Annihilation

[Soma-Sight]

Only in the Spiritual realm. Hopefully you won't be a participant with them.

I take it you are a believer in eternal torment for sinners?

 

[Drew]

A little non-contribution from the sidelines:

I have been up to my keister in alligators with work and have not had a chance to participate much in this thread. Without naming names, I will say that some of the most articulate (and in my opinion) thoughtful people on this board are contributing to this discussion. I hope to catch up soon.

 

[kwag_myers]

There is no 'body reunited with the soul' distinction in the NT. It's not there, kwag.

It doesn't exist.

Matthew 12:18

It's there for those of us who have eyes to see. Psuche is soul, pneuma is spirit. I don't understand how you can say it isn't there when it is. Reminds me of that story about the king's new clothes. Let me be the one to tell you that you are naked and you've been fooled.

 

[guibox]

There is no 'body reunited with the soul' distinction in the NT. It's not there, kwag.

It doesn't exist.

Matthew 12:18

It's there for those of us who have eyes to see. Psuche is soul, pneuma is spirit. I don't understand how you can say it isn't there when it is. Reminds me of that story about the king's new clothes. Let me be the one to tell you that you are naked and you've been fooled.

The soul was the 'seat of the emotion' what we would say 'my heart'. It was the crux of the living being, our awareness due to the life giving spirit. It still doesn't prove that this is something that is our conscious second nature that survives death. There is no proof of it.

As a matter of fact, to further reiterate the fact that 'soul' means 'life' we see that when Rachel died it says 'her soul left her'. However, the nephesh wasn't a living force. The Hebrews and the language didn't translate the 'soul' in the Greed dualistic view. This verse is merely saying that 'her life left her'.

And as far as Matthew 2:18. goes, this is speaking about God. His Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) would come UPON His servant. This is not talking about the 'spirit of man that goes back to God who gave it.'

Context kwag...

 

[John the Baptist]

And if anyone here remembers anything before this life, let me know! And the dead?.. they are not much good for anything, they all are 'soul' brain dead. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6. Or Psalm 6:5

It seems that there is no remembrance ,.. BRAIN or THINKING!

I call that pretty dumb on my part if I am a living (dead) soul. Job 14:10-15 & Job 15:21.

And now for the Holy Ghost??? If one, such as Job, which had been given the rebirth requirement of John 3:3. For He was a Christian person by faith, one who had died 'in the faith'.
Hebrews 11:13 The verse of Job 14:10 tells us that He returnes to the Godhead. (unless the Holy Spirit which is .. 'giveth up', means something else!)

But who here on earth even has the Holy Ghost in this life, but the ones of Acts 5:32? Most do not, Genesis 6:3's striving is already past tense at death. :

---John

 

[kwag_myers]

It still doesn't prove that this is something that is our conscious second nature that survives death. There is no proof of it.

How is it now that you demand proof when it has already been given to you and you've chosen to dismiss it?

Revelation 6:9 Robert Young Literal Translation, "...I saw under the altar the souls of those slain..." verse 11, "and there was given to each one white robes, and it was said to them that they may rest themselves yet a little time...

20:4, "...and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years."

And your excuse for rejecting these?

As a matter of fact, to further reiterate the fact that 'soul' means 'life' we see that when Rachel died it says 'her soul left her'. However, the nephesh wasn't a living force. The Hebrews and the language didn't translate the 'soul' in the Greed dualistic view. This verse is merely saying that 'her life left her'.

And what verse would that be? Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 both say "died" (muwth) and say nothing of the soul. I even looked in your beloved Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898. What was it you were saying about context? How about the truth? Where exactly does the Bible say "her soul left her"?

 

[guibox]

Revelation 6:9 Robert Young Literal Translation, "...I saw under the altar the souls of those slain..." verse 11, "and there was given to each one white robes, and it was said to them that they may rest themselves yet a little time...

20:4, "...and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years."

And your excuse for rejecting these?

First of all, the symbolic nature of REvelation should make anyone cautious in trying to prove some theological point.

Here we have the problem of trying to interpret literally what is obviously meant to be taken figuratively. The word for ‘soul’ here is again interpreted ‘life’ or ‘life essence’. Did you know that the blood was considered the life essence?

