• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Annihilationism?

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member

Good question!
Ok, well, all this 'heaven destination' talk, in my view, reveals a lack of understanding. (The "Gotquestions" website just meanders on the subject, imo.)

First off, there are those going to heaven, but they are "chosen" (1 Peter 2:9). No one can just say, 'I'm going to heaven'...seems a little arrogant, maybe?
Those chosen for heaven, according to the Bible are rulers. Paul stated that, in 1 Corinthians 4:8, in denouncing those arrogantly acting as if they already were ruling. More info is found in Revelation 5 and Revelation 14...... these ones are "bought from the Earth," ruling w/Christ. They make up God's "Kingdom," the one we are taught to pray to "come," and which will accomplish God's 'will for the Earth." -Matthew 6:9-10

But as we all know, kings have subjects and domain. They rule w/ Christ over the Earth, and the humans living here.
This is mankind's home. - Psalms 115:16.
Notice Revelation 21:3-4...whom is "the tent of God" with? Mankind. "And death will be no more." = Everlasting life!

Now to answer your question:
1)Meeting my future progeny, every 25 years or so (lol)...that's new people to meet.

2)Seeing the development of new technology, in a safe way with Jehovah's and Jesus' oversight...possibly even expanding mankind's habitation to other planets? (speculation-- the Bible is silent on this).

3)Observing new species adapting / evolving. Especially easy to observe when Isaiah 11:6-9 reaches fulfillment!

Notice that there will always be something new to enjoy! Even seeing geologic features changing over time!

I (and everyone, you included) will never get bored, with these new things.

I can never tire of watching my wife sleep, and seeing her wake up every morning!

All of this, with "no pain nor sorrow", indicating a youthful existence...never growing old & decrepit, just getting wiser!
 
Last edited:

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Now here you are in Heaven and it's, let's say, Tuesday.

What are you actually going to do this Tuesday? Watch TV? Take in a movie? Go to choir practice?

What?

Please address the question this time.

And if you don't know the answer, just say "I don't know".

What do the minute details of heaven have to do with Jesus dying for our sins?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Well I don't believe in the Bible so that's not much of a selling point.

What if instead of torturing people or annihilating them God reforms them, wouldn't that be compatible with the mercy of God?
Unfortunately, that would interfere with Free Will; people have to want to change. Jehovah will help them, but they have to take the initial steps, at least.

Otherwise, you're talking about automatons. God wants willing worshippers, voluntary, not forced or robotic.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
There is no possible reasonnable doubt for common descent...
Of course there is......
...due to evidence in genetics variation.

...And that's one of the biggest reasons right there! The sheer variety of living things and their array of functions -- from asexual and sexual reproduction methods (BTW, No mechanism or environmental pressures would allow NS to evolve sexual reproduction from asexual), to the varied integument (coverings) of organisms, i.e., scales, fur, feathers, to the different forms of appendages (fins, hands, legs & wings) and their number within individuals (4 in many species, 6 in many, 8 in a few, others have 100's)

Evolutionary mechanisms simply lack the ability to morph from one form to another!

These things are observed to ooze with complex design features. That indicates an intelligence is behind their origins.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What do the minute details of heaven have to do with Jesus dying for our sins?
Like I said, if you can't answer my question, just say "I don't know".

And they're not minute details, they're the very thing you apparently are eager to sign up for.

Me, I try not to sign up for things unless I understand them. That clearly isn't your view. Not only haven't you seen a meaningful prospectus, you don't want to, which is not a little dumbfounding for us onlookers. In the unlikely ─ and fortunately for you, in fact impossible ─ event that it turns out to be true, you're stuck in the most appalling trap ever set, infinite inescapable tedium, pointlessness, irrelevance, triviality, that could ever be imagined.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Unfortunately, that would interfere with Free Will; people have to want to change. Jehovah will help them, but they have to take the initial steps, at least.
In my opinion annihilation interferes with free will, you can't choose to do better or worse when you dont exist.
And I believe when people see how empowered virtuous spirits are in the next life they will want to change.

God wants willing worshippers...
I believe that God wants people to be virtuous, in my opinion God is far too richly blessed to care about your worship in the slightest. Only the insecure want worshippers in my opinion.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I guess it depends on what one stands to gain from holding such a belief, and if that is actually a positive result, or it just feels like one.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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?

1. The thing with your immediate assumption is that the Hammurabi Code is older, and the OT has definitely copied it. That is probably based on the idea that the OT was written after the Babylonian era, but you should also note that there could be a source that is older than both of them, and both texts inherit from the older tradition. This is a huge problem with mythicists and simple dismissists with parallelism. Its too shallow.

