Evidence for God from Science

Turgonian,

You said...

The 'signs' (Rev. 1:1) refer to nouns, to things that can be seen (the beast, the fire, the sea, the throne, etc.).

I think you are the one who previously explained to me that not all Christians believe in a literal fire & brimstone kind of punishment. And I notice above that you include "fire" as one of the nous that may just be be one of the "signs" in the Book of Revelation.

Therefore I assume that you too do not feel that there is as literal lake of fire that is awaiting the arrival of Satan and all his 'friends.' About that fire I said...

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.

What are your thoughts on this line of reasoning?

Don

Don,

If I may ask you, what impression do you think the people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' gospel message through his sermons, passion, crucifixion, and resurrection, and the people who were converted by the spread of the gospel (orally), would have walked away with? Before the invention of the printing press, before mass education, public libraries, and Christian apologetic web sites, way back in the first, second, and third centuries, people who were listening to Peter, Paul, Matthew, Luke, John, their disciples, and their disciples' disciples. What impression would these people have walked away with? What would they have understood wrt hell and everlasting life? Is there a possibility, however remote, that they would've walked away with the impression of annihilationism?

DonCameron wrote:Turgonian,

You said...

The 'signs' (Rev. 1:1) refer to nouns, to things that can be seen (the beast, the fire, the sea, the throne, etc.).

I think you are the one who previously explained to me that not all Christians believe in a literal fire & brimstone kind of punishment. And I notice above that you include "fire" as one of the nous that may just be be one of the "signs" in the Book of Revelation.

Therefore I assume that you too do not feel that there is as literal lake of fire that is awaiting the arrival of Satan and all his 'friends.' About that fire I said...

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.

What are your thoughts on this line of reasoning?

Don

Don,

I'm one who agrees that the Lake of Fire may be symbolic of something more. Certainly its use in Revelation leads to that.

Even as a symbol, however, that means that the picture of a lake of fire was the best symbol John, under the Holy Spirit's inspiration could give as a word picture to describe what he saw in his vision.

What does a lake of fire, even as a symbol represent in terms of anguish and suffering?

Basrt

Hi again FFC,

You said...

Don, I think I am following you so far. The fate of the wicked is annihilation, which occurs at the death (in the "second death") of the non believer, correct?

Yes, that's my understanding. You added...

And so when Jesus speaks of Gehenna He is speaking symbolically of the utter destruction and annihilation of the non believer.

I would express it that, "Jesus speaks of the fire that existed in Gehenna at that time to represent the means of the utter destruction and annihilation of the non believer." As you know, Jesus did say that both the body and the soul would be "destroyed" in Gehenna.

You then asked the reasonable question...

If so, what does the wailing and gnashing of teeth symbolize to one who no longer exists? -Matthew 13:49-50.

You asked how I get past this apparent "roadblock." Here goes...

Immediately after Jesus mentioned the above wailing and gnashing of teeth he asked, "Do you get the sense of all these things?" Although the ones who were there answered, "Yes," if I had been there I would said, "No I don't!" I would have asked Jesus, "If their bodies and souls will have been be destroyed, then how is it possible that they will be able to wail and gnash their teeth?"

While wondering about the answer to that question, I have taken note of a couple other things Jesus had said that suggests to me that the "wailing and gnashing" may not necessarily have to be understood literally.

First of all, if I do take "wailing and gnashing" literally, it would seem to contradict what Jesus said above about the unbelievers being simply "destroyed." Since we know that Jesus would not have contradicted himself, then I need to either (1) Understand "wailing and gnashing" in light of what Jesus said about "destroy," or (2) understand "destroy" in light of what he said about "wailing and gnashing." (I hope that last sentence makes sense!)

The way I understand the Character of God (i.e. That He would never have anything to do with burning anyone alive with fire), I will naturally try to understand "wailing and gnashing" in light of how I understand "destroy."

Second of all, I notice that right after Jesus mentioned the wailing and gnashing Matthew explained that this was one of Jesus' illustrations. I know that sometimes he explained his illustrations and sometimes he didn't. Unfortunately he didn't explain his illustration about wailing and gnashing - at least not enough for me.

Third of all, I notice that Jesus said that the fire was in a furnace. But in Revelation the fire is said to be in a lake. And just as I don't think there is a literal lake of fire somewhere in the Universe that will contain Satan, his demons, the condition of death or a place called Hades or Hell, I don't picture some gigantic heavenly Furnace containing any of those things either.

My reasoning here would be the same as it is with Revelation's "lake of fire." If the furnace Jesus mentioned doesn't literally exist, then apparently neither does the fire it is said to contain. If there is no literal fire, then why would anyone be literally wailing or gnashing their teeth?

