Separation or Annihilation?

[Starhunter]

On topic, in my view Scripture is clear that the torment is eternal--that is, that we are not annihilated. To compare it to a modern argument, I think there is a very good reason for that: annihilationists are making the same assumptions as pro-choice folk on the nature of life. Put differently, the same arguments that drive me to be pro-life are the same arguments that convince me that annihilationism is fundamentally immoral. To put it one final way, I do not see how one can be pro-life while also being an annihilationist.

If you and I turned up at the burns recovery unit for children and adults, and we both preached our gospel, who would they say is the devil?

(Provided I spoke first, otherwise by the time I did they'd all be atheists).

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
On topic, in my view Scripture is clear that the torment is eternal--that is, that we are not annihilated. To compare it to a modern argument, I think there is a very good reason for that: annihilationists are making the same assumptions as pro-choice folk on the nature of life. Put differently, the same arguments that drive me to be pro-life are the same arguments that convince me that annihilationism is fundamentally immoral. To put it one final way, I do not see how one can be pro-life while also being an annihilationist.

Jac,

Yo no comprendo. Could you explain this please?

[Lonewolf]

If you and I turned up at the burns recovery unit for children and adults, and we both preached our gospel, who would they say is the devil?

(Provided I spoke first, otherwise by the time I did they'd all be atheists).

that's crazy funny., it has me rolling., burn recovery unit., wow., i'm still laughing at that one., lol lol lol

[Jac3510]

Jac wrote:
On topic, in my view Scripture is clear that the torment is eternal--that is, that we are not annihilated. To compare it to a modern argument, I think there is a very good reason for that: annihilationists are making the same assumptions as pro-choice folk on the nature of life. Put differently, the same arguments that drive me to be pro-life are the same arguments that convince me that annihilationism is fundamentally immoral. To put it one final way, I do not see how one can be pro-life while also being an annihilationist.

Jac,

Yo no comprendo. Could you explain this please?

J.P. Moreland can:

• Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out that flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.
  
  The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41, 46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent *(for example, is it dark despite being filled with flames).
  
  The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.
  
  Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.
  
  The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the traditional view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to anihilationism.

Taken from The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 1292

This, by the way, addresses ST's concern earlier about a loving God eternally punishing someone.

[Starhunter]

...

that's crazy funny., it has me rolling., burn recovery unit., wow., i'm still laughing at that one., lol lol lol

I wasn't trying to be funny, good for you anyway, I was just trying to remind people of how burns cause intense and unbearable pain. The doctrine of eternal torment, imprisonment, burning suffering of any kind, comes from spiritualism, and not the Holy Spirit. It is one of the most successful lies put out by the Devil.

One has to be real with these issues, suffering is the result of sin, and God intends to remove it all.

The Holy Spirit expects us to connect with the feelings of humanity, to have common sense when we read the Bible.

Cult leaders count on the lack of common sense. Spiritualism does the same.

The Q I want answered is, what is in it for God to supply an endless source of life of intense suffering?

It's creepy.

Have you ever heard God mourn over the demise of Lucifer? "how art thou fallen O Lucifer..." If you know God He is crying.

If you're a spiritualist, god is grinning from ear to ear. Who then is worshiped here? God or Satan?

Genesis 3:4 "and the serpent (Devil) said...you shall not surely die."

[neo-x]

No one is burning in hell. they are in sorrow and anguish and despair and probably for eternity...but no one is burning. that just doesn't make any sense.

[Starhunter]

I am sure that there will be burning like an oven and mental anguish in exact proportion to what was put onto the innocent, but then when it's done it's done, not a moment longer than perfect justice. The wicked burn "forever," there is no reprieve until they are gone. That's not a contradiction. "Where their worm dies not and the flame is not quenched."

Whenever God has wiped out whole populations like in the flood and Sodom, it was sudden, unexpected and final.
The lake of fire is also very sudden, unexpected, and final, the old earth and its heaven are totally consumed. Rev 21:1.
A real resurrection of the dead, a real judgement, a real earth, and a real fire. And a real new earth and heaven. No ghosts here.

God hates sin, suffering and death with a vengeance, and will not abate on this, but His love for sinners is also unstoppable.

When Jesus wept in agony over Jerusalem, over the fact that the majority of sinners will not come to Him for healing, He was sharing the innermost heart of God on the whole matter of sin.

There is nothing wrong with creating beings with love and freedom, and all believers confirm God's wishes for a functional, happy and sinless universe. A place with no dark corners or places of endless suffering.

[B. W.]

BW,

Your thoughts on "no more death" you have applied only to those that are saved.

Which means that the wicked have life.

The trouble is anyone not found written in the book of life is destroyed.

What your idea means is that the Devil, his angels and the wicked are in the book of life.

Anyone written in that book lives forever, anyone not written in it - does not live forever.

But you are saying, "anyone not written in the book of life still lives, not just one day but forever."

Again, please use the Biblical Greek and Hebrew word dictionaries available these day and you'll discover that destroy / destruction is associated with bringing into ruin, corruption.

Suggest you re-read my post again and do a bit of research and explore what Jac mentioned to you as well. Please take your time and do not rush into this.
-
-
-

[Starhunter]

You and Jac have reduced the flames to symbols, are you even spiritualizing these old doctrines away?

This mildew based doctrine comes from the Catholic graveyard called "Limbo." It requires no deep thought or study at all.

