Infinite punishment for finite sins

[Sudsy]

I especially hope readers took a look at this site in their study - http://www.hell-know.net/

[J.Davis]

Hey Guys! I was away from the net for a few days, nice to be back!

This was one of my first statements concerning this debate....

No one knows (well, maybe B.W ) how bad the lake of fire will be (Jesus said to do whatever it takes to stay out of it/it‘s really bad). But It’s not like people don’t have a choice, no one has to go to hell.

Then came a lot of scriptures, proof and logic based on the bible and God’s character. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional view (eternal torment in hell). And that is why it’s the traditional/truth view. Pastors, prophets, theologians, Christians etc have gone over this matter front to back covering every detail and the traditional view is the result and has been forever. Annihilationist can make whatever claims they wish but the bible is 100% clear that hell is so bad that you should do whatever it takes to stay out of it. I have said before that stripping God of the full force of his love is wrong. Many will hear or read what Annihilationist have to say and they will be deceived. There are those who will believe that burning until they die is something that they can handle. Also, many on earth have endured extreme pain and many are extremely burdened with pain, depression and they feel completely hopeless. And they just want the pain to stop. They would do anything, even kill themselves, (it happens everyday)....anything to escape the pain. And they would gladly endure a period of temporary burning if they could be free of the pain. The annihilationist link in this thread teaches that the unsaved sleep when they die (not go to Hades) and then everyone will wakeup for the day of judgment. So… according to the annihilationist link, the unsaved wakeup on the day of judgment, have God yell at them for a bit and then he burns them and it’s all over. But it’s a lie...They will awake to never ending pain. Annihilationist claim that there is another way out of hell besides the one Jesus provided, that alone should raise a few caution flags.

Jesus is the only way out of hell and annihilationism is a dangerous belief that can cause many to live forever, in pain, away from God, the only one who can stop the pain.

As B.W pointed out (and this was going to be my next argument)....

Annihilationist seem to pay no heed how these words, like destroy/destruction (622 st) are used elsewhere in the bible to describe ruined wineskins (Matt 9:17), lost sheep (Matt 15:24), spoiled food (John 6:27), destruction of flesh (1 Co 5:5), ruining a brother over food (1 Co 8:11), World destroyed by the flood (2 Pet 3:5, 6) but note the earth is still here - it was ruined-then renewed.

For example 2 Thessalonians 1:9 uses same word translated destruction as does 1 Corinthians 5:5 which refers to an individual being turned over to the devil for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit will be saved in the day of the Lord. So, let’s apply annihilationist definition to what Paul writes in 1 Co 5:5 - “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the (utter annihilation destruction into non-existence) of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” By using bible software and looking at around 95 occurrences that the same word 'apollumi' (including all tense forms) is used in 86 verses in the New Testament, this word has more to do about being brought into a state ruin, chaos, debasement, than it does extinction. One definition used for so many words to mean only one thing (extinction) in selected texts should cause the eyebrows to rise.

There are several definitions for the word destruction as it is used in the bible, same with death and just about every word in the bible. It’s all about context, knowing Jesus, being guided by Jesus etc. The scriptures above are not man’s interpretation, even with no interpretation at all, as B.W said:

2 Thessalonians 1:9 uses same word translated destruction as does 1 Corinthians 5:5

No matter what Annihilationist say, that fact remains...

destruction, as it is used in the bible, in relation to sinners who live or die in sin and reject God (Jesus), laws and ways is a metaphor for those who suffer pain and corruption as a natural result of severing the bound humans were meant to have with God. And hell/The lake of fire is a physical manifestation of the effects involved with that severed state. Not the effects of the eternal fire because that would destroy the purity and truth of why the unsaved go to hell, change the meaning of numerous scripture, pervert God’s perfect good and just nature and have Him tormenting (or annihilating for all you annihilationist) people out of nothing but spite.

If the unsaved go to hell because they did not accept Jesus (or, for those who do not know his name and what the bible says, accept his way). Then being spiritually severed from God is the cause of death, bringing with it corruption, sin just acts as scissors, the instrument of destruction, the severed (from God) condition is what causes one to live in a state of torment, void of spiritual well-being and holiness (living dead).

