Heaven & Hell Vs Annihilation

[CuriousBob]

B.W.,

Sorry! I still don't see what you are getting at.

Jlay,

That does not answer the question I asked. How can it be recognized as anything, let alone a gift, by a non-being, that is to say, a being that did not have any consciousness of gifts or anything until it became conscious through birth?

If I could make a self-conscious car, please tell me how it would be proper for me to say to that car, "Your consciousness or your existence is a gift" and you should express your appreciation to me for it" what do you think the most sensible response would be from that car? I wouldn't think it right to punish the car if it said, "But you made me without my consent or you didn't consult me before you decided to make me because I wasn't there for you to consult in the first place or you didn't give me to me. Rather you gave me to you." So I see no good reason why I should consider my entrance into consciousness a gift, especially when I realize that before I was born I had no worries or no chance of sinning or going to hell or suffering for eternity.

Gifts are given to the living, never to the non-living. Life is a reality, not a gift. The fact that God created a life doesn't mean the creation is a gift. Otherwise it would be sensible to say that everything that was ever created or made is a gift to everything that was ever made. The creation of the life is simply an act of bringing into existence that which had no existence. Otherwise, it makes perfect sense for me to say that everything I create is a gift to everything that I create and everything I create should show its appreciation to me for giving it its very being. This is Absurd or ridiculous!

[jlay]

Jlay,

That does not answer the question I asked.

I haven't even responded to your last post to me. I don't recall addressing "life is a gift," and I am not sure how you got off on that tangent.

The only thing that comes to mind in regards to scripture and gifts is, "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Rom 6:23
That would constitute a gift to a physically alive person, although dead in their sins.

Can you please state your specific objection in regards to how this relates to the scriptures?
To be honest I find your most recent posts very puzzling.

I thank my God that you don't resort to the tactics of stark raving mad lunatics or terrorists. But, so far, it appears as if you resort to all or most of the other erroneous tactics I just mentioned.

Statements like this make we wonder whether I should even continue this dialog. It seems you have drawn some conclusions that are erroneous, and have chosen to run with them.

[BavarianWheels]

The only thing that comes to mind in regards to scripture and gifts is, "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Rom 6:23
That would constitute a gift to a physically alive person, although dead in their sins.

That's an interesting interpretation given that my Bible reads;

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Odd that God mentions nothing about 'you will surely die' as being "dead in sins" and perpetual suffering and not really death.
.
.

[jlay]

Bavarian,

It woudl be nice if you would use sound hermenuetic.

The verse I quoted was in reference to answering Bob's question about "gift."
It is pretty evident is reading all of Romans 6 that vs 23 is not Paul's attempt to discuss eternal judgment, but is using death to make a contrast with God's gift of eternal life. Paul has already laid out quite a bit of info in the five previous chapters of Romans about wrath, judgment, and the role of the Law and grace, and that salvation is available to all who believe, not just Jews.
.
Romans 3: 21-22
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Paul even adds in verse 6:19, "I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves."

He continues,... "Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

They, we, have been set free from sin. The wages of sin is death. But every human dies. That is a statistical fact. So, could it be that Paul is not trying to imply that the end is physical death? Because ALL are going to face the physical death of this life. The saved and the unsaved. A result of sin is the reality that all will face physical death. Christ did not come to stop physical death, but to liberate us from physical and spiritual death, through His death and resurrection. It is pretty obvious that Paul is using this verse to illustrate something else, that being that the gift of God is eternal life.
Take for example what Paul says in Romans 7:6. using the same root word for dying in verb form, he says, "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

You also can't ignore Romans 2: 5-11
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

Two options, eternal life, or wrath and anger. When will this happen? On the day when his righteous judgment will be revealed. After our physical death. Now if the judgment is simply death from this physical body, then those who are saved suffer the exact same thing as the unsaved. But that is not the case. Daniel eludes to this in Daniel 12:2. "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Those who are physically dead will awake to face judgment.

So is God going to raise the unsaved dead, and then say, "Hey, I just raised you to let you know you will remain dead." Not a very scriptural conclusion.

[BavarianWheels]

I think we both understand and believe that those that choose Christ are dead to their sins...present tense. Those that have not chosen Christ or have rejected Christ altogether are dead IN their sins. However should the person that is not in Christ die, the bible is clear (as you have quoted) that they WILL rise again for judgement.

