Annihilationism?

[Eddi]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Of God simply annihilating those he doesn't approve of, as opposed to sending them to Hell?

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I think it is more in keeping with the notion of a compassionate and merciful God

And (coming at it from a Christian perspective which I know others here won't share) there is a biblical basis for it:

Annihilationism - Wikipedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What I think? Heresy. The end.

 

[sun rise]

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I don't believe in either. Souls learn the consequences of their actions fully and then move on.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Of God simply annihilating those he doesn't approve of, as opposed to sending them to Hell?

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I think it is more in keeping with the notion of a compassionate and merciful God

And (coming at it from a Christian perspective which I know others here won't share) there is a biblical basis for it:

Annihilationism - Wikipedia

This is a question i have no answer to I cant know for sure what God will do or not, only God know that

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Most annihilation-ist Christian groups hold that death is final unless you are resurrected. They are the annihilation-ists in the article. They equate death with a permanent sleep except for those resurrected. Groups that believe in physical resurrection but annihilation do not believe in eternal torment.

Groups that believe in a spirit body sometimes also believe in physical resurrection, sometimes not. They are not annihilationist, and they include many mainstream Christian groups, man Catholics, Muslims and others. For Catholics there is an official position and a personal position, and the same goes for many mainstream congregations.

I'm a full annihilationist and the only Christian one for a thousand miles, perhaps the only one ever. I'm 'Full' because I don't think its about coming back from the dead and view repentance as the resurrection.

 

[Deeje]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Of God simply annihilating those he doesn't approve of, as opposed to sending them to Hell?

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I think it is more in keeping with the notion of a compassionate and merciful God

And (coming at it from a Christian perspective which I know others here won't share) there is a biblical basis for it:

Annihilationism - Wikipedia

There is no hell of eternal suffering in the Bible for many reasons, one of which is that the Creator is not a fiend who enjoys seeing the wicked suffer. He has no reason to torture anyone, especially because the concept of an eternal hell of torment goes against his stated standards of justice. The punishment for any crime was always equal to its severity.....and the highest penalty paid under the Law given to Israel was death. There were no prisons because they were not needed. Any who defrauded or stole were to compensate their victims and those who committed capital crimes never became repeat offenders.

Hell was invented to generate fear and to facilitate control over the masses that they could convince of its existence.
"Hell" in the Bible is nothing but the common grave where we all go. Whether we wake up again, is up to God.

I think I like God's justice better than man's.

 

[epronovost]

I think I like God's justice better than man's.

Weird, the laws in the OT are no different than those of the much older Hammurabi Code. It's stickingly similar to other codes of law in the region and of the era. Your deity's law seems to be largely a copypaste of older man's law. I wonder why?

 

[Thief]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Of God simply annihilating those he doesn't approve of, as opposed to sending them to Hell?

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I think it is more in keeping with the notion of a compassionate and merciful God

And (coming at it from a Christian perspective which I know others here won't share) there is a biblical basis for it:

Annihilationism - Wikipedia

If you spare the rod.......

 

[Deeje]

Weird, the laws in the OT are no different than those of the much older Hammurabi Code. It's stickingly similar to other codes of law in the region and of the era. Your deity's law seems to be largely a copypaste of older man's law. I wonder why?

You seem to be under the impression that the law given to Israel was made by a God who previously did not exit....

If God is the Creator then he has been around for way longer than any man or any nation. He has guided and directed his worshipper down through good times and dark times, but his basic laws and principles have always guided them. Noah was the one who, after the flood took mankind back to pure worship, but humans being humans, they never stayed obedient for long, making their own rules and forming their own gods in their own image. Some things stuck however....

There is really" nothing new under the sun", as Solomon said.

 

[epronovost]

You seem to be under the impression that the law given to Israel was made by a God who previously did not exit....

If God is the Creator then he has been around for way longer than any man or any nation. He has guided and directed his worshipper down through good times and dark times, but his basic laws and principles have always guided them. Noah was the one who, after the flood took mankind back to pure worship, but humans being humans, they never stayed obedient for long, making their own rules and forming their own gods in their own image. Some things stuck however....

There is really" nothing new under the sun", as Solomon said.

You are aware that the reat flood and the story of Noah is pure myth do you? You seem to be under the impression that mytholoy is real. Also the civilisations of Antiquity were not the followers of the specific mythology you seem to ascribe to and often predate it severely.

 

[Deeje]

You are aware that the reat flood and the story of Noah is pure myth do you? You seem to be under the impression that mytholoy is real. Also the civilisations of Antiquity were not the followers of the specific mythology you seem to ascribe to and often predate it severely.

I believe that the flood was real because I have no reason to doubt that it happened. Do you require proof for everything and yet accept that science has no proof for evolution.....they cannot prove with any substantive evidence that it ever happened....yet you "believe"......why? Do you not understand the level of "belief" required to swallow science's version of events? It is equal to religious belief.