No one should think that hell is something they can handle or that it’s not so bad-for any reason. Jesus said at all cost…stay out of hell. I do not think he would have talked as he did concerning hell if we could imagine how bad it is. And I can tell you that to many, the natural time it takes to burn a body until one dies is not really that bad.

God knows best, and he will save as many as possible. But annihilationism is a dangerous belief and no one should spread it. There are not two ways out of hell, just one, and that is accepting Jesus as your God.

[Sudsy]

But annihilationism is a dangerous belief and no one should spread it.

I know you believe you have the truth figured out J. Davis but sticking with tradition no matter what is what some might call a dangerous way to believe. If the 'T' view holds water, it should be able to stand up to challenges. To disallow an alternative view to be presented sounds like brainwashing to me. Some kind of control tactic.

What I notice is this attempt by you to minimize the 'A' view seriousness on hell as a way of putting it down. You put it 'So… according to the annihilationist link, the unsaved wakeup on the day of judgment, have God yell at them for a bit and then he burns them and it’s all over.' If you can find one instance where this is stated as such, show us. If you can't provide the truth about this, why should anyone think you have the truth about eternal punishing.

Here is an actual opening statement from the link I provided - 'Let me emphasize beforehand that there’s absolutely no disputing the fact that eternal damnation is a horrifying reality in Christian thought. We should take the bible’s repeated warnings of such seriously, and encourage others to do the same.' So, this is just one of many untruths that have been posted about the 'A' view in attempting to preach truth.

I have said before that stripping God of the full force of his love is wrong.

I think this is one of the major arguments that few find compelling to believe as truth. This is some twist in logic coming from the error that man is made immortal and God, in love, will not destroy him. It is also suggested that if man desires to have eternal torment, God will lovingly give him what he wants. Is that what we do with our children. If you know your child wants to harm themself would you let them ?

Punishment is not an act of love but rather one of wrath. Even most 'T' viewers that I know, see it as an act of righteous wrath for sinning against a holy God. Many of us were raised with this understanding. And the 'A' view folk would agree. The issue is not whether God is acting in love or wrath but rather how much wrath will there be and how long will it last. You suggest that the 'A' view indicates that it would be for the amount of time it takes to burn up our current bodies. Again, where did that idea come from ? No where but your own thinking in arguing against the 'A' view. We do not know how long or even whether this is a literal burning of flesh but the 'A' view is saying that scripture shows us that it will not be unending. It will have an end for each person after the wrath of God is satisfied for their sinning.

I think most people with common sense raise their eyebrows at the thought that man chooses to go to non-ending torment. To be fair and just no one would send anyone to such a destiny without making it absolutely clear what the two destinies of choice are before they made any choice. And God is much more fair and just than any of us could ever be.

You seem to think the 'A' view makes hell appealing and therefore does not serve as a threat to people. But the 'A' view does not suggest any length of punishment other than to say it is not endless. On the other hand, speaking of people's response, the 'T' view has so many holes in logic and scriptural support that many are turned off with Christians believing it. And many Christians who hold unto the 'T' view also don't want to talk about it, don't preach it and don't live it out in their daily lives.

Suggestion - can we quit using repetition to bolster our arguments. If it is not a new thought that hasn't been discussed before, fine, otherwise it looks like a form of brainwashing through the use of repetitive words.

[Byblos]

It will have an end for each person after the wrath of God is satisfied for their sinning.

Perhaps this is an area we can explore. What scriptures would you use in support of that?

[B. W.]

I especially hope readers took a look at this site in their study - http://www.hell-know.net/

Again notice how many words are used to promote what is best for man within this one Link Sudsy so kindly provided that do not stand on what is best for God. A lot of wasted words which reminds me of what Clark Pinnock desires: "It is such a longing, I believe, that is encouraging theologians today to revise the traditional view of hell and to propose alternative interpretations of the scriptural data."

Lot of words in the link, twisting the bible to fit promoting propose alternative interpretations of the scriptural data.

