What Would You Have Asked Lazarus?

[Byblos]

Byblos,

In my previous letter I was trying to make the point that we need to be careful to see the difference between what a verse actually says (first), and then what we think it means (second). We need to do this so we will be aware when we are simply accepting what a verse says (without any interpretation), and when we are interpreting what it means.

From my experience, not everyone always notices the difference. I feel that your letter in response to my above letter presents a perfect example of not noticing the difference between what Matthew 25:46 actually says and what you feel that verse means.

Well, that's your own interpretation now, isn't it? The simple fact is, annihilation is the state of non-existence of everything, including punishment. It is a logical fallacy to say non-existence is punishment when the very thing already precludes it.

It would seem that you have lived with your interpretation of what "eternal punishment" means for so long that you are unable to notice that that verse does not actually say what you insist that it does in fact say.

Please stop telling me what I seem or don't seem to think. It's really very condescending and unbecoming the intelligent person you seem to project.

Although the verse only says "eternal punishment," what you seem to see is as if it says "conscious eternal punishment." Note your statement where you said...

Matthew 25:46 most certainly does say (what I have said). The text cannot be more emphatic than eternal punishment. The stretch is when you try to define 'punishment' as anything that precludes conscious suffering, and 'eternal' as anything but that.

Although Jesus didn't even come close to saying anything about "conscious suffering," that's what you see him saying.

I seem to be saying it because that's exactly what it says. I don't have to re-define what 'punishment' or 'eternal' mean in order to explain away some non-existent notion of annihialationism. It's already been refuted as unbiblical you know. I'm sorry to tell you but you're not bringing anything new to the table.

A point I was trying to make was, even if that's what "eternal punishment" really means, that's not what this verse actually says. Concluding that "eternal punishment" means "conscious suffering" is an interpretation of what "eternal punishment" means. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that that interpretation is wrong. Only that it is an interpretation of what Jesus said rather than something he actually said.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't claim to understand the psychology of all this, but I wonder if deep down in your mind somewhere you have decided that someone cannot be punished if they are dead and therefore unaware that they are being punished.

There you go again, trying to psycho-analyze me rather than deal with the discussion. Why don't you try to answer my question first? How do non-existent, non-conscious beings suffer various degrees of punishment?

If this is your thinking, what about "capital punishment." It is still called "punishment" even though the one being punished is not aware of his punishment after he is executed. I've never heard anyone reason, "Well capital punishment is not punishment because after they are executed they are not aware that they have been punished.

My thinking goes like this: If a criminal who was put to death and remained dead for one week, how long did his punishment last? Answer: 1 week. What if he was dead for one year, how long did his punishment last? Answer: 1 year. What if he remained dead forever, how long would his punishment last? Answer: His punishment of death would last forever. In his case it would be an "everlasting punishment."

Are you really going to explain away scripture by contrasting it to capital punishment? That's a man-made term, the comparison does not hold. But I will answer anyway, no I do not believe capital punishment to be a punishment. I think it's too lenient but that's for another thread.

As for me and Matthew 25:46, what I see Jesus actually saying is only that there is going to be an "everlasting punishment." That's what he actually said.

But then, based upon what I feel is explained elsewhere in the Bible (like Romans 6:23 and Rev. 20:15), I realize that I am interpreting that "everlasting punishment" to mean everlasting death in the second death.

And so I realize that my belief about "the everlasting punishment" is not based on what Jesus actually said in Matthew 25:46. It is based on my interpretation of what he said in this verse.

In the same way, your belief about "the everlasting punishment" in this verse is not based upon what Jesus actually said. It is based on your interpretation of what he said.

Although you and I (and everyone else) should be able to agree on what Jesus actually said - i.e. "everlasting punishment" - we are having a difficult time agreeing on our interpretations of what he meant.

Don

It's not a belief, it's what scripture says and the meaning is clear.

[FFC]

My thinking goes like this: If a criminal who was put to death and remained dead for one week, how long did his punishment last? Answer: 1 week. What if he was dead for one year, how long did his punishment last? Answer: 1 year. What if he remained dead forever, how long would his punishment last? Answer: His punishment of death would last forever. In his case it would be an "everlasting punishment."