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

So is God going to raise the unsaved dead, and then say, "Hey, I just raised you to let you know you will remain dead." Not a very scriptural conclusion.

In light of Daniel 12:2...Yes. That's exactly what will happen, but not as sarcastic as you put it. I'm sure God/Christ will have slightly more tact and His wrath and anger will be upon them, it will not be without a heavy heart that He judges them.

The point of this thread and more specifically of my last post is that the "threat" of remaining in sin is not of perpetual pain and agony, but of suffering God's wrath and anger that RESULTS in death. Total and complete separation from God...just like Christ on the cross crys out, "My God, my God..." He felt God's wrath and anger and He...died the death of the sinner. If Christ did not die the death of a sinner, then He is no Savior for us.
.
.

[jlay]

Wheels,
Sounds like we are in total agreement on the sacrifice of Christ and the fact that God receives no pleasure from seeing the wicked punished.

remaining in sin is not of perpetual pain and agony, but of suffering God's wrath and anger that RESULTS in death. Total and complete separation from God...just like Christ on the cross crys out, "My God, my God..." He felt God's wrath and anger and He...died the death of the sinner.

There is little question as to whether Christ felt pain and agony. And how much more when God imputed the weight of the sin of the world upon Him.

Your explanation has little to do though with what we are discussing in Romans 6:23. And your 1st statement only plays to the point I was making. Is "death" in Romans 6:23 physical death, being dead in sin, or eternal death? Your own answer demonstrates that one can not say with certainty as you yourself bring up the idea of one being dead in sins. Kind of a moot point, because I don't think this is the drive of this specific verse, but is more inclined to contrast the good news that there is eternal life in Christ.

Everlasting contempt means that the nice grandma who dies in her sins and Hitler both simply get to go to sleep forever. That hardly sounds like contempt, wrath or anger to me. Total and complete seperation from God sounds like agony to me.

My ultimate point being that I would steer away from using this verse out of context to try and prove a doctrine of annihilation.

[BavarianWheels]

Wheels,
Sounds like we are in total agreement on the sacrifice of Christ and the fact that God receives no pleasure from seeing the wicked punished.

remaining in sin is not of perpetual pain and agony, but of suffering God's wrath and anger that RESULTS in death. Total and complete separation from God...just like Christ on the cross crys out, "My God, my God..." He felt God's wrath and anger and He...died the death of the sinner.

There is little question as to whether Christ felt pain and agony. And how much more when God imputed the weight of the sin of the world upon Him.

Your explanation has little to do though with what we are discussing in Romans 6:23. And your 1st statement only plays to the point I was making. Is "death" in Romans 6:23 physical death, being dead in sin, or eternal death? Your own answer demonstrates that one can not say with certainty as you yourself bring up the idea of one being dead in sins. Kind of a moot point, because I don't think this is the drive of this specific verse, but is more inclined to contrast the good news that there is eternal life in Christ.

Everlasting contempt means that the nice grandma who dies in her sins and Hitler both simply get to go to sleep forever. That hardly sounds like contempt, wrath or anger to me. Total and complete seperation from God sounds like agony to me.

My ultimate point being that I would steer away from using this verse out of context to try and prove a doctrine of annihilation.

Now I'm in total confusion. (I'm sure some would say this is a constant...lol)

So are you in the camp (as I am) that believes the Bible teaches there will be suffering, but the suffering of the hellfire will end as exampled by Sodom and Gomorrah? If so, why am I "arguing" with you...? If not, is it your position, then, that once a person dies in this life APART from Christ, that that person remains forever dead...never to know anything again?
.
.

[B. W.]

B.W.,...Sorry! I still don't see what you are getting at....

I'll Try agian...

Universalism: Points for Universalist to consider

There are sins that are not forgivable:

Matthew 12:31-32, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Point One: Universalists fail to grasp the nature of sin and end up assaulting and manipulating God's mercy and love which is used to suppress the truth about God so that one can continue to sin without fear of retribution. They also defy God by mixing religious diversity when the Lord says that is an abomination to him.

Romans 1:18, "…For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse..."

