LuftWaffle

14 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

The point of my comment is we know there has been suffering since the time of Christ 2000 plus years now awaiting the final judgment and your saying God would not do this forever... the leading of Scripture is clear... no matter the will of the one reading it!

Agreed, the words of scripture shows clearly that the rich man's predicament is happened before final judgement, despite your will to make it about what happens after final judgement.

8 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

when one departs from the hermeneutic of the Scriptures one can force eisegesis onto any written portion thereof...
The eternal existence of mankind can be clearly seen here
 

Gen 1:27

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
KJV
 

thus the image of is dependent upon that which it images which being God one must only ask- how long will God last 
                                                                                                                                                                                                

Do humans being share every attribute of God, because they're created in the Image of God? I wish I had a coin for every time someone used the Imago Dei as a placeholder for whatever attribute of God they want to pick and assign to human beings.
It seems you're picking 'Immortality' from the Imago Dei to assign to human beings, but the Bible clearly states that God alone is immortal, and in numerous places immortality is a gift given only to the saved.

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

There is no extinction taught in Scripture... there is removal from and continuance elsewhere...

"if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;" - 2Pe 2:6

57 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

whether parable or not has no bearing for truth in it must be total or Jesus would be lying... the initial point of discussion is conscience torment without end.... here in this we have conscience torment up and to final judgment.

My point is that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn't discuss what happens to the unsaved after the final judgement because it takes place while the rich man's brothers are still alive.

If you are going to offer scripture to show that the ultimate fate of the unsaved is eternal conscious torment, then the scripture you offer should at the very least refer to the ultimate fate of the unsaved, not what happens before that. The parable also doesn't discuss the duration of the rich man's predicament, so all it really shows is that the man is tormented at some point in time, between the first death and judgement. It doesn't speak to the issue we're discussing at all.

48 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Gehenna (hell) was a rubbish dump, just outside Jerusalem, which was continually burning and never consumed all the rubbish, because more was continually being added.  The fire of hell will likewise keep "burning" the sinners and will never stop, because more and more sin is continually being added. 

Gehenna refers to the Valley of the sons of Hinnom which Jeremiah describes will become a 'valley of slaughter'.

"So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room." - Jer 7:32

There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus was referring to fires that couldn't consume rubbish when he referred to Gehenna. This is pure speculation on the part of some theologians. The problem with the idea that people continually sin in hell, poses a huge problem for those holding to eternal conscious torment because it argues that God's justice will never be satisfied and that a God who abhors sin, somehow allows it to continue forever.

Quote

Jesus said that the fire is NOT quenched...

To quench a fire is to put it out before it has consumed what it burns. To quench a fire is to put it out before it burns out. In Jewish tradition it was considered shameful for a corpse to be consumed and not given a proper burial. All the verses referring to fires not being quenched, maggots not dying before they've consumed the body. Birds not being frightened away before they've consumed a body (see below) and even a body 'seeing' corruption all refer to shameful death and destruction.

"Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away."

"And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind" - Isa 66:24

Quote

Regarding the "worms" - they never die (i.e. they are not literal worms but a metaphor).  If they had been literal worms, feeding on dead physical flesh, then that would not have been something to warn anyone about, since it is normal.

See Isa 66:24 above. It's definitely referring to dead bodies

On 6/30/2020 at 12:01 AM, OneLight said:

I'm not a fan of eternal punishment either, but I have not found one scripture that indicates this is not the case. 

As an annihilationist I believe the unsaved will ultimately be executed. Can you really say that there are no scriptures that support this contention? The Bible is full of references to the unsaved being slain, killed, destroyed, perishing, etc. Surely if we take those according to their plain meaning then they would all support the case for the unsaved being executed rather than living forever in torment.
 

Quote

If what happened in the OT happened today, the world would cry feverishly against killing women, children, and every living creature of a tribe or people, but God did this anyway.   When God brought the flood, He removed every single living person outside of those on the arc.  It may not be what humans would like to accept, but history tells us it is what happened, and since God does not change, who are we to say eternal judgment is not forever, be it the spirit is alive or if the spirit ceases to exist, it is forever.  We will ust have to wait and see.

In my soapbox debate with Shiloh on this topic I actually used this as part of the case for annihilationism. Throughout the Old Testament God punished the unsaved and the wicked through death and extinction. God never commanded the torture of the wicked. His way of dealing with evil has always been to get rid of it. Why would God's dealings with evil change? The wages of sin has always meant death for the sinner, from the curse of Adam, all the way through to the new testament. Why would God's way of dealing with evil change?

On 7/11/2020 at 8:17 AM, Ervin P said:

I wonder why there isn’t more mention in the Old Testament  of hell as eternal torment.

I would argue that is a conspicuous absence.
God could have easily said, "...and you will live forever in torment" instead of "...to dust you shall return".

On 7/11/2020 at 3:46 PM, David1701 said:

Amen.

Hell is a place without light, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.  In other words, they are eaten up on the inside (presumably by their guilt, anger and other sins) and are in torment on the outside, in unbearable heat.  This is everlasting death (existence - but without any of those things that make life good and pleasant), not annihilation.

The reference to worms not dying is about the slain wicked, not a metaphor for guilt. Those upon whom the worms feed are dead, not people living forever in torment.
Unquenchable fire refers to a fire that cannot be stopped until it has completely consumed that which it burns. 

Both these references offer better support annihilationism, not eternal conscious torment.

On 6/29/2020 at 11:31 PM, enoob57 said:

people wish to think it is cessation of conscious torment.... but it is not Lazarus and the rich man...

It is unclear who you are referring by the statement "...those who believe in the cessation of conscious torment". As an annihilationist I don't believe that merely the conscious torment ceases, but that the life of the unsaved will be snuffed out entirely. The unsaved will be executed! So a better description would be "...those who believe in the cessation of life..."
Unless you were referring to universalists, who believe in a temporary torment in purgatory or something?

In terms of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This parable has no bearing on the ultimate fate of the unsaved as illustrated clearly by the fact that the rich man wishes to warn his brothers who are still alive. At best this parable is a depiction of Sheol where the unsaved await judgement. This makes no reference on what happens to the unsaved after judgement, which is what this discussion is about.