The ancestors of man all had the same origins....doesn't science even believe that? I understand the difference between myths and truth because I have a good understanding about my God and his power over the elements. Do you even know him? I am sure you have heard about him, but I am assuming that you have never had any close or personal encounters with him. There is a reason for that....

 

[Aupmanyav]

In science, there is no annihilation, only a change in form. Human body going to dust or up in smoke in a cremation is not annihilation. It is chemical recycling.

 

[epronovost]

I believe that the flood was real because I have no reason to doubt that it happened.

Then you are either the victim of a terrible human right abuse or very, very willfully ignorant.

Do you require proof for everything and yet accept that science has no proof for evolution.....they cannot prove with any substantive evidence that it ever happened....yet you "believe"......why?

Because of course this statement is completely false. Evolution has an enormous body of proof up to even real time observation in laboratory setting of it occuring. I'm not sure your incredible ingnorance of even the most elementary notions in history, anthropology, geography, biology, taxonomy, linguistic and archeology allows you to make such pronouncements anyway. At that rate, you miht as well start to diagnose sick people and council treatments.

Do you not understand the level of "belief" required to swallow science's version of events? It is equal to religious belief.

This is of course absolutely ridiculous.

The ancestors of man all had the same origins....doesn't science even believe that?

It doesn't just believe that. Science can actually present evidence of it so solid that nobody can reasonnably argue against it.

 

[Deeje]

Then you are either the victim of a terrible human right abuse or very, very willfully ignorant.

If science is your religion then you have as much of a belief system as I do. You have your gods, your beliefs and your scripture, and your temples of higher learning...how are you so different? Are you yourself being willfully ignorant?

Because of course this statement is completely false. Evolution has an enormous body of proof up to even real time observation in laboratory setting of it occuring. I'm not sure your incredible ingnorance of even the most elementary notions in history, anthropology, geography, biology, taxonomy, linguistic and archeology allows you to make such pronouncements anyway. At that rate, you miht as well start to diagnose sick people and council treatments.

Yes, science has "evidence" but not proof. You do understand why science has no proof for evolution, don't you? Their evidence requires interpretation and since most scientists are atheists or at best agnostics, they tend to interpret evidence in a very biased way....or else they lose credibility in academic circles. They all have to prop up the evolutionary theory....but it is with matchsticks, not concrete.
People do that with the Bible too.....again "nothing new under the sun". Choose your belief.

This is of course absolutely ridiculous.

Well, let me put it this way....if I see the words "might have"...or "could have".....or "leads us to the conclusion that".....used in science's explanations for how they arrive at their conclusions...then I see faith and belief demonstrated because none of those expressions are statements of fact...they are statements of belief. Science's explanations are full of such expressions.

It doesn't just believe that. Science can actually present evidence of it so solid that nobody can reasonnably argue against it.

Again, do you have "evidence" that "nobody can reasonably argue against"?....meaning that those who are indoctrinated by science's beliefs (usually from their basic school education) will accept their musings as fact, and feel confident that everything in this world is the product of a series of very fortunate flukes with no real evidence for any of it? Religion has no dibs on indoctrination....

You can then be led to believe that an amoeba that needs a microscope to even see it, (and just popped into existence for no apparent reason) transformed itself over millions of years into something the size of a three story building.....are you really going to tell me that, and then give me the substantiated evidence for its truth? I'll wait.....

 

[epronovost]

If science is your religion then you have as much of a belief system as I do. You have your gods, your beliefs and your scripture, and your temples of higher learning...how are you so different? Are you yourself being willfully ignorant?

Science isn't a religion. If you can't make the difference between an academic discipline, an ideology, a cultural practice and religion. You are even more ignorant than you think, but then again, I believe you are simply obtuse for the sake of attempting to win an argument on internet.

Yes, science has "evidence" but not proof. You do understand why science has no proof for evolution, don't you? Their evidence requires interpretation and since most scientists are atheists or at best agnostics, they tend to interpret evidence in a very biased way....or else they lose credibility in academic circles. They all have to prop up the evolutionary theory....but it is with matchsticks, not concrete.
People do that with the Bible too.....again "nothing new under the sun". Choose your belief.

Evidences are proofs of something accuracy's/truth. Evolution is demonstrable, observable both in nature and in controled condition. It's a fact. The only question are the precise nature of some of its mechanism. There is no question on the fact that living organism (and semi-living organism) evolve.

Well, let me put it this way....if I see the words "might have"...or "could have".....or "leads us to the conclusion that".....used in science's explanations for how they arrive at their conclusions...then I see faith and belief demonstrated because none of those expressions are statements of fact...they are statements of belief. Science's explanations are full of such expressions.

That's both false and reductive, but then again it's not a surprise. You are, self admitedly extremely ignorant of most of the basic of several discipline necessary to analyse the world. Science base its conclusion on evidence derived from experimentations and observation. Those evidence constitute proof of the accuracy of a theoretical model to explain observed phenomenons like animals changing shape, behavior and function over time for example. That's a fact. The current modern synthesis of evolution explains very accurately the how and why.