Jesus stated in Matthew 25:41, 46

Mat 25:41, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels..." RV

Mat 25:46, "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life." RV

No need to explain away the simple words of Christ grammatically grounded to read like this:

Mat 25:41, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the ending-eternal fire lasting but a mere few ages then exterminates into eternal non-existence forever which is prepared for the devil and his angels..." RV

Mat 25:46, "And these shall go away into non-eternal punishment lasting but a mere few ages then exterminates into eternal non-existence forever: but the righteous into eternal life." RV

You know, looking through the lens of Christ - Jesus did not say or use expanded definitions in Matthew 25:41, 46 like the annihilationist contend. Jesus was more forth right and extremely clear in his manner of speech regarding this matter. He could have used different words but he did not. Eternal life with God last forever without end just as eternal punishment last forever without end. This is far more terrifying than annihilationism and lines up elsewhere with how Jesus put the lens of himself upon eternal matters regarding heaven and hell, without any needed wordy secret explanations needed to properly interpret the text.

The link provided by Sudsy is a good example of scripture twisting and distorting the plain words of Christ to fit what is best for man as well as prove the intent of annihilationist leaders and scholars who seek to promote as Pinnock stated: propose(d) alternative interpretations of the scriptural data.

Reminds me of 2 Peter 3:16, 17, 18

What great lengths annihilationist go to explain away the clear meaning of Jesus’ own words through use of secret insider knowledge based solely on the whim of what would serve the best interest of man and not based on, or even looked at, regarding what is best for God which is discovered within the bible that clearly reveal his character, nature, and attributes.

On this thread, I asked people to make a summary based on the objective scriptures that clearly define and reveal God’s character nature, and attributes. Compare and contrast on your own looking to what is best for God to be, not how we would like him to be.

Jesus said: "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?... John 14:10, 11 NASB

God does not lie, makes no mistakes, does not change his mind and He always keeps his word. When God makes a promise, He keeps it, it is impossible for Him to lie so we can feel safe in the fact that we will have what he promised. God does not change, he is a strong and stable foundation, his work is perfect, he is fair in all thing, and never unjust. God is not evil or unjust, we get fair punishment or reward according to what we have done. God will never act in an evil way, he will always do what is fair (and he will never change his law).

God’s ways and understanding is far above ours and what he wants done will be done. There are no other God’s, just one (I Am/Jesus) he tells the course of events to come (the future) before they befall He always warns. What he has set in place will stand…he will do what he wishes. God has all power and authority above all, he will judge all justly and fair no matter who you are. God holds one to account: God will bring every work into judgment. He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his own ways. God gives every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings.

God gives life to man (Gen 2:7 –eternal image, Job 33:4, Acts 17:25 life to all). He placed his eternity in the human heart as he purposed it. What God does endures forever. God does not take away life (2 Sam 14:14). God provides means by which the lost can be reconciled back to him. God's gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). God shows no Partiality. All His judgment are with equity.

God is good to all. God hates every evil path, iniquity, sin. God hates. God loves. God shows mercy. God takes vengeance. God jealously protects. He is a God of perfect judgment. God is perfect/blameless in all his ways. God is Holy, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He. God is all mighty and awesome and there is no unrighteousness in Him. God is the Living eternal God – sovereign – absolutely mighty, absolutely wise, all knowing.

Hebrews 1:2, 2, "… in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…" NASB

Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life." RV

No need to explain away the simple words of Christ grammatically grounded...
-
-
-

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
B.W. - You have yet to post an interpretation of judgment.
.
.

[Sudsy]

This is all repeated rhetoric B.W.. Nothing new to add ? And speaking of lots of words - perhaps we should count up the words on this thread and see who is truly using the most words to defend their view.

I think readers can judge for themselves what they will believe. They don't need anyone telling them what to believe.

I find your summary on God's character interesting in that an Annihilationist would agree with it. So this exercise proves nothing with regard to eternal torment. We don't agree with what you mean to imply by certain terms about God nor what you suggest God must do with regard to this summary.

So, nothing new, same old arguments. Getting pretty boring. Don't you think we have exhausted this subject ? Or is it that you just want to have the last say ? If you state this is your last say on the matter, I will not add anymore myself. Deal ?

[Katabole]

It took me a while to read through this post but I'll comment.

Before I comment on the original question, I'd like to discuss what happens before the judgment. Jesus says:

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus is quoting Isaiah where Isaiah says:

Isaiah 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

Presently, ALL of God's children haven't been taught. However, as the book of Revelation claims, they will be taught in the future during the 1000 year reign of Christ.

