Evidence for God from Science

DonCameron wrote:Good morning B.W.,
….You then brought up the fact that Revelation speaks of the "dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idiol worshiopers and everyone who loves to tell lies and do wrong" who are said to be outside the city of New Jerusalem (that has come down from heaven). - Rev. 22:14,15

You make the reasonable point when you reason...

Question: There is no more death and sin at this point in time in the New Heavens, New Earth, and the New Jerusalem. Who are these people? Where are they? Wasn't sin and death and all the wicked tossed into the lake of fire and no long exist and no memory of them either?

How do I 'get around' your "Check Mate"? Here is how I attempt to do so...

Some Concerns:
1) You asked where these people are. I notice that it doesn't say they are in the lake of fire but only that they are somewhere outside the city.

2) What about this "New Jerusalem"? Is it an actual city that will descend through outer space from heaven and be placed here on Earth on the site of the present-day Jerusalem?

One of the main reasons I don't think so is because of the size of it. Rev. 21:16 says that it is 12,000 furlongs long, wide and high. Did you ever look up just how high 12,000 furlongs is? It is 1,500 miles! How likely is it that there will be an actual city that will extend 1,500 miles through the upper atmosphere into outer space? (The space station is only 200 or so miles above the Earth.) Will everyone living above 20,000 feet need to carry an oxygen tank 24 hours/day? Will all those above 100,000 feet need to ware space suits? Or is this "New Jerusalem" just one of the "signs" that the author of Revelation included in his book? Rev. 1:1 Since a literal city 1,500 miles long by 1,500 miles wide by 1,500 miles high seems to be an impossibility, then for me it is not necessary to take what is said to go on outside that city literally.But if what you quoted from Revelation doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, then what does it mean? I don't know. But, for the above reasons, I feel I understand what it doesn't mean. i.e. That it doesn't mean that those in the second death are alive.

In conclusion:
I can understand why someone, like yourself, can read Revelation and reasonably conclude that the wicked will be alive and therefore consciously experience God's everlasting punishment. But the Bible (especially Revelation) is written in such a way that someone (like myself) can read it and conclude that the wicked will be dead and therefore not consciously experience God's everlasting punishment.

Hopefully, whatever misunderstandings there are will all be cleared up when Christi Jesus returns….Don

Don, first of all, what the book of Revelations states is what it states — and what it states will come to pass as it states: Revelations 22:6 “And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.” KJV

Just because the human finite mind cannot comprehend the amazing wonder of the new city does not mean it will not come to pass as it is so stated. Please do not use human logic to avoid or skirt around the issue.

What was outside the Old Jerusalem? The waste dump that Jesus made reference to as a metaphor for Hell and likewise where will this lake of fire be? Something's are obvious.

Next, after the White Throne Judgment those not found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire, where according to your viewpoint, these people cease to exist.

How long does it take to cease to exist, Don? When they do, all memory of them ceases too.

In the timeline of Revelations chapter twenty two, after this new city appears there will be those left out side. I thought no memory exists of them and that they cease to exist?

There will be no sin and death in this new creation God will make as it will be a place where righteousness dwells. As with the Old Jerusalem — outside the gate will be a lake of fire mentioned earlier along with those contained within.

If these have avoided everlasting punishment by being punished with eternal non-existence, then why are they mentioned as still existing outside the gate?

That is what I meant by Checkmate.

Here is the real issue Don. Your doctorial position is based of human assumptions about God and his nature of love that would dictate a more merciful and humane manner to punish. In your doctorial view, this equates to how humans put down a sick horse or dog as showing more mercy. In other words, God loves so much that he will punish with non-existence.

Why did God bother make these people at all and allow them to exist. He should have left them to remain in non-existence to begin with. You see, non-being is not punishment nor is it just nor is it merciful — it is only non-existence.

The real issue here is that the Annihilationist doctorial position exalts the dominion of human logic and reasoning over God's.

Your exposition on the New Jerusalem demonstrates this as well as the entire form of inductive and deductive reasoning of the Annihilationist doctrine. It is the use of this reasoning that is in so much in error. Not warn you about this would be a violation of Christian ethics. That is what I am doing — warning you.