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls – Leviticus 17:11

When Cain killed Abel, God said, “Abel’s blood cries out at me from the groundâ€Â. This was merely metaphorical in that Abel was slain and deserved recompensation. To take this literally is to miss the figurative and metaphorical language used in Revelation. The blood of the saints symbolically cries out for revenge. The message? “How long must our deaths go unavenged?†Do you honestly believe that every saint’s soul that has gone to heaven is crammed underneath a literal alter? The altar is symbolic from the OT where the blood or life force gathered when the Hebrew’s did sacrifice.

And he (the priest) shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord…and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar – Leviticus 4:18

Here is what the message means. Martyrdom and sacrifice shouldn’t go unnoticed, and will not go unnoticed when God comes to make things right agqain.;. The metaphorical OT references are hard to miss.

As a matter of fact, to further reiterate the fact that 'soul' means 'life' we see that when Rachel died it says 'her soul left her'. However, the nephesh wasn't a living force. The Hebrews and the language didn't translate the 'soul' in the Greed dualistic view. This verse is merely saying that 'her life left her'.

And what verse would that be? Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 both say "died" (muwth) and say nothing of the soul. I even looked in your beloved Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898. What was it you were saying about context? How about the truth? Where exactly does the Bible say "her soul left her"?

Genesis 35:18 - And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing (for she died)...vs 19 - and Rachel died.

Here soul is 'nephesh' which means 'life'. In other words, her life was leaving her, not her immortal soul was departing her body.

 

[guibox]

Revelation 6:9 Robert Young Literal Translation, "...I saw under the altar the souls of those slain..." verse 11, "and there was given to each one white robes, and it was said to them that they may rest themselves yet a little time...

20:4, "...and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years."

And your excuse for rejecting these?

First of all, the symbolic nature of REvelation should make anyone cautious in trying to prove some theological point.

Here we have the problem of trying to interpret literally what is obviously meant to be taken figuratively. The word for ‘soul’ here is again interpreted ‘life’ or ‘life essence’. Did you know that the blood was considered the life essence?

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls – Leviticus 17:11

When Cain killed Abel, God said, “Abel’s blood cries out at me from the groundâ€Â. This was merely metaphorical in that Abel was slain and deserved recompensation. To take this literally is to miss the figurative and metaphorical language used in Revelation. The blood of the saints symbolically cries out for revenge. The message? “How long must our deaths go unavenged?†Do you honestly believe that every saint’s soul that has gone to heaven is crammed underneath a literal alter? The altar is symbolic from the OT where the blood or life force gathered when the Hebrew’s did sacrifice.

And he (the priest) shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord…and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar – Leviticus 4:18

Here is what the message means. Martyrdom and sacrifice shouldn’t go unnoticed, and will not go unnoticed when God comes to make things right agqain.;. The metaphorical OT references are hard to miss.

[quote="kwag_myers":5b225]

As a matter of fact, to further reiterate the fact that 'soul' means 'life' we see that when Rachel died it says 'her soul left her'. However, the nephesh wasn't a living force. The Hebrews and the language didn't translate the 'soul' in the Greed dualistic view. This verse is merely saying that 'her life left her'.

And what verse would that be? Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 both say "died" (muwth) and say nothing of the soul. I even looked in your beloved Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898. What was it you were saying about context? How about the truth? Where exactly does the Bible say "her soul left her"?

Genesis 35:18 - And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing (for she died)...vs 19 - and Rachel died.

Here soul is 'nephesh' which means 'life'. In other words, her life was leaving her, not her immortal soul was departing her body.[/quote:5b225]

Here are some informative sites on the non-immortality of the soul. This is for those who really want to discover the truth and logic of conditional mortality. It is most likely too much to ask that those who strongly believe in the other side would be open minded enough to look at them.


(champions of conditional mortality)

(Immortality of the Soul and the Reformers)

(Keith W. Stump - What is Man?)

 

[kwag_myers]

First of all, the symbolic nature of REvelation should make anyone cautious in trying to prove some theological point.

Here we have the problem of trying to interpret literally what is obviously meant to be taken figuratively.

Here's a suggestion; ask the Holy Spirit what the truth is concerning these passages.

The word for ‘soul’ here is again interpreted ‘life’ or ‘life essence’. Did you know that the blood was considered the life essence?

That is one way to interpret {psoo-khay'} (greekbible.com)
1) breath 1a) the breath of life 1a1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing 1a1a) of animals 1a12) of men 1b) life 1c) that in which there is life 1c1) a living being, a living soul 2) the soul 2a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.) 2b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life 2c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

I'm rather partial to 2c myself.