Point Two: They approve of those practicing sin as worthy to enter heaven

Romans 1:32, "…Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Concerning Punishment

Point Three: They have the wrong view of punishment to consist of torture;

Matthew 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" ESV

The word translated “punishment” used in the above text actually means retribution inflicted for crime. It refers to just penalty commuted to the guilty. This is in line with how the bible describes principles of God's judgment as the following verses clearly imply:

“He will render to each one according to his works…” Rom 2:6

"Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. 11 Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him." Isaiah 3:10-11,

"…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment..." 2 Peter 2:9

Point Four: It is error to equate God's type of punishment as merely torture

Revelation 14:11 makes reference to torment. The word 'torment' used here in the original refers to the following: tribulation, misery, be vexed with grievous pains of body or mind, to be harassed, brought to ruin, distressed. The word picture this word paints of torment is like - one struggling with a head wind who cannot arrive at some type of destination that remains just out of grasp and the anguish about not being able to reach it due to one's own sins.

In fact Jesus makes clear this very principle in Luke 16:24 about the rich man's torment which in verse 25 reminds him of his past deeds/attitudes which is being uncovered. This also lines up with the principle found in Job 26:5-6 about sin 'having no covering.' This uncovering caused the condemned great anguish by realizing that he can never reach the far shore. Luke 16:26 also makes it clear that there is no post mortem salvation possible as well. God will render to each one according to his deeds.

Torment also involves sorrow, weeping, and wailing (Rev 9:5, Rev 18:7, 10, 15) as payback for corrupting attitudes. Reaping what one has sown. This is the torment the bible uses to describe what happens in a place called hell for eternity by illustrated use of fire. Fire symbolizes the state of living in eternal ruination. It is just retributive punishment - not mere torture. One reaps what they sow. It is a place described like where a worm feeds off of one's corruption as well.

Set this under the principle of God rending to a person according to his/her deeds then there are degrees of retribution to God's judgment — some will have it worse than others but all are being uncovered by having their sin nature fully exposed, brought forth, and manifested for what they really are and really produced - ruin and decay in all they did and influenced. 'Their worm does not die and fire is not quenched' is how Jesus put it (Mark 9:43). Not to warn of this would be a greater injustice.

The idea to equate just retributive punishment with torture is based on human sentimentality and human pride that dictates that human beings are not all that bad and are so non-deserving of eternal punishment for finite sins. This is like having criminals in Maximum Security Prison dictate what their sentences should be due to the loving goodness inherent in humanity that cannot stand any form of harsh sentencing at all.

Point Five: Two varied Universalist Camp with same ends

Basically, there are two schools Universalist thought. One group adheres to the idea that all will be blindly accepted into heaven. Another group believes the majority of people will be purified, post mortem, to enter heaven. There are variations of these thoughts but they all believe everyone enters heaven through universal acceptance.

Again Universalists have a naive concept of sin. It only takes a split second to kill someone as well as be hostile towards another with an opposing view. Yet, if left uncheck and not contained, such acts would continue on and on. God is just. He does not extinguish life into non-being and instead designed a place to contain those enslaved to sin forever.

If God annihilates into non-being, this act alone would prove God is partial to one group by exterminating them into oblivion and another group not. In similar vein, if God allows all into heaven, he again demonstrate partiality to everyone because sin is not such a serious matter after all. For the Universalist, certainly sin is not serious enough for Christ to come and die in humanities stead since all were predestined to enter heaven anyways.

What demands of justice could be served if; One, God is way too loving to inflict wrath. Two, there is post mortem salvation by either painful cleansing or simple loving blind acceptance. After all, a blind acceptance of all would in essence nullify the need for the cross no matter what a Universalist says about the need for the cross. Thirdly, what need would there for Christ to come if all religions are paths to God?

In other words, God would be demonstrating partiality to sin in a person as sin would not matter at all. The sinner would be able to enter heaven due to remaining a sinner because God is way to lovingly merciful to inflict wrath (Rom 3:5-6). Thus God shows partiality to the sinner as one can keep on sinning because grace abounds because all roads lead to god…

Some Universalist claim that God has a manner of post mortem salvation in which he purges sin out of certain people in the lake of fire. Such Universalists teach that Christ's work on the cross is simply the means to avoid this cleansing painful torturous fire through which a person emerges purified loving God. Wait a minute; I thought they stated that God is way to loving merciful to inflict painful torture at all — contradiction, hmmm?

