The following is my response to "Side Issues Part 2 - Information and Discernment" by Bob Sorensen, a criticism of my previous response to him, entitled "A Response to 'Hell, Creation and Side Issues' by Bob Sorensen" [3]
Response
Regarding My Supposed Prideful Responses
Sorensen writes:
EXTRACT:"Some people are so focused on their prize nonessentials that they elevate them to supreme importance. Many put aside instruction in sound doctrine, glorify themselves (which sounds to me like, "I am so clever because what I believe is a vitally important truth") and put others down for disagreeing." [1]
No, Mr. Sorensen, the truth is, that it was you who initiated the discussion, relating to the supposed "nonessentials" of Annihilationism. [2]
It was you who first accused us, of being "heterodox" [2|3] and "unbiblical" [2|3], and now again of having "put aside instruction in sound doctrine" [1], in favor of an "aberrant theology" [1] in "heterodoxy" [1].
It was also you who first 'put us down for disagreeing' [2]; NOT the other way around, as you would have your readers believe.
Yet, now that I dared respond to your accusations, I am accused of 'glorifying myself'?!
You have never even met me in person, which begs the question: How do you know what kind of person I am?
Do you realize, that giving false testimony is a sin?
Yet, you accuse me of "[resorting] to [an] appeal to motive fallacy" [4].
IF you regard me as prideful, simply because I responded to you: Do you treat the responses of Christ, His Apostles, as well as the Apostolic- and Church Fathers, with the very same disdain?
Regarding My Supposed Unchristian Behavior
EXTRACT: "As I have discussed here before, one of the reasons that I put aside the Christian faith for about fifteen years was because Christians often do not act like Christians. (Naïve of me, I know, since we are supposed to look to Jesus, not other people.) Because of the previous article, I was saddened and even angered because I felt that I was attacked. It led to a loss of fellowship with someone who had been a co-laborer in Christ in one case, and astonishment at the pride and arrogance of someone else. I felt that they acted in an unbiblical manner when they slapped me seven ways from sundown. Ironically, those people proved my points in that article!" [1]
According to Mr Sorensen, I did not act like a Christian, because I dared to question his accusations of 'heterodoxy', against those of us who reject Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism], in favor of Final Destruction [Annihilationism].
He sounds like your typical cult leader - whom no-one dare question.
Strangely enough, Christ Himself often warned His followers against the doctrines of the Sadducees and Pharisees. (Mt. 11v20-24, 12v1-8, 15v7-9, 16v5-12)
I cannot help but wonder, how exactly Mr Sorensen would have responded to Christ's rebuke of Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" (Mt. 16v23); or Paul's rebuke of Peter, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?" (Gal. 2v11-14)?
That was surely a very unchristian thing Christ and Paul did?!
Yes, Mr Sorensen, you did set aside the Christian faith for about fifteen years. Sad as it may be, that was not as a result of the alleged unchristian behavior of others, but rather because you are incapable of accepting any form of correction, unless bubble-wrapped and honeycombed.
Regarding the Supposed Drawbacks to a Reasonable Request
EXTRACT: "When we are asked to consider the evidence for a position, that is a reasonable request. There are some drawbacks to it, however: ..."
Yes, I/we did make a reasonable request, that you would consider the biblical evidence for Annihilationism.
Unfortunately, that's not what you did. You rather opted to ignore the passages of Scripture, I offered; engage in a litany of Ad hominem [personal] attacks; and now offer a selection of excuses not to do so:
EXCUSE #1: "Too many Christians are not grounded in the Word (2 Timothy 2.15) and are easily swayed by a convincing presentation (Ephesians 4.14-16). Ever notice that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and other cultists try to convert Christians to their way of thinking? They succeed far too often. As many of us keep saying, Christians need to know what and why they believe." [1]
I didn't ask other Christians to review the doctrines of Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism], and Final Destruction [Annihilationism]. I asked you.
Unless, of course, you meant to confess, that you yourself are "not grounded in the Word" [1] and therefore, "easily swayed by a convincing presentation" [1], in which case I will excuse you from the debate, the moment you remove your material against Annihilationism.
YES, "Christians need to know what and why they believe" [1], that's the whole point of my contention with you.
