Hell

[Mick]

I go back and forth between eternal conscious hell and conditional immortality (eventual annihilation). I would like to hear what verse(s) convince you of your belief in this matter. I can see both sides but, of course, both can't be true. What do you say?

I am new here and this is my first post so if you don't hear from me again it means I am lost and trying to find my way around.

God bless,
Mick

[Elijah John]

I go back and forth between eternal conscious hell and conditional immortality (eventual annihilation). I would like to hear what verse(s) convince you of your belief in this matter. I can see both sides but, of course, both can't be true. What do you say?

I am new here and this is my first post so if you don't hear from me again it means I am lost and trying to find my way around.

God bless,
Mick

Moderator Action

Welcome Mick, I moved your topic from "General Chat" to "Theology, Doctrine and Dogma" for a better fit.

And we certainly hope to hear from you again!



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[onewithhim]

I go back and forth between eternal conscious hell and conditional immortality (eventual annihilation). I would like to hear what verse(s) convince you of your belief in this matter. I can see both sides but, of course, both can't be true. What do you say?

I am new here and this is my first post so if you don't hear from me again it means I am lost and trying to find my way around.

God bless,
Mick

I commend you for giving both sides consideration.

Eternal Conscious Torment does not line up with the Word of God as a whole. If God is loving, merciful, kind, and just, how could He watch someone suffer forever with no hope of relief and nothing that would change? Just someone screaming in agony for all time? What would the point be? They would already know what they did to end up there, and the idea of this eternal torture was to send people there who would not stop their wicked ways, so there would be no point in that person being tortured forever; they weren't going to change anyway. God is not sadistic and cruel, and ECT is just that.

God never clued Adam in to any kind of after-life torture. What God told Adam was that he would return to the dust. (Genesis 3:19) I think that if there was more, God would've let Adam know.

It was the Devil that said that people would NOT die. (Gen.3:4) He is the one who first came up with the idea of the "immortal soul." He encourages mankind to believe that life does not cease with death, but we go on as a spirit that leaves the body at death and remains conscious. It is a lie. Jesus called him "a liar and the father of the lie" (John 8:44). He may have been referring to that big lie...."you certainly will not die." (Gen.3:4) Now, if the Devil was lying, the doctrine of ECT falls apart.

God inspired King Solomon to write: "The dead are conscious of NOTHING." (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Satan would have us believe that our spirit is still conscious, but there is no scriptural basis for that at all.

Therefore we have some facts to consider. (1)If a physical body dies, it can no longer act or even think. Even if it could, how long would a physical body last if it was put into a fire? Not very long. It would burn up to nothing. (2) If the Devil is right and a SPIRIT body lives on, how could that spirit body feel physical pain? A spirit, such as what the angels are, does not react to physical pain, and therefore a fire in "hell" would not affect them at all. Therefore, there is no basis AT ALL for the idea that people are put in a fiery "hell" to burn forever. On top of that, the scriptures that nefarious people use to prove a literal fiery hell are easily pulled apart.

The Rich Man and Lazarus: This is the main portion of the Bible that is used to prove hell-fire. Now, why is this taken literally when Jesus' other parables are not? No one says that the Kingdom, for example, is really a mustard seed or a pearl, as Jesus speaks of at Matthew 13:31,32,45,46. The Kingdom is portrayed with SYMBOLIC, analogous objects. So it goes with Luke 16:19-31. Jesus was making a point about the Pharisees who were negligent in their responsibility toward the people to teach them God's laws. They are the "rich man" in the parable. They treat the common people like beggars who sit under the table and eat crumbs, instead of being able to feed off the banquet of spiritual nourishment that God provides through His laws. The poor man, Lazarus, "dies," or, experiences a big change (the common people accepted Jesus) and finds himself in "the bosom of Abraham," or, a redeemed relationship with the greater Abraham, GOD, whereas the rich man experiences a big change but does NOT accept Jesus and is then in a very uncomfortable place in relation to God. He is miserable in "heat" because Jesus and his disciples have revealed those hypocritical Pharisees for the selfish men they really were. That is all that parable means---not that people suffer in a literal fire.

GEHENNA: Many Bible versions translate Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33 as Jesus speaking about hell-fire. For example:

"I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Racca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." (Matt.5:22, KJV)

The word that the King James renders as "hellfire" is actually the word "Gehenna," which refers to a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in Jesus' day where they threw trash and even dead bodies of criminals. What happened to that garbage and the dead bodies? It all burned up to nothing, eventually. That was Jesus' point. People who did wicked things would become NOTHING. He did not mean they would suffer in a literal fire.