No, the punishment is the actual physical taking of the criminals life...not how long it lasts. I'm sure a victim of stoning in the old Testament prayed for it to end...and it did, the second he or she died. Only God can punish indefinitely. A dead body can not experience punishment after it has died, but a spiritually dead spirit and soul can.

Jesus gives Spiritual and everlasting life. Without that we are spiritually dead in our sins in this life and eternally spiritually dead in our sins in the next.

I'm no theologian but I know that God is not the author of confusion, and when I see all the scriptures, such as Bart has put forth, regarding eternal punishment, it would seem that God has made himself pretty clear on the subject.

I pray that one day when I stand before my Father in heaven that I learn that my concept of hell was wrong, but right now I can only humbly take him at his word and pray that He uses me to lead others to Him so that they never have go to that awful place.

[B. W.]

I wonder if is possible that the reason why the Jews didn't bother asking Lazarus what it was like to be dead because they already knew what it was like to be dead because of what Solomon said about what it was like to be dead. - Ecclesiastes 9:5,10

Don

This scripture you quote is often misquoted in its interpretation. The meaning is simple: do you know all the names of those who died in the year 2500 BCE? All remembrance of them are gone. Depressing isn't it?

To understand the text better, go to a cemetery. The oldest parts rarely have any flowers, flags, token items on their grave sites. The new burials have an abundance of such items on them; therefore, as time passes - the dead are not remembered by the living. That is the meaning of Ecclesiastes 9:5-10.

In fact, I would suggest this book for you to read - 'Hell under Fire' as it explains more than I can at this time.
-
-
-

[B. W.]

It would seem that you have lived with your interpretation of what "eternal punishment" means for so long that you are unable to notice that that verse does not actually say what you insist that it does in fact say...

What is Justice without consequences? This is a direct quote from my book but I am not here to plug my book but to ask:

What is Justice without consequences?

If non-existence is Justice what are the consequences for the most foul and inhuman of all humanity. After all for them and to us - let us eat and drink because tomorrow we die! Non-existence is not Justice as it cannot produce a coherent morality only an unjust moral relativism.

Again: What is Justice without consequences?
-
-
-

[DonCameron]

Hello B.W.,

You asked...

What is Justice without consequences?

I agree with you that Justice requires consequences. The difference between me and apparently everyone else on this forum is what those consequences are.

My thinking goes like this...
When I read Romans 6:23 I see that it says that 'the consequences of sin is death.'

I see the justice in that consequence. When God holds out the hope of everlasting like to the righteous, I can see the justice in withholding that gift from the unrighteous.

You said...
If non-existence is Justice what are the consequences for the most foul and inhuman of all humanity.

I feel that 'everlasting death in "the second death" is Justice for the most foul and inhuman of all mankind.'

What about Hitler for example? I can see the Justice in sentencing him to everlasting death while the 6 million Jews that he had put to death will have the opportunity to live forever in peace, perfection and happiness in paradise.

You said...

(Everlasting death) is not Justice as it cannot produce a coherent morality only an unjust moral relativism.

Can you rephrase this for me. I don't quite understand what you mean.

Don

[DonCameron]

FFC,

Interestingly you said...

I pray that one day when I stand before my Father in heaven that I learn that my concept of hell was wrong.

Hmmm....

Have you looked up some of the information that is readily available on the Internet from those who already feel that your concept of hell is wrong? Is there nothing out there that you have seen so far that makes any sense to you?

You said...

When I see all the scriptures, such as Bart has put forth, regarding eternal punishment, it would seem that God has made himself pretty clear on the subject.

Again, have you tried to look up what those who don't believe in ''Hellfire" have to say about the Scriptures that Bart has mentioned? I'll try to comment to Bart about some of them.

Don

P.S. I've notice your quote by Corrie Ten Boon at the end of your letters where he said...

"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible."

I don't agree with him either!

According to Paul at Hebrews 11:1 faith believes only what isbelievable because there is sufficient "evidence of things that are not seen."

I remember Funk and Wagnel's Dictionary saying that "Faith is belief without evidence." But Paul said that it is 'belief with evidence."
[/i]

[Turgonian]

The day Adam ate of the fruit, he died. God had promised it.
Jewish commentators took this to mean a spiritual death. Apparently the opposite of 'eternal life' needs not be 'annihilation'. One can be spiritually dead and still be conscious, unless you want to defend Adam remained unconscious after the Fall.

