Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

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

I would disagree...

NIV Matthew 10:28 wrote:Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

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

If you do respect me, you're amongst a VERY small minority here, in fact, I'd say you're most likely alone in that. Thanks though.

I do take this as a loving rebuke and respect your interpretation, however, what you've laid out, I simply see differently.

A few light points and we'll leave it at that.

• 1. I don't think I ever argued that there isn't a hell or that it's "forever". I would argue against hell EXISTing forever as the saved and/or Kingdom of God will exist forever.
  
  2. The words, forever and everlasting, if studied throughout the Bible are not always literal, but figurative and synonymously of each other as well as used metaphorically. Sodom and Gomorrah, it is said, (Jude 1:7) that these cities serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire...yet there is no fire today. It was burned to ashes and an example of what will happen to the ungodly (2 Peter 2:6)
  
  3. I don't believe the lake of fire will burn for "a little bit"...it will burn as long as there is something left to burn. Who knows how long it will take?
  
  4. Lastly...to an already Christian, this subject can be a very difficult subject to take in given either interpretation. I'd say your interpretation is more difficult to swallow, HOWEVER, even if I'm wrong, I know that God will wipe our tears. If the fire burns "forever" as you promote, it certainly cannot be in eye or ear shot of our existence in eternity.

As far as I'm concerned, if God chooses to burn people forever in perpetual agony, He's God...what can the created demand of the Creator?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:If you do respect me, you're amongst a VERY small minority here, in fact, I'd say you're most likely alone in that. Thanks though.

I respect you, Bav, even if I don't agree with you all of the time.

Earlier, I said I wanted to give what RC Sproul writes about hell in his Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, for anyone who's interested. Actually, I think I'll just type some of it out (pp 285-286). I was surprised to read that he says that God will be there.

"Almost all the biblical teaching about hell comes from the lips of Jesus. It is this doctrine, perhaps more than any other, that strains even the Christian's loyalty to the teaching of Christ. Modern Christians have pushed the limits of minimizing hell in an effort to sidestep or soften Jesus' own teaching. The Bible describes hell as a place of outer darkness, a lake of fire, a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, a place of eternal separation from the blessings of God, a prison, a place of torment where the worm doesn't turn or die. These graphic images of eternal punishment provoke the question, should we take these descriptions literally or are they merely symbols?"

"I suspect they are symbols, but I find no relief in that. We must not think of them as being merely symbols. It is probable that the sinner in hell would prefer a literal lake of fire as his eternal abode to the reality of hell represented in the lake of fire image. If these images are indeed symbols, then we must conclude that the reality is worse than the symbol suggests. The function of symbols is to point beyond themselves to a higher or more intense state of actuality than the symbol itself can contain. That Jesus used the most awful symbols imaginable to describe hell is no comfort to those who see them simply as symbols."

"A breath of relief is usually heard when someone declares, 'Hell is a symbol for separation from God.' To be separated from God for eternity is no great threat to the impenitent person. The ungodly want nothing more than to be separated from God. Their problem in hell will not be separation from God, it will be the presence of God that will torment them. In hell, God will be present in the fullness of His divine wrath [now, to me, that is scary]. He will be there to exercise His just punishment of the damned. They will know Him as an all-consuming fire."

"No matter how we analyze the concept of hell it often sounds to us as a place of cruel and unusual punishment. If, however, we can take any comfort in the concept of hell, we can take it in the full assurance that there will be no cruelty there. It is impossible for God to be cruel. Cruelty involves inflicting a punishment that is more severe or harsh than the crime. Cruelty in this sense is unjust. God is incapable of inflicting an unjust punishment. The Judge of all the earth will surely do what is right. No innocent person will ever suffer at His hand."

"Perhaps the most frightening aspect of hell is its eternality. People can endure the greatest agony if they know it will ultimately stop. In hell there is no such hope. The Bible clearly teaches that the punishment is eternal. The same word is used for both eternal life and eternal death. Punishment implies pain. Mere annihiliation, which some have lobbied for, involves no pain. . . ."

"Hell, then, is an eternity before the righteous, everburning wrath of God, a suffering torment from which there is no escape and no relief. Understanding this is crucial to our drive to appreciate the work of Christ and to preach His gospel."

Sproul also gives the following verses: Matt 8:11-12; Mark 9:42-48; Luke 16:19-31; Jude 1:3-13; and, Rev 20:11-15.