God is just in that he will not rape or torture you until you love God but instead honors the life he gave along with its reasoning and intelligence. He knows that a person who rejects his plan and terms during mortal life would likewise do so in the afterlife. Yes, God is that fair to give a person according to their ways. He sent Christ to humanity as his act of love to save those that believe in him. The rest love darkness more than the light. How can God be unjust granting them according to their deeds?

So in keeping with the standards of absolute justice and righteousness governed by Love that shows no partiality, God would fashion a place to eternally contain the rebellious forever because no post mortem salvation could be possible due to sin's corrupting influences in a person proven beyond all reasonable as unrepentant toward God in mortal life. What's to stop them from abusing God's goodness and character in the afterlife since in eternity there are no limits to life? Truly, "…the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” 2 Peter 2:22

If God did not make such a place of containment this would prove God is indeed partial to sin. Also, to obliterate life into a non-being state demonstrates another from of partiality as well as makes God a respecter of persons. God is not partial. His ways are beyond our own. The Lord is no respecter of persons. He proves himself true to himself in all that he does. To deny life continuance for any would be unjust for a just God. Therefore, a place of containment was made eternal (Matt 25:41).

With this, Universalist as well as Annihilationist find appalling. Yet, would God's love extinguish into non-being one group and not another proving God indeed partial? Would God's love let everyone in heaven after torturing many with temporary punishment in the afterlife till they love God and are reformed of the error of their ways? Would this not prove his love coercive as well as defying the concept of love as just and honoring the persons true ability to reason? How could love let into heaven those who reject God and his terms proven beyond all reasonable doubt endanger God's kingdom again? What is justice without consequences?

The only way around this is to make mortal beings so that they have a chance to surrender to God, or not do so, before eternity seals the deal. Because in eternity what's to stop sin in the unredeemed from formulating again since justice has lost all meaning of any form of consequence? This proves God Fair and Just as he offers to all but not all will accept his offer. In fairness, if a person rejects God, God rejects them.

God protects those that, in mortal life accepted his terms and conditions to be changed and were sealed by His Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ. Love protects those loved justly by keeping those corrupted away banned forever where they can do no harm (Rev 21:8, 27, and Rev 22:15). God's love renders to each his/her due justly, righteously, correctly. There is no injustice with God as he protects those who belong to him and renders to others the fruit of their deeds.

Final Statement

Next thing about Universalist is how they flock to web site forums as this one and flood it with their rhetoric. Much of it filled with hate towards Orthodox Christian doctrine. They ridicule by using a form Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' to push their doctrines. If any of you are here and that is your intent on this forum, be forewarned that we are on to such techniques.

Universalist need to reconcile what the bible says about humanity and sin and God's wrath and punishment with their varied doctrines. To make such reconciliation will ultimately result a rejection of the word of God (the Bible) as well as negate Christ sacrifice and resurrection all in exchange for the feel good doctrines of men telling all, there is nothing to fear.

Matthew 12:31-32, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Last comment

To such that view that life is not a gift from God need to experience a serious reduction in their personal health. Life is indeed a gift from God - all life is a gift as Genesis 1 and 2 shows. Remember God will render to each accord to their deeds. If life is not a gift to you take heed what you have done with it and spend it on.

All Scripture not cited from the ESV
-
-
-
B. W. Melvin
Author: A Land Unknown Hell's Dominion
Note there are my own copyright quotes in this discourse from my book

[CuriousBob]

Jlay,

I don't recall addressing "life is a gift," and I am not sure how you got off on that tangent.

I was sure you mentioned it in one of your most recent posts. But I glanced through your previous posts and can't find it. And since it appears you have no recollection of it or because you are not disagreeing with my thoughts on it, I will leave it alone and apologize for bringing it up in the first place.

To be honest I find your most recent posts very puzzling.

I am very sorry. But I guess I am becoming overwhelmed by the many things that you are saying. I think it has everything to do with the fact that I feel pressed for time and don't feel that I have enough time to quote, respond, quote, respond, etc. I will try harder though, just so I don't confuse you.

Statements like this make we wonder whether I should even continue this dialog.