And so, if "wailing and gnashing their teeth" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, then what does it mean? At this point, I don't know.

But I do feel that I understand what it doesn't mean. (i.e. It doesn't mean that God has created a lake or a furnace that will be used to consciously torture people with fire for all eternity.) Again, apparently Bart doesn't think so either.

Don

Don wrote:The way I understand the Character of God (i.e. That He would never have anything to do with burning anyone alive with fire), I will naturally try to understand "wailing and gnashing" in light of how I understand "destroy."

Are you sure you want to stick with that statement, Don, because Sodom and Gomorrah would contradict it.

But I do feel that I understand what it doesn't mean. (i.e. It doesn't mean that God has created a lake or a furnace that will be used to consciously torture people with fire for all eternity.) Again, apparently Bart doesn't think so either.

I'm not sure I do either, Don, but regardless of that, Bart and Turgy and others, including myself do seem to see a clear idea of some kind of conscious and eternal torment. Wailing and gnashing of teeth is pretty self explanatory regardless of whether it's symbolic language or literal. Context is everything, Don. Just because a passage uses symbolic language doesn't mean you can make it say whatever you want it to say. If that is the case then your going to have to adjust so many passages to fit your theology that you'll end up muddying the whole book.

FFC,

When I had said that I believed that "God would never have anything to do with burning anyone alive with fire...

You reminded me of what he did to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
You made a legitimate point.

I should have said that I did not believe that God would have anything to do with torturing anyone with fire.

I can see a difference between destroying with fire and torturing with fire. And while I can see that the Bible does say that God will use fire to destroy (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9), I don't feel that it teaches that he will use fire to torture anyone.

Thanks for the correction.

Don









Are you sure you want to stick with that statement, Don, because Sodom and Gomorrah would contradict it.

FFC, Bart & Others,

I'm wondering if one of the reasons that we see and/or interpret what the Bible says differently is because of our underlying fundamental belief about the what the human soul is and what happens to it when someone dies.

We agree that the Bible says there will be an "everlasting punishment." But we have not been able to agree on whether or not that punishment will be consciously felt.

You all know the reason I believe the person's punishment will not be consciously felt is because I think that when someone dies they are completely dead and unconscious - just like they look when they they are dead. I'm not aware of anything that consciously survives the death of the person.

It would seem that in order to consciously feel anything, something has to consciously survive the person's death.

Question To All: What is it that you believe survives some one's death so that they will continue to be aware of what is happening to them?

Don

DonCameron wrote:Question To All: What is it that you believe survives some one's death so that they will continue to be aware of what is happening to them?

First let me ask you this question, do you believe God created us in his own image? If yes, what do you perceive that image to be?

1Cr 15:35 But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?



1Cr 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:


1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.



1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

and

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

Don,
When I look at these two passages I see a couple of things.

1. There is more than just our physical bodies involved in the resurrection.
2. Both the righteous and the wicked are raised eternally/everlastingly.

Bybos,

You asked me what I think it means to have been made "in God's image."

One thing I don't think it means that man therefore looks like God or that God looks like us. (Seems to me that I read somewhere that Mormons do believe that God looks like man - perhaps because of above statement about being made in God's image.)

But I think that Paul tried to correct such thinking when he said to the Romans...

"Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man." - Romans 1:22,23

Something else I don't think is that since God is immortal that therefore so is man.

What's left? I've noticed in Paul's above letter to the Romans that he referred to God's "invisible qualities" that can be seen by observing the visible creation. I understand those invisible qualities to include love, power, wisdom and justice.

What I have concluded is that although the lower animals were designed to function by instinct, man was made to not only have free will but with the ability to reflect God's qualities of love, power, wisdom and justice.

That's what I understand it means to have been created in God's image.

Don

DonCameron wrote:Bybos,

You asked me what I think it means to have been made "in God's image."

One thing I don't think it means that man therefore looks like God or that God looks like us. (Seems to me that I read somewhere that Mormons do believe that God looks like man - perhaps because of above statement about being made in God's image.)

But I think that Paul tried to correct such thinking when he said to the Romans...

"Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man." - Romans 1:22,23

...

What's left? I've noticed in Paul's above letter to the Romans that he referred to God's "invisible qualities" that can be seen by observing the visible creation. I understand those invisible qualities to include love, power, wisdom and justice.

What I have concluded is that although the lower animals were designed to function by instinct, man was made to not only have free will but with the ability to reflect God's qualities of love, power, wisdom and justice.

That's what I understand it means to have been created in God's image.

Don

I don't disagree with any of the above. Just curious, however, what you meant by the following:

DonCameron wrote:Something else I don't think is that since God is immortal that therefore so is man.