Jlay wrote:

When has that even been a tenet of Christianity?

Does it have to be a tenet of Christianity to be a question worth asking or do you concider it blasphemous to ask such a question?

Trying to make God more appealing to your own taste or the taste of others is idolatry.

I am not attempting to make Him appealing to me in any way. My whole purpose from the outset is to find justification for the many apparently contradictory things the Bible reveals about His character.

[I would stop trying to convince myself of that immediately./quote]

I don't see any harm in trying to convince myself that every statement in the Bible is true and in perfect harmony with one another. For the same reason I don't see why I should stop trying to convince myself that God is fair or just (if that sounds a little more theologically correct for your liking).

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

Maybe the mishandling part is clear to you. But it certainly isn't too me. I don't remember where I read it in the Old Testament, but I do recall a time when someone or some party complained about God's not being equal (or fair). And God assured the Jews that His ways were fair (or equal). So, fairness is Scriptural; it was not something that I made up or something that I am trying to make God conform to.

It is not a prescription to understand God's judgments on men. That doesn't jive.

Maybe not. But Matthew 7:2 sounds a lot like it and Matthew 7:2 seems to be telling me that with what judgement I judge I shall be judged (I believe this refers to the final great white throne judgment), which sounds a lot like the eye for an eye doctrine to me). After all, how could God judge me more justly than using my own judgment of others as the final standard by which He should judge me. If I have judged others in a way that I know was fair to me and if I didn't care whether it was fair to others, then I ought to be judged just as unjustly as I have judged others. That sounds perfectly fair to me and it sounds like God Himself is going to judge me, at least in that verse. But it also sounds like it is perfectly in agreement with the eye for an eye principle. This is the answer I will apply to the rest of the things you have said about the eye for an eye principle.

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

Neither of us has gotten into this discussion with any more than a handful of Scripture. But that should not be an issue, since we haven't discussed this subject long enought to bring forth any more than a handful of Scripture. And I am not clear on what you mean when you say "bad theology". Are you suggesting that just because you don't like what I have to say about the biblical God I am guilty of holding to a "bad theology"? Who told you or how do you know that your theology is good and mine is bad?

The deeper I go into this discussion with you the more I am realizing that no matter how I explain my position and where I am coming from the more it seems I am wasting my resources. You are still not getting it and I thought I did a pretty good job at explaining my dilemma to you. We are obviously getting into things that seem to be taking me further and further from the answer that I am seeking under this topic from you and others like you. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. You seem to be the only one who doesn't really understand what I am talking about. I think William Craig Lane did, for the most part, in the 1994 debate he had with Ray Bradley at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... dley0.htmlI was sure he would not fair well in this debate and I was right. He obviously lost it, though he seemed to think he won it. He lost it because, taken to its logical conclusion, a God who loves His own creation can not torment or allow the tormenting of that creation for any reason. But maybe I was wrong in thinking that William Lane Craig was a top-notch evangelical scholar.

CSLewisLover,

I believe that people are predestined, so if they're predestined for heaven, then that means there are those predestined to hell (which is also not pleasant to think about).

I think along the same lines as you when it comes to predestination. That is part of the reason why I believe that the biblical God is right because He has the might, though He may be right in many other ways too.

Bavarian Wheels,

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

Yes indeed, I am. It would be cruel but not necessarily unfair. if the punishment involved doing something to my child that would cause him to scream in agony it would be cruel and unfair only if my child had not done anything to deserve it. He would deserve it if he caused another child to scream in agony and if at the same time his action was not offset equally by the action of the other child. Now what you said makes more sense to me than the Scripture does. When it comes to God's final judgment of men, you are obviously an annihilationist like William Branham or the SDA Church. Your position is not supported by Scripture but it makes more sense than Scripture to my mind.

Does it have to be a tenet of Christianity to be a question worth asking or do you concider it blasphemous to ask such a question?

Nope, but that is not my point. You stated pretty clear that one of your contradictions is whether God is fair, and could you demonstrate that to others. And I would say if you are under the misrepresentation of who God is, how He is, or How He isn't, then you will stumble in many other areas. You can't expect to grasp the character of God if you attempt to apply humanized triats to his character, as opposed to following sound doctrine and the whole counsel of God

The Bible does not imply a doctrine of fairness. Especially not in the sense you are driving at. God can be fair only in the undertanding that His ways are higher than our ways. We need to be very, very careful NOT to introduce humanism to the character of God.