There is no Is-Ought Fallacy because Im not saying that it HAS to be that way...

I get that. You're what's called a moral subjectivist. The problem is that moral thinking is part and parcel of human experience. Morality thus, is a phenomenom that requires explaining and if your worldview has no way to account for it, so that you're ultimately forced to dismiss it as merely an illusion, then it's a problem for such a worldview.

So, while you may assert that morals aren't real but that it's just an evolutionary illusion (which for atheists seems to be the only consistent option), my original question was how do you live it out, practically speaking? Do you embrace the truth and live as if there's no right or wrong? Or do you perpetuate a noble lie and live a moral life?

To say that societies practised human sacrifice, yes they did, and those practises are condemned now. Society has made moral progress, but the concept of moral progress requires some kind of moral measure, doesn't it?

Its hard to use the word moral because its technically just an empty word

It's only an empty word if you're committed to a worldview that doesn't have room for it and cannot account for it.

Sociopathy proved times and times again that its really bad for the suffering individual and that its also bad for the people around him.

Why should the sociopath care about the suffering individual? The sociopath ad his gene pool would survive just fine.

Such a trait will not be favoured by evolutionary means so it cant be called a new direction in our evolutionary path.

How do you *know* what will or will not be favoured by evolution? How is what you're saying different from 'just-so story telling', whereby you have a theory that morality is pro-survival and you invent a tale to fit the theory by just asserting that it's unfavourable to survival because you need it to be. 

However everyones morals are subjective so the best way to solve this problem, is to find solutions that satisfies most of us.

Right, so now morality becomes whatever is statistically preferable. So if a large number of people decide that the jews are a problem and that humanity as whole will be better off without them, then it becomes an act of moral fortitute to 'gas zee jews', not so? Except that nobody actually thinks this is how morality works. Especially not anybody who actually visits Auswitch. I've never been there but the sense of heaviness in that place is apparently overwhelming. I've never heard of anybody going there saying that, "well it's all about majority preference really. Some societies like jews and others like to kill them, just like some societies prefer sushi and other societies prefer tortillas"

Rape is not a pleasent thing for atleast one person and thats reason enough to not tolerate it.

Yeah, but it's very pleasant for the rapist. Now suppose the rapist can rape a woman without it being unpleasant for her? Like that dentist in Florida that I heard of who used to rape women while they were unconscious during dental surgery, or whatever. According to your logic that equates immortality to harm, no harm was done, because the women didn't even know they were raped, right? If no harm is done then nothing is wrong. The same can be said for creeps in Chinese hotels who install cameras in women's bathrooms. As long as the women don't know about the peeping Tom, he's doing nothing wrong, right? 

You could say, "...but if the women find out", but since he's not harming them in the moment there's nothing 'to find out'. Plus you have to explaining how an act can be morally neutral and somehow become morally repugnant when it's discovered. It seems then the morality is tied to the discovery not the act itself.

Rape is not a pleasent thing for atleast one person and thats reason enough to not tolerate it. Could we have for example progress, technology or science if rape was legal? I doubt that. It would just create an enviroment, in which the strong thrives on the weak and that is not productive.   If we are talking about rapes in females its very problematic due to  pregnancies. Females are generally very hungry for ressources but they are not good at gathering them. Being physically weaker is  tough, and having basically a natural physical handicap with menstruation, meant that you will lose valuable substances like iron in a time of scarcity ( time before technology). Its even worse in pregnancy because your need for ressources increases and you are less able to do anything. So we basically need a society or males to cover for females. Being unwantedly pregnant will decrease your chance of finding a mate that is willing to invest time and ressources into you, because from a survival point of view, males arent interested in females, they are interested in young and healthy eggcells, and eggcells cant be used for the 9 months shes pregnant. He would also need to invest ressources to raise the child of someone else and that can be a factor to not choose this female too. Rapists will probably not help raise and cover for the child they forcefully procreated so it could result in early child death. Aside from that, physical and mental injuries can result from rape and that doesnt help anyone.

Can I give you one word of advice? Never become a rape counsellor

The notion that the act itself isn't the problem but a loss of nutrients and attractiveness to suitable males, doesn't come close to addressing the sense of what's happened.

And this is my point really. It's only suitable to talk like this if you're a middle-class, college educated atheist having a lofty philosophical chat about morality. In the real world, this kind of view is simply unlivable. You would never consistently talk like this if one of your friends were raped, would you? Because the problem isn't survival of the species. That couldn't be further from the mind of the rapist or the victim.
If I were so inclined I could go out and rape a dozen women, and I know a fact that humanity will survive just fine. Plus I could get to hear how academics claim that what I did wasn't really wrong. That I don't owe justice a debt because 'morality', is just a complicated word...

Suicide and canibalism usually dont happen with most species unless there are some problems with that animal or the enviroment.

Saying there's a problem with an animal assumes an OUGHT about an animals behavior. Something that you do not believe in.

But you haven't actually responded to an important question. If evolution is used to explain all behavior (included what's considered moral and immoral) then you cannot claim that evolution only supports 'moral' behavior.
Evolutionary biologist claim that things like racism have an evolutionary source because it stems from wanting to favour the gene pool of those closest to your own gene pool. You cannot then claim that racism is considered immoral because it's evolutionarily unfavourable.

This is the problem with telling evolutionary just-so stories. Evolution cannot at the same time be an explanation for so-called moral behavioral traits and also be an explanation for all behavioral traits.