So after those thousand years are ended, God's children will be tested one last time. After that the judgment. For those who passed the test, judgment day is reward day. For those who didn't it is punishment day.

Bavarian, I noticed you were looking for the deinition of the word judgment. The word first occurs in scripture in Genesis 18:19.

Genesis 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and JUDGMENT; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. (KJV)

This is the word in Hebrew from Strong's:

4941
mishpat
mish-pawt'
from 'shaphat' (8199); properly, a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, especially a sentence or formal decree (human or (participant's) divine law, individual or collective), including the act, the place, the suit, the crime, and the penalty; abstractly, justice, including a participant's right or privilege (statutory or customary), or even a style:--+ adversary, ceremony, charge, X crime, custom, desert, determination, discretion, disposing, due, fashion, form, to be judged, judgment, just(-ice, -ly), (manner of) law(-ful), manner, measure, (due) order, ordinance, right, sentence, usest, X worthy, + wrong.

The word first occurs in the New Testament in Matthew 5:21

Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the JUDGMENT:

The word in the Greek here is:

2920
krisiV
krisis
kree'-sis
decision (subjectively or objectively, for or against); by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law):--accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.

There are many examples in the Bible on how God judges. As scripture says:

2Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Ezekiel 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

2Kings 19:35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

So I do believe that in the end, there is eternal punishment for sins. I do not believe however, that there is eternal punishing.

As for that lake of fire mentioned in Revelation, I believe it is a figure of speech, describing our God. As scripture says:

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

It doesn't say God is a fire. Rather it says that God is a 'consuming' fire. So what does God consume? According to scripture He is planning on starting a new age, therefore only the evil is consumed.

I don't believe in or worship a God of torture. I beleive God is a God of justice and brings justice swiftly when the time comes. As scripture says:

Deuteronomy 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

This verse clearly shows God is a God of justice and mercy. The phrase "destroy them quickly" shows justice and mercy, two attributes of our God.

So I believe in annihilationism, as the verses I have provided Illustrate. God is the fire that consumes all evil at the end of this age. The wages of sin is death as Paul in Romans claims, that's not death of the flesh (first death), but death of the soul.(second death)

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I believe my answer is theologically correct and Biblically sound.

[BavarianWheels]

I believe my answer is theologically correct and Biblically sound.

I think it's a good post. I would agree with you for the most part however if I'm understanding you correctly I find exception with this:

So after those thousand years are ended, God's children will be tested one last time. After that the judgment. For those who passed the test, judgment day is reward day. For those who didn't it is punishment day.

However this is not an issue with the subject at hand and can be taken up elsewhere...not that I want to though.

Bavarian, I noticed you were looking for the deinition of the word judgment.

I tend to side with your interpretation, however am still looking forward to B.W.'s interpretation on the word judgment.
.
.

[jlay]

Wow. Trying to equate God being described as a consuming fire, which obviously describes his nature, to him being the actual lake of fire mentioned in revelation.???

Deuteronomy 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

The context of this has NOTHING to do with the point you are attempting to make. This clearly has to do with God's judgment upon those people's physical lives here on the earth. This was about Israel moving into the promised land. Not the final judgment.

So after those thousand years are ended, God's children will be tested one last time. After that the judgment. For those who passed the test, judgment day is reward day. For those who didn't it is punishment day.

I'm certain Brian will have a field day with this one.

With any Greek or Hebrew word, we know that context is everything.

[BavarianWheels]

Wow. Trying to equate God being described as a consuming fire, which obviously describes his nature, to him being the actual lake of fire mentioned in revelation.???

I don't think that's what he said. It may be what you interpret or hope he said, but I suppose it best to wait for him/her? to make that point.
When God spoke to Moses and appeared as a burning bush...did God not choose fire to represent Himself? I don't necessarily see a real problem even if he is making that point. What about that Pillar of fire leading the masses to the Red Sea...or the cloud...God can't choose how to reveal Himself?

Deuteronomy 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

The context of this has NOTHING to do with the point you are attempting to make. This clearly has to do with God's judgment upon those people's physical lives here on the earth. This was about Israel moving into the promised land. Not the final judgment.