We can all agree that man is not immortal. But since man can be offered everlasting life, I think we can also agree that man has the potential to live forever (can become immortal), starting from a specific point. It is that specific point on which we disagree.

If I can summarize your position (please correct where necessary), you seem to be saying that man cannot live apart from a physical body, either the one he inhabits today or the one he shall inherit at the resurrection. Therefore, the ones who are granted everlasting life will keep their newly inherited body and live forever in the new kingdom of God. The ones who were granted everlasting punishment will perish again in the second death. This basically means there is no such thing as a soul or spirit that returns to God upon death, or if there is, it's not self-conscious nor is it something that will re-join the new body upon resurrection. Is this a fair summary of your position?

DonCameron wrote:I would express it that, "Jesus speaks of the fire that existed in Gehenna at that time to represent the means of the utter destruction and annihilation of the non believer." As you know, Jesus did say that both the body and the soul would be "destroyed" in Gehenna.

You then asked the reasonable question...

If so, what does the wailing and gnashing of teeth symbolize to one who no longer exists? -Matthew 13:49-50.

You asked how I get past this apparent "roadblock." Here goes...

Immediately after Jesus mentioned the above wailing and gnashing of teeth he asked, "Do you get the sense of all these things?" Although the ones who were there answered, "Yes," if I had been there I would said, "No I don't!" I would have asked Jesus, "If their bodies and souls will have been be destroyed, then how is it possible that they will be able to wail and gnash their teeth?"

While wondering about the answer to that question, I have taken note of a couple other things Jesus had said that suggests to me that the "wailing and gnashing" may not necessarily have to be understood literally.

First of all, if I do take "wailing and gnashing" literally, it would seem to contradict what Jesus said above about the unbelievers being simply "destroyed." Since we know that Jesus would not have contradicted himself, then I need to either (1) Understand "wailing and gnashing" in light of what Jesus said about "destroy," or (2) understand "destroy" in light of what he said about "wailing and gnashing." (I hope that last sentence makes sense!)

The way I understand the Character of God (i.e. That He would never have anything to do with burning anyone alive with fire), I will naturally try to understand "wailing and gnashing" in light of how I understand "destroy."

Come on, Don. I've talked about this at least two times before.

'Unless you would argue that the 'lost sheep of Israel' (Matt. 10:6) were non-existent at the time, the Pharisees 'plotting to kill Jesus' (Matt. 12:14) wanted to rip Him apart on the atomic level, the ointment on Jesus's feet was vapourized ('Why this waste?', Matt. 26:8 -- same word), and the Son of Man came to save those who already died (Luke 19:10), 'perish' needs not mean 'to become nothing'.'

'Perish', 'destroy'...it's the same word.

Hi again Byblos,

You asked what I meant by...

"Something else I don't think is that since God is immortal that therefore so is man."

What I meant is that I don't think that being made in God's image means that, Since God is immortal that therefore man is immortal.

You said...

We can all agree that man is not immortal. But since man can be offered everlasting life, I think we can also agree that man has the potential to live forever (can become immortal), starting from a specific point. It is that specific point on which we disagree.

My understanding of "immortal life" is probably different than yours. I think of it as being self-contained, or self-sustained life that doesn't required being being 'plugged into' to any outside force. This is the kind of life that God and his Son have.

On the other hand, although "everlasting life" can last as long as "immortal life," it is not a self-stained form of life. It does require being 'plugged into" an outside force - (Hebrew "ruahh" Greek "pneuma.")

You said...

If I can summarize your position (please correct where necessary), you seem to be saying that man cannot live apart from a physical body either the one he inhabits today or the one he shall inherit at the resurrection..

That's the way I understand it.

Therefore, the ones who are granted everlasting life will keep their newly inherited body and live forever in the new kingdom of God.

That sounds right.

The ones who were granted everlasting punishment will perish again in the second death.

I've never thought of "everlasting punishment" as something that is "granted" to someone. That sounds like a Judge saying to the murderer, "I'm going grant you the death penalty!'" I think he would say, "I'm going to sentence you to the death penalty."

My thinking is that when one dies as the result of inherited sin from Adam, they have not yet "perished." They are sleeping in death awaiting the resurrection. After the resurrection the wilfully wicked will receive the everlasting punishment by being cast into the second death for the first and last time. And so I would just remove the word "again" from your above quote.

You then said...

This basically means there is no such thing as a soul or spirit that returns to God upon death...

I feel that it means that there is no such thing as Plato's immortal soul that consciously survives the death of the person. But I do believe that the spirit (i.e. the impersonal, non-self conscious force of life (Hebrew "ruahh" Oriental "chi") returns to God upon death. - Ecclesiastes 12:7.