EXCUSE #2: "As a sub point to the above, some of these people indulge in Scripture twisting like the cultists. It may not be intentional and may have come from how they learned what they believe. A presentation of their views may seem convincing at first (Proverbs 18.17). I believe that my recent critics were motivated by pride. They decided that their views were of vital importance, and that I was misrepresenting God by rejecting their heterodox beliefs, but the Bible is my final authority. Although I did not name anyone, someone decided, 'He's talking about me, so I'll use that to give me the right to give him a public shredding, and anyway, Paul did that to Peter in Galatians 2'. (Those were not the actual words, but that is my perception of the attitude.) The use of Paul's confrontation of Peter had no relation to the issues that my critics had with me, yet this was Scripture twisting to justify their actions." [1]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you ARE "misrepresenting God" on the subject of Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism]; and contrary to your claims, it is tradition and NOT the Bible that is your final authority.
Thusfar [14.07.2014], you have only managed to offered ONE proof-text in defense of Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism], namely Luke Chapter 3 Verse 17 [2|3] - which itself confirms, that "He will BURN UP the chaff with unquenchable fire" (NIV).
I am fully aware of the fact, that your first article was aimed at Brendan Larsen (1975-).
However, if you write against Annihilationism, you are essentially also writing against myself, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Tatian the Assyrian (120-180 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (115-202 AD), Cyprian of Carthage (200–258 AD), Arnobius of Sicca (253-327 AD), Prof. Dr. Martin Luther (1483-1546), Prof. Dr. John Roller (1949-), Dennis Caldwell (1957-), Dr. James Brandyberry, Dr. Glenn Peoples, Joseph Dear, Chris Date (1979-), and many others. [5]
Did you really think, that I am just going to sit back and watch you condemn all these men, while subverting the Word of God, and that without a response?!
According to Sorensen, I twisted the Scriptures by referring to Paul's confrontation of Peter in Galatians Chapter 2, as justification for my confrontation of him, since it 'had no relation to the issues I had with him'.
Regardless of the fact, that their confrontation related to another subject, Paul's reaction to Peter's error, remains a justification for my reaction towards yours.
EXCUSE #3: "People who emphasize side issues and aberrant theology often misrepresent the position that they are trying to refute. Sometimes it is because of ignorance since they themselves were sold a bill of goods." [1]
Again the claim of misrepresentation - even though I linked back to Sorensen's original article, quoted him directly, and previously challenged him to identify these supposed 'misrepresentations'. [3]
EXCUSE #4: "Emotional manipulation is a frequent problem. One of Satan's biggest tricks is appealing to pride (it was Lucifer's downfall, Ezekiel 28.12-19, Isaiah 14.12-15). He used pride back in Genesis. Again, people 'think' with their emotions, and are easily manipulated by emotional appeal and provocative wording." [1]
Thank you for the complement. I never knew I was so "convincing" and "provocative" ;-)
Did I appeal to your pride? Did I appeal to your emotions? I don't think so. No, I appealed to Scripture, wherein there is no defense of Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism], lest you can prove otherwise.
EXCUSE #5: "Lack of logic. This can come from Christians who are being confused or even deceived, but also from the ones presenting aberrant or heterodox theology. In the fallout from Part 1, I was accused of some logical fallacies. To do this, my words were twisted (as well as Scripture), then their accusations of my use of fallacious were fallacious! As I have said many times in various places, too many people 'think' with their emotions, and are subject to manipulation by those who are unscrupulous, are deceived themselves or simply over-enthusiastic about promoting their special doctrinal views. I think it is far worse when people who identify themselves as Christians do this (Matthew 5.12-14)." [1]
Aha! At last, we have at least one of those claims of 'misrepresentation' identified.
According to Mr Sorensen, I twisted his words to accuse him of a logical fallacy.
In my previous rebuttal of Sorensen, I said that he "himself DID resort to a 'motive fallacy', when he accused us of adopting Annihilationism as a direct result of our 'uncomfortableness' with the idea of hell" [3].
I explained, that an 'Appeal to Motive' fallacy "is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer" [3|6].
So, did Mr Sorensen accuse us of setting aside the subject of hell, in favor of Annihilationism, as a direct result of our 'uncomfortableness' [that is a motive] with the idea of hell, or not?
To quote him directly,
"The subject of Hell has been coming up lately. IT HAD BEEN PUT ASIDE BY 'SEEKER-FRIENDLY' AND LIBERAL CHURCHES AND BY PEOPLE WHO ARE SIMPLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT." [2]
But, don't take my word for it - read the article yourself.
No, Mr Sorensen, it is in fact your accusations of misrepresentation, that is fallacious.
Again, I ask you: Do you realize, that giving false testimony is a sin?
