Yes, I am focussing on the fate of the damned - because that is what the discussion has been about.
And I would say that you are using human reasoning and making a judgement of God when you say that He would have to be a sadist to leave people in hell for all eternity.
I come back to my original point, that because God's judgement is perfect then should He leave people in hell for all eternity - which I believe is the most Scripturally sound understanding - such an outcome is indeed absolutely just (and can not be sadism).
What Would You Have Asked Lazarus?
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Which Punisihment is Worse?
Hi Judah,
You asked...
It seems evident that simply putting someone to death forever is not as severe a punishment as keeping them alive and torturing them (with or without fire) every moment of every day and night for trillions of years.
But I also feel that a punishment by simply separating them from God forever is not as severe a punishment of separating them from God forever and at the same time burning them with fire every moment for trillions of years.
I have noticed that even though Jesus mentioned fire several times, and there is that "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation, there are some on this forum who feel that torturing with literal fire may be a bit too severe a punishment. And so they opt for the lesser punishment of just "separation from God" without any physical torture by fire.
Well, if the Bible allows for them to understand the "fire" in a non-literal way, then might it also allow for the even less severe punishment of "everlasting destruction" - especially since this is the literal punishment that Paul said that Jesus is going to administer? - 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9
Don
You asked...
If annihilation is to be regarded as a punishment, then am I right in thinking that it is being regarded as a lesser punishment than full awareness of the torment of hell?
It seems evident that simply putting someone to death forever is not as severe a punishment as keeping them alive and torturing them (with or without fire) every moment of every day and night for trillions of years.
But I also feel that a punishment by simply separating them from God forever is not as severe a punishment of separating them from God forever and at the same time burning them with fire every moment for trillions of years.
I have noticed that even though Jesus mentioned fire several times, and there is that "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation, there are some on this forum who feel that torturing with literal fire may be a bit too severe a punishment. And so they opt for the lesser punishment of just "separation from God" without any physical torture by fire.
Well, if the Bible allows for them to understand the "fire" in a non-literal way, then might it also allow for the even less severe punishment of "everlasting destruction" - especially since this is the literal punishment that Paul said that Jesus is going to administer? - 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9
Don
of course I am using human reasoning....it is unavoidable. I am human, I communicate in a human language and the only reasoning I can do is of the human variety. When you or I say "He is just" or "He is sadistic" we are speaking to humans, using human language and appealing to the human understanding of what it is to be "just" and to be "sadistic". The best either of us can do is to read and repeat divinely inspired words, but when we are asked, "What does that mean?", unless we can give a clear and complete answer by again quoting divinely inspired words, we are left with using human reasoning to provide the answer. You should also note that I said that one would be "presenting God as a sadist" for if you can't explain how it is "just" to sustain the damned so that they may be tormented for eternity, then you are not providing an explanation as to why God must act in that fashion (to serve a higher purpose?) such that He isn't being sadistic.Judah wrote: And I would say that you are using human reasoning and making a judgement of God when you say that He would have to be a sadist to leave people in hell for all eternity.
This, of course, is a rather dodgy explanation. You might want to say to a non-christian friend that, "God is just", but that is rather deceptive....for what you really mean to say is that "God is just, but not just in the way you would understand justice and not just in a way that I am capable of explaining it to you. Instead, God may be very unjust if measured by the way modern man understands and uses the term "just". So when I say, "God is just" please know that I don't have a clue how that is the case and I am using "just" in an unorthodox manner so that it carries a meaning which is quite foreign to the meaning that you would attribute to "just"....but trust me, it is a really good thing nonetheless."I come back to my original point, that because God's judgement is perfect then should He leave people in hell for all eternity - which I believe is the most Scripturally sound understanding - such an outcome is indeed absolutely just (and can not be sadism).
To which your friend should properly respond, "ahhhh,...OK....Do you think it will rain tomorrow?"
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Why burning women with fire was the Christian thing to do...