[DonCameron]

Turgonia,

You said,

One can be spiritually dead and still be conscious.

I agree.

But do you believe that those who are thrown into the "lake of fire" are only going to be "spiritually dead"?

Don

[DonCameron]

To all those who worship a God of torture:

Here are some rather blunt comments I found on the Internet that are directed to those who accuse God of torture...

Our Conclusions
“The teaching of a Hell Fire has thousands of years of background in pagan ideas throughout the religions of this world.

And the fact that people have had to distort the meanings of such Bible words as Hades (grave), Gehenna (garbage dump), Lake of Fire (Second Death), and Tartarus (dark place of fallen gods) to try to prove the existence of a place that a God of Love would never approve of, shows a deep, dark, inward hatred.

Nobody with any understanding of love for God would ever accuse Him of torture, or worse yet, eternal torture.

Such evil could come only from the minds of men, and from a desire to frighten others into following corrupt and empty religious teachings.

Yes, many people want to believe that there is a Hell. After all, shouldn't there be such a thing for those like Adolph Hitler, who have committed such terrible crimes against humanity?

On the other hand, it is only because such religious people as Adolph Hitler believed that God is to blame for such badness, that they have felt justified in their own acts of horror against humanity.

Then what happens to those who are bad? Proverbs 12:7 tells us, 'When the wicked ones are overturned they are just gone (gr. aphanizetai), but the homes of the righteous will remain.'

Sorry for this coming across rather rough, but if the author is correct that the true God does not torture anyone, this might be worth finding out.

Do you people spend any time trying to understand why other Christians don't think that their God is a God of torture? There is an awful lot of information from them on the Internet.

I'll admit that it would be very difficult for me to have to change my mind about this matter. But I suspect that it will be equally difficult for those who believe in a God of torture to change their minds.

According to what Paul explained to Timothy, in order to come to know the truth about this matter we are going to need God's help. - 2 Timothy 2:25

Don

[Canuckster1127]

To all those who worship a God of torture:

Here are some rather blunt comments I found on the Internet that are directed to those who accuse God of torture...

Our Conclusions
“The teaching of a Hell Fire has thousands of years of background in pagan ideas throughout the religions of this world.

And the fact that people have had to distort the meanings of such Bible words as Hades (grave), Gehenna (garbage dump), Lake of Fire (Second Death), and Tartarus (dark place of fallen gods) to try to prove the existence of a place that a God of Love would never approve of, shows a deep, dark, inward hatred.

Nobody with any understanding of love for God would ever accuse Him of torture, or worse yet, eternal torture.

Such evil could come only from the minds of men, and from a desire to frighten others into following corrupt and empty religious teachings.

Yes, many people want to believe that there is a Hell. After all, shouldn't there be such a thing for those like Adolph Hitler, who have committed such terrible crimes against humanity?

On the other hand, it is only because such religious people as Adolph Hitler believed that God is to blame for such badness, that they have felt justified in their own acts of horror against humanity.

Then what happens to those who are bad? Proverbs 12:7 tells us, 'When the wicked ones are overturned they are just gone (gr. aphanizetai), but the homes of the righteous will remain.'

Sorry for this coming across rather rough, but if the author is correct that the true God does not torture anyone, this might be worth finding out.

Do you people spend any time trying to understand why other Christians don't think that their God is a God of torture? There is an awful lot of information from them on the Internet.

I'll admit that it would be very difficult for me to have to change my mind about this matter. But I suspect that it will be equally difficult for those who believe in a God of torture to change their minds.

According to what Paul explained to Timothy, in order to come to know the truth about this matter we are going to need God's help. - 2 Timothy 2:25

Don

Well,

I am glad that some of the core reasoning is becoming clearer.

It really is more about assuming a value and then seeking support for it after the fact.

I understand some degree of it because, I've sometimes proffered a similar argument with regard to OEC. In both instances, however, I believe the most important issue is first and foremost what Scripture states.

The preponderance of Scripture, I believe, teaches that Hell is a literal place. Further, while I have some human emotion that prefers to believe that God's Love, trumps His justice in this regard, I am not willing to place my desires in that regard over the Word of God. I will choose to submit myself to God's Word first where I believe it is clear. This is no small issue, It is a primary theme of Scripture and further, it is a paramount theme of Christ's ministry and teaching while on this earth.