Don't you think it is far worse when people who identify themselves as Christians do this?
Regarding the Right to Know and Evaluate Various Beliefs
EXTRACT: "IN A SIMILAR WAY, like other creationists, I believe that our children should be taught about evolution. Adults should know about it as well. Simply saying, 'Evolution is false' is not enough. When providing children and adults with critical thinking skills, a biblical foundation and solid creation science education can help people see the bad science of evolution, and that creation is affirmed. When people can think for themselves, they can refute many evolutionary claims rather handily." [1]
And in a similar way, I believe that all Christians should be taught about Conditionalism and Annihilationism. Pastors should know about it as well.
Simply saying, 'Annihilationism is false' is not enough.
When providing Christians and Pastors with critical thinking skills, a biblical foundation and solid exegetical education can help people see the bad hermeneutics of Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism], and that Final Destruction [Annihilationism] is affirmed.
When people can think for themselves, they can refute many tormentist claims rather handily. [7]
Regarding the Fallacy of an Appeal to Tradition
EXTRACT: "Tradition or Orthodoxy? The fallacy of Appeal to Tradition applies here. Just because a doctrinal view is held by your denomination, family, community, your persuasive clergyman or whatever, that does not mean that it is right. Christian beliefs should be Bible-based. The authority of Scripture is of vital importance. Many doctrines are in place because they have been examined and found scripturally sound for many years and measured against Scripture. Something that is heterodox or unorthodox should be approached cautiously and compared with the Bible, as the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Ephesians 6.17 NASB), and this is spiritual warfare." [1]
An 'Appeal to Tradition' fallacy "is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition" [8].
The only 'Appeal to Tradition' came from Sorensen himself, in favor of Eternal Torment, when he identified Annihilationism as a "minority viewpoint" [2], thereby correctly nullifying any possibility of an 'Appeal to Tradition'.
In other words, Sorensen himself pointed out, that unlike Eternal Torment, Annihilationism is not the traditional view.
That said, the Doctrine of Eternal Torment might be "traditional" in some churches, but it is certainly not "orthodox". [9|10]
And we know, that neither Jesus, nor His apostles, had anything good to say about the traditions of men. (Mt. 15v1-9; Mk. 7v1-13; Col. 2v8; 1 Pt. 1v18)
According to Sorensen, "Christian beliefs should be Bible-based. The authority of Scripture is of vital importance." [1] Therefore, Annihilationism "should be approached cautiously and compared with the Bible" [1].
I couldn't AGREE more. Likewise Tormentism. [7]
Regarding the Peer Pressure Bandwagon
EXTRACT: "Beware the Bandwagon. I have long maintained that people will support a view because it is popular in their circles. Rebellious teenagers may want to choose atheism as a worldview to please friends or a romantic interest. When becoming a Christian was in vogue, people were 'asking Jesus into their hearts' for similar reasons. Some believe viewpoints because Reverend Feelgood preached it, or they liked a presentation by Dr. Psych on afternoon television and besides my friends are doing it too and I don't want to be left out you know? This bandwagon mentality can happen for all sorts of reasons that are primarily based on emotions and not rational thought or scriptural exegesis." [1]
Exactly, Mr Sorensen, and you are on that tormentist bandwagon, because it is popular in your circle.
We annihilationists, on the other hand, cannot even afford a wagon, never-mind a band.
Again, you resort to the fallacy of an 'Appeal to Motive' [6] twice:
➢ First, Sorensen claims that those of us who believe in Final Destruction [Annihilationism], do so "because Reverend Feelgood preached it" [1] In other words, we believe this, because it makes us 'feel good'.
➢ Second, Sorensen claims that those of us who believe in Final Destruction [Annihilationism], do so because our "friends are doing it too" [1] and we "don't want to be left out" [1]. In other words, we believe this, because of Peer Pressure.
The TRUTH, however, is that very few people actually hold Annihilationism. None of my peers at Miracle Bible College ever did. None of the churches I ever attended did. In fact, I know only four people in all of South Africa that holds to Annihilationism.
In other words, IF I had to cave to peer pressure, I would be a tormentist, like you Mr Sorensen.
But no, against all odds, I chose to 'invalidate' my degree, and in the process 'throw away' the ministry I spent six years preparing for.
Why? Because I refused to sacrifice the truths of God's Word for the sake of a pastorate, and as a result no church would have me.
Two 'appeals to motive' in a single paragraph. Yet, somehow I am sure Mr Sorensen will, no doubt, accuse me of misrepresentation AGAIN.
