Heaven & Hell Vs Annihilation

[jlay]

BW,

Bravo. That ministered to my soul. I am richer having read it.

[CuriousBob]

Jlay & BW

I have edited my last post 7 times to give everyone here a better understanding of my dilemma and where I am coming from. I would appreciate it if everyone here would keep it in mind when discussing this topic with me.

[jlay]

God appears to be entirely responsible for whatever defects exist within His creation as all designers and manufacturers are responsible for the defects that exist within their manufactured products. But, it also appears as if God wants to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of His own creation for a defect that He terms "sin". It is primarily conslusions like this derived from this type of sound thinking that creates problems for people like me who yearn to trust in God and become godly.

That is not sound logic.

Let's say you purchase a brand new car. It is in perfect running order. All you have to do to keep it in perfect running order to is properly maintain the vehicle. However, you fail to maintain the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines. The vehicle breaks down. With your reasoning, it is the manufacturers fault that you were neglegent, even though you were given instructions on proper maintenance.

Now granted this is an analogy and not perfect, but I think it demonstrates the fallacy in your reasoning.

[cslewislover]

I hadn't been keeping up with this thread, but was just reading through it. I'd like to post some more when I look up some things. A couple of things I can say now, though.

One, we can't be destroyed like animals or other things because we are soul. This seems to make sense to me. Our soul is a different substance that cannot be destroyed, or so the theory goes. Two, God doesn't put separation from him on us because of sin, but because we don't accept him. Sin separates us from God. If we accept the work of his son and repent, then the sin doesn't matter.

I'm going to try and take a look at the FF Bruce link. I like him as well.

[CuriousBob]

Jlay,

Let's say you purchase a brand new car. It is in perfect running order. All you have to do to keep it in perfect running order to is properly maintain the vehicle. However, you fail to maintain the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines. The vehicle breaks down. With your reasoning, it is the manufacturers fault that you were neglegent, even though you were given instructions on proper maintenance.

Now granted this is an analogy and not perfect, but I think it demonstrates the fallacy in your reasoning.

I think the analogy is not appropriate.

I think a better analogy would be a self-aware car that drives itself wherever it wishes to drive. If you have seen "Christine", the horror movie that was adapted from Stephen King's novel, then you will get a glimpse of what a self-conscious car looks like and what it can do when it becomes aware of everything around it.

God is the designer and manufacturer of every biological body, every human soul, and every spirit or self that came into being apart from Himself, except perhaps the nephilim who existed before the flood and perished in the flood.

God is the ultimate cause of all that has come into being apart from Him because without Him nothing else could ever be; because without Him not even evil or sin could have come into being. For that reason, He is ultimately responsible for everything that ever happened after that first creative act because not only is He the King of Kings, but the creator of creators. Whatever the creators that He created does is ultimately because He made it possible for them to do as they please. With this in mind, how can it be fair for God to punish those whom He created to do as they will do, regardless of what He or anyone else would like them to do?

God created hormones in men. Before He created them though, he knew that they would cause men's lower extremeties to become aroused around attractive women and around thoughts involving attractive women. In other words, He knew that the same hormones would cause men to think and act in ways that are normal to sexual creatures. If, therefore, He sees something wrong in His creature's behavior or thoughts towards women, then why would He blame His creatures for doing what such creatures were designed to ?

At this point, I am starting to fall asleep. So, I had better get to bed. Because I am not thinking as clearly l as I like to think.

[jlay]

At this point, I am starting to fall asleep. So, I had better get to bed. Because I am not thinking as clearly l as I like to think.

With the Christine stuff, I agree. Analogies aren't meant to be anything more than that. The anaolgy is effective is showing the unreasonable aspects of your objection. Objections are not wrong. Unreasonable objections are. You are judging God. I would go back and re-read BW's post with careful thought.