Since I believe that the "soul" (Hebrew "nephesh") is the whole person himself, then obviously I don't think that it is the soul that returns to God. I believe that this soul is what dies and goes to the common grave of mankind - Hebrew "sheol" Greek "Hades") Again, I feel that the soul-is -separate-from-the-body concept comes from the Greek philosopher Plato rather than the Bible. - See John L.McKenzie, S.J.'s "Dictionary of the Bible"

With regard the soul or spirit you asked...

It's not self-conscious nor is it something that will re-join the new body upon resurrection. Is this a fair summary of your position?

[/quote]

The soul will become self-conscious again when the resurrection of the soul (nephesh) takes place and is again animated by spirit (ruahh) and begins taking in the breath of life (neshama).

Don

DonCameron wrote:Hi again Byblos,

You asked what I meant by...

"Something else I don't think is that since God is immortal that therefore so is man."

What I meant is that I don't think that being made in God's image means that, Since God is immortal that therefore man is immortal.

You said...

We can all agree that man is not immortal. But since man can be offered everlasting life, I think we can also agree that man has the potential to live forever (can become immortal), starting from a specific point. It is that specific point on which we disagree.

My understanding of "immortal life" is probably different than yours. I think of it as being self-contained, or self-sustained life that doesn't required being being 'plugged into' to any outside force. This is the kind of life that God and his Son have.

On the other hand, although "everlasting life" can last as long as "immortal life," it is not a self-stained form of life. It does require being 'plugged into" an outside force - (Hebrew "ruahh" Greek "pneuma.")

In other words, it has to have a soul (that's how I understand it ).

DonCameron wrote:You said...

If I can summarize your position (please correct where necessary), you seem to be saying that man cannot live apart from a physical body either the one he inhabits today or the one he shall inherit at the resurrection..

That's the way I understand it.

Therefore, the ones who are granted everlasting life will keep their newly inherited body and live forever in the new kingdom of God.

That sounds right.

The ones who were granted everlasting punishment will perish again in the second death.

I've never thought of "everlasting punishment" as something that is "granted" to someone. That sounds like a Judge saying to the murderer, "I'm going grant you the death penalty!'" I think he would say, "I'm going to sentence you to the death penalty."

My thinking is that when one dies as the result of inherited sin from Adam, they have not yet "perished." They are sleeping in death awaiting the resurrection. After the resurrection the wilfully wicked will receive the everlasting punishment by being cast into the second death for the first and last time. And so I would just remove the word "again" from your above quote.

I guess I could have used different words than 'granted' and 'perished' but you know what I meant. We all die in the physical, earthly bodies. That's the first death. That's why I used the word 'again' to refer to the second and final death (since they already died once in the physical body).

DonCameron wrote:You then said...

This basically means there is no such thing as a soul or spirit that returns to God upon death...

I feel that it means that there is no such thing as Plato's immortal soul that consciously survives the death of the person. But I do believe that the spirit (i.e. the impersonal, non-self conscious force of life (Hebrew "ruahh" Oriental "chi") returns to God upon death. - Ecclesiastes 12:7.

Since I believe that the "soul" (Hebrew "nephesh") is the whole person himself, then obviously I don't think that it is the soul that returns to God. I believe that this soul is what dies and goes to the common grave of mankind - Hebrew "sheol" Greek "Hades") Again, I feel that the soul-is -separate-from-the-body concept comes from the Greek philosopher Plato rather than the Bible. - See John L.McKenzie, S.J.'s "Dictionary of the Bible"

Ok, I think I understand your position much better now but I still might have a question (later).

DonCameron wrote:With regard the soul or spirit you asked...

It's not self-conscious nor is it something that will re-join the new body upon resurrection. Is this a fair summary of your position?

The soul will become self-conscious again when the resurrection of the soul (nephesh) takes place and is again animated by spirit (ruahh) and begins taking in the breath of life (neshama).

Ok, understood (I will come back to this with more questions in a later post). For now, 2 more questions if you don't mind:

1) Where do you believe Jesus was for 3 days before his resurrection?
2) Do you believe in the deity of Christ?

Byblos.

People,

I realize that what I believe about the soul, spirit and what happens when people die affects how I am able to understand subjects that have to do with the "everlasting punishment."

For example, since I believe that the dead are unconscious then it is easy for me to understand the words "perish" and "destroy" literally. I naturally conclude that the "everlasting punishment" must be an unconscious punishment, etc.

But when I come across things like "wailing and gnashing of teeth," "fire" or "tormented" I try to find ways of understand them so that they don't disagree with what I already believe.

The potential problem of course is that if what I believe about the soul and spirit is not true, then that will cause me to misunderstand what the Bible and most of you are trying to teach me about the everlasting punishment.

Am I the only one who tends to read the Bible this way. That is, so that it doesn't contradict what one already believes?

Don