2. The first chapter of Genesis, with material adopted by Jewish priests late in the priestly process and prefixed to the existing body of Torah material, shows a theological sophistication the Babylonians never knew. There are many cross overs with Zoroastrianism along with the victory and judgment triumphed by a messianic figure and the zoroastrian recognition of Cyrus being called Gods anointed etc should be considered when making statements like this.

3. Abraham according to the Bible came from Iraq. If you look at your parallelism theory, you are affirming that the earth is a few thousand years old, and Abraham fits that timeline. You are dismissing the bible completely but are adopting its age arbitrarily. Both could have an older tradition, and one turned it into a set of "laws" people offered to the gods or deities, and the other with God presenting it to people.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
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 was a Twilight Zone episode with Billy Mumy as an all-powerful little boy who could wish people to be jack-in-the boxes, or sew their mouths shut, or wish them into the corn field where they would never be heard of again. He got nothing but praise. "It's good that there is only one channel on TV and it plays cartoons all day." "It's good that we eat pancakes and chocolate syrup at every meal." One false move, one bad comment, one bad thought, and poof....gone.

Facing burning in hell for all eternity, most people are willing to overlook a few of God's peccadilloes (Noah's flood, Sodom, Eden). They are willing to overlook the pain of cancer, and the way nature makes one animal eat another.

Fear keeps us from saying anything about God's cruelties, and say that God is loving and God is good (in much the same way that Mumy was praised).

Praising the powerful, fearing retribution, and sucking up to power, why don't people worship Satan? We could all say that Satan is good, and overlook a few things that Satan did.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
1. The thing with your immediate assumption is that the Hammurabi Code is older, and the OT has definitely copied it. That is probably based on the idea that the OT was written after the Babylonian era, but you should also note that there could be a source that is older than both of them, and both texts inherit from the older tradition. This is a huge problem with mythicists and simple dismissists with parallelism. Its too shallow.

Scholar concensus on the age of the OT is that it was written in its current form during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile, thus well after the reign of Hamurabi which is the eldest known code of law ever found. There could be a common source for both the Code of Hammurabi and the Bible, but this is pure speculation with no archeological nor . Considering that the OT itself is about a thousand years younger than the Code of Hammurabi, it would be almost insane to think that the Hebrew, instead if inspiring their "divine laws" from prior codes and culture like that in effect in Babylon at the time of their exile and others like it would prefer to draw inspiration from a code of law, of which we have no traces left, that is even older than the already ancient Code of Hammrabi is rather ridiculous.

Where would they have found such a source, one that would be more than a thousand years old and still preserved. It's much more probable that the Code of Hammrabi was the inspiration for both the law upon which the Second Babylonian Empire ruled itself and that of the Hebrew of the time. In other words, the OT law didn't inspired itself of the Code of Hammurabi, but from a more modern code of law that draws its inspiration from the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurab is more ancient that all the dates suggested for the Exodus from Egypt, an event that is purel mythical in and itself and during which, according to the OT narrative, the Hebrew recevied their sacred divine laws.

The problem with with triumphalist is that not only do they know very little of history, but they also know very little about how time itself and societies work.

2. The first chapter of Genesis, with material adopted by Jewish priests late in the priestly process and prefixed to the existing body of Torah material, shows a theological sophistication the Babylonians never knew. There are many cross overs with Zoroastrianism along with the victory and judgment triumphed by a messianic figure and the zoroastrian recognition of Cyrus being called Gods anointed etc should be considered when making statements like this.

I disagree that the idea that Genesis is more sophisticated that Babylonian theology. Though I do aree that there is strong influence from zorastrianisme within it which is evidence that the OT as we know it was written during the Babylonian Exile.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Of course there is......


...And that's one of the biggest reasons right there! The sheer variety of living things and their array of functions -- from asexual and sexual reproduction methods (BTW, No mechanism or environmental pressures would allow NS to evolve sexual reproduction from asexual), to the varied integument (coverings) of organisms, i.e., scales, fur, feathers, to the different forms of appendages (fins, hands, legs & wings) and their number within individuals (4 in many species, 6 in many, 8 in a few, others have 100's)

Evolutionary mechanisms simply lack the ability to morph from one form to another!

These things are observed to ooze with complex design features. That indicates an intelligence is behind their origins.


Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia.

The funny thing about God of the Gaps argument is that they, as time passes, God gets more tiny and once in a while, a faithful will talk about a gap that is no longuer a gap. While the apparition of sexual reproduction is still a field of current research, it's far from being a complete mystery or even an impossibility. As for the apparition of feathers from scales and fur from scales, paleontology have traced that lineage decades ago.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Scholar concensus on the age of the OT is that it was written in its current form during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile, thus well after the reign of Hamurabi which is the eldest known code of law ever found.

