Deserving Eternal Torture/Torment

[Copper Scroll]

It's hard to distinguish between spirit and consciousness, depending on the definitions.

Do you have working definitions for these? After death, I won't have a brain, so does that mean that I won't be any more conscious of the afterlife (be it torture or bliss) as person in a coma is conscious that he is in the hospital? You say the spirit is "aware". How?

This brings to mind another post that argued that since God is the source of all "good things", eternal separation from God must mean eternal torture. This argument bothered me a little because it implies that anything that feels "good" is "good" in a Godly sense. Torture means pain. Pain is the opposite of pleasure. That argument implies an equation between pain and "bad" and another equation between pleasure and "good". This, to me, is called hedonism. Any thoughts (anyone)? Also, if we have been separated from our physical bodies, how can we experience pleasure or pain (torture) at all?

Actually, this is not hedonism at all. Hedonism is not about defining good and bad, but about holding personal pleasure and comfort over all else.

Right. By holding pleasure/comfort above all else, the hedonist holds pleasure/comfort as the standard for what is "good".

For example, if a hedonist sees someone being assaulted, he will weight personal risk against the other person's safety and choose self-preservation over character. This is the opposite of what Jesus did for us, and what we do when we follow him.

Agreed.

Also, pleasure is not always the opposite of pain. Some people like pain (masochists).

So the masochist will enjoy hell, I suppose.

But not all pain is physical. Sometimes emotional/spiritual agony can be worse than any physical pain. And God, who is spirit, is said to have been 'grieved' at the sins of mankind, and in the NT we are told not to "grieve the Holy Spirit". Grief is a kind of spiritual pain, because even God can feel it.

Is the spirit emotional? Where do emotions stop being physical (chemical activities in the brain) and start being spiritual (so that one can enjoy heaven and suffer hell)?

And you might have overlooked this question:

if Jesus paid for our sins with his own physical death, why do we continue to die physically? (There's probably something very simple I'm overlooking.)

Edited February 13, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[CarolineS]

Grace to you,

Carloine S;

People do not go to heaven or hell at death. They go to their graves to await the resurrection day.

"All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." John 5:28,29

"David...is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day." "For David is not ascended into the heavens." Acts 2:29,34.

"If I wait, the grave is mine house." Job 17:13.

"So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." Job 14:12

The dead will sleep until the great day of the Lord at the end of the world. In death humans are totally unconscious with no activity or knowledge of any kind.

<Matthew 25:46>

"And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The word used in the verse is punishment, not punishing. Punishing would be continuous, while punishment is one act. The punishment of the wicked is death, and this death is everlasting.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

I believe you just made two statements that are contradictory? How do you jibe this with your soul sleep belief?

So there is a great General Ressurection, right?

Then the dead sleep on in punishment forever? Or are annihilated?

The only way to bring this around is to say that there is one punishment at the General Ressurection of the dead that you postulate. That this punishment is annihilation not soul sleep. Not sleeping on forever. However and excuse me now cause now my brain begins to hurt.

Peace,

Dave

Dave,

I do not see where I made a contradictory statement. How did this conversation go from eternal punishment to the resurrection? I didn't realize I brought up the topic of the resurrection. But, since you asked....

Because Adam and Eve did not obey God's command in the Garden and ate of the Tree of Good and Evil, sin entered the world. For this reason, mankind was cursed and also given a promise of a redeemer.

<Genesis 2:17>

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Did you catch that wording? "you shall surely die." So we all die and return to dust. This is the first death. It happens to all of us, good or evil.

We rest in the grave until Jesus returns. "All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." John 5:28 Scripture tells us that Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice and follow me. So who will arise out of the grave at the first resurrection? All believers in Christ, those that kept His commandments.

Christ will return and every eye shall see Him. Believers that are alive are caught up in the air with Him. Those that are believers, who have died, will arise out of the grave. Their body and soul are reunited. Their sleep is over! We recieve our rewards that Christ brings with Him!

The unbeliever who has died stays in the grave. He doesn't know the sheperd's voice. He doesn't hear him calling. He stays in his grave. The unbelieving who are alive at Christ's return are destroyed by the brightness of His coming.

Jesus meet us in the air. We live and reign with Him in Heaven (after all He did go to prepare a place for us).