If you want to discuss the issue — the real issue — then lay down your cards and explain bluntly why the Annihilationist doctorial position rejects all notions of eternal punishment without citing any bible based proof text.
-
-
-

B.W.,

I had mentioned that if what Revelation 21:15,16 says about the new city of Jerusalem is to be taken literally it would mean that the city would extend 1,500 miles up into outer space.

You then explained why this fact does not cause any problem for you...

Don, first of all, what the book of Revelations states is what it states — and what it states will come to pass as it states... Just because the human finite mind cannot comprehend the amazing wonder of the new city does not mean it will not come to pass as it is so stated.

Therefore you do believe that the New Jerusalem will literally extend 1,500 miles up into outer space. Your reasoning is that, since that's what the Bible says, then that's what you believe.

Although you know that Revelation 1:1 says that the book is presented in "signs," you do not allow for the possibility that this "New Jerusalem" (no matter how impossible its measurements appear to be) is one of those signs. In fact, from most of the matters we have talked about, you don't seem to take anything Revelation says as just a sign or symbol of something - with one exception...

Rev. 22:15 says that "dogs" are included along those who are outside the New Jerusalem. But apparently you don't believe that they will actually be dogs. Your comment about them looks like this...

Since there will be a New Heavens, New Earth, and the New Jerusalem there will also be a new Hell — a lake of fire — literal, metaphor, symbol matters not. A place set aside outside the city where [human] dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idol worshipers, and everyone who loves to tell lies and does wrong will remain as Jesus warned us about many-many times.

I notice that you insert the word "human" before "dogs"? What happened to, "What the book of Revelations states is what it states — and what it states will come to pass as it states."

If that is the correct standard we should follow when reading the Book of Revelation then since it says they are "dogs," then they must be real dogs - just like the 1,500 mile high city of new of Jerusalem" must be real.

What I feel this shows is that even you do not always understand that what the Bible says is what it means. In the above case, since you don't believe the Bible teaches that literal dogs will be burned in a fire for all eternity, therefore the reference to "dogs" mentioned in Rev. 22:15 should not be taken literally.

I know that when I read something in the Bible, my understanding of it is affected by what I already believe about the subject. I suspect that I'm not the only one who is affected this way. I'm not so sure that everyone realizes this human tendency.

It seems evident that since what you and I already believe is different, it is not likely that we will be able to help each other see what we think the Bible is trying to teach us - no matter what is says or how it says it. According to what Paul explained to Timothy, Divine intervention will be necessary. - 2 Timothy 2:23-25

Don

Don,

Using passages from Revelations as core platforms for doctrine is always dicey. The very nature of the book calls into question whether the context is a literal, simplist understanding of the verse, or the vision that it represents itself to be, shrouded in mystery and symbolism.

The literal rendering of any verse, does not necessarily equate to what is simplest. It requires understanding as to the form of literature it is, the human author, the intended audience, the context of surrounding passages, the overall purpose and intent of the book as a whole, cultural context, current events at the time etc. etc. Revelation, more than most other Scriptural Books, is wide open to many interpretations and uses, and historically has been used greatly for just that reason to support many positions and teachings that don't necessarily line up with the rest of Scripture.

Don, with all due respect, you do the same type of thing you note with B.W. with your rendering of the passage claiming death and hades being cast into the lake of fire supporting your position.

I appreciate that you concede that much of this debate is a matter of starting with a preconception as to the nature of God and then building a proof text case. I think that maybe somewhat at work on both sides, but my bias lands more on the emphasis of Christ's highlighting this issue as a major theme in his teaching. In fact, and again my bias is at play, I have a tendency to give some preference to an explanation I don't completely understand as requiring close examination on my part in part, because I believe in a God, Gospel and Bible that is both simple in it's message to where a child can grasp it, but then delves into depths that are beyond me, and require faith and humility on my part.

I'm not saying you're not equally sincere and convinced in your position.

But I do wonder a little if you're completely consistent in terms of how you handle passages from Revelation.

Bart

-
-
Don, I would suggest we now stay clear of debating the New City and stay on the topic as I stated earlier:

Your exposition on the New Jerusalem demonstrates this as well as the entire form of inductive and deductive reasoning of the Annihilationist doctrine. It is the use of this reasoning that is in so much in error. Not warn you about this would be a violation of Christian ethics. That is what I am doing — warning you.