I was watching a program on the History Channel the other day that explained that 100,000 or so women were were burned alive at the stake because the Church accused them of being witches. I have often wondered how it was possible for anyone claiming to be a follower Jesus Christ to be a party to such a horrible practice.
One possibility I have considered is that since they believed that this is what God was going to do them anyway, then why not give these wicked women a head start on their way into God's own lake of fire that will continue to burn them forever.
Of course I don't know if this was their thinking, but they sure had some way of thinkinig that enabled them to do what they did. And it seems to me that whatever was the cause of their thinking, it wasn't Christ Jesus.
This is one of the reasons I feel that such a teaching is not 'healthy.'
Don
I was watching a program on the History Channel the other day that explained that 100,000 or so women were were burned alive at the stake because the Church accused them of being witches. I have often wondered how it was possible for anyone claiming to be a follower Jesus Christ to be a party to such a horrible practice.
One possibility I have considered is that since they believed that this is what God was going to do them anyway, then why not give these wicked women a head start on their way into God's own lake of fire that will continue to burn them forever.
Of course I don't know if this was their thinking, but they sure had some way of thinkinig that enabled them to do what they did. And it seems to me that whatever was the cause of their thinking, it wasn't Christ Jesus.
This is one of the reasons I feel that such a teaching is not 'healthy.'
Don
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
That's really an outrageous assertion Don.DonCameron wrote:Why burning women with fire was the Christian thing to do...
I was watching a program on the History Channel the other day that explained that 100,000 or so women were were burned alive at the stake because the Church accused them of being witches. I have often wondered how it was possible for anyone claiming to be a follower Jesus Christ to be a party to such a horrible practice.
One possibility I have considered is that since they believed that this is what God was going to do them anyway, then why not give these wicked women a head start on their way into God's own lake of fire that will continue to burn them forever.
Of course I don't know if this was their thinking, but they sure had some way of thinkinig that enabled them to do what they did. And it seems to me that whatever was the cause of their thinking, it wasn't Christ Jesus.
This is one of the reasons I feel that such a teaching is not 'healthy.'
Don
I've noticed your arguments are increasingly appealing to emotions and judgments as to whether God would be a Sadist verses what is indicated in the Scriptures.
Attempting to paint your opposition as having something in common with those who burned witches to the implied exclusion of your belief, is a huge stretch of guilt by association, and frankly you make it by inference as a strawman without any evidence that this was in the thinking of those involved at the time.
Is it to be understood from this line of reasoning that you assert Annihilationists vs believers in a literal hell would inherently be less capable of sadistic acts in this life?
I've been reasonably impressed to this point with this conversation although my position was made early and I've declined to continue worrying at it like a dog on a bone. I've noticed however the longer the thread goes, the less scripture I'm seeing, the more appeals to logic inferring the characteristics of God to be in jeopardy if some embrace a position other than yours, and now what appears to me to be simply projecting upon others a greater susceptibility to sadistic acts themselves if they don't agree with you.
My respect for this discussion is beginning to diminish in view of that.
May I suggest that Scripture is the basis of belief in this area and that Scripture be focused upon rather than these forays into high speculation?
If you wish to introduce elements such as this, also that you think carefully before attempting to associate your opponents to acts of sadism without something more concrete than your opinion.
In terms of a debate, I would deem that last post a foul and I've expected better than that from all involved.
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Judah
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
Don, while I accept that you are expressing you own personal thoughts related to a TV programme you watched, I did find it offensive (as Bart did) that you appeared to be implying that someone like myself, who is able to reconcile God's attributes of love and justice even should Scripture be right and the words of Jesus are to be believed about the eternal nature of hell, is holding to an "unhealthy" teaching, one apparently sadistic.
This sounds very much like the question "How can a loving God send people to hell?" and the idea that God's love and His justice (if justice is to keep people in hell eternally) cannot be reconciled. I believe that they are reconcilable, and not with recourse to this notion of annihilation which is not orthodox christian belief, as far as I understand orthodox (conservative, if you like) Christianity.