I don't see why I should stop trying to convince myself that God is fair

Because it is incorrect thinking. If you have incorrect assumptions or beliefs, then guess what you will have? Contradictions. You must interpret scripture in light of scripture.

And God assured the Jews that His ways were fair (or equal). So, fairness is Scriptural;

First, you fail to site the scripture, so how can your faulty memory be scriptural? Further, even if we do have a scripture we must know the context, and the whole counsel of God. For example, the bible may say, God is no respector of persons. In other words, he doesn't discriminate. That would seem fair, right? So, can we run with that and blindly apply our notion of fairness to all areas of the character of God. No. This will lead to contradictions.
God is JUST. Which is not the same as fairness.
God is Holy. This is clear. This is a sound tenet of the faith.


Read Matt 20: 1-16.

I don't see any harm in trying to convince myself that every statement in the Bible is true and in perfect harmony with one another.

Then build a strong foundation. Build on the rock, your house will stand. On the sand....?
You need to go back to foundational truths. God is Holy, God is Soveriegn, God is just. It is as obvious as a soar thumb, as to to why you are struggling.

But Matthew 7:2 sounds a lot like it and Matthew 7:2 seems to be telling me that with what judgement I judge I shall be judged (I believe this refers to the final great white throne judgment), which sounds a lot like the eye for an eye doctrine to me).

It is not eye for an eye. And what hermeneutic are you applying here to conclude the white throne judgement?
I would read the whole context of the sermon on the mount. Jesus is warning against hypocritical judgment. You can't exclude Matt. 5: 38-42, where Jesus actuall DOES address eye for an eye. The teaching of 7:2 is related to warning against making hypocritical judgments.

Are you suggesting that just because you don't like what I have to say about the biblical God I am guilty of holding to a "bad theology"? Who told you or how do you know that your theology is good and mine is bad?

I am trying to warn you of obvious errors and applications you have made and need to repent of.

We are obviously getting into things that seem to be taking me further and further from the answer that I am seeking under this topic from you and others like you.

Did you ever consider that you are asking the wrong questions? It would seem to me that you have several underlying theological misconceptions that are giving rise to struggles to get the right answers. To get the right answers, guess what, you have to ask the right questions. If you continue to attempt to reconcile your issues while holding to erroneous beliefs and concepts, then I am afraid you will find only frustration.

Jlay said:You can't expect to grasp the character of God if you attempt to apply humanized triats to his character, as opposed to following sound doctrine and the whole counsel of God

All throughout Scripture, He applies those traits to His own character. I didn't have to.

You must interpret scripture in light of scripture.

That is what I do.

First, you fail to site the scripture, so how can your faulty memory be scriptural?

I thought you would recognize it because I thought you were at least as familiar with concordances and Scripture as I have been over the last 45 years. But, only because you prompted me to have I decided to dig it up. It took me no more than 5 minutes. For your convenience, here it is in most of its context:

Ezekiel 18:19-32: Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22: All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23: Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24: But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25: Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26: When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27: Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28: Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
29: Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
30: Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31: Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32: For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer ... ision=div1

Those passages of Scripture as well as 33:17 & 20 are the passages that have begged the question in my mind about God's laws and fairness or justice.

Further, even if we do have a scripture we must know the context, and the whole counsel of God.

I have supplied enough of the context to prove the point that it is not unreasonable to suggest that "equal" has a lot to do with true justice, which, to a significant extent, has a lot to do with fairness.

God is JUST. Which is not the same as fairness.

But fairness is the whole idea behind justice, isn't it? Also, fairness has a lot to do with justice according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness).

Incidentally, I am not expecting you to believe that Wikepedia is a reliable source of information. However, it does provide at least one scholarly source of information that supports my contention that fairness and justice are essentially one and the same thing, contrary to what you have just suggested. At the very least, I am suggesting that it is not uncommon or unreasonable for me or anyone else to equate fairness with justice and vice versa. But even Websters equates fairness with justice when it suggests that Just is synonymous with Fair at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fairness. So does a scholarly article I found at http://www.jstor.org/pss/2182612. So, it seems most obvious to me that your arguments against my definition of justice are unrealistic or fallacious when I examine them in the light of the most careful or scholarly works that I have been able to find on the internet.

It is as obvious as a soar thumb, as to to why you are struggling.

Not to me, at least yet. On the contray, my way of thinking, my hemaneutics, or my theology, as flawed as it might be to you or anyone else, still makes more sense to me than does yours, at least at this point in the discussion.