After 1,000 years, Christ and the saints return. He places His feet on the Mt. of Olives. The Holy City is set down. THEN, the unbelivers are resurrected. This is the second resurrection. They are judged and sentenced according to their sins.

<Revelation 21:8>

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Jesus came to save us from our sins. What are the wages of sin? DEATH. So Jesus came to save us from death. We will never taste death. He took our sins and our death upon Himself. Believers are given the gift

of eternal life. We, as believers, will never undergo the second death.

<Matthew 10:28>

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

This is why we can say: Oh death, where is thy sting? If we have Jesus, we have life!

In Christ,

CarolineS

[SDAinFLA]

Dr. Luke...you definetely have my prayers brother. God bless.

For 2thepoint:

It's all about context. The reality of what Malachi says is that there would be a day that God would utterly forsake people who are wicked and bring them to utter ruin. This is a reality, a promise. That figurative language is used to describe it does not make it any less a reality. Likewise, the phrase "eternal fire" is figurative language conveying an eternal judgment.

....Ok, I think I got it.

Figurative - "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Malachi 4:1

Figurative - "...the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever..." Isaiah 34:9-10

Literal - "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night,..." Revelation 14:11

This is an interesting take....

What about this scripture?

"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Isaiah 66:24

[Copper Scroll]

I did not say those references were about figurative suffering, but that figurative language was used to describe an eternal reality. Figurative speech is always for the purpose of describing a reality.

... or to elicit a certain response from the audience. God gave Israel the law but, as far as I know, God didn't tell them that he was giving them a law that they couldn't really follow or wouldn't really pay off in the end anyway--though we suppose that God did know this beforehand. I'm told that God did this to show humans how imperfect we are. God expected that Israel would try to follow the law and fail. So the law was given not to depict reality as much as to elicit a response.

I'm not saying that the law was "figurative". It just didn't mean what it appeared to mean. The same is said about figurative language. More than to depict reality, its purpose is to elicit a response.

Some people think they can take any passage of scripture, be it creation week or final judgment or just about everything in-between, and make it mean something other than what it says. Where do you draw the line? Was there really an Adam, a Fall, a Savior, and a promise of Heaven? How do you know? What I'm really saying here is, why are you even a Christian if you don't believe in eternal suffering? What practical difference is there between heaven and hell if you never knew you were annihilated? Who cares what happens after this life if you'll either exist in heaven or not exist at all?

One thing that I admit has frustrated me in this conversation is that when questions like some of these are posed you and others on this thread, the answer is "God's ways are higher." That "God's ways are higher" cannot be denied, but it's not really an answer. One could easily answer your questions with "God's ways are higher" and argue that by asking those questions you are basically complaining about unfairness. Jesus himself had parables that address those who would complain of unfairness. You and others have argued that God's sense of "fairness" and justice are "higher".

Edited February 14, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Copper Scroll]

Where do you get this idea about the law? God wrote the 10Cs in stone; do you seriously believe it was just to "get a response" from the people??

Yes. I think it's pretty obvious. The law says to do this and to do that. The response it seeks to elicit is for the audience to at least try to do this and to do that. If the audience fails they respond to their failure with guilt and fear. Of course, any law or command is designed to elicit a response.

Yes they show how we all fail, but does that make them merely figurative? Really, this idea is ludicrous.

You should take this back, because I wrote specifically that I was not saying the law is figurative.

My point was that figurative language is used more to elicit a response from its audience than to depict a reality. It doesn't really do all that great a job at depict a reality because the inevitable question always arises: Where is the line between what is real and unreal? Figurative language is used primarily to change (or to reinforce) the way its audience thinks and acts.

One thing that I admit has frustrated me in this conversation is that when questions some of these are posed you and others on this thread, the answer is "God's ways are higher." That "God's ways are higher" cannot be denied, but it's not really an answer. One could easily answer your questions with "God's ways are higher" and argue that by asking those questions you are basically complaining about unfairness. Jesus himself had parables that address those who would complain of unfairness. You and others have argued that God's sense of "fairness" and justice are "higher".

What does this response have to do with what you quoted that I said?

You asked a series of questions similar to those I asked you before. Your answer then was that "God's ways are higher". So my response to your questions, for the sake of showing what a non-answer this truly is, is that God's ways are higher.

You didn't answer the questions.

And that's the point. "God's ways are higher" is not an answer.