Here is what the message means. Martyrdom and sacrifice shouldn’t go unnoticed, and will not go unnoticed when God comes to make things right agqain.;. The metaphorical OT references are hard to miss.

Agreed, but let's stick to the subject. It is evidence that the soul might be separate from the body. You said that no one could find it. Yet, it's right here.

 

[guibox]

The word for ‘soul’ here is again interpreted ‘life’ or ‘life essence’. Did you know that the blood was considered the life essence?

That is one way to interpret {psoo-khay'} (greekbible.com)
1) breath 1a) the breath of life 1a1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing 1a1a) of animals 1a12) of men 1b) life 1c) that in which there is life 1c1) a living being, a living soul 2) the soul 2a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.) 2b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life 2c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

I'm rather partial to 2c myself.

Of course you would be. It is the only one out of all of them that supports your theory. You say that my way is 'one of way to interpret it', however it is the biblical way of doing so as 'psuche' and 'nephesh' are used the same way (Revelation 9 included) and never means anything that survives death.

It is evidence that the soul might be separate from the body. You said that no one could find it. Yet, it's right here.

No its not. The reason being that it cannot be supported by the bible, it is obvious (like the parables) to not be taken literally, and the use of 'soul' is not any different then the rest of the scriptures when talking about a 'living being' or 'life; "And 3000 souls were baptized"

Again, you miss the figurative meaning and thus miss the message by taking it literally.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls – Leviticus 17:11"

When Cain killed Abel, God said, “Abel’s blood cries out at me from the groundâ€Â. This was merely metaphorical in that Abel was slain and deserved recompensation. To take this literally is to miss the figurative and metaphorical language used in Revelation. The blood of the saints symbolically cries out for revenge. The message? “How long must our deaths go unavenged?â€Â

Do you honestly believe that every saint’s soul that has gone to heaven is crammed underneath a literal alter?

The altar is symbolic from the OT where the blood or life force gathered when the Hebrew’s did sacrifice.

"And he (the priest) shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord…and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar – Leviticus 4:18"

Again, the metaphorical ties to the OT are unmistakable. The message was about martyrs 'blood' crying out for vengeance under the altar of sacrifice, like Abel's blood.

It is not proof nor endorsement of a pagan Greek idea which is found nowhere else in the Bible.

Context, kwag.

Anyway, I guess we should get back on the topic of annihilation so others might feel the need to get involved.

 

[kwag_myers]

You don't think that the parables should be taken literally? What more proof do we need to see that this guibox teaches against the teachings of Jesus?

 

[guibox]

Anyway, I think I'm done talking to kwag about immortality of the soul and being accused of teaching against Christ because I don't think there are millions of people crammed under an altar or that there is a great gulf we can see and shout over between heaven and hell. If someone else wants to put up with that nonsense, be my guest...

Anyway, finally back to the topic at hand. I would like to address both from logic and scriptures the arguments many 'eternal torment' believers use against annihilationism.

Enjoy and comment!

Traditionalist Arguments against Annihilation

1) “Nothing is ever annihilated as science proves, but merely changes form one form of matter to anotherâ€Â

- This appeal to science to discredit annihilationsm is humorous considering that traditionalists believe that ‘immaterial souls’ or ‘soulish bodies’ can be burnt continuously for billions of years without consumption which is as scientifically fantastic as it gets. The fact is, is that whatever is left does not consciously exist. There is nothing ‘awake’ to be tormented for eternity, but non-existence.

2) “Annihilation is not really a punishment as sin is not then taken seriously enough with mere death. People won’t fear being dead forever as opposed to being tormented alive for eternity!â€Â

- This blood thirsty, vengeful argument should honestly stagger our sense of God given morality and mercy. This argument is made more from the human point of view that sinners ‘deserve it’ and our human sense of ‘revenge’ is then super-imposed on God’s loving character. Is not the highest punishment we can give on this earth death? Do we keep the killer shocked continually in the electric chair? No, because that would be cruel and inhumane, and our conscience abhors such a thought. So why do we put such a lesser characteristic on God and call it ‘justice’ when our own God given consciences (which are lesser and inferior to God’s morality) find it repulsive on earth. Are we Jekyll and Hyde personalities where we reject such a concept on earth but support it whole heartedly in the after life?

The punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23) God’s plan is to eradicate sin and misery from the universe, not prolonging it by keeping it alive in some everlasting Auschwitz due to some personal vendetta based on vindictive retaliation.