I think that this is a really hard thing, that God would do that to people. But I am given over to the authority of Scripture, to an orthodox understanding of it, and I do accept the arguments that reconcile this view - starting with the idea that God has no corrupt agenda and that His justice is perfect, and that I do not have the right to judge Him and His purpose, nor does my human inadequacy equip me for understanding it without spiritual discernment. There, call me an arrogant Christian if you wish, but I am leaning on a traditional exegesis of Scripture and prefer that over anything else. Christianity does spell out the bad news and the bad news is terrible. But the good news matches it perfectly, and all said and done, whatever is beyond our earthly deaths we will all discover one day - and realize how much we saw "through a glass darkly" anyway.
This sounds very much like the question "How can a loving God send people to hell?" and the idea that God's love and His justice (if justice is to keep people in hell eternally) cannot be reconciled. I believe that they are reconcilable, and not with recourse to this notion of annihilation which is not orthodox christian belief, as far as I understand orthodox (conservative, if you like) Christianity.
I think that this is a really hard thing, that God would do that to people. But I am given over to the authority of Scripture, to an orthodox understanding of it, and I do accept the arguments that reconcile this view - starting with the idea that God has no corrupt agenda and that His justice is perfect, and that I do not have the right to judge Him and His purpose, nor does my human inadequacy equip me for understanding it without spiritual discernment. There, call me an arrogant Christian if you wish, but I am leaning on a traditional exegesis of Scripture and prefer that over anything else. Christianity does spell out the bad news and the bad news is terrible. But the good news matches it perfectly, and all said and done, whatever is beyond our earthly deaths we will all discover one day - and realize how much we saw "through a glass darkly" anyway.
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Hi Bart,
With considerable disappointment with me you said...
Actually, it was the moderator of the above History Channel program who offered that possible explanation. Here too, it was not asserted to be a fact that it was the actual reason, but only as a possible explanation. And that is how I tried to present it. Instead of asserting that this was in fact the Church's reasoning, I said...
Perhaps this matter of burning people at the stake in the past has not been something that you have concerned yourself about. And therefore you haven't had any reason or need to try to understand how it could have happened. And that's fine - for you.
But it is something that has concerned me. And so when I heard a possible answer to a question that I have wondered about for a long time, I appreciated it as a possible answer. And that's how I tried to present it - only as a possible answer. Is there anyone else on earth who appreciates this as a possible answer? I don't know. I only know what I think about it.
Do others have a different possible answer, or even the actual answer as to why the Church thought God was pleased when they burned alive tens of thousands of women, I would appreciate hearing whatever explanation they have to offer.
Bart, you concluded with...
Don
With considerable disappointment with me you said...
What did I assert Bart? I never said or even suggested that anyone who believes that God is going to punish people with fire are guilty by association with those responsible for burning alive those thousands of innocent women. I simply offered an explanation that has helped me to come up with a possible reason how a Christian Church could have become responsible for such an unchristian practice.That's really an outrageous assertion Don.
Actually, it was the moderator of the above History Channel program who offered that possible explanation. Here too, it was not asserted to be a fact that it was the actual reason, but only as a possible explanation. And that is how I tried to present it. Instead of asserting that this was in fact the Church's reasoning, I said...
Of course I don't know if this was their thinking, but they sure had some way of thinking that enabled them to do what they did. And it seems to me that whatever was the cause of their thinking, it wasn't Christ Jesus.
Perhaps this matter of burning people at the stake in the past has not been something that you have concerned yourself about. And therefore you haven't had any reason or need to try to understand how it could have happened. And that's fine - for you.
But it is something that has concerned me. And so when I heard a possible answer to a question that I have wondered about for a long time, I appreciated it as a possible answer. And that's how I tried to present it - only as a possible answer. Is there anyone else on earth who appreciates this as a possible answer? I don't know. I only know what I think about it.
Do others have a different possible answer, or even the actual answer as to why the Church thought God was pleased when they burned alive tens of thousands of women, I would appreciate hearing whatever explanation they have to offer.
Bart, you concluded with...