More important to me is the precedent this establishes in terms of a practise of interpreting Scripture. Once you apply some of the tortured and inconsistent hermeneutics necessary to reach this position you set the stage for additional rationalizations that place our desires over Scriptue itself.

To some extent, it's a faith issue and we will not know empiracly until we reach the afterlife. I suppose it could be argued that it is not a cardinal issue in the sense that belief one way or the other would by itself serve as a determining factor in our salvation, but I suspect that there are other issues that relate to this as well that might.

For instance, Don, I have to ask. What is your position on the deity of Christ and the Trinity? Often, this position on annihilation accompanies a rejection or minimizing of the person of Christ. As I recall you mentioning that you were a prior Jehovah's witness and left, I know that at one point this may have been an issue. I did not check your link earlier to know if that is addressed on your website, but obviously, this is a cardinal issue and perhaps it would be more profitable to expand the conversation to include that issue and see if this type of hermeneutic expands beyond this issue to an issue that is core.

The world in many ways is going to view Biblical CHristianity as foolishness. The idea of Hell is indeed one that is cited by some as cause for rejecting Christ and God. I know that YEC is cited at times too. This fact does not mean we hold to doctrines solely because the world rejects them, but the fact that they do and will is a pretty weak argument. You have to start first with Scripture and then go from there. How we interpret Scripture in this regard has a lot of implications in other areas as well.

Hope this helps, but that is my response to this appeal.

Bart

[FFC]

Have you looked up some of the information that is readily available on the Internet from those who already feel that your concept of hell is wrong? Is there nothing out there that you have seen so far that makes any sense to you?

I was a member of temtmaker (the Christian universalist's web site) for awhile and read page after page of exactly what you are talking about. I found it to be very interesting. The problem with them and you is that so much of plain scripture is re-worked, re-interpreted and hyper-spiritualized. Not only that but I found that most of the time an explanation by one of these people took massive amounts of page space to get their point across. to me this is a big red flag. If something is true it shouldn't take so much effort to explain it. That's my opinion anyway.

I like what Calvinist Matt Slick liked to quote "Eternity is a long time to be wrong".

P.S. I've notice your quote by Corrie Ten Boon at the end of your letters where he said...

"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible."

I don't agree with him either!

Well he (Corrie Ten Boom) is a she but who's quibbling over gender.

[DonCameron]

Bart,

First of all, thank you for your nice letter on the other thread.

On this thread you said…

What do you feel the consequences of your position being wrong in this matter would be?

If on Judgement Day I am told that I was mistaken when I believed that God was not going to torture anyone, all I could do then is apologize and then hope for the best!

You said…

I think the problem is that there is a preponderance of verses that indicate that hell is like a fire and eternal in nature.

I'll try to give you my take on some of those verses.

Mark 9:47,48 & all the other verses that refer to “Gehenna”
And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

1) One thing I notice is that Jesus did not say that people who are cast into that “hell” do not die. It is only worms that do not die. But I don't think Jesus was trying to teach immortality of worms.

2) I know that the word that is translated as “hell” here is “Gehenna.” I learned that Gehenna was the name of Jerusalem's garbage dump and so the Jews knew he was talking about that dump.

In his day a fire was kept burning in it in order to consume whatever was thrown into it. This included dead animals, and dead humans who were considered so bad that they didn't deserve a normal burial in a memorial tomb. Worms could be seen crawling around the dump.

That dump was located in the same valley of the son of Hinnom that Jeremiah had commented on many years earlier when he explained how bad the Jews had deteriorated in their form of worship…

“(The Jews) have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.”

My understanding is that the reason this valley was made into the city's dump was in order to make sure that the Jews would never be able to do such a horrible thing again in that place.

I have taken careful note of the fact that their burning of people in a fire was something 'that had not come up into his heart.' And so I now find it difficult to believe that since then He has changed his mind.

To me it would be as if he thought about what the Jews had been doing and then said to Himself, “Ya know…Maybe that's such a bad idea after all. Yes, I think I will do this too. But I can do a much better job then what those Jews did. I can keep people suffering in a blazing fire forever and ever! I can't wait to tell my Son about this so that he will be able to explain to his disciples what we are going to do to everyone who doesn't like us.” (Sorry for the sarcasm!)