Also, if your arguments on simple things like the definition of justice are as fallacious as I have convinced myself that they are and if you know that it is because of such examples i.e., of flaws in your reasoning) that my confidence in your ability to find a solution to the difficulties I am having with the biblical God is rapidly declining, what good reasons will I have to convince myself that your theology, your hemaneutics, or your way of thinking is superior to my my own?

Jlay,

Craig Winn, the author of Prophet of Doom: Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words is: a Christian who belongs to no Christian denomination; a man who met and had tea with certain members of Al-Quada for the purpose of finding out why Muslims in the Middle East hate Americans; a scholar of the higest calibar when it comes to Islam; a Bible scholar with some interesting points that stray a little from mainstream biblical theology when dealing with eschatology; and a scholar who had no trouble in understanding the question I started this discussion with.

He was kind enough to allow me some significant space in the FEEDBACK section of his website to share some of my insights into the obvious lunacy that permeates virtually every aspect of the Islamic mentality and to begin a discussion on the topic that I am focussing on in God and Science. Click http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.as ... &i=4222041 to view my discussion with him and the webmaster of his website.

My discussion with him about the Islamic mentality ended and I began to ask him for his insight on the issue that I have raised here, in God and Science.

Here is a quote from Craig, which you will find near the bottom of http://yadayahweh.com/Yada_Yahweh_Going ... natos.YHWH.

If a person works with Satan and serves his interests at the expense of other souls, they endure his fate. Death is no longer an option. Torment becomes eternal. This is the qalal/trivialize versus shav/desolate discussion God shared with us earlier. If someone is ignorant of Yahuweh, indifferent to Yahuweh, or even consciously rejects Yahuweh's gift of salvation, their soul is simply annihilated. It is as if they were never born. They live as an animal and die as an animal. However, if someone willfully and consciously aligns himself with Satan, or if he actively serve Satan's interests and deceive others in religious, journalistic, academic, or political forums in opposition to Yahuweh's instructions, they will merit and receive eternal anguish.

That answer addresses the question I started this discussion with and it sounds like a good answer until I ask a question like, "If the ominpotent-omiscient God were not schizoid (i.e., both kind and sadistic), why would He have made it possible for any of His creation to enter a state of eternal agony for any crime, regardless of how severe He considered that crime to be and especially since He is the one who made the crime possible after He created the soul or spirit that was capable of commtting ant act of the will that He might consider a crime?"

It is unfortunate, but the most important parts of the discussion on this issue must have been deleted from his website because it used to be there and is no longer there. Let me assure you though that Craig Winn understood the issue that I have raised here and he abrubtly stopped discussing it and responding to it after I pointed out that even his anti-mainstream biblical theology on the same issue, which makes more sense to me than mainstream biblical theology does, actually reinforced my point that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is willing to send people to hell to suffer for eternity couldn't possibly be the kind, loving, or all-wise God that Craig Winn and every Christian fundamentalist believes Him to be.

So far, your ever evasive answers have only served to distract and confuse me or they have, more than anything to the contrary, convinced me that either you are too afraid to venture into addressing my question head on, too narrow-minded to want to grapple with it, too blind to see it, or too proud to admit that it stumps you as it appears to stump every other Christian-fundamentalist I have attempted to discuss it with.

Most fundamentalist biblical scholars that I am familiar with and whose insight in scriptural matters is inspiring to me (scholars whose theology is at least as good as yours if not better) never deal with the question in the evasive way that you are dealing with it. That is one of the reasons I think you are not being reasonable when you suggest that my theology is bad or that my theology (good or bad) has anything to do with the question that this topic is all about.

Take, for instance, Dr. Robert Morey (a fan of the late Dr. Walter Martin, author of "The Kingdom of the Cults" and founder and director of Christian Research Institute, San Juan Capistrano, California). Dr. Morey is a biblical scholar. His book, "Death and the Afterlife", is the most scholarly work of its kind in my personal library, which consists of almost a thousand Fundamentalist Christian commentaries, theological textbooks, apologetics material, etc.

Contrary to what I had thought before reading it, this book does a far better job than any other source I am aware of at convincing me that the doctrine of eternal punishment was introduced by the Old Testament sages or prophets and long before the Persian Zoroastrians of Daniel's generation came along and introduced it. For your and everyone else's convenience, I have typed the forward to the book, written by the late Dr. Walter Martin, in the following quotation box:

The soul or the spirit of mankind has occupied the minds of philosophers and theologians of all religious persuasions for thousands of years.