The Lake of Fire: Another reference to supposedly show that hell-fire is literal. This is found in Revelation (chapter 20:10 & 14,15)---which is almost entirely SYMBOLIC. Why would people take this "lake of fire" literally? The "wild beast" and the "false prophet" in verse 10 are symbolic. There is no actual, literal beast with 7 heads, etc., and no literal individual that is a "false prophet." Yet they are "hurled into the lake of fire." Why is the lake of fire taken as literal? It is just as SYMBOLIC as the beast and the false prophet. It symbolizes complete destruction---annihilation. Notice verses 14 and 15...."Death and hell" are "hurled into the lake of fire"! How can "death" be hurled? This plainly cannot be a literal description of the end of death. So what would the "lake of fire" represent? Complete obliteration, utter cessation.

"The fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41) What has been said about the lake of fire and Gehenna can be said about what Jesus said here in Matthew 25. Not a literal fire, but complete annihilation.


So you can see, I hope, that the whole argument for a literal ECT is baseless and falls apart upon close scrutiny. Further info: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Hell


.

[ttruscott]

I go back and forth between eternal conscious hell and conditional immortality (eventual annihilation). I would like to hear what verse(s) convince you of your belief in this matter. I can see both sides but, of course, both can't be true. What do you say?

I am new here and this is my first post so if you don't hear from me again it means I am lost and trying to find my way around.

God bless,
Mick

I start with Matt 25:46 “Then they [the goats, Satan's angels] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.� in which the punishment lasts as long as the eternal life of the righteous. I know that some claim that to be annihilated for eternity is to be punished for eternity but to me this feels like a sophistry since the punishing effect would stop at their annihilation.

[Mick]

I start with Matt 25:46 “Then they [the goats, Satan's angels] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.� in which the punishment lasts as long as the eternal life of the righteous. I know that some claim that to be annihilated for eternity is to be punished for eternity but to me this feels like a sophistry since the punishing effect would stop at their annihilation.[/quote]

Yes, Matt. 25:46 can be seen both ways but eternal conscious torment does appear to be the right interpretation given that it is mentioned in the same verse that tells us of eternal life. If the torment isn't really eternal then how can we really be sure that eternal life is really eternal.

Having said that, I don't think we can base our belief on this one verse. Do you have others that convince you of annihilation?

God bless,
Mick

[Mick]

[Replying to post 3 by onewithhim]
Hello onewithhim,

I sure agree that eternal torment is not what we would expect from our Loving God. It seems to me that it would achieve nothing and make God look cruel. However, we have to base our doctrine on what is written, not on emotional conclusions.

Revelation sure is symbolic but that doesn't give us warrant to dismiss it. The symbolism is there to be understood. The fact is, it has meaning and it is up to us to figure it out. For example, Daniel 7 tells us that the horns on the beast represent kings so the 10 horned beast is a coalition of 10 kingdoms (nations). Jesus said in Rev. 1:3 that we would be blessed by reading it and taking it to heart.

Once again, my head is spinning with this subject. Much of the evidence used to support ECT comes from Revelation. Dismissing the book would solve a lot of my questions but I can't do it.

The reason that people believe the story about the rich man and Lazarus is true is because no parable uses an individual's name.

Probably the first verse I saw that made me think about annihilation was Rom 2:7 - "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life". This verse tells me that only Christians will be granted immortality and eternal life. The next thought of course is, "If only the saved are granted immortality, what happens to the unsaved?"

God bless,
Mick

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 3 by onewithhim]
Probably the first verse I saw that made me think about annihilation was Rom 2:7 - "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life". This verse tells me that only Christians will be granted immortality and eternal life. The next thought of course is, "If only the saved are granted immortality, what happens to the unsaved?"

God bless,
Mick

Welcome Mick!

The unsaved perish:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[JehovahsWitness]

Once again, my head is spinning with this subject. Much of the evidence used to support ECT comes from Revelation. Dismissing the book would solve a lot of my questions but I can't do it.

I don't think anyone should dismiss Revelation just try and understand its symbolism.


What is the lake of fire?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... e-of-fire/

What is the "torment" of Revelation 20:10
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004454#h=4
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002521#h=12

[JehovahsWitness]

The reason that people believe the story about the rich man and Lazarus is true is because no parable uses an individual's name.

That seems like a somewhat arbitary assessment, Jesus mentioned plenty of real locations and details (Jerusalem, the Pharisees, the Temple etc) just because he used names of real people in this story that doesn't seem reason enough to conclude it must be taken literally.

What's to stop someone saying that because Jesus used personal names in this parable this means that it is a very important parable? What's to stop that being the significance of this particularity?

[Mick]

[Replying to post 7 by myth-one.com]

What do you believe perish means?