Now, I beg Mr Sorensen, to demonstrate from "rational thought" [1] and "scriptural exegesis" [1], exactly how he would go about defending Eternal Conscious Torment [Tormentism] from Scripture.
Regarding 'New Revelations' and the Suppression of Biblical Truths
EXTRACT: "New Revelation. Another fallacy that comes to mind is the Appeal to Novelty: This must be good because it's new and not apart of established traditions (you don't really want old stuff anyway). Use caution whenever someone claims to have a 'new revelation'. Joseph Smith started Mormonism by saying that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him that everyone else was wrong, and he was going to start a new, correct church. (People who knew the Bible would see that his visitation was false because of John 1.18, 1 Timothy 6.16 and so on.) Similarly, people can claim that they have special understanding of the Bible that has been lost/hidden/suppressed. While organized religions can suppress the truth, Scripture reveals it. The Roman Catholic Church has a history of suppressing salvation by faith and the Bible itself, but they could not keep the truth hidden. There is no new Scripture being given to man, so be careful when someone has a special message that is new or rediscovered, or a minority viewpoint that has been allegedly suppressed." [1]
Sorensen surely knows a lot of fallacies, probably because he perpetuates so many of them.
The claim, that Annihilationism is 'novel', 'new', or a 'new revelation', since it's not part of the established traditions, is in itself a fallacy.
I have sufficiently demonstrated, repeatedly, that the doctrines of Conditional Immortality [Conditionalism] and Final Destruction [Annihilationism], is everything but a 'new revelation'. [9|10|12|13|14|15]
But Sorensen doesn't care. He couldn't give a wooden nickle. All he cares about is his truth, which he always believed, and therefore couldn't possibly be wrong.
He readily agrees, that "organized religions can suppress the truth" [1]; that the Roman Catholic Church, for a long time, managed to suppress the truth of salvation by faith alone. Yet, he warns us to "be careful when someone has a special message that is new or rediscovered, or a minority viewpoint that has been allegedly suppressed" [1].
Do you realize, that the doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, was exactly that: a supposed 'new doctrine'; a suppressed minority view 'rediscovered' by Dr. Martin Luther (1483-1546), from the works of Origen (184/185–253/254), St. Hilary of Poitiers (300–368), Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD), Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–428), Augustine of Hippo (354–430), Cyril of Alexandria (376–444), Theodoret of Cyrus (393–457), Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), Theophylact of Ohrid (1055–1107), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), and Gaius Marius Victorinus [16]?!
Coincidentally, it was the very same Martin Luther, who also rediscovered Conditionalism, Psychopannychism and Annihilationism.
You can suppress the truth all you like, Mr Sorensen, but as you know, the truth will out.
Regarding False Claims of Certain Doctrines as Recent Phenomenon
EXTRACT: "Some people falsely claim that biblical creation (Young-Earth Creation, YEC) is a recent phenomenon. This is disproved from the Scriptures and the church fathers, as is documented in Dr. Sarfati's Refuting Compromise. Liberal Christians had compromised on YEC and mixed old-earth views with the Bible to appease 'science' since Darwin, Lyell and others were gaining popularity, and Old-Earth compromisers display considerable hostility toward us. But what if biblical creation was a new view for the church? Just because something is new does not make it good, nor does newness make it bad. When some new or lesser-known idea does not match Scripture, watch out. Biblical creation upholds Scripture and its authority. If the claim that YEC was new to Christianity was true, its support of biblical authority would be an important point for consideration." [1]
Likewise, some people, namely you, falsely claim that annihilationism is a recent phenomenon. This is disproved from the Scriptures, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Church Fathers, as documented in 'Conditional Immortality Throughout History' [9], and 'Annihilationism Throughout History' [10].
Likewise, if the claim that Annihilationism was new to Christianity was true, its support of biblical authority would be an important point of consideration.
EXTRACT: "Corruption of Scriptures? Mormons believe the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own spurious translation to fit their own worldview. Old-Earthers tell us that the Bible does not mean what it says, and we have to interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis according to the current trends of science philosophies. Some Annihilationists not only say that we have been misunderstanding Hell all along, but that Hell is a pagan doctrine which has crept into Christianity, and Bible translations also have this error. Great, now we cannot trust the Bible, but we can trust what they say that it says? This kind of talk should make any Christian proceed with caution, whatever the doctrine." [1]
According to Mr Sorensen's logic, "we cannot trust THE BIBLE" [1], if any BIBLE TRANSLATION should be in error.