Before He created them though, he knew that they would cause men's lower extremeties to become aroused around attractive women and around thoughts involving attractive women. In other words, He knew that the same hormones would cause men to think and act in ways that are normal to sexual creatures. If, therefore, He sees something wrong in His creature's behavior or thoughts towards women, then why would He blame His creatures for doing what such creatures were designed to ?

What is your point? That sex is evil? It is not. Are natural responses sinful in themselves? It is what mankind does with sex that is wrong. Are the sexual problems in this world because we have natural sexual instincts, or because our culture marinates itself in pornography, sexual imagery, and more. The problem with sexual sin is not natural desire, but the feeding of unatural desires. Being attracted to someone isn't a sin. But taking that attraction and playing out sexual scenarios in your mind is lust. That is not holding every thought captive. What you feed grows, what you starve dies. No one rapes another because of natural desire. There is a reason we call it "perversion." It has perverted the natural.

I'd be curious to know if you have a problem with pornography. I can remember stumbling across my dad's naughty mags when I was a child. Although I had urges to look at them, I also had alarm bells ringing that this is wrong. There is a reason people are sneaky when it comes to this stuff. The conscience screams at it. The bible cleary states that we will not be tempted beyond what we can resist. Stop blaming God because of YOUR sin. I can see why repentence is a change of mind. You need to change your mind.

[BavarianWheels]

One, we can't be destroyed like animals or other things because we are soul. This seems to make sense to me. Our soul is a different substance that cannot be destroyed, or so the theory goes.

I would disagree...

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

.
.

[cslewislover]

One, we can't be destroyed like animals or other things because we are soul. This seems to make sense to me. Our soul is a different substance that cannot be destroyed, or so the theory goes.

I would disagree...

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

.
.

Yeah, I know of that verse, and I can say that it has caught my attention. But nothing else in the bible indicates that God destroys souls, right? I definitely would need to look some things up. I just haven't lately because everything we read talks of us lasting forever, so it just doesn't come up much. Do you think people that go to hell will be there forever, or no?

[BavarianWheels]

One, we can't be destroyed like animals or other things because we are soul. This seems to make sense to me. Our soul is a different substance that cannot be destroyed, or so the theory goes.

I would disagree...

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Yeah, I know of that verse, and I can say that it has caught my attention. But nothing else in the bible indicates that God destroys souls, right? I definitely would need to look some things up. I just haven't lately because everything we read talks of us lasting forever, so it just doesn't come up much. Do you think people that go to hell will be there forever, or no?

Depends how you interpret a "soul"...

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. a living soul - KJV)

This seems to indicate that: Dust + Breath of Life = a living being or a living soul.

Two things can be concluded from this:

• 1. There was no "soul(s)" prior to the formation of Adam.
  
  2. There is no "soul" left after death. Soul is the sum of parts, not a part itself.

A dead human is simply formed dust on it's way back to unformed dust.

Lastly, clearly Matthew 10:28 tells us that in Hell, God destroys. Ultimately, the end result is annihilation.
.
.

[CuriousBob]

With the Christine stuff, I agree. Analogies aren't meant to be anything more than that. The anaolgy is effective is showing the unreasonable aspects of your objection. Objections are not wrong. Unreasonable objections are. You are judging God. I would go back and re-read BW's post with careful thought.

Jlay,

How did you arrive at that conclusion from me feeling sleepy and wanting to go to bed?

Furthermore, what did I say that made you think I am objecting to or judging God?

What is your point? That sex is evil? It is not. Are natural responses sinful in themselves? It is what mankind does with sex that is wrong.

I am glad you asked. The Bible leads me to believe that men who lust after women deserve to suffer for eternity, even regardless of what Christ has done for them or regardless of how much they have trusted in Christ for their salvation. It also leads me to be terrified of Him, even more so than I should ever be of men because, unlike men (who can harm me no more when my body is dead), He can force me to undergoe and keep me aware of my own excruciating pain and torment for ever and ever... (see Matt. 10:28). But the Bible also leads me to believe in the eye for an eye principle, which in turn leads me to believe that torturing men for eternity for merely thinking horny thoughts is not much fairer than torturing men for eternity for refusing to revere the criminal lunacy that settles all disputes among Mohammedans or it is certainly not as fair as the "eye for an eye" principle.