3) Biblical evidence is against you and such texts as Revelation 14:8-11, Revelation 20:10; Matthew 25:46 and Mark 9:43-46 support eternal torment.

I have shown in numerous threads that the language used in these verses are used elsewhere in the scripture to denote complete annihilation and destruction. Texts such as Isaiah 34:10, Jeremiah 17:27, Isaiah 66:24, 1 Samuel 1:21,24,28 and Exodus 3:2 show that these terms are used to indicate finite and complete destruction which is eternal.

Take a look at this OT passage talking about the destruction of Edom

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall be burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day. The smoke thereof shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste. None shall pass through it forever and ever - Isaiah 34:10

Do you see the usage here to show complete destruction? The language is identical to Revelation! To really interpret the language here, you must understand how it is used and what it really means!

not be quenched day or night - this is talking about continuity, not duration. The fire will not be interrupted until it has done its job. Nothing can put the fire out and it will not cease to burn until what it has burnt cannot be burnt anymore. This is as 'annihilating' as you can get!

'Unquenchable fire' is also used in Jeremiah 17:27 to show the destruction of the gate of Jerusalem during the take over of Babylon.

But if ye will not hearken unto me and hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and it will not be quenched

It is one thing to assume that the fire will keep burning, it is another thing to think that what is thrown in the fire is also continually burning. Unquenchable fire means that it cannot be PUT out, not that it will not eventually GO out after it has done its work uninterrupted.

A fire that cannot be quenched will cause much more destruction then one whose work is interrupted by water, dirt, blankets or foam.

smoke ascendeth up forever - this is figurative to show that the work has been done. There cannot be (nor could you even apply it to Edom's case) smoke continually rising as smoke usually means something is in the process of, or has been burnt up. It shows finality to the job at hand. The smoke rises up and is gone 'forever'. How could one possibly apply this to the wicked who are continually being tormented by fire for billions of years? Where's the smoke coming from if they aren't burnt up?

forever and ever - The Bible uses 'forever' to be relative to whom it applies. It is translated literally as 'as long as life lasts' (See 1 Samuel 1:11,22,28). The assumption that everyone makes is that the wicked have 'immortal souls'. The wicked do not have immortality or eternal life. That is a gift from God to the righteous. Rather, the wicked are still mortal due to the wages of sin. Therefore, 'forever' is a finite term for them whereas for the righteous, it would be 'eternal' as they have immortality bestowed upon them at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:54,55)

Did you notice that in Revelation 14:10,11 it says that they will be tormented 'in the presence of God and the angels'? We know that sin cannot exist in any form in the presence of God. This is why the wicked are destroyed by the brightness of Christ's second coming.

So how can sin exist continually in God's presence without being destroyed? If we interpret this passage as such, then God must always be in Hell.

So basically, the phrase 'shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever' means 'shall be tormented continually, uninterrupted as long as their life lasts by fire that cannot be put out'

Notice what 'perish' and 'consumed' mean.

And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. And he looked and behold the bush burned with fire and the bush was NOT consumed - Exodus 3:2

Other versions say, 'and the bush did not perish'

So to be burned alive without end is the OPPOSITE of perishing and consumed. The wicked are consumed and it says that whosoever doesn't believe in Christ will 'perish' and NOT have everlasting life.

And fire came down from heaven and devoured them - Revelation 20:9

To 'devour' is to 'consume'. This is the same language. Now what is the result of this consuming/devouring?

For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven adn all the proud, yea and all that do wickedly shall be stubble and the day that cometh sahll burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts...And ye shall tread down the wicked for tehy sahll be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this saith the Lord of hosts - Malachi 4:1,3

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in the which the heavens and earth shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt ith fervent heat, the earth also and the works therein shall be burnt up - 2 Peter 3:10

Then this paves the way for a new creation for the 'old has passed away'

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea - Revelation 21:1

This destruction is brought on by fire so sin can be gone forever and a new creation begins.

It is all so plain and simple, folks. The word is clear if you look for it.

4) Terms like ‘destruction’ ‘perish’ and ‘destroy’ don’t always mean annihilation but ‘ruin’ and ‘corruption.

