Eternal Hell Is a Logical Lie

[CS1]

If death is annihilation, there are a lot of people who are ok with that. "let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die."

the word annihilation is not used in the Bible in context to hell. And the metaphor you used here " "let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." has context to it. You have used it out of context.

Paul is speaking IF the resurrection has not happened.

31I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”

Jesus said Hell is an eternal place of torment. Jesus did not lie. When the carnal mind try's to rationalize spiritual truths it fails greatly. Human reasoning judges Gods character. a Loving God would not send a person to hell to be tormented for ever.

Those who rejected HIS salvation choose to go there. God made a way out of that. The created can't tell the creator what HE can and can not do. That is foolishness. Hell is real and hot and eternal. That is what Jesus said. No one is more loving than Him. It s warning Jesus put a Do not enter sign to this place. i am speaking an allegory or metaphorically.

those who go to hell choose to. That simple.

 

[John146]

the word annihilation is not used in the Bible in context to hell. And the metaphor you used here " "let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." has context to it. You have used it out of context.

Paul is speaking IF the resurrection has not happened.

31I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”

Jesus said Hell is an eternal place of torment. Jesus did not lie. When the carnal mind try's to rationalize spiritual truths it fails greatly. Human reasoning judges Gods character. a Loving God would not send a person to hell to be tormented for ever.

Those who rejected HIS salvation choose to go there. God made a way out of that. The created can't tell the creator what HE can and can not do. That is foolishness. Hell is real and hot and eternal. That is what Jesus said. No one is more loving than Him. It s warning Jesus put a Do not enter sign to this place. i am speaking an allegory or metaphorically.

those who go to hell choose to. That simple.

If there is no resurrection period, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die, is the context. I was simply using it as an argument for those who think there is not eternal torment in the lake of fire. They are sadly mistaken. Their thought may be, "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die, no torment coming from us. We simply cease to exist."

 

[Researcher]

nope

OK, so what I am about to say is nothing against you personally. It's something I have noticed in these debates.

Most Christians teach that there is no such thing as 'annihilation', 'blinking out of existence', 'non-existence', whatever term we wish to use here.

And yet...

They also teach that before conception, we were in a state of 'annihilation', 'blinked out of existence', 'non-existence', etc.

My point is that these are contradictory teachings and beliefs. In other words, one cannot have it both ways.

Do you see the problem?

 

[John146]

OK, so what I am about to say is nothing against you personally. It's something I have noticed in these debates.

Most Christians teach that there is no such thing as 'annihilation', 'blinking out of existence', 'non-existence', whatever term we wish to use here.

And yet...

They also teach that before conception, we were in a state of 'annihilation', 'blinked out of existence', 'non-existence', etc.

My point is that these are contradictory teachings and beliefs. In other words, one cannot have it both ways.

Do you see the problem?

Agreed. Though, I do believe before conception, we were non-existent.

 

[HeIsHere]

Does the fact that the word annihilation isn't in Scripture really settle the issue?
The word may not be there, but the real question is what the biblical terms mean.
When Scripture talks about the wicked perishing, being destroyed, dying the second death, or facing everlasting destruction, what picture is it actually giving us?
In the same way, we use words like Trinity even though the term itself isn't found in Scripture.
The important thing is whether the concept is taught by the text.
So maybe the discussion isn't really about the label annihilation.
It's about what Jesus, Paul, and the other writers meant when they used words like death, perish, and destroy.
That's where I'd want to focus.

The concept is not there, the concept of the trinity is there.

 

[GWH]

Hell is described as, but not limited to:

Everlasting Fire - (Matt. 25:41) Why is the fire everlasting?

Everlasting Burnings - (Isa. 33:14)

A Furnace of Fire - (Matt. 13:42,50) Wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who are annhilated?

A Lake of Fire - (Rev. 20:15)

Fire and Brimstone - (Rev. 14:10)

Unquenchable Fire - (Matt. 3:12)

Do you believe Luke 16 is a metaphor, or literal?

I believe hell's fire is metaphorical, indicating literal suffering/torment/delayed karma in accordance with Rom. 2:5-11
and the "eye for eye" principle.

 

[Researcher]

Agreed. Though, I do believe before conception, we were non-existent.

I see.

Not that I can really prove what I am about to say, but I believe God's question to Job was a hypophora:

Job 38:4 - Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

God answered it here:

Job 38:7 - When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I believe we were the Morning Stars that sang together.

It's just my opinion of course.

 

[CS1]

If there is no resurrection period, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die, is the context. I was simply using it as an argument for those who think there is not eternal torment in the lake of fire. They are sadly mistaken. Their thought may be, "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die, no torment coming from us. We simply cease to exist."

when you say we simply cease to exist. sound like I am speaking to an atheist or evolutionist who says there is not God or heaven we just simply cease to exist when we die. Please explain your latter "We simply cease to exist."

do you hold to hell and eternal torment yes or no?

 

[John146]

when you say we simply cease to exist. sound like I am speaking to an atheist or evolutionist who says there is not God or heaven we just simply cease to exist when we die. Please explain your latter "We simply cease to exist."

do you hold to hell and eternal torment yes or no?