Yes, the Bible leads me to believe that either sex is wrong or God was wrong for telling man that he could do as he pleased. And this leads me back to the point: God created man and told him that he could do as he pleased and follow his own way if he wished. But then He told him that if he continued to the grave or to the end of his life on this earth to follow his own way, then he would ultimately be tortured forever and ever...in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.

Again, the Bible tells me that the nephilim (referred to as "the watchers" in the book of Enoch) perished and will never be conscious again or that they are the only man-like offspring that are capable of being reincarnated. So, it appears as if God was fairer to the nephilim (who were much more desparately wicked than any man ever was) than he is to man, because He granted them an escape from eternal punishment (even though they never repented) that is equivalent to an everlasting dose of anesthesia and He won't grant man the same if he doesn't repent from the lust of the flesh, etc.

This reminds me of another thing I would like to bring to everyone's attention:

How can I convince myself or any skeptic that God (as He is portrayed in the Bible) is fair, especially when I compare Scripture with Scripture, like Scripture tells me to do, or especially when I compare what the Bible says about the inability of the rich man (or Dives) in hell to roam freely throughout the world for more than a mere human life time and also what it says about the devil (who is far worse than Dives) being allowed to roam freely to and fro throughout the world for thousands of years without being tormented or tortured?

It is what mankind does with sex that is wrong.

Are you suggesting that sex is a tool that can be used and abused? I would agree that it is wrong, according God as the Bible portrays Him. But right and wrong or good and evil always relate to purpose, which can change for each individual involved and which can be different for everybody. For instance, if a man's purpose is to see how much pleasure he can get out of lusting and killing, then, according to that man, it is good to lust and kill if he receives a lot of pleasure from those activities and evil to the man if he doesn't. Likewise, if a man's purpose is to see how long he can live without lusting and killing, then it is good to him if he accomplishes that end and evil if he doesn't. Also, I would ask, "Precisely why is it wrong to lust"? What harm does it do to the one who is lusting or to the one who is lusted after, especially if the lust between the two is mutually consented to or especially if the one lusted after is not even aware of the lusting activities

BavarianWheels,

Matthew 10:28 is the one I point to whenever a fellow Christian says, "God doesn't send people to hell. Men choose to go there." This feeble attempt to make God look as benevolent as other Scriptures portray Him to be is proof enough for me that the Christians who use this line of reasoning are expressing an unreasonable conviction that the God of the Bible can't possibly be so cruel as to punish men for eternity.

But nothing else in the bible indicates that God destroys souls, right?

CSLewisLover,

The doctrine which suggests that men send themselves to hell is not as Scripturally established as this generation's Christian fundamentalists seem to believe it is. The generation of Christian fundamentalists before this one was not of this opinion at all, as far as I can recall. In fact, it was never suggested to me when I was growing up in the Salvation Army. But when I came into the Pentecostal church I recall hearing it introduced in the late 1970's or early 1980's because Christians were having a hard time answering skeptics on the issue of God's willingness to punish people. Actually, the term "eternal punishment" settles all disputes in my mind about whether or not God is willing to punish man or man is willing to punish himself (an obvious absurdity to my mind).

The following is an extract from a Christian website (i.e., http://peculiarpilgrim.wordpress.com/20 ... le-to-hell) that I agree with concerning the question "Does God send people to hell or do they choose to go there of their own free-will?":

It's been several months ago, but I distinctly remember having dinner one Friday evening over at a friend's house with his family. Another recently married couple ate with us too. They all attend a different church than we do, but our beliefs had always been very similar - at least until I embraced the doctrines of grace. The differences in our theologies had become apparent, and somewhat troublesome to them. Despite their apprehension, I proclaimed the gospel truth as I understood it in an after dinner conversation. The wife of the recently married couple sat at rapt attention as I gave a brief overview of the doctrines of Grace. At one point I made a remark about God casting the reprobate into hell, whose sins have not been washed away by the blood of Jesus. She perked up, eyes wide, mouth agape and chimed in with this gem, “God doesn't send people to hell!”