King Solomon asked the question, "If a man die, shall he live again?" This statement, in the context of the book of Ecclesiastes, mirrors the cynical pessimism of the skeptical philosopher as well as the ultimate solution which, by nature, must be theological. The world of non-Christian religions and pseudo-Christian cults has created a "semantic swamp" on the subject of the afterlife, almost always ignoring the resurrection of th body while arguing for a permanent state of existence for the spirit. For more than 150 years, liberal Protestant theology has fostered this in the United States and Europe. The intermediate state has, in the minds of a great many people, become a shadowy world of universal salvation at the expense of classic bliblical theology.

There has been a great absence of sound, scriptural scholarship in the important area of the intermediate state of man, pending the resurrection of the body, as well as the concept of eternal, conscious punishment for those who have finally rejected the grace of God.

Fortunately for evangelical Christianity, this has now been remedied with the publication of this volume by Dr. Robert Morey, a well-educated Christian theologian whose scholarship and careful analysis reflects his reformation theology.

Dr. Morey ably deals with the original languages of Scripture, paying careful attention to the laws of hermaneutics. He is particularly effective when exegeting difficult passages which are often perverted by cultic and liberal theology. The book is also noteworthy for its recognition of a wide range of literature, Jewish sources in particular, seldom discussed in contemporary literature.

The command apocryphal and pseudopegriphal materials and the careful attention to those details necessary to arrive at ultimate truth.

However, Dr. Morey is not content to merely quote sources; he carefully integrates biblical and nonbiblical details to show both contrast and an essential pattern of revealed truth consistent in both the Old and New Testaments.

The scholarship of this volume will impress those who have studied the subject with any degree of thoroughness. At the same time, he communicates many great and profound truths in language that the average layman will both appreciate and profit from.

There can be little doubt that the subjects of conditional immortality, eternal punishment, the annihilation of the wicked, and the teaching of "soul sleep" have seldom been dealt with so completely as in this work. It not only is a condensation of a tremendous breadth of literature, but a major landmark in addressing these very important areas of Christian theology.

In a world which delights in analysis of "out of body experiences" ESP, psychic phenomena, and alleged reincarnational and spiritistic manifestations, Dr. Morey's book directs the light of Scripture, once again, into this murky area of human confusion and dispells the darkness and uncertainty that such speculations create and promote. It is a clear, cool breath of fresh air int he midst of a vacuum of doubt and unbelief. The first major work on the subject in this century, Death and the Afterlife will for many years be a standard reference work in this sorely neglected field.

cslewislover wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:If you do respect me, you're amongst a VERY small minority here, in fact, I'd say you're most likely alone in that. Thanks though.

I respect you, Bav, even if I don't agree with you all of the time.

Aw...very kind. So I was slightly off.

CuriousBob wrote:Yes indeed, I am. It would be cruel but not necessarily unfair. if the punishment involved doing something to my child that would cause him to scream in agony it would be cruel and unfair only if my child had not done anything to deserve it. He would deserve it if he caused another child to scream in agony and if at the same time his action was not offset equally by the action of the other child. Now what you said makes more sense to me than the Scripture does. When it comes to God's final judgment of men, you are obviously an annihilationist like William Branham or the SDA Church. Your position is not supported by Scripture but it makes more sense than Scripture to my mind.

One man's spanking is another child's pain and agony.

You're right on both accounts, I am both and Adventist and an annihilationist...like William Barnham is not so certain.

CuriousBob wrote:Your position is not supported by Scripture...

I refer you to the previous post to B.W.
.
.

CuriousBob wrote:BavarianWheels,

During the entire 45 years that I have remained a disciple of "the way, the truth, and the life, and student of the Scripture, the arguments from Scripture that annihilationists have used remain among the most unconvincing to me. And BW only re-inforces my position on this issue.

Show me where the fires of S&G are still burning and I'll concede my position. Because if your position is that the fires of hell burn forever, as in eternally burning and suffering, then you MUST prove that from scripture where it's clearly promoted as eternal pain and agony vs. eternal punishment. People that are given the sentence of death by injection, chair, firing squad, etc., all suffer their (earthly) punishment eternally. They pay their debt to society once...and they are "forgiven". However they can not enjoy that forgiveness and so are eternally punished.

Please read your bible again...no where is the wage of sin eternal pain and agony. It's death.
.
.