15 hours ago, Leyla said:

We dont want to be killed or hurt because that would either remove us from the gene pool or lower our chance of survival. We dont want the people in our society to be killed or hurt because that would damage the fabric of our society and reduce the chance for survival of our species. There is no objective evil, we are just social animals that evolved to live in groups, and living in groups requires certain rules or mechanism. Stopping destructive people from doing destructive things is simply in our interest and thats why we do it. We dont technically punish people because they are bad, for example if someone is born evil (pedophiles, people with mental illnes that want to kill because of it etc), we only punish people that actually do harm to our society(child rapists, murderes etc) 

Hi Leyla,

I'd like to illustrate something by highlighting all the present tense descriptive statements in your post:

"We dont want to be killed or hurt because that would either remove us from the gene pool or lower our chance of survival. We dont want the people in our society to be killed or hurt because that would damage the fabric of our society and reduce the chance for survival of our species. There is no objective evil, we are just social animals that evolved to live in groups, and living in groups requires certain rules or mechanism. Stopping destructive people from doing destructive things is simply in our interest and thats why we do it. We dont technically punish people because they are bad, for example if someone is born evil (pedophiles, people with mental illnes that want to kill because of it etc), we only punish people that actually do harm to our society(child rapists, murderes etc) "

Notice how you're making statements about what humans ARE doing, but morality isnt merely descriptions of what goes on on the planet right now, but rather prescriptive of what OUGHT to be done. This is called the IS-OUGHT fallacy, where one argues that since X is happening now, X is moral.
One could just as easily say that human beings are greedy and murderous animals, because you needn't look to far in history to find loads of it. 

Also, not only are mere descriptions of human behavior inadequate explanations of the moral experience, but one can argue they're simply not true. While many human beings are social animals, many of them simply aren't. If social behavior is moral for social humans because of evolution, then it antisocial behavior should be moral for sociopaths, because their anti-social behaviour is in their genes? Who is to say that sociopaths aren't simply a new direction in human evolution?

But what about behavior that promotes survival as you alluded to?
If behavior that promotes increased offspring is considered moral because evolution relies on propagation, does that mean people with more children are more moral than people with less children? Should abortion be considered immoral because it's an act designed to kill  human offspring? What about homosexual relationships which by design cannot produce offspring. Would their relationships be immoral if one simply substitutes morality for "what's conducive to human propagation"?

But I also see no reason to take your statements at face value, for instance: What is your evidence for saying things like rape lower our chances of survival?
There are many species of animals such as chimpanzees that forcefully copulate and they're surviving just fine. Lemmings kill themselves en masse, and this no doubt has an evolutionary explanation too. Cannibalism is rife in certain species, and this behavior has evolutionary benefits according to biologists. Nature is full of destructive behavior and virtually every behavior that could be considered a vice in humans can be found in the animal kingdom, and those animals thrive, and biologists invent evolutionary explanations for those behaviours. 

I can't help but think that a lot of the evolutionary explanations for morality are what's referred to as just-so stories. You need to explain why rape is wrong so you tell a story making rape contra to survival, with no evidence. You need to explain why cutting someone off on the highway is wrong so you invent an evolutionary explaination for how that somehow hampers human survival. 
But then in the same breath evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists are coming up with explanations for behaviour that's considered negative. 

So if morality is determined by evolutionary benefit then you can't use the same explanations based on evolutionary benefit to explain bad behavior. 

On 4/28/2019 at 2:58 PM, Leyla said:

3) Just saying evil is not enough we need an example of objective evil. What we think of as evil is subjective and comes from things that we can explain evolutionary and with other means. There is no reason to think that there is an objective evil in our universe.

If evil isn't real as you say, then what should we do about laws? Do we pretend that rape, murder, child abuse, sex trafficing etc. is bad and incarcerate perpetrators of such acts, or do we let people define right and wrong as they see fit?

On 1/3/2019 at 5:32 PM, Vince said:

I think you mean absolute moral values instead of objective moral values.  Non believers have objective moral values if they define what the basis for those values are. 

Hi Vince, I would have to disagree with you. Objective morals are the opposite of subjective morals. Objective means 'mind-independent' such that an action will be wrong or right even if nobody thinks so.
Absolute morals on the other hand refer to morals that are 'circumstance independent'. Some have argued that torturing babies for fun is a moral absolute because it always applies. The moral argument doesn't require moral absolutes, it is based on objective moral values and duties so the OP is correct.

Furthermore, I'd say you're wrong that an atheist can objectively ground morals by simply tying their moral standard to some objective measure like wellbeing, because their selection of that particular measure instead of another is still subjective.

17 minutes ago, 1sheep said:

You have to ignore alot of passages to come to your conclusion.

I'm aware of the ECT prooftexts. It's basically two sections in Revelation that are visionary symbols, but must be read at face value to support ECT. One parable in Luke (The rich man and Lazarus) which doesn't describe the fate of the unsaved, and then about five or six passages that require eternal conscious torment to be read into them before they can be used as proof texts, but in actual fact are better support for my view when understood in their context. Is that what you're referring to?

If so, I'm aware of those verses and I've studied them very carefully, but I'm always happy to discuss it with honest enquirers

3 hours ago, Cletus said:

Mar 9:43  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

This says the fire never goes out and basicly you have maggots eating you forever. 

Isa 66:24  "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." 

As an annihilationist I voted yes. The question is rather odd, because annihilationists don't deny hell, we simply deny that hell consists of eternal conscious torment. Instead we believe that the bible clearly teaches that the fate of the unsaved is death and the word 'hell' refers to Gehenna a.k.a. the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom which is described as a place of slaughter.

So I guess the question should rather have been, "who denies the idea that the fate of the unsaved is eternal conscious torment?" Neither ECT, nor Annihilationists nor Universalists deny hell, so I'm not surprised that there are no 'no' votes.

On 9/1/2018 at 9:59 PM, siegi91 said:

First off, information is physical. Yes, I was also surprised. Information looks like something very abstract that cannot be really grasped. But it is physical. It can be measured in bits, or energy/temperature units if we want.

No, Siegi information is not physical. What is measurable is not the information but the medium upon which information is stored/represented. If Beethoven's fifth symphony is stored (i.e. represented) on a hard-drive it can be measured in bits, if it is played on a piano it can be measured as sound waves, if it is stored on a cassette tape it can be measured as magnetic nodes, if it is written on paper with ink it can be stored as music notation, but none of those mediums ARE the information, they're merely mediums storing a tokenized version of the information. One cannot ask how magnetic Beethoven's 5th Symphony is, because it's not the information that's magnetic but a certain storage medium. etc.

In short then, it seems you're conflating the message with the medium.

Quote

Which is cool. That entails that me writing this post was in principle deducible from the status of the Universe millions of years before my existence. 