You didnt get the point. If you are looking for scholar consensus of when the OT was written, the OT was written by around 47 authors. And that is not relevant to what I said. I will cut and paste it once more so that you can read in a while.

What scholars consensus says that this was written 1000 years after? Can you quote this consensus? Scholars consider this written much much later. That is why I even mentioned priestly sources which you have not considered.

Where would they have found such a source, one that would be more than a thousand years old and still preserved. It's much more probable that the Code of Hammrabi was the inspiration for both the law upon which the Second Babylonian Empire ruled itself and that of the Hebrew of the time. In other words, the OT law didn't inspired itself of the Code of Hammurabi, but from a more modern code of law that draws its inspiration from the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurab is more ancient that all the dates suggested for the Exodus from Egypt, an event that is purel mythical in and itself and during which, according to the OT narrative, the Hebrew recevied their sacred divine laws.

The problem with with triumphalist is that not only do they know very little of history, but they also know very little about how time itself and societies work.

Since you have not understood what I said, here you go again.

1. The thing with your immediate assumption is that the Hammurabi Code is older, and the OT has definitely copied it. That is probably based on the idea that the OT was written after the Babylonian era, but you should also note that there could be a source that is older than both of them, and both texts inherit from the older tradition. This is a huge problem with mythicists and simple dismissists with parallelism. Its too shallow.

I disagree that the idea that Genesis is more sophisticated that Babylonian theology. Though I do aree that there is strong influence from zorastrianisme within it which is evidence that the OT as we know it was written during the Babylonian Exile.

I did not contend when the so called OT was written. When you say OT like so many times, are you saying Isaiah was written during the exile? How about the priestly sources? How about the Yahweist sources? How about the Deutoro sources? How about Jeremiah? How about Micah?

See, that's a strawman argument because I did not speak of the dating of the text.

Also since you missed this, here it is again.

3. Abraham according to the Bible came from Iraq. If you look at your parallelism theory, you are affirming that the earth is a few thousand years old, and Abraham fits that timeline. You are dismissing the bible completely but are adopting its age arbitrarily. Both could have an older tradition, and one turned it into a set of "laws" people offered to the gods or deities, and the other with God presenting it to people.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
You didnt get the point. If you are looking for scholar consensus of when the OT was written, the OT was written by around 47 authors. And that is not relevant to what I said. I will cut and paste it once more so that you can read in a while.

What scholars consensus says that this was written 1000 years after? Can you quote this consensus? Scholars consider this written much much later. That is why I even mentioned priestly sources which you have not considered.

The Code of Hammurabi was written around 1755-1750 BC. The Babylonian Exile was around 600 BC thus a full thousand years after the production of the Code of Hammurabi. The bulk of the OT was written between 1200 BC to 165 BC depeding on the which books of the OT we are talking about and how generous you want to be with the dating. The Code of Hammurabi was already ancient and largely replaced when the earliest books of the OT started to be written. The idea that the "Mosaic Laws" and the Code of Hammurabi both developped from a common ancestry is absurd. Why would Jews who wrote the Mosaic Laws around 700 BC derived inspiration from a source that is even older than the already 1000 years old at the time Code of Hammurabi, a code of law that is older than the Hebrew Civilisation itself? What would be that source? There are codes older than the Code of Hammurabi, but how would Hebrew come accross Akkadian and Ur codes? If so which one's? That doesn't make much sense. The time passed between the writting of the Mosaic Law and that of the Code of Hammurabi prohibit both to derive from the same common source. It's already a stretch to say that the Code of Hammurab inspired the Mosaic Law due to the time between the two and the fact that the Code was already antiquated when early Hebrews came into contact with Mesopotamian civilisations. The predecessor of the Code of Hammurabi were thus even more ancient.


1. The thing with your immediate assumption is that the Hammurabi Code is older, and the OT has definitely copied it. That is probably based on the idea that the OT was written after the Babylonian era, but you should also note that there could be a source that is older than both of them, and both texts inherit from the older tradition. This is a huge problem with mythicists and simple dismissists with parallelism. Its too shallow.

I did not contend when the so called OT was written. When you say OT like so many times, are you saying Isaiah was written during the exile? How about the priestly sources? How about the Yahweist sources? How about the Deutoro sources? How about Jeremiah? How about Micah?

How is this pertinent to anything? The Code of Hammurabi was already 500 years old when the eldest books of the OT might have been written and that's being generous. It was a thousand years older than the eldest book of the OT no matter which one and from which tradition.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

According to the scholarly concensus on the datin of the Bible presented above, the Mosaic Law would have been inspired by the laws of the Second Babylonian Empire which itself was inspired by the Code of Hammurabi which was itself inspired by older Akkadian and Summerian codes from which we have fragments.