I hope it is possible that you may have read some things into my letter that I had not intended to be read into it. Although... Perhaps I could have left off my final comment...In terms of a debate, I would deem that last post a foul and I've expected better than that from all involved.
Consider it left off!This is one of the reasons I feel that such a teaching is not 'healthy.'
Don
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Hi Judah,
You said...
As I mentioned to Bart, perhaps it would have been best to have left off my "unhealthy" teaching comment at the end of that letter.
Although... Let me ask you this:
Do you feel that the teaching that the everlasting punishment is simply everlasting death is an "unhealthy" teaching? I'm pretty sure that B.M feels that it is very unhealthy.
You may prefer a different word, but whatever it is I would think that you don't feel that that teaching is acceptable to God. You may even feel that it is a dangerous teaching. Again, I suspect that B.W. thinks it is a very dangerous teaching. You and some others may even go so far as to think that it is one of the misleading teachings of Satan the Devil!
But whatever you think about what I believe in this matter, is there any reason for me to be offended by what you think? If you were to attribute bad, insincere or wrong motives as to why I believe what I believe, then I can picture having my feelings being hurt (or offended). But I have never questioned Bart's or anyone else's motives on this Forum.
In fact, I not only don't attribute wrong motives to anyone, I assume that Bart's, yours and every one's motives are pure. I have never even come close to doubting any one's sincere motives.
We have differences of opinion about what constitutes "everlasting punishment." There are even differences of opinion among those who agree that the punishment must be consciously felt. We are trying to help each other see what we feel the Bible is trying to teach us. These exchanges give us the opportunity to explain what and why we believe what we believe. Although often frustrating, they help keep our minds spiritually active.
Hopefully we don't feel that we are at war with an enemy. And that such discussions don't cause divisions. I need to remember that "love is the perfect bond of union" rather that having to always agree about doctrine.
Don
You said...
I hope my letter to Bart eases some of the offensiveness you felt when reading my previous letter.Don, while I accept that you are expressing you own personal thoughts related to a TV programme you watched, I did find it offensive (as Bart did) that you appeared to be implying that someone like myself, who is able to reconcile God's attributes of love and justice even should Scripture be right and the words of Jesus are to be believed about the eternal nature of hell, is holding to an "unhealthy" teaching, one apparently sadistic.
As I mentioned to Bart, perhaps it would have been best to have left off my "unhealthy" teaching comment at the end of that letter.
Although... Let me ask you this:
Do you feel that the teaching that the everlasting punishment is simply everlasting death is an "unhealthy" teaching? I'm pretty sure that B.M feels that it is very unhealthy.
You may prefer a different word, but whatever it is I would think that you don't feel that that teaching is acceptable to God. You may even feel that it is a dangerous teaching. Again, I suspect that B.W. thinks it is a very dangerous teaching. You and some others may even go so far as to think that it is one of the misleading teachings of Satan the Devil!
But whatever you think about what I believe in this matter, is there any reason for me to be offended by what you think? If you were to attribute bad, insincere or wrong motives as to why I believe what I believe, then I can picture having my feelings being hurt (or offended). But I have never questioned Bart's or anyone else's motives on this Forum.
In fact, I not only don't attribute wrong motives to anyone, I assume that Bart's, yours and every one's motives are pure. I have never even come close to doubting any one's sincere motives.
We have differences of opinion about what constitutes "everlasting punishment." There are even differences of opinion among those who agree that the punishment must be consciously felt. We are trying to help each other see what we feel the Bible is trying to teach us. These exchanges give us the opportunity to explain what and why we believe what we believe. Although often frustrating, they help keep our minds spiritually active.
Hopefully we don't feel that we are at war with an enemy. And that such discussions don't cause divisions. I need to remember that "love is the perfect bond of union" rather that having to always agree about doctrine.
Don
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Don,
I've studied history in many realms and there are several reasons that I can offer for witch burnings:
1. Ignorance and supersitition.
2. Revenge for spurned advances.
3. Avarice.
4. Inability to get a divorce.
5. Mental illness misinterpreted.
6. A device to manipulate public opinion and consolidate power.
I could likely come up with more with just a little review and thought depending upon the day and age and context of the times.