I put that in quotes signifying that's what many believe to be true, not me. I believe in annihilation. I believe hell is real and is forever.

 

[CS1]

I put that in quotes signifying that's what many believe to be true, not me. I believe in annihilation. I believe hell is real and is forever.

ok so you say you believe in annihilation? I don't know why you are being deceptive about this. You don't believe Hell is place of eternal torment ? Although you believe Hell exist?

is that a correct description of your position?

 

[OMC]

The concept is not there, the concept of the trinity is there.

If the concept isn't there, then where do you think passages about the wicked perishing, being destroyed, and experiencing the second death lead? What do those terms mean in their contexts?

The reason I ask is that both sides claim they're following the text.
One side reads those passages and sees the loss of life.
The other reads them and sees ongoing conscious punishment.
So simply saying "the concept isn't there" may not settle the question.

 

[John146]

ok so you say you believe in annihilation? I don't know why you are being deceptive about this. You don't believe Hell is place of eternal torment ? Although you believe Hell exist?

is that a correct description of your position?

Sorry, totally typed that wrong. I do not believe in annihilation. I believe in a literal hell that is eternal torment, eventually being cast into the lake of fire. Wow, I can see why you were confused. Sorry about that.

 

[Anchorite]

OK, so what I am about to say is nothing against you personally. It's something I have noticed in these debates.

Most Christians teach that there is no such thing as 'annihilation', 'blinking out of existence', 'non-existence', whatever term we wish to use here.

And yet...

They also teach that before conception, we were in a state of 'annihilation', 'blinked out of existence', 'non-existence', etc.

My point is that these are contradictory teachings and beliefs. In other words, one cannot have it both ways.

Do you see the problem?

There is no contradiction.

Most Christians say we did not exist before we were born.

This idea does not mean that after death, non-existence of a person must be possible.

 

[PennEd]

Ugh,
I hate the idea of anyone suffering eternally. I truly in my heart and soul wish those advocating for annihilation are right.

But there are several Scriptural problems aside from those mentioned.

In Luke 3:17 John says the chaff (people) will burn with fire unquenchable. The Greek word is there is “asbestos”. For those that don’t know, asbestos doesn’t burn away.

But perhaps the greatest point about eternal suffering is that In several places in Scripture, Jesus says that some are going face “greater condemnation”.

If all the lost are annihilated. How are some facing a greater punishment?

Lastly, if there is annihilation for the lost, this is exactly what Atheists believe. The only difference being they’d face Jesus before annihilation.

 

[Anchorite]

Ugh,
I hate the idea of anyone suffering eternally. I truly in my heart and soul wish those advocating for annihilation are right.

But there are several Scriptural problems aside from those mentioned.

In Luke 3:17 John says the chaff (people) will burn with fire unquenchable. The Greek word is there is “asbestos”. For those that don’t know, asbestos doesn’t burn away.

But perhaps the greatest point about eternal suffering is that In several places in Scripture, Jesus says that some are going face “greater condemnation”.

If all the lost are annihilated. How are some facing a greater punishment?

Lastly, if there is annihilation for the lost, this is exactly what Atheists believe. The only difference being they’d face Jesus before annihilation.

And annihilation would be equal punishment for each unsaved sinner, whereas the scriptures teach that there will be renderings to each person according to their deeds.

Romans 2:5,6

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

 

[GWH]

There is no contradiction.

Most Christians say we did not exist before we were born.

This idea does not mean that after death, non-existence of a person must be possible.

Yes, Christians believe all souls exist after death (in heaven or hell), but many have not considered
whether souls in hell might/must cease to exist after justice is attained.

 

[CS1]

Sorry, totally typed that wrong. I do not believe in annihilation. I believe in a literal hell that is eternal torment, eventually being cast into the lake of fire. Wow, I can see why you were confused. Sorry about that.

ok thank you. I do it all the time LOL we are in agreement.

 

[HeIsHere]

If the concept isn't there, then where do you think passages about the wicked perishing, being destroyed, and experiencing the second death lead? What do those terms mean in their contexts?

Well, we would have to go passage by passage in context, but perishing, for example, typically in the NT is not a reference to the future life but this temporal life.

I think understanding eternal life/aionios life as a present possession and having the meaning of quality of life helps to understand the other terms and what they mean in context.

 

[OMC]

Well, we would have to go passage by passage in context, but perishing, for example, typically in the NT is not a reference to the future life but this temporal life.

I think understanding eternal life/aionios life as a present possession and having the meaning of quality of life helps to understand the other terms and what they mean in context.

That's a helpful distinction, sister. If we're going to do this carefully, then I think you're right that we'd need to look at the passages one by one rather than assume they all mean the same thing.
I'd just ask: if perish in many places refers primarily to this present life, what do you do with passages where it's connected to final judgment?
For example, when Jesus contrasts eternal life with perishing in John 3:16, is He talking only about quality of life now, or is there also a future aspect in view?
I agree that eternal life is a present possession.
Jesus says believers have eternal life right now.
But does that mean it refers only to a present quality of life, or both a present reality and a future hope?
It seems the key question is whether the biblical writers use terms like life, death, perish, and destruction consistently across both the present age and the age to come.
That's where I'd want to stay in the text and let each passage speak for itself.