3. Abraham according to the Bible came from Iraq. If you look at your parallelism theory, you are affirming that the earth is a few thousand years old, and Abraham fits that timeline. You are dismissing the bible completely but are adopting its age arbitrarily. Both could have an older tradition, and one turned it into a set of "laws" people offered to the gods or deities, and the other with God presenting it to people.

This theory is completely absurd and non-sensical. It affirms that Abraham is an actual historical figure, which he is not. It also implies that the Code of Hammurabi doesn't have a divine origin in Babylonian mythology which is false. According to the myth, the God Shamash, a God of the sun and justice, is supposed to have given the Code to king Hammurabi while visiting him in a vivid and mystical dream. Both the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi thus have a religious and mythological foundation to strenghten their claim to justice.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Code of Hammurabi was written around 1755-1750 BC. The Babylonian Exile was around 600 BC thus a full thousand years after the production of the Code of Hammurabi. The bulk of the OT was written between 1200 BC to 165 BC depeding on the which books of the OT we are talking about and how generous you want to be with the dating. The Code of Hammurabi was already ancient and largely replaced when the earliest books of the OT started to be written. The idea that the "Mosaic Laws" and the Code of Hammurabi both developped from a common ancestry is absurd. Why would Jews who wrote the Mosaic Laws around 700 BC derived inspiration from a source that is even older than the already 1000 years old at the time Code of Hammurabi, a code of law that is older than the Hebrew Civilisation itself? What would be that source? There are codes older than the Code of Hammurabi, but how would Hebrew come accross Akkadian and Ur codes? If so which one's? That doesn't make much sense. The time passed between the writting of the Mosaic Law and that of the Code of Hammurabi prohibit both to derive from the same common source. It's already a stretch to say that the Code of Hammurab inspired the Mosaic Law due to the time between the two and the fact that the Code was already antiquated when early Hebrews came into contact with Mesopotamian civilisations. The predecessor of the Code of Hammurabi were thus even more ancient.




How is this pertinent to anything? The Code of Hammurabi was already 500 years old when the eldest books of the OT might have been written and that's being generous. It was a thousand years older than the eldest book of the OT no matter which one and from which tradition.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

According to the scholarly concensus on the datin of the Bible presented above, the Mosaic Law would have been inspired by the laws of the Second Babylonian Empire which itself was inspired by the Code of Hammurabi which was itself inspired by older Akkadian and Summerian codes from which we have fragments.




This theory is completely absurd and non-sensical. It affirms that Abraham is an actual historical figure, which he is not. It also implies that the Code of Hammurabi doesn't have a divine origin in Babylonian mythology which is false. According to the myth, the God Shamash, a God of the sun and justice, is supposed to have given the Code to king Hammurabi while visiting him in a vivid and mystical dream. Both the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi thus have a religious and mythological foundation to strenghten their claim to justice.

You have missed the whole point. Read this again.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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.

When people commit a crime, don't they go to jail? When someone does something wrong, even the most fair judge has to give consequences. No matter how hard we try, we are still going to sin. God is perfect, we are not. The Old and New Testament mentions hell. The Second Death

There is much debate over the word "hell," but a careful study of the Bible leaves no doubt as to it's true meaning. Psalm 9:17 warns, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." This Scripture PROVES that "hell" is not just the grave. If "hell" were only referring to the "grave," then why would God say that the wicked shall be turned into hell? Do not also the righteous go to the same grave, if "hell" just means grave? As you can see, the Bible would make no sense if "hell" were just the grave. God warns that the wicked shall be turned into hell, meaning fire and torment.

Rob Bell: Populating Hell | Good Fight Ministries

Where did hundreds of millions of Christians, over the last 2,000 years, ever get the notion that the way to eternal life was narrow, and that few would enter by the narrow gate to be saved? That notion, of course, came directly from the lips of our beloved Lord Jesus himself:

“Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” –Luke 13:22-24

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” –Matthew 7:13-14
Jesus stated as clearly as it could be stated, that only a “few” find the “narrow door”… and “narrow… Road”… that “leads to life,” while “many” take the “wide” and “easy” road that “leads to destruction.”
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
When people commit a crime, don't they go to jail? When someone does something wrong, even the most fair judge has to give consequences. No matter how hard we try, we are still going to sin. God is perfect, we are not. The Old and New Testament mentions hell.
Did you know that under Israel's laws there were no jails. No punishment under God's law incurred incarceration or torture....so there is your first problem. That was never part of God's justice system.
Those who committed capital crimes in Israel (incurring the highest penalty under the Law) were put to death....they were not put in prison or tortured, because that is not the kind of God Jehovah is.