If you want to discuss the issue — the real issue — then lay down your cards and explain bluntly why the Annihilationist doctorial position rejects all notions of eternal punishment without citing any bible based proof text.

There is great wisdom in doing so now. I will not respond to your comments on the New City. It says what it says and I will not mess with it. It would be wise that you do the same.

We can discuss human opinion regarding what punishment is and discover a messure of truth many Annihilationist miss.
-
-
-

Hi Bart,

You said...

But I do wonder a little if you're completely consistent in terms of how you handle passages from Revelation.

Can you recall an example or two?

I know I have said that I don't think "the wild beast" is a real wild animal; or that "the lake of fire" is a real physical lake of fire; or that the New Jerusalem isn't a literal city with 240 ft. thick walls that will extend 1,500 miles up into outer space.

The book of Revelation is really not my most favorite book - for the reasons you mentioned...

The literal rendering of any verse, does not necessarily equate to what is simplest. It requires understanding as to the form of literature it is, the human author, the intended audience, the context of surrounding passages, the overall purpose and intent of the book as a whole, cultural context, current events at the time etc. etc. Revelation, more than most other Scriptural Books, is wide open to many interpretations and uses, and historically has been used greatly for just that reason to support many positions and teachings that don't necessarily line up with the rest of Scripture.

I suspect that the only way one will be able to correctly understand what John wrote is if or when God reveals exactly what all those symbols mean. I certainly don't claim to be the one He has chosen to reveal them to.

Again, please give me an example or two of what you had in mind above.

Don

DonCameron wrote:Hi Bart,

You said...

But I do wonder a little if you're completely consistent in terms of how you handle passages from Revelation.

Can you recall an example or two?

I know I have said that I don't think "the wild beast" is a real wild animal; or that "the lake of fire" is a real physical lake of fire; or that the New Jerusalem isn't a literal city with 240 ft. thick walls that will extend 1,500 miles up into outer space.

The book of Revelation is really not my most favorite book - for the reasons you mentioned...

The literal rendering of any verse, does not necessarily equate to what is simplest. It requires understanding as to the form of literature it is, the human author, the intended audience, the context of surrounding passages, the overall purpose and intent of the book as a whole, cultural context, current events at the time etc. etc. Revelation, more than most other Scriptural Books, is wide open to many interpretations and uses, and historically has been used greatly for just that reason to support many positions and teachings that don't necessarily line up with the rest of Scripture.

I suspect that the only way one will be able to correctly understand what John wrote is if or when God reveals exactly what all those symbols mean. I certainly don't claim to be the one He has chosen to reveal them to.

Again, please give me an example or two of what you had in mind above.

Don

Don,

I was referring to the passages that you mention above.

I fall along the lines that this is a vision of John, and he is using the words and his experiences and frame of reference to describe what he saw. I believe what he saw, he described as best he could, but that does not equate necessarily to literal equivilents of all that he saw. Obviously, there's much more going on here.

It seemed to me that you were pressing in a little on B.W.'s willingness to not push the City of Jerusalem into a literal framework while standing on your use of the passage referring to death and Hades as being a firm place to stand in terms of your support of annihilationalism.

Just struck me as being a little inconsistent and perhaps picking and chosing what to accept or to reject based upon preference rather than a consistent hermenuetic. You don't accept the beasts as being literal but when you see the terms death and hades in this passage, you leap to take them at their simplest level and, as I've observed, as one of your primary arguments.

What is John's reference to "death and hades" is not a literal reference but rather his best explanation of what he saw, and couldn't express it in any better terms or frame of reference?

I've followed this discussion without being very active as of late, because, as often happens, I've stated what I believe, given the references and reasons as have you and continuing to dance around the issue restating everything over and over again gets a little counterproductive in my estimation.

Others are welcome to do so however, and that is how we digest and learn.

Hope this clarifies.

Bart

B.W.

You said...

Lay down your cards and explain bluntly why the Annihilationist doctoral position rejects all notions of eternal punishment without citing any bible based proof text.

You again are asking why I don't believe in "eternal punishment." But again, I do believe in eternal punishment. What I don't believe is that that punishment will be consciously suffered (with or without a fire).