Sorry again, Jlay. It is definitely not my intention to pull an ad hominem on you. All I was really saying is that, at least, to this point, your responses to my most pressing concerns or questions about God and eternal agony are reflecting the sort of reasoning that I always associate with wishful thinkers, emotionally disturbed children, con-artists, ventriloquists, deceivers, and similar people.

I am hoping to God that this impression is wrong, because I want so badly for cruel people to get a taste of their own medicine, though not necessarily an everlasting taste. But I certainly don't want there to be everlasting agony for anyone who has never done anything to deserve everlasting agony.

What I mean is, if anyone deserves everlasting agony it is those of us who have practiced causing the innocent to agonize in pain. In other words, I would love to see the CRUEL ones only (i.e., the cruel fascists, the cruel Marxists, the cruel communists, the cruel Muslims, the cruel Catholics, the cruel Hindus and the cruel others) go to hell or get a taste of their own medicine, but not necessarily for eternity; I would like to see every innocent (harmless) individual either get annihilated or go to heaven, according to what he or she chooses or according to what God (who has said things like, "it would have been better if he had never been born...") chooses apart from everlasting torment. That, to me, is just and fair or equitable, more so than what the Bible proposes. I can't help it if that is what justice, fairness, or equity means to me. I can't help it if God as He is revealed in the Bible doesn't agree with me.

Maybe I don't see it as God does. Maybe His ways are higher than mine. But maybe Satan's ways are also higher than mine, if what he says in the Quran is true. So, is the "God's ways are higher than mine" argument really valid, in light of the fact that any influential man, woman, or party can use it as a tool of persuasion?

Who am I to say what's true about God and what's not?

Maybe men are cruel because they were made in God's image.

Maybe God is both loving and cruel because that is his nature or because his just nature dictates that He be so.

What do I know?

[jlay]

What I mean is, if anyone deserves everlasting agony it is those of us who have practiced causing the innocent to agonize in pain. In other words, I would love to see the CRUEL ones only (i.e., the cruel fascists, the cruel Marxists, the cruel communists, the cruel Muslims, the cruel Catholics, the cruel Hindus and the cruel others) go to hell or get a taste of their own medicine, but not necessarily for eternity; I would like to see every innocent (harmless) individual either get annihilated or go to heaven, according to what he or she chooses or according to what God (who has said things like, "it would have been better if he had never been born...") chooses apart from everlasting torment. That, to me, is just and fair or equitable, more so than what the Bible proposes. I can't help it if that is what justice, fairness, or equity means to me. I can't help it if God as He is revealed in the Bible doesn't agree with me.

Ah hah. Bingo. I am so glad you brought this up. I had actually almost addresses this earlier, and it might have seemed out of place. But, here it is, your words in black and white. I thank God for staying my response.
Be careful, because with the measure you judge, it will be measured unto you. See, it is easy to look at the sin of others and say, "evil." But so often we want to look at the "average" life, and think it is good. But Jesus said, no one is good but God.

Imagine if you will, the most heinous crime you have ever heard of. There certainly have been a lot in the headlines. It is very easy for us to look on these acts of depravity, and say that hell would be just deserts for the likes of Hitler, Hussein, and people who kidnap, rape and murder children. Our own sin certainly doesn't look as gruesome in light of these atrocities. But what about in the eyes of a perfect, and holy God? Could it be that our lies are heinous in his eyes? Could it be that our idle thoughts are like acts of utter depravity to Him? If we only consider the Bible as our guide, we must say yes. We must, must, must consider who HE is. Look at Isaiah 6 and see a prophet's reaction to the holy presence of the Lord. Yet, somehow we still want to justify our crimes against God as just small blips on the radar.

You have no problem judging others worthy of hell simply because their sins offend your sense of right. How much higher must God's be? And how much more disgusting we must be when we try to rationalize and justify ourselves. It is not by comparing ourselves to others that we gain a right understanding of our sin nature. But when we measure ourselves in the light of His greatness, Holiness, and majesty. In that light even our attempts to do good are nothing more than filthy rags.
You are ready to codemn those who offend you, and in the same breath judge God unfit for doing the same.

[BavarianWheels]

You have no problem judging others worthy of hell simply because their sins offend your sense of right. How much higher must God's be? And how much more disgusting we must be when we try to rationalize and justify ourselves. It is not by comparing ourselves to others that we gain a right understanding of our sin nature. But when we measure ourselves in the light of His greatness, Holiness, and majesty. In that light even our attempts to do good are nothing more than filthy rags.
You are ready to codemn those who offend you, and in the same breath judge God unfit for doing the same.