The context is Israel's liberation...certainly a "first fruits" if you will, of the liberation of God's people (Church...if you want) at the final judgment.
.
.

[B. W.]

.
.
B.W. - You have yet to post an interpretation of judgment.

Which word from Hebrew and Greek - one specific one or all of them?

Do you want contextual renderings or basic definitions for each word or one specific one to discuss?
-
-
-

[J.Davis]

I know you believe you have the truth figured out J. Davis but sticking with tradition no matter what is what some might call a dangerous way to believe. If the 'T' view holds water, it should be able to stand up to challenges. To disallow an alternative view to be presented sounds like brainwashing to me. Some kind of control tactic.

That’s funny because I was sure I said....

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional view (eternal torment in hell). And that is why it’s the traditional/truth view. Pastors, prophets, theologians, Christians etc have gone over this matter front to back covering every detail and the traditional view is the result and has been forever.

It has nothing to do with tradition. It is simply the truth as a result of study, fellowship with God, knowing God’s character etc. Tradition is just a word I am using to keep this debate simple. And it is the word you chose so please do not try to use it now as a word to discredit the truth. I am well aware of how people use the word tradition to discredit truths about the bible. And I know how men manipulate the bible and use it to control and manipulate men. I made sure to say the traditional/truth view several times because I know how people play with the word tradition. The word tradition is applied to the eternal suffering in hell in the same way it is applied to the fact that God exist and Jesus is the son of God, they are facts of the bible and only tradition because they are true.

And what the bible says about eternal suffering in hell has been challenged countless times. But the truth view (eternal suffering in hell) stands the test of time.

God allows numerous religions and beliefs so that all may know that they are free to choose, their decisions are their own. Satan pretends to be a roaring lion, and his lies are the same. He would have as many as possible live with him, suffering for all eternity. I am sure of what I know, I have my own reasons for posting in this thread. Annihilationism will not defeat the Truth, but it might win in the heart of one that is trying to find a reason to give up. Not on my watch... But I am sure that there is more than enough info to consider now.

What I notice is this attempt by you to minimize the 'A' view seriousness on hell as a way of putting it down. You put it 'So… according to the annihilationist link, the unsaved wakeup on the day of judgment, have God yell at them for a bit and then he burns them and it’s all over.' If you can find one instance where this is stated as such, show us. If you can't provide the truth about this, why should anyone think you have the truth about eternal punishing.

From the link you provided on page 6..

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=75

Regarding sheol, our study of the word in chapter 5 shows that none of the texts supports the view of sheol as the place of punishment for the ungodly. The word denotes the realm of the dead where there is unconsciousness, inactivity, and sleep.

The first death is a temporary sleep because it is followed by the resurrection. The second death is permanent and irreversible extinction because there is no awakening.

I have no reason to lie sudsy...

[J.Davis]

I have said before that stripping God of the full force of his love is wrong. Many will hear or read what Annihilationist have to say and they will be deceived. There are those who will believe that burning until they die is something that they can handle.

It is also suggested that if man desires to have eternal torment, God will lovingly give him what he wants. Is that what we do with our children. If you know your child wants to harm themself would you let them ?

I think most people with common sense raise their eyebrows at the thought that man chooses to go to non-ending torment. To be fair and just no one would send anyone to such a destiny without making it absolutely clear what the two destinies of choice are before they made any choice. And God is much more fair and just than any of us could ever be.

Ok....In response to the Annihilationist claim that God would be unjust, inhumane and immoral if he would allow eternal torment, in short.

I have never said that men desire eternal torment, as in burning forever. I do not think that anyone would want such a thing. But what humans do desire is sin. And if one does not have Jesus to cleanse them of their sin, they suffer, even if they do not know it, they suffer, and the suffering becomes more severe over time. But the tolerance to pain also gets stronger and/or the methods one uses to soothe pain becomes more advanced. Most know various forms of suffering as a result of sin and people can become so void of joy, peace and love and so full of guilt, depression and hatred (because of sin) that they only feel relief when they receive punishment for the evil in their heart. People punish themselves all the time for their sin and try to make it right. Some get to the point where they cause themselves pain, cutting, abusing themselves or allowing others to do it etc. The pain gives them temporary relief from the suffering caused by their sin or immoral acts. But the suffering never goes away, they keep hurting themselves so they can feel that justice was served.