The times these terms are used in this fashion are few and far between. When they are, they cannot be interpreted as ‘conscious eternal torment’ either, nor can these meanings be applied as a blanket meaning for all the uses of the English word. Nor are they used to describe the ultimate fate of the wicked unless it is synoymous with the literal meanings of these terms. This argument is extremely weak but must be invoked by the traditionalist to gloss over the clear evidence that God’s enemies will be destroyed.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Anyway, I think I'm done talking to kwag about immortality of the soul and being accused of teaching against Christ because I don't think there are millions of people crammed under an altar

You're thinking like a flesh man. How did two thousand demons fit in one man, and just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The answer to the first is found in the answer to the second question: An infinite amount of angels can dance on the head of a pin, because heaven is not bound by the law of space/time. For that matter, even if the resurrection is in the future by earth-standard time, in heaven it has already occurred. That's the paradox of timelessness.

Is it not written that we are (already) seated with Christ in heavenly places?
Indeed it is so written.

or that there is a great gulf we can see and shout over between heaven and hell. If someone else wants to put up with that nonsense, be my guest...

Again, you are bounding heaven with the limits of earth. Just where do you think heaven is? And where is it not? You are approaching the heavenlies with Newtonian physics.

Anyway, finally back to the topic at hand. I would like to address both from logic and scriptures the arguments many 'eternal torment' believers use against annihilationism.

Enjoy and comment!

Traditionalist Arguments against Annihilation

1) “Nothing is ever annihilated as science proves, but merely changes form one form of matter to anotherâ€Â

This is a ridiculous argument, for matter is simply matter. This is strawman designed to make it appear as if scripture has not been presented here- then contextualized and allegorized so as to accommodate your 19th century science and theology.

-

This appeal to science to discredit annihilationsm is humorous considering that traditionalists believe that ‘immaterial souls’ or ‘soulish bodies’ can be burnt continuously for billions of years without consumption which is as scientifically fantastic as it gets.

If something is not material, it cannot be consumed by fire. You, who are fond of ridiculing others for taking what you think to be figurative as literal, should consider that God's fire is not fire as you know it.

The fact is, is that whatever is left does not consciously exist. There is nothing ‘awake’ to be tormented for eternity, but non-existence.

Away with your chicanery. There is no such thing as "fact" involved in this argument, on either side. There is faith and there is faith interpretation. You have "facts" about the afterlife, so you say.
Let the buyer, therefore, beware of everything else you attempt to sell.

2) “Annihilation is not really a punishment as sin is not then taken seriously enough with mere death. People won’t fear being dead forever as opposed to being tormented alive for eternity!â€Â

- This blood thirsty, vengeful argument should honestly stagger our sense of God given morality and mercy. This argument is made more from the human point of view that sinners ‘deserve it’ and our human sense of ‘revenge’ is then super-imposed on God’s loving character. Is not the highest punishment we can give on this earth death? Do we keep the killer shocked continually in the electric chair? No, because that would be cruel and inhumane, and our conscience abhors such a thought. So why do we put such a lesser characteristic on God and call it ‘justice’ when our own God given consciences (which are lesser and inferior to God’s morality) find it repulsive on earth. Are we Jekyll and Hyde personalities where we reject such a concept on earth but support it whole heartedly in the after life?

Yes, argue with the fringe Fundies and ignore the position of 1.7 billion Orthodox and Catholic believers, and that is that it is not even really God who punishes, for He is without change. It is our unholiness that burns in the puros fire of His perfect, unchanging love. To those who hate Him, this shall be torment. To those who love Him, even their garments will not smell of smoke.

The punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23) God’s plan is to eradicate sin and misery from the universe, not prolonging it by keeping it alive in some everlasting Auschwitz due to some personal vendetta based on vindictive retaliation.

The punishment of sin has already been meted out for sin. God's plan is to be all in all, which will burn sin away. The remainder of this paragraph is further humanist demagoguery and strawman fallacy.

3) Biblical evidence is against you and such texts as Revelation 14:8-11, Revelation 20:10; Matthew 25:46 and Mark 9:43-46 support eternal torment.

I have shown in numerous threads that the language used in these verses are used elsewhere in the scripture to denote complete annihilation and destruction. Texts such as Isaiah 34:10, Jeremiah 17:27, Isaiah 66:24, 1 Samuel 1:21,24,28 and Exodus 3:2 show that these terms are used to indicate finite and complete destruction which is eternal.

You've used Hebrew scriptures written in Hebrew to clarify Greek language use. I'm wondering if there might be a problem with that...

