pain in the fires of hell" is inconsequential, because the the consequences can be both physically and spiritually painful unto death, and that is suffice t pain to lose sight of the goal of dealing with pain and surviving to earn their right to live with God or not, eventually. The scriptures Con cites teach these principles clearly, Isaiah 33 18, Matthew 25 and Mark 19, for example.

Con wins.

I've tried to enter a vote, but the system response was that I've already voted on this debate. As there are zero votes noted on this debate as I make the vote attempt, that cannot be, and I have not previously placed a vote on this debate. Mods, plus. address.

Don't

Are you sure you want me to vote

Vote?

Please vote

Well, I still think you'd agree with me more than SatanLucy. I say hell is the absence of God, and that definition could still fit with annihilationism.

SatanLucy argues that the pain of hell is just not ultimate pain so the damned should be able to just suck it up.

You admit that your views are indeed heretical. Formal heresy results in automatic excommunication.

I am an annihilationism advocate. I have heretical.theories even on how the pre-secodn coming Hell works due to OT clues.

I strongly believe the Heavenly exist eternally and the Hellbound get annihilated eventually, not tortured forever.

Heresy or not, I have heard even MORE heresy from a priest and deacon I spoke to (that Hell is merely a state of being that can chanfe at any time someone accepts God).

Would you like to vote?