Think about that for a moment, and see if you can work out the logical fallacy for yourselves. I have at least two problems with that argument.
➢ One. According to Sorensen's logic we can only trust the Bible, if no translation errors exist. However, there are hundreds of well-known Bible translation errors. [17]
➢ Two. It may come as a surprise to Mr Sorensen, but the Bible wasn't written in English, but primarily Hebrew and Greek. We can, therefore, trust the Bible in the original language, regardless of translation errors. That is why experienced Bible students always check the original texts.
It would seem like Mr Sorensen rarely thinks before he writes.
Regarding our Character as Annihilationists
Sorensen also had much to say about our character:
EXTRACT: "Many of the people who emphasize heterodox beliefs, heresies, side issues, 'new revelations', compromisers and so on have certain characteristics, including:" [1]
Here it comes.
CHARACTERISTIC #1: "Pride. I need to re-emphasize the pride issue. I have encountered and read the writings of people like this who think they are totally right, spiritually enlightened, more complete, have a better understanding than the rest of us — because of their different view of the Bible." [1]
According to Mr Sorensen's logic, you are prideful if you think you have a better understanding than anyone else.
Well then, I guess he's also prideful, since he considers himself to have a better understanding than the rest of us, including the Apostolic Fathers, the Early Church Fathers, and some of the most prominent theologians of our time.
CHARACTERISTIC #2: "Interrogation. 'What research have you done on this topic? Have you watched any debates?', and so on. When someone gets 'in your face' and puts you on the defensive, that is a time to wonder if the topic is worth discussing any longer. I have had Calvinists reject me because I refuse to accept all of their views, and vice versa with Arminian teachings." [1]
According to Mr Sorensen's logic, we should rather not discuss important topics when someone gets 'in our face' or puts us on the defensive.
I guess Mr Sorensen would have been among those who once, not too long ago, abandoned Christ, for the very same reason - their sensitivities being upset. (Jn. 6v60-66)
CHARACTERISTIC #3: "Personal. If you take a stand against something that you consider erroneous, be ready for people demonizing you in addition to what you stand for. They will also act like atheists in joining with other people ridiculing the person with whom they disagree." [1]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what you did - demonize those who stood against something they considered erroneous?!
Did you yourself not 'act like an atheist', joining those on your Facebook Page, in slandering, ridiculing, and condemning us? [4] Don't be a hypocrite, Mr Sorensen.
CHARACTERISTIC #4: "Proselytizing. Not content to simply let you believe your way and they believe their way, they want to convert Christians to their way of thinking. Cultists do this as well, since they have the One True Church™." [1]
Last time I checked proselytizing were 'somewhat' biblical.
I, for one, are NOT content to simply leave others in their error.
No Christian in his right mind, claiming to love his brothers and sisters, could possibly fail to OBEY GOD'S COMMAND to "reprove" and "correct" their errors. (Pr. 12v1, 13v24, 29v15; Heb. 12v5-11; 2 Tim. 3v16-17)
"For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Heb. 12v11, ESV)
Trust me, it's much easier to shut down my website and abandon the internet. I can certainly do without all the attacks, insults, hatred, threats, and law suits.
Yet, I keep going, not for my sake, but yours.
Therefore, I beg you Bob, "do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by Him" (Heb. 12v29)
We've all been there. It's not a nice feeling, I know.
But I can assure you, that discovering your error on Judgement Day, will be much worse.
CHARACTERISTIC #5: "Arrogance. Some of them are so obstreperous, you cannot tell the difference between atheists and them. Going back to my experiences with Part 1 of 'Side Issues', the one who said (in essence), 'He's talking about me' though I had not given names had identified himself and somehow that gave him the right to rip into me. (I had an atheist do the same thing, where I left names out of the article, and he came around and identified himself! When I pointed out his foolishness, he deleted the comments that he left on that site!) Both of those articles were more about attacking me to justify themselves, one of which was very vituperative (it read like it was written by an angry atheist), both were unchristian in their attitudes and approach." [1]
Likewise, we find it hard to tell the difference between atheists and you.
Whether you named me, or Brendan, or any of our annihilationist friends, for that matter, is irrelevant.
When addressing Annihilationism, you are essentially addressing ALL annihilationists. You cannot condemn a belief, without condemning those who believe it.