What then about what Jesus said about Gehenna several times? Since its fire has been quenched, and since all those worms he mentioned have died, then apparently that garbage dump (which most Bible translators like to call “hell”) is not the actual place of the everlasting punishment.

Once many Christians found out how God feels about burning people with fire (Jeremiah 7:31) they began to back off from taking what Jesus said about Gehenna literally. They began looking for an alternative way of understanding what he meant when he said over and over again that Gehenna should be avoided at all costs.

They have concluded that since in Jesus' day Gehenna was not used to torture anyone but rather to destroy everything that was thrown into it, it therefore pictures the symbol of “the lake of fire” of Revelation 20:14,15 which will be used by God to completely destroy everything that is thrown into it — including “hell” (Hades), the condition of death, Satan the Devil, his demons, the wild beast, the false prophet and all those not found written in the book of life.

These Christians see the Justice in destroying those who have no interest in worshiping God. But they don't see any Justice in torturing them.

I'm one of those who undestands it this way.

Don

[DonCameron]

FFC,

You said...

If something is true it shouldn't take so much effort to explain it.

I like that!

Don

[Canuckster1127]

Bart,

First of all, thank you for your nice letter on the other thread.

On this thread you said…

What do you feel the consequences of your position being wrong in this matter would be?

If on Judgement Day I am told that I was mistaken when I believed that God was not going to torture anyone, all I could do then is apologize and then hope for the best!

You said…

I think the problem is that there is a preponderance of verses that indicate that hell is like a fire and eternal in nature.

I'll try to give you my take on some of those verses.

Mark 9:47,48 & all the other verses that refer to “Gehenna”
And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

1) One thing I notice is that Jesus did not say that people who are cast into that “hell” do not die. It is only worms that do not die. But I don't think Jesus was trying to teach immortality of worms.

2) I know that the word that is translated as “hell” here is “Gehenna.” I learned that Gehenna was the name of Jerusalem's garbage dump and so the Jews knew he was talking about that dump.

In his day a fire was kept burning in it in order to consume whatever was thrown into it. This included dead animals, and dead humans who were considered so bad that they didn't deserve a normal burial in a memorial tomb. Worms could be seen crawling around the dump.

That dump was located in the same valley of the son of Hinnom that Jeremiah had commented on many years earlier when he explained how bad the Jews had deteriorated in their form of worship…

“(The Jews) have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.”

My understanding is that the reason this valley was made into the city's dump was in order to make sure that the Jews would never be able to do such a horrible thing again in that place.

I have taken careful note of the fact that their burning of people in a fire was something 'that had not come up into his heart.' And so I now find it difficult to believe that since then He has changed his mind.

To me it would be as if he thought about what the Jews had been doing and then said to Himself, “Ya know…Maybe that's such a bad idea after all. Yes, I think I will do this too. But I can do a much better job then what those Jews did. I can keep people suffering in a blazing fire forever and ever! I can't wait to tell my Son about this so that he will be able to explain to his disciples what we are going to do to everyone who doesn't like us.” (Sorry for the sarcasm!)

What then about what Jesus said about Gehenna several times? Since its fire has been quenched, and since all those worms he mentioned have died, then apparently that garbage dump (which most Bible translators like to call “hell”) is not the actual place of the everlasting punishment.

Once many Christians found out how God feels about burning people with fire (Jeremiah 7:31) they began to back off from taking what Jesus said about Gehenna literally. They began looking for an alternative way of understanding what he meant when he said over and over again that Gehenna should be avoided at all costs.

They have concluded that since in Jesus' day Gehenna was not used to torture anyone but rather to destroy everything that was thrown into it, it therefore pictures the symbol of “the lake of fire” of Revelation 20:14,15 which will be used by God to completely destroy everything that is thrown into it — including “hell” (Hades), the condition of death, Satan the Devil, his demons, the wild beast, the false prophet and all those not found written in the book of life.

These Christians see the Justice in destroying those who have no interest in worshiping God. But they don't see any Justice in torturing them.

I'm one of those who undestands it this way.

Don

Don,

It's prefectly valid and needful to place ourselves into the mindset of the cultural understanding of those hearing the original message.

There are a few issues to take into consideration in the understanding you offer on the verses above, in my opinion.