This would be true only in a fully deterministic worldview. The problem is that you expect to be paid for the novel work that you do, likewise inventors and artists don't credit the universe (or cause-effect) for the intellectual property they produce, because they know that they, as individual minds, have produced something and that they deserve some credit for it. This is why it's so absurd that Stephen Hawking can in one book espouse determinism and yet miss the irony of then expecting royalties for selling that book.

If the universe is deterministic, are people responsible for anything they do?

 

22 hours ago, thomas t said:

Although Esau hasn't been born yet, he was instantly hated by God, as is announced by that passage (my interpretation).

And now you ask: " If God knows [...] why are we going through this, that would be an act of a cruel God, yet I know for a fact that He is just..... "

 

My answer to this would be: Esau didn't have a bad life, in my opinion, as he had as many as three wives - Gen 28:9.

Question: What's better than having 3 wives?

Answer: ...not being hated by God from before you were born.

Shiloh, I'm going to have to cut the debate short, because of some work related issues that require my attention for the next couple of weeks till well into the new year and this debate is taking more of my time than I would be able to spare.

So, I'd like to thank you for debating me, and to Steve for setting it up. 
Fortunately I think in only 3 rounds we covered a lot of ground and the main issues in this debate from a biblical perspective have been discussed, which I'm very satisfied with.

Closing statement
In closing I'd like to urge the readers to take a step back and look at the cases presented here:

We see a sweeping theme of life vs death occurring throughout scripture from cover to cover. We see a perfect symmertry in the gospel, of sin entering into the world bringing with it death, and we see Christ dying for mankind (for the wages of sin is death), to free them from it, so that while it's appointed for every man to die once, the faithful will not perish in the second death but will receive everlasting life. The unsaved will be destroyed in both body and soul and this second death will be permanent, an eternal destruction. This is Annihilationism plainly stated.

Conversely, the Traditionalist case is built on two pillars. The first being a handful of proof-texts, which as I demonstrated rely on bad inferences, but when read in light of the Bible, actually support the Annihilationist case. The second pillar is the notion that all souls are immortal and that death requires a special "spiritual" definition of some kind. Both the immortality of the soul and the notion that death means "separation" of some kind is explicitly found in the teachings of Plato, the Platonist influence on the early church is clearly documented in history, and most theologians are actually quite blazé about it (except when defending the traditional view of hell). 

If the proof-texts for Traditionalism cannot support the burden of proof placed on them, and the redefining of the word "death" is necessary to circumvent the consistent theme of life vs death found throughout the bible, what is left of the traditional case?
Sure, I expect to be told that my view of death isn't "spiritual" enough, that it is too ordinary and mundane, to which I say, "that is the strength of my case not a weakness!" 
The Bible doesn't make any distinction between ordinary death and a special "theological death" because it doesn't need to in order to be the hope of life for the fisherman, the tax collector and the prostitute. The gospel will always be a stumbling block to the Jew and a foolishness to the Greek. The eternal conscious torment view isn't more 'spiritual' for having a concept of "theological death", because the fact is that it needs it to harmonise the word "death" with the notion of living forever in torment.

We often tick our name next to the idea of "Sola Scriptura" and for Protestants to say it, has almost become trite. I have had to choose between tradition and what I read in the Bible and it has taken me almost two years of Bible study and prayer and research to finally commit to Annihilationism knowing full well that I will lose friends, that I will be called a liberal, a heretic, man-centred and that the Biblical case will for my view will be ignored and that my motives will be questioned. It's one thing believing in Sola Scriptura, but it's another thing having to say, "this is what the Bible says, this is what I've always been taught, I'm going to trust the Bible". I'm not saying this because I expect pity or praise, but because I do respect tradition and I do respect my opinions of my fellow Christians. One should never go against centuries of Christian teaching lightly, and one must not switch doctrines at a whim, but in the end I am convinced that Annihilationism is the correct view of what happens to the unsaved.

Thanks for reading

Quote

I should clarify that when I said that Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s, I was referring to modern articulation of that view, not that no one believed anything similar prior the 1800s.  My apologies, as I should have explained that point better.

 I am not aware of any “modern articulation of Annihilationism” as distinctly separate from the kind of Annihilationism one can read in Athanasius, Justin Martyr etc. I have also never heard of any Annihilationists distinguishing their view of the fate of the unsaved from that of the apostolic fathers, so as far as I can tell this distinction is made up.

Quote

The fact that we can find early church fathers who believed in a similar view doesn’t lend it any credence as a doctrine. 

I have offered the Annihilationism of the apostolic fathers as a counter to the false history that you presented, that "Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s”. I did not built my case for Annihilationism on the view of the apostolic fathers, so to now respond as if I did, is rather disingenuous.

Having said that though, the fact that the closest church fathers, some of whom were students of the original apostles, were mostly Annihilationists, and as time went on and more Hellenic views were adopted into mainstream Christianity the majority shifted toward the Eternal Conscious Torment view, certainly doesn't harm my case, does it?

If Eternal Conscious Torment is true, it would mean the church started out in error, and gradually got their view of hell right with Augustine and Tertullian, who just happened to be students of Plato.

So while I obviously don’t give the historical case as much credence as the scriptural case, I think the historical case is worth considering.

Weren’t you the one who said that in order to understand a view we must investigate where it comes from?

Quote

I understand that Luftwaffle’s remarks are not based in emotion.  But one part of understanding a theological view is to understand where it comes from.   Luftwaffle isn’t the only person arguing for annihilationism and it is important to look at how a theological view has been developed of late.   Who are its major proponents and what did THEY say in defense of it?

While you claimed that Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s you looked at a single 20^th century proponent (Pinnock) who preceded his exegetical case for Annihilationism with a statement of moral outrage, and you have taken that as exemplifying all Annihilationists and what drives them. Forgive me for seeing this as purely an attempt at poisoning the well against Annihilationism.

It’s tantamount to taking John Wesley’s outrage at predestination as a proof that Arminians are basically theological liberals, driven by emotion.