As mentioned at other times in this thread several of the arguments proffered in terms of Annilation have the appearance of being a response to those who reject Christianity on the basis of a loving God being incompatable with Hell.
This discussion can go on interminably if the basis of it is to seek to argue the merits of the positions by the effects.
Some of the flaws with this approach are that it presumes:
1. That God's Love and Justice are reconcilable to our satisfaction.
2. That God is accountible to us in this matter.
3. That the ends in terms of evangelism justify the means in elevating it over a direct Scriptural foundation (if in fact this is the starting place for such an appeal and then worked backwards to find Scriptural support.)
I appreciate your explanation and modification.
Let me suggest again that this issue is first and foremost a matter of Scriptural truth.
Obviously there is a difference of opinion in this regard and it is up to each person to examine the scriptures which are primary, and then if they wish to bring in corallary material as secondary, fine.
I'm comfortable with the understanding I have arrived at in this regard and this thread has served to have me reexamine the undergirding support for it and I do not find compelling reason to change based in anything Scriptural presented thus far. I suspect you feel the same.
Hopefully others will examine this and I hope especially note, which position has a preponderance of Scripture and has appealed more consistently and directly to it.
This falls into an area where I believe Christians can differ and remain in fellowship. It's certainly important however, as underlying it are issues that relate to hermeneutics, the nature of God and the infallibility of Scripture.
I'll fall into the background again, but let me appeal to all involved in this conversation to be careful what you appeal to in presenting the case and I'd like to see Scripture again at the forefront, but everyone is free to continue as they see fit.
Bart
I've studied history in many realms and there are several reasons that I can offer for witch burnings:
1. Ignorance and supersitition.
2. Revenge for spurned advances.
3. Avarice.
4. Inability to get a divorce.
5. Mental illness misinterpreted.
6. A device to manipulate public opinion and consolidate power.
I could likely come up with more with just a little review and thought depending upon the day and age and context of the times.
As mentioned at other times in this thread several of the arguments proffered in terms of Annilation have the appearance of being a response to those who reject Christianity on the basis of a loving God being incompatable with Hell.
This discussion can go on interminably if the basis of it is to seek to argue the merits of the positions by the effects.
Some of the flaws with this approach are that it presumes:
1. That God's Love and Justice are reconcilable to our satisfaction.
2. That God is accountible to us in this matter.
3. That the ends in terms of evangelism justify the means in elevating it over a direct Scriptural foundation (if in fact this is the starting place for such an appeal and then worked backwards to find Scriptural support.)
I appreciate your explanation and modification.
Let me suggest again that this issue is first and foremost a matter of Scriptural truth.
Obviously there is a difference of opinion in this regard and it is up to each person to examine the scriptures which are primary, and then if they wish to bring in corallary material as secondary, fine.
I'm comfortable with the understanding I have arrived at in this regard and this thread has served to have me reexamine the undergirding support for it and I do not find compelling reason to change based in anything Scriptural presented thus far. I suspect you feel the same.
Hopefully others will examine this and I hope especially note, which position has a preponderance of Scripture and has appealed more consistently and directly to it.
This falls into an area where I believe Christians can differ and remain in fellowship. It's certainly important however, as underlying it are issues that relate to hermeneutics, the nature of God and the infallibility of Scripture.
I'll fall into the background again, but let me appeal to all involved in this conversation to be careful what you appeal to in presenting the case and I'd like to see Scripture again at the forefront, but everyone is free to continue as they see fit.
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Turgonian
- Senior Member
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: the Netherlands
7. Several witches were using demonic powers to harm people.Canuckster1127 wrote:I've studied history in many realms and there are several reasons that I can offer for witch burnings:
1. Ignorance and supersitition.
2. Revenge for spurned advances.
3. Avarice.
4. Inability to get a divorce.
5. Mental illness misinterpreted.
6. A device to manipulate public opinion and consolidate power.
With regard to the discussion, I should say that capital punishment is the punishment of execution. The punishment on criminals takes only a very, very short time. A few hours after execution, those criminals aren't being punished anymore.