From Bavarion Wheels:
Show me where the fires of S&G are still burning...

Why? Do Sheol and / or Gehenna have to remain burning to this day, despite the fact that either or both were used in ancient times as dumping grounds for city waste?

...and I'll concede my position.

If our understanding of Sheol or Gehenna were the same, then I would wonder why you would say such a thing, since, If I am not mistaken, those fires were quite obviously referred to by the New Testament authors merely to illustrate the reality of eternal punishment where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Who told you that Sheol or Gehenna was to be looked upon as evidence rather than illustrative of eternal punishment (be it phsycological or otherwise, to a lesser or greater degree), assuming you are thinking that mainstream Christians believe that Sheol or Gehenna is where the wicked will be punished for eternity?

People that are given the sentence of death by injection, chair, firing squad, etc., all suffer their (earthly) punishment eternally. They pay their debt to society once...and they are "forgiven". However they can not enjoy that forgiveness and so are eternally punished.

To my mind, this way of thinking is simply B.S. (i.e., Bogus Sierra), absurd, childish and quite obviously so.

I can fully understand how death by injection...could honestly be considered eternal punishment if you love this conscious life so much that you dread the day when anyone would take it away from you or if you greatly fear re-entering the same unconscious state you were in before your were born. But once you have re-entered the unconscious stage of your existence you are no longer aware of punisment (be it an agonizing punishment , an excruciatingly painful punishment, or otherwise) and in fact you are no longer miserable since you have entered the absolutely peaceful state of non-existence (the ultimate goal of every Buddhist or Hindu monk or devotee). So, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how anyone could ever equate an eternal cessation of all consciousness with eternal punishment. I have always associated punishment with conscious or self-aware beings. I have never associated it with beings who have no awareness whatsoever, be they commatoses or mere corpses. I just can't understand how that which was never born or that which returns to the same unconscious state it was in before birth could ever experience punishment or even be concerned about punishment (be it agonizing punishment, painful and miserable punishment, or anything to the contrary). Can you tell me how it is possible for an eternally unconscious being to be aware of anything at all (let alone punishment or pleasure)?

Did it ever occur to you that terms like, "Please take me out of my misery" might very well have been conjured up in the mind of one who believed that this life is all there will ever be and that once one is dead all pleasure and misery cease to exist or the dead one is enternally nonexistent?

Please read your bible again...no where is the wage of sin eternal pain and agony. It's death.

Did you ever stop to think that whenever the Bible talks about death in the same context that sin is mentioned, it just might not mean what your teachers have taught you to believe it means (i.e., it just might not mean the permanent cessation of all consciousness or awareness)? I mean, did it ever occur to you that whenever the Bible talks about death in relation to sin, it just might be talking about it in a way that leads everyone to believe it always means "separation" as opposed to "cessation"?

you MUST prove that from scripture where it's clearly promoted as eternal pain and agony vs. eternal punishment.

There is nothing about this demand that requires me to do anything other than to simply point out your obviously flawed assumption that punishment, pain, and agony are, in no way associated with one another.

I have always associated "punishment" with pain and agony, primarily because whenever I was or whenever someone has threatened to punish me, I have always experienced pain or agony, to some degree or other (whether that be emotional, mental, physical, or otherwise).

Punishment, to my mind will always be painful or agonizing to some degree or other. On the other hand, reward will always be pleasant and certainly not painful or agonizing. But what do I know that you don't already know about this? It is nursery school material.

Well I have underestimated Bob. Good post

So far, your ever evasive answers have only served to distract and confuse me or they have, more than anything to the contrary, convinced me that either you are too afraid to venture into addressing my question head on, too narrow-minded to want to grapple with it, too blind to see it, or too proud to admit that it stumps you as it appears to stump every other Christian-fundamentalist I have attempted to discuss it with.

Bob, I have oft found myself wrestling with and trying to reconcile the bible to my own mind. In every case it has only ended in frutstration. Why? because my thoughts are NOT His thoughts. The frustrations you are experiencing are similar to my own past experiences. I can say without question, that it was my thoughts that were the problem and not the scirpture.
If you are determined to reconcile a fair God with the bible then I am afraid you will only be met with frustration. I read the scripture you provided and failed to see how it relates to this issue. We need transformed minds.

Are justice and fairness the same?
No. Let's suppose that you get caught speeding doing 110 through a school zone. The penalty is a $1,000 fine or 3 days in jail. Someone you don't even know pays the fine for you. Is this fair? No, but justice is satisfied and you are free to go.