1. The passage that you appeal to in Jeremiah is not in the context of hell at all. This is referring to the practice of child sacrifice to Molech which involved idolatry. It's a huge stretch to take this and then draw from it that God is stating an absolute with regard to his own activity or behavior in this regard. I don't believe God has changed His mind at all in terms of idolatry and child sacrifice. To try and parallel this on that basis as indicating God would be violating his own word and nature from this alone, is just mind-boggling.

2. Many of the parallels you attempt to draw from Gehenna in the sense of its contemporary understanding draw upon conclusions made from things that happen after the time that Jesus used the illustration or parallel for his listeners. Jesus often used contemporary illustrations or parallels to make his point. Parables are the most common example. Attempting to point out that Gehenna's fire would indeed go out and the worms die in the future is not a particularly strong argument in my opinion. By that argument ANY illustration that Christ made in terms of this earth and the physical creation would imply impermanence by virtue of the fact that this earth will eventually be destroyed in its entirity. In the Parable of the Soils (some call it the parable of the Sower), do you think Jesus had it in the back of his mind that the seed that sprang upon the good soil and sprung up would itself in the end be destroyed, because in the end, this physical creation will be ended? Of course not! When you have to stretch an illustration in this manner, to this degree, it begs the question as to why you have to do such gymnastics in the first place to arrive at that conclusion.

The point is, Jesus speaking to these people at this point and time, was making a point. When he stated with regard to judgment that the worm would not die and the fire not be quenched, do you think the people listening heard that and said, "OK. I get it. You don't mean I'll be in such a condition. You're just talking about the worms and the fire. I won't be around." (one good sarcasm deserves another. )

That's what concerns me about this type of doctrine. Associating the passage you do from Jeremiah with this one in Matthew, is just a complete non-sequitor. The issue was not that God doesn't use fire in judgement. The issue was God didn't want his people sacrificing their children to idols using fire (or any other means I suspect.)

It just looks to me like an argument, already espoused, in search of a proof-text. It doesn't strike me at all as an argument drawn exegetically from the text itself.

Bart

[B. W.]

Hello B.W.,
I agree with you that Justice requires consequences. The difference between me and apparently everyone else on this forum is what those consequences are...

You said...

(Everlasting death) is not Justice as it cannot produce a coherent morality only an unjust moral relativism.

Can you rephrase this for me. I don't quite understand what you mean.

Don

Sure, first I stated, Non-existence is not Justice as it cannot produce a coherent morality only an unjust moral relativism.

You interpret non-existence as everlasting death so I'll keep this in mind when writing to you on this thread.

All remembrance of the dead slowly vanishes with the passage of time. The dead are not remembered by the living. That is the meaning of Ecclesiastes 9:5-10. Depressing isn't it? All memory of us will fade in the due course of time after we die. All our hopes, dreams, fears, endeavors, plans, desires, what we were like will fade from the memory of the living as time goes on.

What hope is in death if death is not a doorway into eternal life? Where does one want to spend eternity? Heaven? Hell? Non-existence?

You see, God gave people life. This is a gift. God's gifts and callings are without repentance. For God to send people into a state of non-existence causes God to renege on the gift of life. Learn what this means — God is a God of the living and not the God of the dead. Though God is more than able blast someone into non-existence, this is contrary to the life giving nature of God and would essentially cause God to deny himself.

Deuteronomy 32:3-4, Job 34:10-33. There is no injustice in or with God, you may term that non-existence is the most humane just alternative but it is not just at all. It is unjust for God to destroy life by non-existence as it violates the nature and character of God himself — a life giving God who will hold accountable the deeds of his creatures of note.

If non-existence is the case, there is no way to justly judge if ones life is good or bad. It becomes a matter of live as you so ever will because tomorrow you die: No God, maybe Heaven, no Hell, just non-existence! How comforting is that? So what if I die? I'll do what ever I please however I please whenever I please and with whomever I please. There is no right or wrong only do enough good works to be good enough to make it into heaven and if not — so what?

An unjust moral relativism will result as society degenerates unable to distinguish right from wrong. Abortion, Suicide, Murder all can be justified by the philosophy eternal non-existence and thus the Commandment of God is violated — thou shall not murder, Deuteronomy 5:17. Also, for God to send one off into a state of non-existence actually causes God to violate his own commandment if all life is not eternal. Ponder it for awhile.

Deuteronomy 5:6-21
-
-
-