I haven’t even read Pinnock before this discussion so to act as though Pinnock is representative of all Annihilationist is really unfortunate. Most of the Annihilationists that I’ve interacted with are very serious about what the Bible teaches, and it’s for Biblical reasons that most of us made the switch from Eternal Conscious Torment to Annihilationism knowing that we’ll be accused of liberalism, heresy and so on. I’m fine with it and as a rule I don’t complain, but one would not expect this sort of thing in a serious debate.

Quote

Bible uses death to describe a spiritual condition.  It is widely understood that sin separated mankind from God.   Adam began the process of physical death when He was cut off  from God because of sin.  Adam was spiritually dead due to sin, just as God promised.  And we are described in our unregenerate state as dead.   We know from Rom. 5:12-21 that we are spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s sin, that we only receive eternal life because Jesus reversed the curse through being the second Adam who redeemed us from the penalty incurred upon us by the first Adam. 

Theologically, “death” is not limited to simply ceasing to exist.  In theological terms, death as a much broader meaning and usage than Luftwaffle cares to admit

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assertions above about the Bible supposedly teaches, which is easy to do. You cannot simply assume that “death” must have a broader meaning than the straightforward every-day use of the word, a case needs to be made.

Quote

No one is reading that particular definition into every instance that describes the fate of the unsaved at death.  That is something you are assigning to me, not something I have done.

But you have ignored my extensive opening case where the Bible describes the fate of the unsaved as death, perishing and destruction and this is found everywhere in scripture. You think you can get around it, by redefining death to mean “separation” and then replacing the word wherever needed.

This is why you *need* a theological definition of “death”:

Quote

I have to build a case and the first thing I have to do is demonstrate that the Bible has a theology of death.   And I have to show that its theology of death is more complex than you seem to understand.  You have tried to oversimplify what death means and then make that the working definition of death for the conversation.  Before I can even start to tackle annihilationism, I have to have a foundational line of argumentation about what death is, from a theological (not philosophical) standpoint.

I’m surprised that you would call my definition of death philosophical and your definition of death theological when your idea of death was formulated by Augustine using the Greek philosopher Plato’s conceptualisation of death as a “separation”. Your statement, “Physical death—separation of the spirit from the body”, is practically a word-for-word quote from Plato. On the other hand the Annihilationist definition of death is vividly described in the Bible as returning to the ground, perishing, corruption, corpses consumed by worms and fire, exemplified by Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

So it seems the exact opposite of what you say is true.

Quote

Luftwaffle’s use of prolepsis here is invalid.   Paul is not using a proleptic argument at all.   Paul is talking about what we were prior to knowing Christ.  We were dead in trespasses and sins.   When Paul talks about us being raised up and seated with Jesus in Heavenly places, he is talking about our present spiritual position IN Christ.   In theological terms we are talking about positional justification, which is the result of our legal justification.   We are, spiritually, either in Adam or in Christ, or under the law or under grace.    We are positionally, in Christ, in heavenly places, and that puts under grace.  That is position, not where we are in terms of our actual experience.   This is not a statement from Paul about future glorification and the text doesn’t allow for that interpretation.

Again you cannot merely insist that it is so, a case needs to be made.

Your use of this passage to establish a “theological definition of death” relies entirely on a false dilemma which states that if we encounter the word ‘death’ and its meaning isn’t literally true in the tense it was uttered, then the only possible interpretation is that this must be a new definition of death being introduced.

This strategy completely bypasses any literal devices that must be in play in the text, which far from how one normally exegetes the Bible. One doesn’t bypass any literary context, leaping straight to the conclusion that this must be talking about a special kind of “theological death”, which is really just Plato's definition masquerading as theology.

Both proof-texts that were offered to justify a special “theological” definition of death, refer to future events, namely the resurrection to life of the believer and a judgement for the unbeliever, but notice how Shiloh attempts to avoid the clear prolepsis: by claiming that the “being resurrected with Christ and seated in the heavenly places” must also be read “spiritually”. So his proof-text for the spiritualizing of the word “death”, relies on the spiritualizing of the other elements in the verse as well.  

But, even if we grant that Paul is using death in some figurative sense, that still doesn’t justify the leap to a whole new set of definitions for the word death, that just happens to be what Eternal Conscious Torment needs.

From an Annihilationist perspective I think Paul’s message is very simple: death entered the world through Adam, Christ died and was raised so that human beings either belong to the Adam group which is still subject to death, or the Christ group which is subject to Christ’s bodily resurrection and the hope of living forever. No need to switch definitions of death here, and no need to enlist the help of Plato or Augustine. Jesus didn’t die spiritually in our place, He died in the ordinary sense. His resurrection wasn’t some Gnostic spiritual resurrection but a physical resurrection. We can share in that conquest of ordinary death if we belong to the risen one. It's that simple!

While Shiloh may say this is an over-simplification, I can just as easily respond that his view is an over-complication. In the end, accusations and rhetoric is no substitute for a clear case which is what I made in my opening statement. 

Quote

In this passage, he states that those who believe have (present tense) eternal life.  Verse 25 isn’t talking about the resurrection.  That is mentioned later.  “He says that hour is coming and now is…”   That isn’t speaking of the physical resurrection of the righteous dead.  That is not this present hour that “now is.”   In verse 25, it is talking about lost sinners hearing His voice and receiving eternal life.  It is a manner of speaking in that they hear His voice via the Person of the Holy Spirit convicting them to believe and obey the Gospel.

Prolepsis, by definition is the present or past tense statement of a future event so merely pointing to the fact that the language uses the present tense doesn’t refute that this prolepsis is used by Jesus.

Jesus’ use of “the hour is coming and is now”, is a figure of speech denoting a new dispensation that has begun. To use that as an argument that this must be present sense misses the literary device Jesus is using.

For instance Jesus uses the exact same phrase in John 4:23 to describe the new Gospel. Jesus used the same expression to warn the disciples that they would flee from Him. Not once is that expression used to something that was busy happening at present. In each case the phrase was using to describe an outcome that was “at hand”.  