Jeremiah 7:31...
"And they go on building the high place of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the firewhich I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." (NRSV)

Israel at times strayed off the path of true worship and at one point adopted the practice of offering their children to a false god by sacrificing them in a fire.......

molech.jpg


Now, if God would not condone that kind of conduct among his own people, why on earth would he do that to anyone himself after their death?


You can see what it says there...."the second death"...where do you see torture? Death is the cessation of life...the very opposite. So everlasting life in the Bible is contrasted with everlasting death for the wicked. It is indeed a punishment that lasts forever.
Besides....in order to torture someone forever, they would have to be alive forever in order to suffer or to feel torment or pain......yet, the Bible says that only the righteous are promised everlasting life.

The 'second death' is different to the 'first' death because there is no hope of a resurrection. It is annihilation pure and simple. Can you tell me how eternal suffering in hell is a product of God's justice? Was our sinful condition our fault? Would that sinful condition mean that we are unforgivable if we broke God's commands? How did Israel make amends to God for their sin? Wasn't it through their sacrifices? There was no such thing as "hell" (eternal suffering in an afterlife) ever taught in Jewish scripture. The word translated "hell" in the Bible is from the Hebrew "sheol" or the Greek "hades", which according to Solomon is a place of rest, not a place of torture.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 reveals that "sheol" is merely "the grave".....the place where all dead people go.
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for their remembrance is forgotten.......Whatever your hand attains to do [as long as you are] with your strength, do; for there is neither deed nor reckoning, neither knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, where you are going." (From the Jewish Tanakh)

There is much debate over the word "hell," but a careful study of the Bible leaves no doubt as to it's true meaning. Psalm 9:17 warns, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." This Scripture PROVES that "hell" is not just the grave. If "hell" were only referring to the "grave," then why would God say that the wicked shall be turned into hell? Do not also the righteous go to the same grave, if "hell" just means grave? As you can see, the Bible would make no sense if "hell" were just the grave. God warns that the wicked shall be turned into hell, meaning fire and torment.

OK....let's explore that question....
If the dead are in an unconscious state in their grave, what did Jesus promise them?
John 5:28-29...
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

Do you see that both the righteous and the unrighteous are called from the same place as Paul said in Acts 24:15. The ones you don't see there are the incorrigibly wicked. Their death is permanent....there is no resurrection for them. "The lake of fire" is a symbolic receptacle for all that God abhors....'death and hades' are thrown into this lake too, to destroy them...(Revelation 20:13) so how can it be a literal place or torture?

I think we need a Bible that differentiates between "hades", "gehenna", "tartarus" and "the lake of fire"....these all mean different things, as a careful study of scripture shows......

Where did hundreds of millions of Christians, over the last 2,000 years, ever get the notion that the way to eternal life was narrow, and that few would enter by the narrow gate to be saved? That notion, of course, came directly from the lips of our beloved Lord Jesus himself:
Again, lets explore what Jesus actually said....are you familiar with the parable of the "wheat and the weeds"? (Matthew 13:36-42) Jesus warned that a counterfeit form of Christianity would be sown among the wheat by the devil, or IOW, there would be two kinds of Christianity in the world, growing together....one true and the other false. Why did Jesus use "weeds" to describe what the devil sowed? As any gardener will tell you, weeds grow so much more easily and quickly than plants do. What you saw in the past 2,000 years is people attaching themselves to the weeds and being convinced of the devil's first lie..."you surely will not die".....he promotes the idea of life after death in a heaven of bliss, or an eternal fiery hell.....neither of which are true, but that the majority believe. There is no immortal soul to survive death...the devil lied, but God did not. What did he tell Adam? (Genesis 3:19) All Adam knew was that death meant a return to the dust...nothing more.

“Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” –Luke 13:22-24
What does this mean? Obviously there will be "many" who think that they are on the right road.....but they are mistaken. What is preventing them from entering the narrow door?

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” –Matthew 7:13-14
Jesus stated as clearly as it could be stated, that only a “few” find the “narrow door”… and “narrow… Road”… that “leads to life,” while “many” take the “wide” and “easy” road that “leads to destruction.”