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Hi Turgonian,
You brought up a point about "capital punishment" that I have thought about a time or two. You said...
For example:
In the case of the alternative punishment of "life without any possibility of parole," that punishment doesn't just end the moment the criminal goes to jail. That is only the beginning of his punishment, just as the criminal's execution is only the beginning of his punishment. The life-without-parole punishment will continue for as long as he remains in prison.
I see a similarity when God applies 'the everlasting death penalty' to someone. Their punishment will not end the moment they are cast into "the second death." That will only be the beginning of their punishment. Their punishment of death will continue for as long as they remain in God's 'prison' called "the second death" - which we all seem to agree will be forever.
I do not offer this explanation with the idea that 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong.' It just explains my personal view that I can live with.
Don
You brought up a point about "capital punishment" that I have thought about a time or two. You said...
My understanding is that remaining dead is a major part of the punishment.Capital punishment is the punishment of execution. The punishment on criminals takes only a very, very short time. A few hours after execution, those criminals aren't being punished anymore.
For example:
In the case of the alternative punishment of "life without any possibility of parole," that punishment doesn't just end the moment the criminal goes to jail. That is only the beginning of his punishment, just as the criminal's execution is only the beginning of his punishment. The life-without-parole punishment will continue for as long as he remains in prison.
I see a similarity when God applies 'the everlasting death penalty' to someone. Their punishment will not end the moment they are cast into "the second death." That will only be the beginning of their punishment. Their punishment of death will continue for as long as they remain in God's 'prison' called "the second death" - which we all seem to agree will be forever.
I do not offer this explanation with the idea that 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong.' It just explains my personal view that I can live with.
Don
-
FFC
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
I can see what you are saying, Don. In modern day executions the punishment seems to be more in the taking of the recipients life than in the method of execution or the duration of the execution...so I can see how you could say that as long as the victim is dead the punishment is continuous. Taking the analogy over to God's eternal punishment The roadblock for me is the mention of everlasting torment that we see in the scriptures. An annihilated person may be serving out his punishment, but an annihilated person cannot be tormented.DonCameron wrote:Hi Turgonian,
You brought up a point about "capital punishment" that I have thought about a time or two. You said...
My understanding is that remaining dead is a major part of the punishment.Capital punishment is the punishment of execution. The punishment on criminals takes only a very, very short time. A few hours after execution, those criminals aren't being punished anymore.
For example:
In the case of the alternative punishment of "life without any possibility of parole," that punishment doesn't just end the moment the criminal goes to jail. That is only the beginning of his punishment, just as the criminal's execution is only the beginning of his punishment. The life-without-parole punishment will continue for as long as he remains in prison.
I see a similarity when God applies 'the everlasting death penalty' to someone. Their punishment will not end the moment they are cast into "the second death." That will only be the beginning of their punishment. Their punishment of death will continue for as long as they remain in God's 'prison' called "the second death" - which we all seem to agree will be forever.
I do not offer this explanation with the idea that 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong.' It just explains my personal view that I can live with.
Don
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom
Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Hi FFC,
You said that although you can see how I could say that as long as the victim is dead the punishment is continuous, you explained that the roadblock for you is the mention of everlasting torment we see in the Scriptures. You reasoned that “an annihilated person may be serving out his punishment, but an annihilated person cannot be tormented.”
That's a fair point. Here is how I personally have been able to remove that 'roadblock' so that the word “tormented” does not necessarily have to mean what it sounds like it means...
The first thing I do is to keep in mind that Revelation 1:1 explains that this Book is “presented in signs” or symbols. Therefore I know that I should not automatically take everything it says literally. And so I don't.
For one example, I don't take that seven-headed-ten-horned wild beast literally. I don't think there is such a wild animal walking around here on earth or heaven. I assume that it is one of the book's “signs” of something.