So nothing here really refutes the clear prolepsis at play in this passages. Resurrection and judgement is a future event and the life and death described in verse 25 is explained in subsequent verses. Shiloh claims that Jesus is only later speaking of the judgement and resurrection, but the verses are separated by the connecting statement “Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming” literally adjacent verses there is no indication that Jesus has changed topics here.

Quote

Prior to the day of judgment, the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead will be raised.  Those who died in Christ will receive their resurrected bodies and live with Christ forever.   Those who died without Jesus are resurrected for their final judgment, meaning the lake of fire or what the Bible calls, “the 2^nd death.”   If dead in Hell are dead, why are they still alive for judgment, if dead means ceasing to live? 

You have answered you own question above, because as you say the unrighteous dead will be raised/resurrected prior to judgement.

Quote

2^nd death isn’t my term.  That comes from the Bible, in the book of Revelation.  The 2^nd death is distinguished from Hell, otherwise it would not be called “the 2^nd death.”  I am not making that distinction; the Bible is.  I am just using biblical terminology for the lake of fire.

The interpreting Angel in revelation is interpreting the symbols that John sees, and the angel interprets the symbols as referring to the “second death”.

If you remember what I said about carnivorous cows:

Joseph when interpreting Pharao’s dream said, “the cows are seven years”, thus the cow is the symbol and what the symbol represents is seven years in real life.

The angel says, “The lake of fire is the second death”, so following the same reading the lake of fire is the symbol and what it represents in real life is the second death.

This of course is exactly what we see throughout scripture, because the bible consistently describes the fate of the unsaved as death throughout the Old and the New Testament. Virtually every proof-text for Eternal Conscious Torment when examined according to scripture also describe scenes of death and destruction and the angelic interpreter calls the interpretation of the symbols “the second death”.

Traditionalists tend to do the reverse here, they see the lake of fire as a literal lake of fire and they see the “second death” as some figurative symbol. They then use that figurative reading as proof that this is a special meaning of death, which as I pointed out is question begging.

Quote

Trying to distinguish between ceasing to live vs. ceasing to exist is really futile.   They both fundamentally mean the same thing. It’s distinction without a difference. If you die you cease to live and you also cease to exist. It’s just commonsense. So, I am perfectly valid in using either term to describe how you defined death.  They are synonymous.

If they both fundamentally mean the same thing then why do you insist on using “ceasing to exist” instead of “ceasing to live” which is a definition that I explicitly denied in my opening statement? If these definitions are synonymous as you claim, then you’d have no reason to prefer one definition over the other yet you do. Why?

I have explicitly defined “death” as “ceasing to live” and I have explicitly denied that I define death as “ceasing to exist”.

Tables and chairs exist but they are not alive, so the distinction between existing and being alive should be obvious.

But let’s be honest about what's going on here, because I'm not new to this issue: it’s a fairly common strategy to caricaturise Annihilationists as defining “death” as “ceasing to exist” which is then used to make the view look absurd as is the case when Shiloh said, “Adam and Eve died but they didn’t cease to exist”, which if that’s what we argued, would be ridiculous. So this is basically just a common strawman.

Quote

It does not follow since Jesus paid for our sins on the cross and not in hell, that man’s punishment cannot be an eternity in Hell.  He is trying to make a philosophical argument, and it is simply not valid.

Again we see the attempt to make it look as though everything Shiloh says is “theological” whereas everything I say is “philosophy”, even though the nature of the atonement is a theological question, not a philosophical one. You will be hard pressed to find the atonement discussed much in Philosophy, but it is a prominent feature in systematic theology.

Now, of course we can and should be logical when we approach scripture and the logic is straight forward: If one holds to an a substitutionary view of the atonement, which is that Jesus took the penalty we deserved in our stead, then the substitutionary atonement being death means the punishment taken by the substitute (which we deserved) would be death too.

Quote

Jesus death on the cross saves man from an eternity in Hell.   Jesus wasn’t saving us from having to pay for our own sins.   Man is not in Hell paying for his own sins through punishment.  The punishment no way pays for our sins.  Hell is the consequence of rejecting Jesus’ offer of eternal life.

Once again you keep focusing on the word “payment” and missing the point I’m making. The Bible describes the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin as death. Penal Substitutionary Atonement teaches that Christ's death on the cross wasn't just some symbolic gesture, but it was the substitute taking the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin in our place. Since the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin Jesus took was death and not eternal conscious torment, it’s reasonable that the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin humans deserve is death too.

Rom 3:23-25  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.  

Isa 53:5  But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.  

Gal 1:4  who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

1Pe 2:24  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Joh 3:14-16  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

Quote

No, that assessment of our line of argumentation completely misses the mark. This is not a philosophical discussion about death; it is a theological one, and this attempt to make it philosophical completely evades what is really said in Scripture.

....and again we see the repeated narrative that your view is theological and Annihilationism is based philosophy, in spite of the fact that your statement that physical death is a separation of the soul from the body is a direct quote from Plato and isn’t found anywhere in the Bible (unless it’s first read into the Bible).

The idea that all souls are immortal is also an undisputed Hellenic notion, which is openly contradicted by the Bible.

The mainstream systematic theology of eternal conscious torment, which is basically what you’re espousing here first appears on the scene in the 5^th century in Augustine’s “City of God”, and I have mentioned already that both Augustine and Tertullian were students of Plato and their incorporation of Platonic concepts with mainstream Christianity isn't actually disputed.

I have even come across someone who claims that in order to understand Christianity one must read Plato (https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/), and I was once called an alarmist for emphasising the Platonic connection to Eternal Conscious Torment, "because" I was told, "this isn't news to anybody".

So it seems we find ourselves in upside-down land. The Traditionalists trying to read Greek philosophy into the Bible are doing "theology" and those trying to get Greek Philosophy out of our theology are "attempting to make the discussion philosophical". 

On 10/31/2017 at 8:29 PM, Bonky said:

Look at your examples of what some people think are delusions...one of them includes a psychopath.  I would think our discussion of morality should focus on the NORM not the brain damaged or similar. 