I would say humanly it's easier to do this because we have zero affinity toward other humans unless they be family and/or friends. However God, while I agree His vision of our sins must be ugly to say the least, has an affinity towards humanity since He knows each and every one of us. He created us and came/sent to save each one of us and call us His sons and daughters...but some go astray and cannot be brought back into the fold without Justice. Justice being, death for sin.
.
.

[zoegirl]

What I mean is, if anyone deserves everlasting agony it is those of us who have practiced causing the innocent to agonize in pain. In other words, I would love to see the CRUEL ones only (i.e., the cruel fascists, the cruel Marxists, the cruel communists, the cruel Muslims, the cruel Catholics, the cruel Hindus and the cruel others) go to hell or get a taste of their own medicine, but not necessarily for eternity; I would like to see every innocent (harmless) individual either get annihilated or go to heaven, according to what he or she chooses or according to what God (who has said things like, "it would have been better if he had never been born...") chooses apart from everlasting torment. That, to me, is just and fair or equitable, more so than what the Bible proposes. I can't help it if that is what justice, fairness, or equity means to me. I can't help it if God as He is revealed in the Bible doesn't agree with me.

Ah hah. Bingo. I am so glad you brought this up. I had actually almost addresses this earlier, and it might have seen out of place. But, here it is, your words in black and white. I thank God for staying my response.
Be careful, because with the measure you judge, it will be measured unto you. See, it is easy to look at the sin of others and say, "evil." But so often we want to look at the "average" life, and think it is good.

Imagine if you will, the most heinous crime you have ever heard of. There certainly have been a lot in the headlines. It is very easy for us to look on this acts of depravity, and say that hell would be just deserts for the likes of Hitler, Hussein, and people who kidnap, rape and murder children. Our own sin certainly doesn't look as gruesome in light of these atrocities. But what about in the eyes of a perfect, and holy God? Could it be that our lies are heinous in his eyes. Could it be that our idle thoughts are like acts of utter depravity to Him? If we only consider the Bible as our guide, I would say yes. We must, must, must consider who HE is. Look at Isaiah 6 and see a prophet's reaction to the holy presence of the Lord. Yet, somehow we still want to justify our crimes against God as just small blips on the radar.

You have no problem judging others worthy of hell simply because their sins offend your sense of right. How much higher must God's be? And how much more disgusting we must be when we try to rationalize and justify ourselves. It is not by comparing ourselves to others that we gain a right understanding of our sin nature. But when we measure ourselves in the light of His greatness, Holiness, and majesty. In that light even our attempts to do good are nothing more than filthy rags.
You are ready to codemn those who offend you, and in the same breath judge God unfit for doing the same.

well said jlay

[B. W.]

What I mean is, if anyone deserves everlasting agony it is those of us who have practiced causing the innocent to agonize in pain. In other words, I would love to see the CRUEL ones only (i.e., the cruel fascists, the cruel Marxists, the cruel communists, the cruel Muslims, the cruel Catholics, the cruel Hindus and the cruel others) go to hell or get a taste of their own medicine, but not necessarily for eternity; I would like to see every innocent (harmless) individual either get annihilated or go to heaven, according to what he or she chooses or according to what God (who has said things like, "it would have been better if he had never been born...") chooses apart from everlasting torment. That, to me, is just and fair or equitable, more so than what the Bible proposes. I can't help it if that is what justice, fairness, or equity means to me. I can't help it if God as He is revealed in the Bible doesn't agree with me.

Ah hah. Bingo. I am so glad you brought this up. I had actually almost addresses this earlier, and it might have seen out of place. But, here it is, your words in black and white. I thank God for staying my response.
Be careful, because with the measure you judge, it will be measured unto you. See, it is easy to look at the sin of others and say, "evil." But so often we want to look at the "average" life, and think it is good.