So here we have a "narrow" gate and a "broad" gate where all must choose to enter the road to their desired destination. There are only two choices. One leads to "life" and the other leads to..."destruction"....not eternal torment, but destruction....if you look it up in a Bible concordance like Strongs, the word is "apōleia"....and it means "destroying, utter destruction". (Romans 9:22; 2 Peter 3:7)

Jesus also used a similar word "apollymi" (meaning "to destroy...."to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin....render useless.... to kill") in Matthew 10:28...
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. [Gehenna]"
So it seems that destruction means exactly what it says.....souls can be destroyed. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Now, who would take a road knowing full well that it is literally, a "dead" end? IMV this is a choice between genuinely serving the Lord and just appearing to serve him. The cramped road is cramped for a reason...it has restrictions and it is narrow because there is no room to wander. This is the Christianity that Jesus said we must choose....to please our heavenly Father and arrive safely at our destination.....but the broad road is free and easy, there are no restrictions and everyone is happy doing their own thing and perhaps calling it "Christianity", but it was never anything close.
This is confirmed again by Jesus himself....
Matthew 7:21:23...
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Can you imagine those who thought that for their whole lives,that they were Christians in good standing according to their church's teachings.....even prophesying, performing miracles and casting out demons, all "in Jesus' name"....and yet he says that to them....What does NEVER mean? What road were they really on? Did they know it?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science said by any living human.

Each one self whose own body self expressing as a self one day dies. Not really important says life. Eventually life gets rid of your presence good bad or indifferent.

Is only as old as a human life as they personally are.

I am sixty years old a human.

The age of humanity for my self sixty years. How long human life has lived exactly correct to one self expressing human advice.

Yet other selves live til one hundred.

Sperm and ovary just in two different human bodies not even a baby yet.

So to procreate species as a human is about twelve years old.

Think.

Think a no human sex policy. We all would live and die. No more humans.

Just by not having sex.

No human control.
No human lying.
No humans at all.

Your human life existence sex. Sex is not a scientific creation machine thesis about life presence or its human continuance.

Basic science advice of one human telling another human.

One human says to another human. Once our heavens was hotter gas spirit. The beast lived then. Dinosaurs.

Basic science advice so don't look back theorising about the beast life in the heavens past otherwise you will annihalate our life.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Did you know that under Israel's laws there were no jails. No punishment under God's law incurred incarceration or torture....so there is your first problem. That was never part of God's justice system.
Those who committed capital crimes in Israel (incurring the highest penalty under the Law) were put to death....they were not put in prison or tortured, because that is not the kind of God Jehovah is.

Jeremiah 7:31...
"And they go on building the high place of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the firewhich I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." (NRSV)

Israel at times strayed off the path of true worship and at one point adopted the practice of offering their children to a false god by sacrificing them in a fire.......

molech.jpg


Now, if God would not condone that kind of conduct among his own people, why on earth would he do that to anyone himself after their death?



You can see what it says there...."the second death"...where do you see torture? Death is the cessation of life...the very opposite. So everlasting life in the Bible is contrasted with everlasting death for the wicked. It is indeed a punishment that lasts forever.
Besides....in order to torture someone forever, they would have to be alive forever in order to suffer or to feel torment or pain......yet, the Bible says that only the righteous are promised everlasting life.

The 'second death' is different to the 'first' death because there is no hope of a resurrection. It is annihilation pure and simple. Can you tell me how eternal suffering in hell is a product of God's justice? Was our sinful condition our fault? Would that sinful condition mean that we are unforgivable if we broke God's commands? How did Israel make amends to God for their sin? Wasn't it through their sacrifices? There was no such thing as "hell" (eternal suffering in an afterlife) ever taught in Jewish scripture. The word translated "hell" in the Bible is from the Hebrew "sheol" or the Greek "hades", which according to Solomon is a place of rest, not a place of torture.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 reveals that "sheol" is merely "the grave".....the place where all dead people go.
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for their remembrance is forgotten.......Whatever your hand attains to do [as long as you are] with your strength, do; for there is neither deed nor reckoning, neither knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, where you are going." (From the Jewish Tanakh)



OK....let's explore that question....
If the dead are in an unconscious state in their grave, what did Jesus promise them?
John 5:28-29...
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

Do you see that both the righteous and the unrighteous are called from the same place as Paul said in Acts 24:15. The ones you don't see there are the incorrigibly wicked. Their death is permanent....there is no resurrection for them. "The lake of fire" is a symbolic receptacle for all that God abhors....'death and hades' are thrown into this lake too, to destroy them...(Revelation 20:13) so how can it be a literal place or torture?

I think we need a Bible that differentiates between "hades", "gehenna", "tartarus" and "the lake of fire"....these all mean different things, as a careful study of scripture shows......