Hi Bonky,

I wasn't talking about our discussion on ethics but was referring to you statement about getting a clue that you're not delusional. Being deluded is a psychological state, isn't it?
My point wasn't to liken you to a psychopath or even to refer to you as damaged in some way. It was simply an comment on the sorts of evidence that someone like that has at their disposal. As psychopath is aware of the existence of empathy even though they don't directly perceive it, because of the testimony of others and because of philosophical reasons. I'm saying that those lines of evidence are basically the same kinds of evidence that you have at your disposal to come to an awareness of a reality that you don't directly perceive either.

See, when you're delusional some strong "Road to Damascus" type revelation won't convince you that you're not delusional. In fact I think for you personally it may have just the opposite effect. Most atheists want some special miraculous invitation from God, but I'm saying those kinds of evidence will not be sufficient to convince a person like you that you're not deluded.

Quote

I admitted up front that I didn't know much or enough about the topic specifically to temper my statements about free will.  I never said that I was rock solid with these terms or even their implications.  So I don't think it's fair to ding me on something I admitted I wasn't comfortable [knowledge wise] with yet.

You're right, that was a cheap shot and I apologise for it. There was a point in there though, which is that when atheists call themselves "sceptical" I have found that this refers singularly to a reserved scepticism for God. When it comes to all other topics they are not more sceptical, or less sceptical than any other people. This is my point, atheists identify themselves as "being sceptics" as though scepticism is part of their make-up, which would really more accurately be description not as "I am sceptical", but "I am sceptical of things about God". The problem though is that such an admission would fly in the face of something else that atheists claim all the time, which is that they have no special bias against God, they merely lack belief.

Quote

I don't view Christians as inherently irrational or thoughtless.   

I will admit that many many times their explanations for WHY they believe what they believe are anticlimactic, or unimpressive I guess.   I don't think I'm being particularly harsh in my criticism either.

I think many times Christians tend to be a but triumphalist and I would agree with many atheists that a great number of miracle claims don't seem convincing. I don't think though that one needs an impressive case to be rationally justified in believing something. Atheists tend to buy into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra, which I don't think is a good epistemic criteria. I think one can be rationally justified in believing in the existence of God from pretty mundane pieces of evidence, like the moral argument, the cosmoligical argument, etc.

Quote

A number of the things you've put in here are not views that I espouse so you seem to be speaking to a group of people.

I know you don't directly espouse these view, but atheism by definition requires a belief that something can come from nothing, that life can come from non-life, that moral values can emerge from amoral matter and so on. The things I listed were merely the best theories. My point was just that while atheism claims to have science on it's side, this is merely superficial. In order to explain these kinds of origin questions, atheism must part ways with science.

Quote

It wasn't something that led me away from the faith, I'm sure he was just responding with what he was really thinking.

Sure, and I didn't mean to diss' your friend, but I do have a problem with the approach of not trying to give answers to honest questions.

Quote

I actually loved Hitchens but he debated with a cocky and snarky demeanor, but that was just who he was.  I didn't always see things the way Hitchens did but I always found him entertaining I guess.  Krauss is similar, I find him entertaining but he wouldn't be my first pick to debate a top tier opponent.  I think that's a side gig for him not a focus.  I listen to Sam Harris once in a while.  He's not as openly arrogant but I feel like he's fair in his approach to topics.

I loved Hitchens too. I felt He was just "keeping it real", whereas I find Dawkins to be utterly disingenuous. Krauss is part of a new line of scientists, who are actually philosophically incompetent and who make really stupid claims like saying "phjilosophy is dead" all the while doing poor philosophy. This includes Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Steven Hawking and Bill Nye. Will Bill Nye I'm using the loosest possible definition of scientist. I agree with you though, I think science is their thing, but I think provocative statements helps book sales.

I am not impressed with Sam Harris. In his debate with William Lane Craig, he was arrogant and I found his arguments to be the classic rattling of "biblical problems" while ignoring the foundational problem with his own "moral landscape" view. Sadly WLC is dry as can be and while I think Harris lost the debate, WLC isn't the most cuddly and likeable person out there. 

Quote

Surely the Bible supports the idea of punishment and why couldn't barrenness be included?

I agree but it's one thing saying that God might punish with barenness and it's a whole nother thing saying, "You are barren, therefore you are being punished". God knows whether or not He is punishing or testing someone, but I don't think Christians have the right to assume that someone's misfortune is a punishment. Most of the time misfortune is just that.

Quote

 Surely we don't treat each other this way in day to day life, we're usually happy to show other people "our work" so that they can see where we're coming from.  In religion it seems to often be viewed [skepticism] as an attack or rebellious action.  

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I do believe many of us here have taken time to show "our work", and while I think the issue may not be purely intellectual for many atheists, I do think we try not to paint every atheist as some kind of villain. You have to keep in mind though that we are often on the defense here and perhaps we ought to be more charitable and not take things so personally. Politically and culturally though Christianity is fighting many battles on many fronts.

Quote

I would say counter arguments to theistic claims.  I am also going with my own personal experience that I really don't have a good reason to believe that the supernatural world really exists.  Or even if it did, to what extent.  I honestly thought that my departure from Christianity was going to be temporary.  I figured something would happen to draw me back but that never happened.   If I were to ever go back, it would need to be after I have a reason or reasons why I actually believed, not just doing it because that's what my culture was hip on.

Ok, fair enough. All I ask is that you take into account that countering any view, is much easier than making a case for the view. I guess what impressed me the most is how phisopically robust Christianity is. This is an old religion dating back to the bronze age, and in a modern scientific world of satellites and cellphones, it can still hold its own in the marketplace of ideas. Whether or not you're convinced by it is obviously a different story, but you must admit, that if the Judeo-Christian worldview was a mere human, invention, it is a pretty time-tested and robust invention.

...And our head-honcho Jesus, if He was just some dude looking to make a name for himself, He sure pulled it off and then some.
Even the atheist version of Jesus' story is impressive, I mean, this guy comes out of nowhere, a carpenter's kid from the crappy part of Israel. He has no formal education no real marketable skill. He makes a name for himself as a miracle worker (let's assume He figured out some David Blaine sleight of hand tricks which convinced some people that He could heal people). He starts making political enemies and enemies in the religious establishment because He exposes their corruption and hypocrisy. He gets caught and executed, and his little group of twelve frightened followers deny him to save their backsides and flee.