You can then be led to believe that an amoeba that needs a microscope to even see it, (and just popped into existence for no apparent reason) transformed itself over millions of years into something the size of a three story building.....are you really going to tell me that, and then give me the substantiated evidence for its truth? I'll wait.....

Please read the entirety of the portal on evolutionary biology on wikipedia in its enlish version. It quotes proper sources and is considered a great vulgerisation source. It will tell you how micro-organism evoloved into more complex ones through a process of mutation, natural selection and epigenetic changes through a stochastic process. It will certainly take you months to read and process at the very least, but that's what's the bare minimum necessary for you understand the process and answer your questions with your desired level of accuracy and demonstration.

Portal:Evolutionary biology - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that I cannot and will not have a definitive stance on the afterlife since God is Who knows all that. Ultimately.
We Catholics believe in Purgatory...unlike many other Christians. So we like to think of godly mercy and that all sinners repent before dying.

 

[Brian2]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Of God simply annihilating those he doesn't approve of, as opposed to sending them to Hell?

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I think it is more in keeping with the notion of a compassionate and merciful God

And (coming at it from a Christian perspective which I know others here won't share) there is a biblical basis for it:

Annihilationism - Wikipedia

Possibly, and it can be seen as having Biblical basis but I disagree with the idea that a compassionate God will be torturing people for all eternity. If that idea is out of the way then there is less reason, compassion wise for annihilation.
Still if everything is going to be in God's Kingdom, including Hell, then it is hard to see a Hell in existence.
For me it is a matter let's wait and see and trust that God will do the best thing for everyone.
BUT annihilationism in the sense that when we die we go out of existence is completely wrong.

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is demonstrable, observable both in nature and in controled condition. It's a fact. The only question are the precise nature of some of its mechanism. There is no question on the fact that living organism (and semi-living organism) evolve.

Ummm, no, there is no real evidence for organic evolution. There is evidence for adaptation however.....surely you know the difference? There is demonstrable proof for one but not the other....you cannot use adaptation as a proof for organic evolution. Adaptation can only alter one species in minor ways and help them to adapt to a change of environment or food source. It can never transform one species into another, no matter how much time you throw at it.

Evolution wants us to believe that all life came from that single cell which came out of nowhere, in the special soup that had no chef.....but there is no real evidence for any of that....only speculative "might have's". I'm not buying it.

Those evidence constitute proof of the accuracy of a theoretical model to explain observed phenomenons like animals changing shape, behavior and function over time for example. That's a fact. The current modern synthesis of evolution explains very accurately the how and why.

Yes...adaptation is a fact, proven in a lab by experimentation.....but the first premise is where evolution comes unstuck. It has to rely on assumptions, not facts because there simply aren't any. No one was there to document any of it except the Creator, and science doesn't want to believe him.....what do you do?

You can believe whoever you wish......and so can I. But please don't pretend that you have proof for the assumptions made by science. Ain't no such thing.

Evolution is based on hypotheses and no matter how many believe them, hypotheses aren't facts.....definition?....
"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Supposition is not fact...and further investigation hasn't turned up any proof at all.

Please read the entirety of the portal on evolutionary biology on wikipedia in its enlish version.

I will read the entirety of that, if you read the entirety of the Bible.....I'll try and find one in enlish.....

We have derailed this thread enough....

 

[Eddi]

There is no hell of eternal suffering in the Bible for many reasons, one of which is that the Creator is not a fiend who enjoys seeing the wicked suffer. He has no reason to torture anyone, especially because the concept of an eternal hell of torment goes against his stated standards of justice. The punishment for any crime was always equal to its severity.....and the highest penalty paid under the Law given to Israel was death. There were no prisons because they were not needed. Any who defrauded or stole were to compensate their victims and those who committed capital crimes never became repeat offenders.

Hell was invented to generate fear and to facilitate control over the masses that they could convince of its existence.
"Hell" in the Bible is nothing but the common grave where we all go. Whether we wake up again, is up to God.

I think I like God's justice better than man's.

Wow, I agree with something a JW believes!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What do people think of Annihilationism?

Of God simply annihilating those he doesn't approve of, as opposed to sending them to Hell?

Of extinguishing them for all eternity, rather than torturing them for all eternity?

I think it is more in keeping with the notion of a compassionate and merciful God

And (coming at it from a Christian perspective which I know others here won't share) there is a biblical basis for it:

Annihilationism - Wikipedia

Very astute conclusion! It does fit w/ his loving personality, doesn’t it?

In fact, only two outcomes exist for sentient, free-willed creatures: living forever, or death forever. There is no torment, except for the pain we experience living in this corrupt system.

Fire, in many cases, in Scripture, simply implies ‘gone forever.’

Kudo’s Eddi!