I raised an eyebrow in surprise. “How is that so?” I asked, although I anticipated where she was taking this line of argument.

She replied, “people go to hell of their own free choice.”

“No one would choose to go into hell.” I countered. “Not one person would decide to enter an eternity of flaming torment over an eternity in heavenly bliss. So how can you say that?”

“People go to hell when they refuse to accept Jesus.”

“So… they simply accept their fate and willingly walk into the fiery furnace?”

“Well… no…”

“They must be sent there - against their will, right? So who sends them there?”

“The devil… maybe.”

“No. Scripture teaches the lake of fire is prepared for the devil and his angels, he does not lord over it. Only a righteous judge can pronounce sentence. The devil does not have that authority. So if we don't go in willingly and the devil doesn't take us there, then that leaves God as the only viable option, doesn't it?”

She had no reply. The plain truth stared her straight in the face and she was loathe to accept it. I went on to proclaim that God the Father is the judge of all the universe. He created hell as a place of punishment for all unrepentant sinners, to stand as an eternal monument to his wrath against sin. The Father has handed His authority to damn and to vindicate over to His Son, who will judge the quick and the dead upon his return to establish his eternal kingdom. The wicked will be cast into the furnace of fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth (Mat 13:42).

Who will cast them there?

The Lord Jesus Christ, who will sit upon the throne of his glory (Mat 25:31-46). He will judge the hearts and minds of every living person. Jesus will say to many on that day, “I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of lawlessness.” (Mat 7:23)

This silly belief that God does not send people to hell is more evidence of the rotten fruit of modern evangelicalism. Spineless preachers will say, “Oh no, God is too jolly a fellow to actively punish man for his 'mistakes'. They go there all by themselves, God is not responsible for their doom”.

Ridiculous!

Of course, it makes complete sense to 'spiritual seekers' and “I said a prayer” converts who are spoon-fed this 'God is a God of love and not of hate' garbage every weekend in churches across the world. Alas, I fell victim to this 'Care Bear Christianity' in my early years as a believer. I spouted the same sentiments as this young woman did! However, after carefully searching the scriptures, God swept away the fog of deception. My eyes now behold the fullness of His glory. A glory that includes his holy attributes of judgment, wrath and justice.

God, by necessity, is a God of hate because He is a God of love. God cannot truly love unless he hates the destructive power of sin that utterly destroys those things He created and called 'very good' in the beginning.

[B. W.]

One, we can't be destroyed like animals or other things because we are soul. This seems to make sense to me. Our soul is a different substance that cannot be destroyed, or so the theory goes.

I would disagree...

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

.
.

Nice try Bavarian Wheels - I do respect you so take this as a loving rebuke to your doctrine regarding soul sleep and final annihilation my friend...

Mat 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell…”

This passage is a decisive proof text showing that there is a hell for the body and soul in the eternal world and these exist forever.

Look at Luke 12:4-5: "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

This clarifies the meaning on Matthew 10:28 very well. In fact the word translated destroy used in Matthew 10:28 means to bring into a state of ruin.

Annihilationist mistakenly impose upon the meaning of destroy to mean a state of non-being existence. The Greek word translated destroy has a much broader range of meaning such as — being put out of the way, removed, be lost…to name a few.

Luke 12:4-5 — look at the verse again:

"I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

Verse — notice the phrase — 'after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell…'

If a person brought into a non-existent state — How can a non-existent (or a soul sleeper) be cast into hell, immediately after their mortal life ceases?