Suddenly some event happens that makes these same cowardly disciples believe that He has risen from the grave and they start proclaiming this everywhere, this time even being martyred for Him whereas before they denied Him. The story of the risen man spreads across the whole world and now 2000 years later the smartest philosophers and the smartest scientists in the world are still taking about this guy. If that was just a con-artist doing the greatest con the world had ever seen, as an avid Poker player, I would still pick Him as my hero.

Either way, I'm glad you're here, and I hope that you don't decide one day that you've had enough of us and leave. Perhaps some day the penny will drop for you, and perhaps it won't, but you have many friends here and they are praying for you.

On 10/20/2017 at 6:27 PM, Bonky said:

I guess something that would tip me off that I'm not delusional.  No need for fireworks, but somehow affirmation that I'm not just just buying into fiction.

To a psychopath the concept of empathy may seem like a delusion. Or to a colour-blind person, being told that something is green or red may seem like others are deluded. What evidence are such people given beyond the mundane tools of logic, reason and experience? Wouldn't you say that given your life experience and the arguments presented in this thread that believing there is such a thing as right or wrong is a mere delusion? It is delusional to think that cause and effect applies to the cosmos, such that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? 

I don't want to rehash all the arguments, but given what you've learnt here over the years, that it's possible to be a Christian and still be rational, thoughtful and of relatively sound. But I still can't help but think that your problem isn't with evidence. You accepted compatibilism because it's convenient to do so without even really investigating it. You admitted that the subject is new to you and yet you accepted it, just because you thought it would help you avoid the consequences of determinism. Isn't believing something just because it's convenient far worse than a Christian who at least knows why he believes what he believes?

As an atheist you must believe some pretty fanciful things yourself such as:

that there is no objective right or wrong,

that we are responsible for our actions even though our actions are determined by forces outside our control,

that universes can come into being from nothing,

that there is a multiverse that happens to spew out universes that are sufficiently random in nature to make a universe like ours a matter of statistical inevitability.

that science and observation are the only ways to find truth.

As such I think philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a point when he says that theism appears superficially to contradict reality but at it's core is compatible with reality, whereas naturalism appears superficially compatible with reality, but at its core, contradicts it. 

I mean, the problem you claim to have is that you can't see God, but the bigger problem with your view is that it can't see right, wrong, meaning, purpose, responsibility, and it needs to violate the laws of science to explain, the cosmos, why the world is the way it is, human origins etc. You could claim that you just don't know what the answers are because they haven't been discovered yet, but that's a tacit admission that when it comes to observable evidence, Plantinga is correct.

Quote

I was talking to a good friend of mine who was studying to be a pastor.  His dad was a pastor in the area.  I was trying to express that I had this thought that, what if I'm wrong.  I started off my sentence with something like "Did you ever look at opposing arguments and think....."  He finished my sentence and said something like "...You just know you're right."

If you know anything about me is that I'm very much opposed to the anti-intellectualism that you find in Christianity. If your friend had done his Christian duty to address the questions of the human intellect as well as to deal with the issues of the human heart, then perhaps you would not have become so disillusioned. It makes me very angry when people honest questions get dismissed with this kind of pious-sounding mysticism.

Fortunately many churches are abandoning this romanticism and realising that Christianity needn't be sheltered from scrutiny but that it can stand its ground in the marketplace of ideas. 

Quote

LOL Elton John songs.  I tried the UU church after I became agnostic.  I actually loved it, I was dating a girl that lived near Penn State so I went to the UU church up there [she went there].  I got to see these brilliant well educated folks talk about their concerns, they voiced their values and beliefs.  Everyone was welcome, I truly enjoyed that time.  I just couldn't keep up with it I guess, besides we eventually broke up lol.

I think a lot of atheists are brilliant, indeed. Sadly I find the popular atheists like Dawkins, Lauwrence Krauss and Hitchens aren't anywhere near as smart as some thoughtful atheist bloggers. 

Quote

For instance I remember my nephews wife couldn't get pregnant.  Word got out that my sister speculated that it was sin in her life that was robbing her of bearing a child.  That really hurt her feelings, but the sad thing is that there is biblical support for that thought process.

There is biblical support for blaming a person's misfortune on sin? Heck, no. Abraham's wife Sarah must have been a great sinner indeed. 

We all have horror stories about church, because church is made of people and people are messed up, unfortunately.

Quote

I agree that's why I don't shut myself off from the possibility that God is out there and wanting some kind of relationship.  I just feel like I tried to hard and I guess my skeptical impulses started to get the better of me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with scepticism per sé. As long as it's applied consistently. I find many atheists aren't though. They're hyper-sceptical when it comes to claims that might favour Christianity and they believe any nonsense they find on the internet that is against Christianity. Christians are by no means immune to this confirmation bias, either, but Christians do not pride themselves on their scepticism and rationalism as atheists do.

Quote

I started considering secular arguments and while not all of them impress me, some of them make more sense to me than what religion offers.

Are you talking about positive arguments for secularism, or just arguments attempting to undercut or refuse theistic arguments? I have seen very few argument in favour of atheism other than the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil, and neither of those are considered compelling nowadays even among thoughtful atheists.

On 10/14/2017 at 11:19 PM, missmuffet said:

If a person believes in " annihilation" they believe that the soul which has gone to hell will be destroyed. That is not biblical. The soul will never be destroyed.

This sort of thing occurs when one bases what's "biblical" on popular doctrine instead of what the bible actually says. The idea that souls cannot be destroyed has made it's way into Christianity through church fathers like Tertullian and Augustine incorporating the teachings of Plato into their theology. Plato taught the immortality of souls, and that souls therefore cannot be destroyed and these Platonistic ideas became part of mainstream Christianity. Most people believe the Bible teaches it because theologians repeat these ideas, but the bible, teaches the exact opposite:

Mat 10:28  And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mat_7:13  "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Php 3:19  Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 

Th 5:2-3  For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 

2Th_1:9  They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

Psa_55:23  But you, O God, will cast them down into the pit of destruction; men of blood and treachery shall not live out half their days. But I will trust in you.