The unsaved will not have the same heart that the saved do. You can not say that eternal torment in hell is unjust, immoral, inhumane etc. Because you do not know the needs of the unsaved when they are in hell (after finding the truth and meeting God). Nor do you know the effects the fire will have on them. You are simply coming from the perspective of someone who is not in the condition of those who burn in hell, you are more fortunate then they are and you see their suffering as someone who would not want the life they live for anyone. The same can be said for a drug addict, they can not be reasoned with, they won’t listen to anyone. At a point, those who love the drug addict, even if they desperately want to save them, come to the realization that it’s best to let go or the addict will destroy their life as well. God will do his best but a sin addict who wants nothing but sin and will not let God save them will find that God has left them alone, so they can live the life they choose. I would not want the life they live for anyone. But the addict is accustom to their life, addicts desire drugs and the effects and side effect are normal to them.

No one should feel that they can endure the pain of hell for any reason. Do not get me wrong here, I never said that anyone can take the pain at all. I said that pain can help one feel that justice is served….It still hurts, and I am sure that no one will ever get use to hell.

Punishment is not an act of love but rather one of wrath. Even most 'T' viewers that I know, see it as an act of righteous wrath for sinning against a holy God. Many of us were raised with this understanding. And the 'A' view folk would agree. The issue is not whether God is acting in love or wrath but rather how much wrath will there be and how long will it last. You suggest that the 'A' view indicates that it would be for the amount of time it takes to burn up our current bodies. Again, where did that idea come from ?

You seem to think the 'A' view makes hell appealing and therefore does not serve as a threat to people.

Now, concerning God’s wrath (I have been over it). God is clear that the unsaved will suffer the consequences of their sin, and so they will, God will make things even, his judgment will be fair to all involved.

I said that the warnings God gave in the bible concerning hell is a result of is love. Like a parent who warns a child, telling them not to touch fire. That is what should not be watered down. Burning in hell is a choice that the unsaved, through rejecting Jesus when they were alive on earth made.

I do not think that the Annihilationist view makes hell more appealing. I think it’s a lie that will have some believe that they can escape hell, or endure the pain.

I said:

There are those who will believe that burning until they die is something that they can handle.

That means that the annihilationist claim leaves room for a person to think that way. As you said, you have no clue when they will die. Maybe it will be 3 minutes, one day, a year, a millennium…who knows. People can think what they want using the Annihilationist view. And annihilationist abuse the Sodom and Gomorra example, saying that it is an example of what will happen in hell. But the scripture only says that Sodom and Gomorra was an example of the type of people that will burn in hell. If Sodom and Gomorra is the annihilationist example for what will happen in hell then one is free to believe that the burning will reflect the time it takes to burn a human to death as they live on earth. And what determines how long the unsaved burn? It can only be their sin. So, using the annihilationist view, the unsaved can feel that they can control how much they burn before they are annihilated.

The unsaved can think to themselves: Well, I’m not going to get saved but I’ll be good so I won’t burn to much….A night of fornication latter (crap, I’ll pay for that one). Maybe it won’t add to much time to the burning etc….It’s a dangerous belief.

Suggestion - can we quit using repetition to bolster our arguments.

I do not believe I have repeated myself very much. I repeated a few things I said in my first post on this page but only because I was away from the discussion for a bit. Mostly, any repetition I have is a result of your repetition. But it is not my intention to repeat at all, and I certainly have no intention of brain washing, just trying to help.

[Sudsy]

But I am sure that there is more than enough info to consider now.

J. Davis, how about you, will you agree to make only one more post on this thread and let all this information on the subject stand ? I asked B.W. the same.

You both have presented tons of stuff to support the 'T' view and I am willing to allow what I have offered regarding the 'A' view to stand if you guys will agree to now allow people to decide for themselves.

If you don't then you are forcing more repeated posts and at some point, I suppose, a moderator will have to close this thread or perhaps not as I am unfamiliar with thread closings on this forum.

Hey guys, I think we have presented these two views quite thoroughly, can we let it rest ?