I know that many sincere Christians cannot conceive of how someone can be punished unless they are aware that they are being punished.

But for me, an unconscious death that lasts forever is an eternal punishment. I also view never receiving God's gift of eternal life is an eternal punishment.

As I have said, I can understand why one can read the Bible and concluded that it teaches a conscious everlasting punishment. But others can read the same Bible and conclude that the punishment is simply unconscious death that lasts forever.

Although you and I can help each other better understand why we personally feel the way we do, we are not able to change each other's mind. Only God's Holy Spirit can do that.

Don

Don wrote:I know that many sincere Christians cannot conceive of how someone can be punished unless they are aware that they are being punished.

So, Don, would you say that the unconscious punishment is not having conscious eternal life in heaven with God? If so than most people would say "so what!".

How is it punishment to be separated from God and annihilated forever from someone and something that most people could care less about. I'm thinking a more fit punishment would be to let a person exist just outside of heaven, being able to see it but being eternally excluded from it. Constantly reminded of what he blew off and can never have. Now that would be punishment!

Hi FFC,

You asked...

"Would you say that the unconscious punishment is not having conscious eternal life in heaven with God?"

The way I would express it is that the unconscious punishment is to be put to death by God (or His Son) and then remain dead for all eternity. Such a person will never receive God's gift of eternal life.

You said...

If so than most people would say "so what!". [/quote]

You may be right. But I assume that you and all other Christians on this Forum would not be one of them. Why not? I assume that you don't worship God because you are afraid that if you don't He is going to throw you into a flaming lake of fire and torture you with excruciating pain every day for ever and ever.

Rather, I assume you worship God because of love and appreciation for what he has done by providing his only begotten Son so that we may have eternal life by means of his name. - John 20:30,31

I have heard some say to me, "Well, if I thought that the everlasting punishment was just being put to death and remaining dead forever, then why should I bother worshiping God? If I thought that is all there to it I would go out and eat drink and be merry."

If that's the way they really feel then perhaps it is because they have missed the point of God's undeserved kindness.

You said...

How is it punishment to be separated from God and annihilated forever from someone and something that most people could care less about.

What if the same question is asked if the punishment is going to be conscious: "How is it punishment to be separated from God if the person couldn't care less if he will be separated from God?" What if you said to such a person: "If you don't worship God you will be separated from Him forever." Might that person say, "You mean I can still live forever and no one is going to try to force me to worship God? That's great! That's just the way it want it!"

You offered your own suggestion of a punishment that you feel would be better then just being put to death forever...

I'm thinking a more fit punishment would be to let a person exist just outside of heaven, being able to see it but being eternally excluded from it. Constantly reminded of what he blew off and can never have. Now that would be punishment!

If the one being consciously punished couldn't care less (as you said above) about the fact that he will be separated from God forever, then where is the punishment? He is still alive and will continue to live forever without ever having to worry about a relationship with God. Again, Where is the punishment?

If we could give a true atheist his choice of being forced to live forever with God, or to have the freedom to live forever without God, which would he choose? If he chooses to live forever without God, then here too, where is the punishment?

Don

I've often heard it said that when each of us gets to stand before the Judgement Throne, that we will realize how we should have lived our lives. In other words, we suddenly have full insight to know the truth about God and about ourselves.

If that is so, then I imagine that not only the awful realization on those who denied Christ dawns upon them in some terrible way, but that they also see Him in a way that makes them want to be reconciled to Him but that option is no longer available.

If it is anything like that, then separation will indeed be hellishly painful - hell itself. Then there can be no "couldn't care less" option for anyone. So standing just outside heaven and not being allowed in would most certainly be punishment.

Don wrote:If the one being consciously punished couldn't care less (as you said above) about the fact that he will be separated from God forever, then where is the punishment? He is still alive and will continue to live forever without ever having to worry about a relationship with God. Again, Where is the punishment?

The difference is that heaven is going to be more wonderful than anyone could ever imagine...including the spiritually dead and depraved individual who is forced to see what he can never have.