Imagine if you will, the most heinous crime you have ever heard of. There certainly have been a lot in the headlines. It is very easy for us to look on this acts of depravity, and say that hell would be just deserts for the likes of Hitler, Hussein, and people who kidnap, rape and murder children. Our own sin certainly doesn't look as gruesome in light of these atrocities. But what about in the eyes of a perfect, and holy God? Could it be that our lies are heinous in his eyes. Could it be that our idle thoughts are like acts of utter depravity to Him? If we only consider the Bible as our guide, I would say yes. We must, must, must consider who HE is. Look at Isaiah 6 and see a prophet's reaction to the holy presence of the Lord. Yet, somehow we still want to justify our crimes against God as just small blips on the radar.

You have no problem judging others worthy of hell simply because their sins offend your sense of right. How much higher must God's be? And how much more disgusting we must be when we try to rationalize and justify ourselves. It is not by comparing ourselves to others that we gain a right understanding of our sin nature. But when we measure ourselves in the light of His greatness, Holiness, and majesty. In that light even our attempts to do good are nothing more than filthy rags.
You are ready to codemn those who offend you, and in the same breath judge God unfit for doing the same.

well said jlay

I would add to jlay's response the following:

Sin corrupts all that it touches. Little sins eventually blossom into big sins. Our sins are against God. If we lie to others, we will lie to God. We desire to steal the spot light, we'll do so with God. We covet others possessions, we'll do so with God's. Think of how many chiseled pot holes there would be in heavens streets of gold if covetousness was allowed to remain within?

Sin manipulates and exploits the goodness and mercy of God. It abuses others and so it will abuse God. Romans 3:10-12 states: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." none — no not one.”

All sin blossoms into greater sin if unchecked. Hate in the heart is the same as the act of premeditated murder. Humanity seeks to exalt itself over the knowledge of God as supreme. Sin is a stench in God's nostrils as he knows it reeks of corruption leading only to ruin. He will be rid of it in his own just time.

To think of one sin less or greater than another is nothing more that the self righteous effort of man to get himself off the hook and avoids seeing where such attitude actually leads. To do so with others would also proves one would do so with God.

What would heaven become if he let all of humanity in?

You need to believe in Christ, become born from above, sealed by the Holy Spirit, becoming transformed into a new creation, learning to follow Christ, and not follow your ideas. You are like we all were at one time: manipulating God's goodness for one's own gain. That is the sin that makes all life all ugly and mean.
-
-
-

[CuriousBob]

Jlay, Zoegirl, and B.W.,What you have pointed out is all fine and dandy and I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided that men possessed essential immortality (that is, the same kind of immortality that God alone possesses) and especially provided that general anesthesia against the consciousness of pain were impossible for men to administer unto one another.

But I do have a problem with it and a most serious intellectual (logical, sound, rational, or sane) one at that, primarily because man does not possess essential immortality and primarily because general anesthesia is possible for men and infinitely more possible for God to administer unto men.

And the following words may or may not make that problem clearer to you than it already is:

"I would have to become likened unto "a house divided against itself" if I were to maintain that God, who created mortal man, loves all of mankind while at the same time he acts like a typical unloving, careless, selfish, cruel, calloused, or cold-hearted man when He clearly demonstrates in His own words a total and calloused unwillingness to eternally anesthetize the mortal men that go against His will, despite the fact that He created mankind to do as he pleased (even if what he pleased was not something that God would have done if He were in man's shoes, so-to-speak) and despite the fact that man never did possess essential immortality."

Essentially, that is what I started the topic with, keep coming back to, or emphasizing. But you keep missing it altogether.

What more can I do to help you to understand my problem?

I thought I was being clear. But, apparently I am not. So, naturally, I am frustrated and at a loss as to how to get you to see my problem.

[jlay]

Bob,

But I do have a problem with it and a most serious intellectual (logical, sound, rational, or sane) one at that, primarily because man does not possess essential immortality and primarily because general anesthesia is possible for men and infinitely more possible for God to administer unto men.

I'm sorry Bob, but I just don't understand how that is a conclusion that makes any sense. There are plenty of things God could do, yet does not do. I guess if your objection made more sense too me, I could better address it. And I don't say that to be condescending, just candid. I hardly think God is cruel simply because He doesn't prescribe to your preferences.



There is one humongous stumbling block in your line of thinking.

It is the person of Jesus. He walked in our shoes. He faced the same pains, frustrations, and temptations that we endure in this flesh suit, and yet He was without blemish. He refused His anesthesia when the gall wine was offered.