Again, lets explore what Jesus actually said....are you familiar with the parable of the "wheat and the weeds"? (Matthew 13:36-42) Jesus warned that a counterfeit form of Christianity would be sown among the wheat by the devil, or IOW, there would be two kinds of Christianity in the world, growing together....one true and the other false. Why did Jesus use "weeds" to describe what the devil sowed? As any gardener will tell you, weeds grow so much more easily and quickly than plants do. What you saw in the past 2,000 years is people attaching themselves to the weeds and being convinced of the devil's first lie..."you surely will not die".....he promotes the idea of life after death in a heaven of bliss, or an eternal fiery hell.....neither of which are true, but that the majority believe. There is no immortal soul to survive death...the devil lied, but God did not. What did he tell Adam? (Genesis 3:19) All Adam knew was that death meant a return to the dust...nothing more.


What does this mean? Obviously there will be "many" who think that they are on the right road.....but they are mistaken. What is preventing them from entering the narrow door?



So here we have a "narrow" gate and a "broad" gate where all must choose to enter the road to their desired destination. There are only two choices. One leads to "life" and the other leads to..."destruction"....not eternal torment, but destruction....if you look it up in a Bible concordance like Strongs, the word is "apōleia"....and it means "destroying, utter destruction". (Romans 9:22; 2 Peter 3:7)

Jesus also used a similar word "apollymi" (meaning "to destroy...."to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin....render useless.... to kill") in Matthew 10:28...
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. [Gehenna]"
So it seems that destruction means exactly what it says.....souls can be destroyed. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Now, who would take a road knowing full well that it is literally, a "dead" end? IMV this is a choice between genuinely serving the Lord and just appearing to serve him. The cramped road is cramped for a reason...it has restrictions and it is narrow because there is no room to wander. This is the Christianity that Jesus said we must choose....to please our heavenly Father and arrive safely at our destination.....but the broad road is free and easy, there are no restrictions and everyone is happy doing their own thing and perhaps calling it "Christianity", but it was never anything close.
This is confirmed again by Jesus himself....
Matthew 7:21:23...
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Can you imagine those who thought that for their whole lives,that they were Christians in good standing according to their church's teachings.....even prophesying, performing miracles and casting out demons, all "in Jesus' name"....and yet he says that to them....What does NEVER mean? What road were they really on? Did they know it?

Hell in the Bible is a place of eternal separation from God, eternal loneliness. OBJECTION TO CHRISTIANITY: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell

  • [*]Moreland: “The essence of hell is relational. Christianity says people are the most valuable things in the entire creation. If people matter, then personal relationships matter, and hell is largely relational. In the Bible, hell is separation or banishment from the most beautiful thing in the world—God Himself. It is exclusion from anything that matters, from all value, not only from God but also from those who have come to know and love him.
    [*]Strobel: “Is hell a punishment for having broken God’s standards or is it the natural consequence of people living a life where they say, ‘I don’t care if I’m separate from God, I want to do things my way,’ and then they are given their desire for all eternity by being separated from God forever?”
    [*]Moreland: “It’s both. Make no mistake: hell IS punishment—but it’s not a punishing. It’s not torture. The punishment is hell is separation from God, bringing shame, anguish, and regret. People in hell will deeply grieve all they’ve lost. Hell is the final sentence that says you refused regularly to live for the purpose for which you were made, and the only alternative is to sentence you away for all eternity. So it ispunishment. But it is also the natural consequence of a life that has been lived in a certain direction.
    [*]Moreland: “Hell is something God was forced to make because people chose to rebel against Him and turn against what was best for them and the purpose for which they were created.
    [*]Moreland: “I just want to be biblically accurate. We know that the reference to flames is figurative because if you try to take it literally, it makes no sense. For example, hell is described as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames, too. How can that be? Flames would light things up. In addition, we’re told Christ is going to return surrounded by flames and that He’s going to have a big sword coming out of His mouth. But nobody thinks Christ won’t be able to say anything because He’ll be choking on a sword. The figure of the sword stands for the Word of God in judgment. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgment. In Hebrews 12:29, God is called a consuming fire. Yet nobody thinks God is a cosmic Bunsen burner. Using the flame imagery is a way of saying He’s a God of judgment.
Eternal separation from God is the second death. Those eternally separated from God are spiritually dead. The Second Death - Separation or Annihilation?

The “Second Death”
The second death is an ultimate and eternal separation from God. The expression is found four times in the book of Revelation ( 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8). J.H. Thayer defined the “second death” as “the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, p. 283).

This condition is characterized as the second death because it follows physical death; it is designated as death because it is the terminal separation from the Lord (Mt. 7:23; 25:41; 2 Thes. 1:9). Try substituting the term “annihilation” for “death” in the Revelation passages and see what sort of sense it makes, e.g., “the second annihilation.” The very expression represents an absurdity. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that “hell” will involve the extermination of either Satan, evil angels, or wicked humans (Mt. 25:41,46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10).

We have a sin problem, that's why God made a way for us.