It's about as shallow as the philosophical arguments for extended existence. The creepy doctrine that god will not extinguish life that he has created, but prefers to torment them forever - on some level, whether self induced or not.

Ephesians 4:18,19, "who being past feeling..." They have no feelings left for others or God.
Romans 1:31 "without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgement of God" promote and consent with those who have pleasure in dealing out false judgement.

[B. W.]

You and Jac have reduced the flames to symbols, are you even spiritualizing these old doctrines away?

This mildew based doctrine comes from the Catholic graveyard called "Limbo." It requires no deep thought or study at all.

It's about as shallow as the philosophical arguments for extended existence. The creepy doctrine that god will not extinguish life that he has created, but prefers to torment them forever - on some level, whether self induced or not.

Ephesians 4:18,19, "who being past feeling..." They have no feelings left for others or God.
Romans 1:31 "without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgement of God" promote and consent with those who have pleasure in dealing out false judgement.

Starhunter question for you:

John the Baptist said this about Jesus, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Mat 3:11 NKJV

Is this fire a symbol or not?

In Jeremiah 5:14 the Lord speaking to Jeremiah said this, "Therefore thus says the LORD God of hosts: "Because you speak this word, Behold, I will make My words in your mouth fire, And this people wood, And it shall devour them." NKJV

Is this fire a symbol or not?

Jer 23:29 "Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD..."

Act 2:3,4, "Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." NKJV

What does the fire represent?

Now notice Rev 20:13, 14 and Job 34:11

...and add to these - these verse: Psalms 62:12, Proverbs 1:31, Proverbs 24:12, Jer 32:19, Ezekiel 33:17-20, Mat 16:27, Rom 2:6, 2Co 5:10, Gal 6:7-8, and 1 Peter 1:17 all reveal what principle about God and does not God keep his word?

Notice Rev 20:10 uses fire and brimstone and each has symbolic and literal forms. Fire - God keeping his word (reap what they sow) and brimstone (fury) - his wrath unleashed as well as literal fire and brimstone too. The actual substance and reality of the fire and brimstone of the Lake of Fire is of something we really don't know what it is. In the text these words are used as a metaphors. Both the literal and symbolic usages of these words should be used as metaphors since the metaphor of both explain what is going on, why, and what its nature is as well as lasting without end. A terrible place Jesus described in the similitude of Gehenna in Matthew 5:29,30 which therefore indicates something liken to garbage pit, where some parts smolder, while other place, it does not. Please read the quote below form the Jewish New Testament Commentary and see what I mean.

Gey-Hinnom, brought over into Greek and English as "Gehenna" and usually translated "hell." Literally, "valley of Hinnom" (a personal name); located both then and now just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Rubbish fires were always burning there; hence its use as a metaphor for hell, with its burning fire of punishment for the unrighteous, as taught in the Hebrew Bible at Isa 66:24. Elsewhere in the Tanakh Deut 32:22 talks about a burning hell; 2Sa 22:6, Psalms 18:5 and Psalms 116:3 show that hell is a sorrowful place; Psalms 9:17 says that the wicked go to hell; and Job 26:6 shows that hell is a place of destruction. The Hebrew word in all these verses is "sh'ol"; it usually corresponds to Greek "adês" ("Hades"). Thus hell is not a New Testament chiddush (novelty). When liberals assert that Judaism teaches there is no hell, they are introducing a later doctrine of their own not based on the Tanakh.

Since the idea of eternal punishment is at the very least offputting, some seek to soften it by proposing that the final judgment is total annihilation, in which nothing is experienced, either good or bad. Nevertheless, what the Bible teaches about both sh'ol (adês) and Gey-Hinnom is that there is a state of eternal sorrowful existence to be consciously experienced by those who come under God's ultimate condemnation (see the above passages and Rev 20:15). Changing the Biblical concept of hell to non-existence is, unfortunately, wishful-thinking theology.

Matthew 5:22 Commentary
Jewish New Testament Commentary

Starhunter, hope this helps you understand things a bit more. The current hell and the one to come are terrible places so reach out and bring more folks into the God's Kingdom by the Gospel message...where you have been assigned in life... to whomever he sends you too...and them to you...
-
-
-

[Starhunter]

Fire is used symbolically and literally all throughout the Bible.

What you are essentially saying is that some people have decided what is literal and what is symbolic, and now nobody can prove otherwise.

Are they right, 'because the scriptures prove their view?'

The other texts you showed about getting the rewards of iniquity, are supposed to do away with the lake of fire?
Which is symbolic anyway, - by the above reckoning.

I read that "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6:3. what other wages could there be?

[Lonewolf]

Since fire is symbolically used throughout scripture, could not the descriptions of hell be so, as well?

[Starhunter]

Since fire is symbolically used throughout scripture, could not the descriptions of hell be so, as well?

Of course, as the fire on Sodom. Where does it begin and end?

[B. W.]

Based upon the evidence from Jesus' own words (Mat 5:29-30) and descriptions of the future Lake of Fire and what the Lord mentions in Isaiah and the Old Testament (OT) one should take it to mean as both a metaphor as well as literal depiction of how the ancient Israelite's understood the place called Gehenna, through its its history, and its use as a waste dump too - a foul place of fire, cold, smoldering embers, and utter desolation for what is rejected. With that, one can gain a glimpse of understanding of the Future Lake of Fire. The words fire and brimstone serve both as both metaphors and literal too.

Hope this helps...
-
-
-

[Starhunter]

Yes, there's a degree of overlap between the literal and spiritual as well, or as you said metaphor.