The word translated kill means 'inflicting mortal death'…

When one dies, they go before the Lord for Judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

Hell is a place of ruin where one lives according to their own eternal ruin and rot of their soul. Later, they'll be rejoined with their body and cast into the Lake of fire — alive and forever.

The force of Jesus' word in Luke 12:4-5 clearly points out, after mortal death a person can be cast into a living hell and Revelations indicates that this living hell will give up those who have died that reside there….

Rev 20:11-15, “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Let's see — the bible is very plain — no need to add more, But knowing Annihilationist and soul sleepers as I do they give lengthy diatribes to reduce Gehenna, Hades, and hell as non-existing trash heap.

Notice how much verbiage they use to explain away the meaning of the text. You know, they'll use the:Gehenna is a trash dump but not a literal hell argument and the Destruction means only non-existence argument, etc…

Fact: Gehenna, Hades, and hell are used synonymously of each other as well as used metaphorically to describe the realities in such a place. Jesus makes no separate distinctions, yet, people continue to do so as evidence by use of many words that lead to the premise - how dare God punish poor old me or them...especially forever, maybe for a little while but not forever

Question: so God should bow ones wishes or are we to bow to God? Whom are we to fear?

"I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!” Lk 12:4-5

Scriptures from the ESV
-
-
-

[rstrats]

B.W.,

re: “The force of Jesus' word in Luke 12:4-5 clearly points out, after mortal death a person can be cast into a living hell and Revelations indicates that this living hell will give up those who have died that reside there….



Any particular reason for adding an “s” at the end of Revelation?

[jlay]

How can I convince myself or any skeptic that God (as He is portrayed in the Bible) is fair

When has that even been a tenet of Christianity? Trying to make God more appealing to your own taste or the taste of others is idolatry. And it is the oldest sin in the book. I would stop trying to convince myself of that immediately.

I am glad you asked. The Bible leads me to believe that men who lust after women deserve to suffer for eternity, even regardless of what Christ has done for them or regardless of how much they have trusted in Christ for their salvation. It also leads me to be terrified of Him, even more so than I should ever be of men because, unlike men (who can harm me no more when my body is dead), He can force me to undergoe and keep me aware of my own excruciating pain and torment for ever and ever... (see Matt. 10:28). But the Bible also leads me to believe in the eye for an eye principle, which in turn leads me to believe that torturing men for eternity for merely thinking horny thoughts is not much fairer than torturing men for eternity for refusing to revere the criminal lunacy that settles all disputes among Mohammedans or it is certainly not as fair as the "eye for an eye" principle.

This is clearly an example of mishandling the word. You are wrongly applying scripture.

An eye for an eye was the method of justice God implemented between men. This was how the Israelites were to be governed amongst themselves. It is not a prescription to understand God's judgments on men. That doesn't jive. When Achan withheld the loot from Jericho, God has Joshua kill him and his entire family. Not fair, by my standard. I don't think God was attempting to demonstrate he was "fair" in this situation. It is clear in this situation and others, that crimes against God are handled differently than disputes agaisnt one another.

Although eye for and eye was a very right and effective form of governemnt, to apply that to God's eternal judgments is not implied or justified.

The Bible leads me to believe that men who lust after women deserve to suffer for eternity, even regardless of what Christ has done for them or regardless of how much they have trusted in Christ for their salvation.

What? Regardless of what Christ has done for them? The bible doesn't demonstrate lust as being anymore sinful than lying. Rev. 21:8 says all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. You are erroneous in your conclusions. I would spend less time worrying about Nephilim. You are not at a point where you need to be attending a Chuck Missler seminar. You need to focus on the promises of Christ, and come to a clear grasp of what is presented in the gospel of John. You are bouncing around, wrongly interpreting and applying scripture.