Take a look at this OT passage talking about the destruction of Edom

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall be burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day. The smoke thereof shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste. None shall pass through it forever and ever - Isaiah 34:10

Do you see the usage here to show complete destruction? The language is identical to Revelation! To really interpret the language here, you must understand how it is used and what it really means!

Revelation draws its language and symbolism DIRECTLY from Jewish apocalyptic writings, specifically the Book of Enoch- which clearly supports eternal souls and a number of other things you deny.

 

[Vic C.]

I really wish we could stay on topic. I do not want to see this topic go the way of the subject of Universal Reconcilation.

Personally, both these beliefs have merit and both have been established by using the Bible and a careful word study.

Does it matter who is right on this doctrine? Personally, I don't care to suffer in ANY Lake of Fire, not even for one moment or an eternity. We as Believers should hope that God has other, more glorious plans for us. Lets pray that the hearts of those in disbelief are changed no matter whatever the outcome, whether they suffer fo one single moment and perish or suffer for an eternity. Either position is not where we want to see our loved ones and neighbors in the End, is it?

 

[Gary]

I really wish we could stay on topic. I do not want to see this topic go the way of the subject of Universal Reconcilation.

Personally, both these beliefs have merit and both have been established by using the Bible and a careful word study.

Does it matter who is right on this doctrine? Personally, I don't care to suffer in ANY Lake of Fire, not even for one moment or an eternity. We as Believers should hope that God has other, more glorious plans for us. Lets pray that the hearts of those in disbelief are changed no matter whatever the outcome, whether they suffer fo one single moment and perish or suffer for an eternity. Either position is not where we want to see our loved ones and neighbors in the End, is it?

As always, wise words from Vic.

.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I really wish we could stay on topic. I do not want to see this topic go the way of the subject of Universal Reconcilation.

Personally, both these beliefs have merit and both have been established by using the Bible and a careful word study.

Does it matter who is right on this doctrine? Personally, I don't care to suffer in ANY Lake of Fire, not even for one moment or an eternity. We as Believers should hope that God has other, more glorious plans for us. Lets pray that the hearts of those in disbelief are changed no matter whatever the outcome, whether they suffer fo one single moment and perish or suffer for an eternity. Either position is not where we want to see our loved ones and neighbors in the End, is it?

I absolutely agree with the principle behind your post, Vic. However, it DOES shed a bad light on God when the traditional stance on this issue is that some of our loved ones and neighbors could suffer literal eternal torment in a place called hell. Does anyone know where this belief originally came from? ...other than from a superficial reading of the scriptures, that is. I really don't know ...I'm just asking.

 

[Solo]

Many cults today do not believe in a literal place of torment in eternity. The Bible speaks continually about this place. Jesus' teaching of the rich man and Lazarus speaks to this truth.

 

[guibox]

Many cults today do not believe in a literal place of torment in eternity. The Bible speaks continually about this place. Jesus' teaching of the rich man and Lazarus speaks to this truth.

You're going to have a hard time explaining Revelation 14 and 20 in light of the parable of Luke 16 considering that one is talking about the end of time gehenna fires and the other is metaphorical for Hades at death and not the final end time punishment.

Two different things, solo. Of course a cursory reading of the English will do that when one isn't interested in looking further through proper exegetical study.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Many cults today do not believe in a literal place of torment in eternity. The Bible speaks continually about this place. Jesus' teaching of the rich man and Lazarus speaks to this truth.

Oh, those bad, bad cults who don't hold to God as being a tyrant! This parable has been 'explained' quite adequately so many times on this forum that continued reference to it as 'proving' a literal place of torment has become boring. The parable by Jesus of The Rich Man & Lazarus had an intended audience. It was not US although it makes good reading. His audience probably understood the message behind the parable ...unlike so many theological experts of today!

By the way, Solo, the reason the rich man was 'in torment' (it doesn't even imply ETERNAL, by the way) to begin with was because he hadn't heeded the Law and the Prophets! Hmm . . . If you're going to take one part of the parable literally then you need to take ALL of it literally!

 

[Drew]

Of course a cursory reading of the English will do that when one isn't interested in looking further through proper exegetical study.

This statement can be generalized beyond this issue. After many years as a Christian, I have only now come to believe that one cannot just "read the text as it is". I think we all would like to open the Bible, read the words and interpret them in the context of 21st century North American (for some of us) culture. I suspect this will lead to big problems (e.g. we really need to know what the word "soul" meant for the writers of the Biblical text, not what it means for we readers of today).