Let me add that I am not an ardent flag waver in regards to any specific theology on the doctrine of hell. I think your previous post to Bavarian Wheels is excellent. I would also disagree with annihilation as a form of punishment. I would however, never try to reconcile hell with the concept of what we equate as fairness. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that eternal reward and eternal punishment are not equal for everyone. I'd rather be a janitor in heaven, than a king in Hell.
If we look at this from the perspective of heaven, we can run into the same battle. I know Christians who were despicable by all measures, yet have come to genuine faith and repentence. The young child who dies in Christ, and this person, they both have gained the same forgiveness. The fact that wretched sinners can have their sentance communted on the account of Christ's substituional provision hardly equates as fair. But it does satisfy justice. Therefore it is just but not fair. In our insufficient understanding of fairness of course.

For clarity, let me state that I can not claim God is fair or unfair in the absolute sense. I can only say that God is not defined in our limited understanding of fairness. No more than a wordly understanding of love accurately depicts the character of God's love.
So, when I say, "God is not fair," please note that I am referring to scriptural examples as they would relate to human understanding of fairness.

So many want to focus on the unfairness of hell, yet in doing so miss the real message of unmerited favor.

willieH: Hi jlay...

This thread is mis-titled as I see it... there is "SALVATION of ALL" --vs-- "Heaven & Hell" --vs-- "Annhilation"

jlay wrote:To understand hell, we must understand sin. To understand sin, we must understand who our sin is against. So that takes us to the character of God.

If a god is corruptible then it isn't trustworthy and its judgments are not just.
The bible describes God as being infinately Holy, beyond our ability to understand. This is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. Read Isaiah 6 and Rev. 1 to see the effect of His holiness.

Why does the sun emit consuming heat? you could come up with all kinds of scientific theories, but nothing is simpler than saying, "that is just what it does." The sun is hot, super hot. It isn't trying to be hot, it just is hot. And anything that gets in its way will be consumed.

God is holy. He just IS holy. He doesn't try to be holy, he just is. Infinately holy beyond what we can imagine.

Does a judge render verdicts based on getting kicks out of sending people to jail? No, a good judge makes rulings, harsh rulings, because he is bound to the Law. The Law is a revealed trait of God's holiness. He is bound to it. Not because it is just what He thinks, but it is who He is. The bible says that God gets no pleasure from seeing the wicked punished.

Wow! You have a "God" who creates things and then proceeds to INTIMIDATE them, by his ridigidity and stiff-necked personality... insisting that even though they are weak and without the ability to OBEY His "LAWS"... that He is justified to PUNISH the "wickedness" that HE KNEW they would have, UNMERCIFULLY...

We absolutely, do not believe in the same GOD...

My GOD is YHVH... the one who SO LOVES the WORLD, the one who SENT NOT His Son to CONDEMN it, but to SAVE it...

Yours is one who gets all up in a wrinkle at FINITE "clods of dirt" which don't meet up to his INFINITE standards... that "gets no pleasure in seeing the wicked punished" (even though He knew they would be wicked, yet brought them forth regardless)... Making a POT, and then getting MAD at it because it was NOT PERFECT after HE made it... Please!

jlay wrote:We also must understand His love.
It is because of His love that wrath exist.

Sorry, but this is more ILLOGICAL hoo-ha... It is because of His LOVE that His WRATH exists? Boy me-bratha... we are DISTANT as we can be in our observations of WHO and WHAT God IS... and WHY this is all coming down as it is...

Your picture appears TOTALLY illogical and ALIEN to the definitions of GOD's LOVE, ...especially when compared to the TEACHINGS of CHRIST which COMMANDED we FORGIVE enemies... yet you would teach, that He is willing to POUR WRATH down on His because of HIS LOVE No offense, but that is as bass-akwards a view of the HOLY GOD of LOVE, as I have ever heard.

My daughter gave birth to my 10th grandchild in December (Praise YHVH)... and you would view her to have WRATH because of her LOVE for him? Even though she KNEW well before he was born that he would -- poop his pants -- pee in his diaper -- and cry in the middle of the night, ...yet HER WRATH against these things would be JUSTIFIED as a product of HER LOVE?

Get real! LOVE nurtures, protects, corrects, sees to the needs of its objects...

What part of 1 Cor 13 teaches OF LOVE, such ERRATIC and ILLOGICAL principles?