I also don't take the book's reference to “the lake of fire” literally. I don't think there is an actual everlasting fiery lake burning here on earth or in heaven. The actual lake of fire in the garbage dump named Gehenna that Jesus referred to several times no longer exists.
But what I feel that fire in Gehenna represented still does, and will always exist. Just as the fire in Gehenna was used to permanently destroy whatever was thrown into it, I feel that Revelation's “lake of fire” symbolizes the permanent, everlasting destruction of everything that is said to be thrown into it — including the person of Satan, the condition of death and the place called “Hades.”
A Point: If there is no literal lake of fire, then nothing can be literally thrown into it. And therefore nothing can be literally tormented or tortured by it — including Satan*, the wild best, the false prophet, death, Hades or those who were not found written in the book of life.
*Side Note: Since Satan is a spirit creature, can he be tormented or tortured by a literal physical fire? I would think not. This is another reason why I feel that both “the lake of fire” and the word “tormented” need not be taken literally.
But if Satan, death and Hades cannot be literally tormented by fire, then why is the word “tormented” used? Is it possible that it is just one of the “signs” mentioned in verse 1:1? If so, what is it a sign of?
There are lots of discussions about this matter on the Internet. Some explain why “tormented” should be understood literally while others provide reasons why and how it can be understood symbolically.
The arguments in favor of a symbolic application make more sense to me then the ones that make a literal application.
Don
You said that although you can see how I could say that as long as the victim is dead the punishment is continuous, you explained that the roadblock for you is the mention of everlasting torment we see in the Scriptures. You reasoned that “an annihilated person may be serving out his punishment, but an annihilated person cannot be tormented.”
That's a fair point. Here is how I personally have been able to remove that 'roadblock' so that the word “tormented” does not necessarily have to mean what it sounds like it means...
The first thing I do is to keep in mind that Revelation 1:1 explains that this Book is “presented in signs” or symbols. Therefore I know that I should not automatically take everything it says literally. And so I don't.
For one example, I don't take that seven-headed-ten-horned wild beast literally. I don't think there is such a wild animal walking around here on earth or heaven. I assume that it is one of the book's “signs” of something.
I also don't take the book's reference to “the lake of fire” literally. I don't think there is an actual everlasting fiery lake burning here on earth or in heaven. The actual lake of fire in the garbage dump named Gehenna that Jesus referred to several times no longer exists.
But what I feel that fire in Gehenna represented still does, and will always exist. Just as the fire in Gehenna was used to permanently destroy whatever was thrown into it, I feel that Revelation's “lake of fire” symbolizes the permanent, everlasting destruction of everything that is said to be thrown into it — including the person of Satan, the condition of death and the place called “Hades.”
A Point: If there is no literal lake of fire, then nothing can be literally thrown into it. And therefore nothing can be literally tormented or tortured by it — including Satan*, the wild best, the false prophet, death, Hades or those who were not found written in the book of life.
*Side Note: Since Satan is a spirit creature, can he be tormented or tortured by a literal physical fire? I would think not. This is another reason why I feel that both “the lake of fire” and the word “tormented” need not be taken literally.
But if Satan, death and Hades cannot be literally tormented by fire, then why is the word “tormented” used? Is it possible that it is just one of the “signs” mentioned in verse 1:1? If so, what is it a sign of?
There are lots of discussions about this matter on the Internet. Some explain why “tormented” should be understood literally while others provide reasons why and how it can be understood symbolically.
The arguments in favor of a symbolic application make more sense to me then the ones that make a literal application.
Don
-
FFC
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Don, I think I am following you so far. The fate of the wicked is annihilation, which occurs at the death of the non believer, correct? And so when Jesus speaks of Gehenna He is speaking symbolically of the utter destruction and annihilation of the non believer. If so, what does the wailing and gnashing of teeth symbolize to one who no longer exists? I know Ttoews believes that there will be some actual pain before the sinner is annihilated, so that would fit with his view, but in yours it seems to be another roadblock.
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:49-50).
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom
Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?