Of course you know I only used that scenario as an analogy...right? I'm not trying to concoct a new doctrine. My point was that punishment is going to be experienced by the recipient of it. When Our almighty and Sovereign God exacts vengeance, recompense, and punishment the recipient is going to feel it. If not than God would indeed be mocked in the end, wouldn't He? A dead/ annihilated/ unresponsive person can not be punished.

Judah wrote:I've often heard it said that when each of us gets to stand before the Judgement Throne, that we will realize how we should have lived our lives. In other words, we suddenly have full insight to know the truth about God and about ourselves.

If that is so, then I imagine that not only the awful realization on those who denied Christ dawns upon them in some terrible way, but that they also see Him in a way that makes them want to be reconciled to Him but that option is no longer available.

If it is anything like that, then separation will indeed be hellishly painful - hell itself. Then there can be no "couldn't care less" option for anyone. So standing just outside heaven and not being allowed in would most certainly be punishment.

Very good observation Judah, what you cited above is in fact the very things many NDE survivors tell about from their negative experiences: full insight to know the truth about God and about ourselves, realization on those who denied Christ dawns upon them in some terrible way, they also see Him in a way that makes them want to be reconciled to Him but that option is no longer available, there can be no "couldn't care less" option for anyone, and separation from God most frightening.

Very good points! Makes me shutter!!
-
-
-

Don, one thing that Annihilationist doctrine does it demonstrates derision towards the fear of God and shows disdains for the word of God. It seeks to supplant God's wisdom's with man's own. It exalts human reason other God's.

For example, the tone of your comments regarding Revelations, and the New City, points out this derision towards the fear of God. Next, always badgering over terms used in the bible shows disdain for the word of God. Why is this?

If non-being, non-existence, nothingness is actually punishment, then, so what? One can mock God, temp God, say God can't mean what he said as there is really no consequences for doing this as there is really no reason to fear God.

What's the worst thing God can do to you? Poof! Your gone — no more — nothingness. In the words of John Lennon — no heaven — no hell — only blue sky.

That is not punishment. Punishment is therefore nothingness. If nothingness, then how can it be punishment?

The bible tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Annihilationist doctrine does not lead to the fear of the Lord as there is nothing to fear from God who punishes you with nothing.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God the bible declares but to the Annihilationist there is nothing really to fear from a loving God who will 'poof' one into eternal nothingness.

Don, you may personally fear nothingness but in reality, what is there to fear? Do you remember what happened 10 years, 100 years, or1000 years ago before you were born? Before you were born — that state of being was nothingness. Do you remember anything about it? Why fear nothingness as punishment?

Would nothingness as a punishment be - just, fair, holy, right, loving, kind, perfect? How could it be when it robs life of life? If it robs one of life — it is no longer just, fair, holy, right, loving, kind, or perfect. God would become a thief and not a savior.
-
-
-

For what it is worth, I made a decision for Christ at the age of 12. It was after watching the film Thief in the Night, which was a film based upon the imminence of Christ's return and the rapture and very much an appeal to people on the basis of fear for what that would mean.

I've come to learn that fear is not a great emotion or basis upon which to primarily live the Christian life. I don't discount it however. Fear is a legitimate emotion and when the danger is real, fear is an effective motivator to change behavior or direction.

The idea that hell is an appeal to fear and therefore to be avoided or eliminated on the basis that a loving God would not do such a thing, I think ignores several factors directly from the Bible.

Jesus made more appeals quantitatively in the Gospels to repent and turn to God based upon the certainty of separation from God and what I believe he presented as an eternal hell, than he did appeals to God's Love although that certainly is there and a strong theme as well.

People are wired differently and susceptible to different types of appeals based upon their current circumstances and thinking.

There certainly was a point not long after my conversion where I had to mature and learn that a relationship with God based primarily upon fear was not what God wanted for me, but I cannot deny personally that that was what brought me to Him in the first place.

Don't knock fear entirely. Jesus didn't.

Hello To All,

Lately I have seen several comments about the eternal punishment being a "separation from God" rather than any physical torture by fire.

You all know what I believe the everlasting punishment is. Please let me know what you all believe it to be.

If you don't believe it will be eternal torture by fire, why not?

If you all agree what that punishment will be, that will tell me something. If you disagree, that will also tell me something that I'll want to ask you about.

Don