Sheol is hell. A Biblical Examination of Hell -By Dr. Max D. Younce, Th.D

  1. [*]The word "Hell" appears in the Old Testament approximately 31 times and, without exception, is translated from the Hebrew word "Sheol." This same Hebrew word is also translated "pit" three different times. "Pit," translated from Sheol, is found in Numbers 16:30,33 and Job 17:16. Hell is referred to as a pit three times, both being the same place.

    Sheol is not the grave.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hell in the Bible is a place of eternal separation from God, eternal loneliness. OBJECTION TO CHRISTIANITY: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell

Eternal separation from God is the second death. Those eternally separated from God are spiritually dead. The Second Death - Separation or Annihilation?


We have a sin problem, that's why God made a way for us.

Sheol is hell. A Biblical Examination of Hell -By Dr. Max D. Younce, Th.D

I see....so you ignored every scripture I quoted in order to stick with your preferred interpretation.....that’s OK.....we are all telling God exactly who we are, and who we think he is.....by what we accept as our truth.

I could not worship your God. Enjoying someone’s suffering is what fiends do.....there is evil in that......there is no love in allowing the wicked to live....but there is no love in watching anyone suffer in agony forever either.
Do you not understand that eternal death is separation from God?

Souls die. (Ezekiel 18:4) There is no continuance of life after death, all “sleep” in their graves until the resurrection which occurs when Christ returns. (John 5:28-29) Jesus then calls all the deceased from the same place.....hades.....the grave.

Think back to the time when Jesus resurrected Lazarus. Where did Jesus say Lazarus was?
John 11:11-14...
“After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died”. (ESV)

Did Jesus say that Lazarus had gone to heaven? Did Lazarus himself say anything about where he had been? If Lazarus had gone to a better place, then why would Jesus bring him back to this life, only to die again later? Do you ever really analyze your beliefs or compare scripture with scripture?.....or do you just blindly accept what you are told?

At the end of the day, it’s not just what you believe...but who you believe......and that is our choice. But if we cannot answer challenges to our beliefs except by cut and paste, what are our beliefs worth if we cannot defend them in our own words or more importantly with God’s word?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I see....so you ignored every scripture I quoted in order to stick with your preferred interpretation.....that’s OK.....we are all telling God exactly who we are, and who we think he is.....by what we accept as our truth.

I could not worship your God. Enjoying someone’s suffering is what fiends do.....there is evil in that......there is no love in allowing the wicked to live....but there is no love in watching anyone suffer in agony forever either.
Do you not understand that eternal death is separation from God?

Souls die. (Ezekiel 18:4) There is no continuance of life after death, all “sleep” in their graves until the resurrection which occurs when Christ returns. (John 5:28-29) Jesus then calls all the deceased from the same place.....hades.....the grave.

Think back to the time when Jesus resurrected Lazarus. Where did Jesus say Lazarus was?
John 11:11-14...
“After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died”. (ESV)

Did Jesus say that Lazarus had gone to heaven? Did Lazarus himself say anything about where he had been? If Lazarus had gone to a better place, then why would Jesus bring him back to this life, only to die again later? Do you ever really analyze your beliefs or compare scripture with scripture?.....or do you just blindly accept what you are told?

At the end of the day, it’s not just what you believe...but who you believe......and that is our choice. But if we cannot answer challenges to our beliefs except by cut and paste, what are our beliefs worth if we cannot defend them in our own words or more importantly with God’s word?

Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom. ABRAHAM'S BOSOM HELD 'PRE-CHRIST CHRISTIANS'

Q. I feel I understand the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. However, I struggle with Luke 16:26: "And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us."
What and where is this great gulf? Why could Lazarus see the rich man, even though they were in different places? Is one of the places heaven? If not, what and where is it? And is the other place Hades? -- D.B., Coconut Creek
A. Let's start by considering what hell is. Jesus taught that hell (or Hades as it's called in Greek) is a real place that serves as the place of punishment for those who reject God (Matthew 25:46).
However, there is a place within hell that is not filled with pain and punishment, and this is what the passage in Luke 16:19-31 reveals to us. Remember, there were a whole host of men and women before Christ was born, who trusted God's promise to send a Messiah, or Savior. You might say that they were "pre-Christ Christians."
These people had to go somewhere when they died, but they couldn't go to the same place of suffering as those who rejected the promised Christ. They also couldn't go to heaven because Christ had not yet died on the cross to cover their sins.
God's solution was to create "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:22), a special place that was set apart from the rest of hell by a great gap or gulf.
This arrangement was temporary, because after Jesus died, he went to Abraham's Bosom and led those who were there into heaven.
Today, this special place in hell is empty, and unnecessary, because now people who trust in Jesus' covering for their sins can go directly to heaven.
 
Top