LOVE does NOT get angry at the OBJECTS of LOVE, because the OBJECT is doing what it was INTENDED to do! GOD made man ABLE to SIN... that means that before we came upon the earth, it was DETERMINED by HIM -- Rom 11:32 -- Rom 3:23 -- we would have the ABILITY to SIN...

How can LOGIC note that GOD is INCORRUPTIBLE, when it is HE which decided the parameters of SIN, and it is HE which decided His creatures would be able to INDULGE in it, yet brought them forth KNOWING this, and PURPOSED and TARGETED them with His WRATH as a by-product of HIS LOVE? Sorry jlay... no offense, but that is the thinking of a nut case, not GOD...

I would with pretty solid CERTAINTY presuppose, that YOU are not INCLUDED as part of the TARGET of His WRATH - eh? ...correct me if I am wrong, but Of course you are NOT... For if you WERE, ...THAT would afford you a reason to OBJECT to it, wouldnt it?

Instead, because you "believe" that you are SAFELY not INCLUDED in those for whom the WRATH of GOD is intended, that in that delusional SAFETY, you think to teach others to FEAR, because THEY might yet be part of that group?

jlay wrote:God's love for us would be insufficient if He were to tolerate sin in any form or fashion. God IS love and His wrath is a product of His loving nature.

What deranged double-talk is this? His WRATH [anger] is a product of HIS "loving nature"? ...give me a break!

Hitler displayed the "BRAND" of "LOVE" you propose that GOD has... As YOU would teach, giving us all a PREVIEW of the LOVE of GOD to come - eh? You shall regret in your shame for such loose dialogue, spoken before the THRONE, and unto the Children of the Most High...

jlay wrote:He loves us too much to let us remain in our fallen state. God is not some god who is sitting back, uninterested in people going to Hell. He is active. He is pursuing man through our conscience, and through His people, and through His word.

What Scripture states that ANYONE is "going to Hell" jlay?

How do you find God's IMPARTIALITY in this thinking, jlay? Acts 10:34 -- Rom 2:11 - Gal 2:6 (and 7 more!) If it is SOLELY the WORK of GOD to SAVE and He is COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL, then why pray tell would ANY go to "hell"?

I am done with answering this unfruitful dialogue... You are welcome to speak your OPINIONS which are LARGELY devoid of even slight, Scriptural support...

Peace...

...willieH

Matthew 7:
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

willieH wrote:I am done with answering this unfruitful dialogue...

While you're at it you might want to tone down the ad homonym attacks.

For some odd reason I'm having a deja vu with your style of writing. Haven't we had the pleasure of dealing with it before?

Oh boy?!


To save who? Condemned people.
And yes, I was condemned, but there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The bible is very explicit in describing the wrath of God. i would take your objections up with the Word and not with me.
God loves us too much to let us stay like we are. god's love is demonstrated in wrath. What happened on the cross? Who killed Jesus? Romans? Jews? No, this was God's plan. Christ on the cross is God's wrath released upon His innocent son, so that we who beleive might be spared. Theology calls it substitutional atonement.

LOVE does NOT get angry at the OBJECTS of LOVE, because the OBJECT is doing what it was INTENDED to do! GOD made man ABLE to SIN... that means that before we came upon the earth, it was DETERMINED by HIM

God is angry with the wicked everyday. That is scriptural. And God is love. God loved us while we were yet in our sin. Even while we were at enmity with God, He purposed to send Christ to save us.
God doesn't get angr, like some emotionally challenged human, getting red in the face, and throwing fits.
God is always angry with the wicked. And He is always loving.

willieH: Hi Byblos...

willieH wrote:I am done with answering this unfruitful dialogue...

Byblos wrote:While you're at it you might want to tone down the ad homonym attacks.

Can you be specific? I was just noting opposition to ILLOGICAL and UNBIBLICAL stances... No "attacks" were intended...

Please dissect my answer, specifically noting what you consider "ad hominem attacks"... thanks

Byblos wrote:For some odd reason I'm having a deja vu with your style of writing. Haven't we had the pleasure of dealing with it before?

"the pleasure of Dealing with it"? ...Thanks for the welcome! ...I'm overwhelmed!

btw... Isn't that kind of a subliminal, ..."ad hominem"?

For the record, ...I have never been here before... and "deja vu" is an imagination, so maybe its just your imagination, my friend!

Peace...

...willieH