IF my response to your accusations were "unchristian", I guess you will likewise condemn Moses, John the Baptist, Christ, and His Apostles, as well as the Apostolic- and Church Fathers for being equally "unchristian" in their judgmental attitudes?! (Ex. 32v19-28; Mt. 3v7-9, 11v20-24, 12v1-8, 15v7-9, 16v5-12; 1 Cor. 5v1-13; Gal. 1v6-9, 2v4-6, v11-21) [18]
Even though I wasn't angry at you for a moment: this idea, that anger must be "unchristian" is FALSE.
Even Jesus, who was without sin, became angry. (Mt 21v12-13; Mk 3v5, 11v15-18; Jn 2v13-22) Yet, "Be angry and do not sin." (Eph 4v26)
CHARACTERISTIC #6: "Obsession. Some of the 'major on minors' people are so enthusiastic with proclaiming truth as they see it that they bring up their pet topics inappropriately. Many believe that they are promoting and defending truth as well as refuting error, but are unwilling to admit that they may be in error themselves." [1]
Exactly, you believe that you are promoting and defending truth as well as refuting error, but are unwilling to admit that you may be in error yourself.
CHARACTERISTIC #7: "Lack of Christian love. This is summed up above, really, but I felt that it needed extra emphasis. Unbelievers take particular joy when Christians attack other Christians and do not show John 13.35. Like I said, I felt slapped around. It was not Christian disagreement or instruction through biblical love, and made very personal." [1]
I already answered this under characteristic #4, but IF disagreeing and responding to Sorensen in public constitutes a denial of "love for one another" (Jn. 13v35), then Jesus [love Incarnate] surely had very little love for the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even His own disciples (Mt. 16v23). So did Paul. (Gal. 2v11-14)
Mr Sorensen isn't stupid, he knows this argument is fallacious. Yet, he employs it?!
Regarding Our Inability to Grasp Logical Fallacies
EXTRACT: "People who do not have a grasp of logical fallacies will undoubtedly be accusing me of various ones again, including appeal to motive. Some things may have that superficial appearance, but they are clearly offered as speculations and possibilities for the reader to consider; unlike some people, I do not claim to know the hearts and minds of others. But these people who act like atheists and cultists would do well to examine themselves, since they react strongly and negatively to principles that they do not like and the people who hold them." [1]
The reason why we 'accuse' you of an 'appeal to motive' is because you accused us thereof, while repeatedly employing them yourself.
It may come as a surprise, but ALL 'appeal to motive' fallacies "are clearly offered as speculations and possibilities for the reader to consider" [1]
Likewise, you would do well to examine yourself, since you react strongly and negatively to principles that you do not like, and the people who hold them.
Conclusion
Your response consisted of absolutely NOTHING, but Ad hominem upon Ad hominem, without a shred of evidence in defense of Eternal Conscious Torment.
Bibliography
1. Bob Sorensen. Side Issues Part 2 - Information and Discernment (Biblical Creation and Evangelism; 13 July 2014)
2. Bob Sorensen. Hell, Creation and Side Issues (Biblical Creation and Evangelism; 8 July 2014) ✔
3. EJ Hill. A Response to 'Hell, Creation and Side Issues' by Bob Sorensen (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
4. Bob Sorensen. Facebook Wall Post (The Question Evolution Project/Facebook; 9 July 2014) ✔
5. EJ Hill. The Doctrine of Final Destruction (Hillside; 17 July 2014) ✔
6. Appeal to Motive (Wikipedia; 14 July 2014) ✔
7. EJ Hill. The Doctrine of Eternal Torment (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
8. Appeal to tradition (Wikipedia; 14 July 2014) ✔
9. EJ Hill. Conditional Immortality Throughout History (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
10. EJ Hill. Annihilationism Throughout History (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
11. EJ Hill. The Doctrine of Conditional Immortality (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
12. EJ Hill. Did Justin Martyr believe in Universal Immortality and Eternal Torment? (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
13. EJ Hill. Did Tatian believe in Universal Immortality and Eternal Torment? (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
14. EJ Hill. Did Irenaeus of Lyons believe in Universal Immortality and Eternal Torment? (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
15. EJ Hill. Did Cyprian believe in Universal Immortality and Eternal Torment? (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
16. EJ Hill. Romans Chapter 3 Verse 28 (Hillside; 14 July 2014) ✔
17. EJ Hill. Various Bible Translation Errors (Hillside; 15 July 2014) ✔
18. EJ Hill. Christian Judgement Throughout History (Hillside; 15 July 2014) ✔
Bibliography
14-15.07.2014