"Precisely why is it wrong to lust"? What harm does it do to the one who is lusting or to the one who is lusted after, especially if the lust between the two is mutually consented to or especially if the one lusted after is not even aware of the lusting activities

This is pretty clearly address by Jesus himself in Matt 5. Another scripture from James 1. "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

This is why we are to "hold captive every thought to the obedience of Christ."

No rapist commits his crime with out first brewing it in his mind. No homosexual, heteorsexual enters into sexual sin without first lusting in their minds.

Sorry bro, but you seem to be going off half cocked with a handful of scripture, and a mess of bad theology, trying to reconcile the God of the bible to your concept of fairness. .

If you want a doctrine of "fairness" then go and read the Shack. There are plenty who want to shape a God in their own minds, that they are more comfortable with. A god that is not so holy but is very fair. The bible doesn't attempt to reveal God as fair. It does reveal his absolute holiness, and His mercy. You will not find hope in fairness, and I sense this is why you are struggling. Repent of that.
If God was fair, do you think he would have sent his beloved and perfect son to die on a cross for you and me? Get over it. There is nothing fair about the cross. There is no hope if God is fair.

[cslewislover]

Hey Everyone. Yes, I will read through these posts more, and since I read some things that surprised me last night, I'll post more too in a bit. As far as the soul goes, I still need to read up more on that, that's for sure (there is a thread on the site for that too).

CuriousBob. Yes, thanks for that. What I had said on hell and who goes there weren't all my thoughts on the subject. I believe that people are predestined, so if they're predestined for heaven, then that means there are those predestined to hell (which is also not pleasant to think about). But, I don't think it's an easy thing to comprehend, either, so I didn't get into it. And it wasn't a point I was going to get into right now, either. If the discussion turns that way, I'd probably get some sources out and present them.

Looking at some sources last night, I was very surprised to find that my Moody Handbook of Theology does not go over doctrine or theology regarding the soul (!). Another book I just bought, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions, does not have anything on hell. !!!

Right now, I'd like to present what RC Sproul presents in his Essential Truths of the Christian Faith regarding the soul and hell. Part of what he wrote on the soul surprised me (pp 133-135). He presents that the soul and body are a duality, and that the soul is the same as our spirit (so there is no third element to us). The soul and the body will be redeemed. The soul can be destroyed and is not inherently eternal. (That's the part that surprised me; besides the verse Bav and BW gave, he also cites Acts 17:28.) When we die, our soul is preserved and we are conscious while we wait the resurrection and glorification of the body. Since Jesus said what he did to the other crucified man, and Paul said that he'd be with the Lord when he died, this aspect always seemed clear to me. That our souls are not inherently eternal is surprising, I guess, since it's never brought up that God will ever destroy any soul. And, to me, it does bring into mind the idea of annhilationism. Why not destroy souls instead of tormenting them forever? This must play into the other things I have read in the past that lean toward a disagreement with Sproul. But I will need to look into this more.

I also want to post what Sproul writes about hell. I will get to that shortly . . .

[BavarianWheels]

BavarianWheels

Matthew 10:28 is the one I point to whenever a fellow Christian says, "God doesn't send people to hell. Men choose to go there." This feeble attempt to make God look as benevolent as other Scriptures portray Him to be is proof enough for me that the Christians who use this line of reasoning are expressing an unreasonable conviction that the God of the Bible can't possibly be so cruel as to punish men for eternity.

Bob, I'm curious (heh)...are you a parent? If so, is it cruel to punish your child for going against your rules when the consequences are laid out plain and simple?

While I wouldn't equate a spanking or a "time out" to death and/or hell, I would make the case that a parent such as yourself (assuming you're a parent) wouldn't, having found your son or daughter going against your "house" rules, serve their punishment yourself?

Let's say the opportunity/need has come to make your son aware that fire is hot and WILL BURN him if he touches it. Normally, a parent would simply say, "Don't touch that fire, it's hot and will burn you." "See the red flame? That means it's hot, and where it's blue, it's even hotter...yada, yada" Ok, so your son has all the information. Your son has your word and nothing more. You certainly aren't going to teach your son about how fire burns by BURNING your son, right? So it is with God. He gives humanity just enough information to believe without giving hard, physical proof. So there's just enough evidence to believe, yet there's also enough non-evidence to disbelieve. Your son (humanity) knows by words that the fire is hot, but is, as children (humans) are, curious about fire. It dances around, it warms, it makes meals hot... So let's remember, you've told your son that if he touches the fire, it will burn him. So while the he has not touched the fire, there is no problem. But one day your son finds himself passing by the kitchen and a pot of something simmering on the stove. The flame attracts him and in his curiosity, he touches the flame. I'll tell you something out of experience here. Some kids do not have the correct reflexes yet developed at young ages, and this is so true because it happened to my own daughter. She tested fire once and put her finger over a candle. I don't quite understand it, but they feel the burn and pain, but their muscles just don't react fast enough to pull away. The result is a second or two in the flame and the burn can be very painful and nasty. The difference here in the analogy is that you as parent cannot take the pain of the burn away from your child. The lesson is learned, but the child is burned. Now as a parent, did you know that at some point in the life of your son, he may get hurt? Did you realize that at some point he will feel pain...maybe great pain and eventually death? Yet you still chose to have a child. I can only assume that it's because you felt the joys of having a son, far outweigh the pain of life and it's inevitable end.

This is the story of Adam and Eve...the fire is the fruit (sin). The fruit, in and of itself, probably wasn't anything BUT fruit. But God said they were not to eat or even touch it for when they did, they would surely die. They to were burned by curiosity. They ate of the fruit (and didn't die...immediately) and were punished for it. While they were without sin, they communed with God and He with them. Life was good. The moment they went against God and did THEIR own will, they began to die and with that came consequences. One is physical death, but the ultimate consequence is that one that sins cannot exist in the presence of RIGHTEOUSNESS. If it does, then the RIGHTEOUSNESS is tainted. Similar to oil and water.

God has passed judgement on Man. All have sinned (all have touched the flame) and fall short of the glory of God. Since all have sinned, all will die! You know you will die because you know life cannot be sustained much passed 100yrs. Your lifespan is no more than 120yrs, if you're lucky...but you will die. THAT is the consequence of sin...and much like secular belief, passed death you will know nothing.

But God, it His foreknowledge, knew that Man would sin. Similar to possibly you wanting kids, He made provision to save all of humanity from sin (the fire). God, HIMSELF, came, in the form of His created (of which that in itself has everlasting consequences) and died as though He had sinned. Having paid for sin Himself, being completely without sin, it is through His death that we are declared righteous and no longer under law since it is the law that points at sin and so condemns the sinner. We are declared righteous because we are dead in Christ. If we stand behind or in Christ, we are dead already and the debt sin owes (the 'you shall surely die') is paid and we live forever, once again, with Christ and God. God is Holy and Just. He cannot pardon sin without the penalty being paid. Much like our judicial process cannot forgive a crime without paying back to society. Sometimes that payment is death. And once the payment is made, the crime is forgiven...problem is that we as humans cannot bring ourselves back from death...or have a father that can.

For God to be "cruel", as you mention, He would not provide a manner in which to avoid the penalty. Death (hell) is just a consequence of sin. Some believe that hell is everlasting in that people are burning continually and in perpetual agony. Like the "forever/everlasting" fires of Sodom and Gomorrah, the flames do end, but not until it has consumed everything it can consume. The fire will not end for those in it, because it will finish them. They will die the second death. That being the death that Christ died and the reason for His words from the Cross, "My God, my God. Why hast Thou forsaken me." It is the death of EVERLASTING separation from God.

You have the knowledge and the choice. The choice is given to you. You have just enough information to accept and just enough reason to reject. The question remains, will you test the words and trust only your own senses or trust the Word and avoid a burn?
.
.