I did not say "just believe it even if we don't understand it", I said that disbelief in eternal torment is inconsistent with what the Bible says and cannot be supported, and that there is no reason to be a Christian if there is no eternal torment. Please address that.

Because it's the right thing, because it is what our Creator asks of us, is not good enough reason to follow Christ? You follow Christ just to avoid eternal torture? I would argue not only that God's ways are higher than this supposed "reason to be a Christian", but any mature adult's ways are higher than it. A mature adult doesn't need to punished to know the error of his ways or need to be rewarded to know the good of his ways. To me, there are "higher" reasons for following Christ than eternal torment and eternal fun fun fun... which by the way wouldn't be all that fun for me if I knew others were being tortured at the same time.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[SDAinFLA]

Man...you guys conversation is getting stranger by the moment.

Anyways...2thepoint...I want to respond to just one thing you said:

What I'm really saying here is, why are you even a Christian if you don't believe in eternal suffering?

Wow! That is a very strong question. I could almost understand if you said...why are we christians if we don't believe in heaven...but belief in Eternal Torment?

Just curious...but if one doesn't believe in literal eternal fire...why should I not wanna be a Christian?

Also, let me get your thoughts on this scripture: "For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be..." Psalms 37:10

[Copper Scroll]

Yes. I think it's pretty obvious. The law says to do this and to do that. The response it seeks to elicit is for the audience to at least try to do this and to do that. If the audience fails they respond to their failure with guilt. Of course, any law or command is designed to elicit a response.

No, it's not obvious at all.

So when someone tells you to do something (like God handing down the law), their purpose is not for you to respond by trying to do it? You'll need to explain this.

What's obvious is your lack of belief in the inspired word of God. The Israelites were not an "audience" for God to entertain, they were his chosen people, whom he loved.

"Audience" means who listens to or reads a communication. Israel was God's audience according to the OT. It doesn't mean God doesn't love them or didn't "choose" them.

The intended "response" is for the benefit of the people, not to set them up to fail.

Okay. I didn't make any statement about who the response benefits.

Again, the law was not given for the purpose of telling a story, as you keep implying.

I don't think I implied this, but you tell me: What is the purpose of the law?

You should take this back, because I wrote specifically that I was not saying the law is figurative.

Now you're changing your tune. You did in fact say the law was figurative, a setup to make the people fail and not for God's stated purposes. I cannot take back the truth.

I wrote in post 99: "I'm not saying that the law was "figurative". " ... the post that started all of this.

You asked a series of questions similar to those I asked you before. Your answer then was that "God's ways are higher". So my response to your questions, for the sake of showing what a non-answer this truly is, is that God's ways are higher.

No, I did not.

Not in those exact words, but what else essentially does this mean (from post 73:

Those of you who put God in a box and say he must do or not do certain things are putting your own sense of justice over God's. It is He who judges us, not we who judge Him! Don't let pride send you or others to eternal hell!

This is a non-answer to legitimate concerns.

My questions were about where you draw the line in deciding which parts of the Bible are literal,

It's pointless to ask what is literal and what is figurative, if the response is the same either way.

and why anyone should be a Christian if you'll either live in heaven or be annihilated.

Because (perhaps) it's what our Creator asks of us. Because it is the right thing to be... good for its own sake.

The fact remains that there is an eternal hell and an eternal heaven, and our purpose in this life is to choose between them.

But it's not a rational, informed, or clear choice. If it was then I suppose there is something to universalism, because no one would rationally choose eternal torture.

God wants you to love him, but if you refuse, he will not force you to love him, but instead will forever leave you to yourself as you choose. That's reality.

... and it suddenly doesn't sound like torture. Edited February 14, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[EricH]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion here regarding "figurative language". In order for something to be considered a figure, it must be attested either in the Bible itself, or in texts that were writtne during the same time, culture, and liiterary style as the phrase in question.

It is not enough to say that because phrase "A" occurs in an apocalyptic book, and because apocolyptic literature contains figurative language, phrase "A" must be figurative. One must be able to demonstrate from other texts (i.e. usage) that the phrase is a well know figure. Apocalyptic literature is a mix of figurative and non figurative terminology. One cannot assume figure, unless one can demonstrate it as stated above.

As a general rule, when inanimate objects are used to describe a living being, that statement may be regarded as figurative (i.e. Jesus is a rock). Also, if actions are attributed to inanimate objects, that statement may be regarded as figurative (i.e the rocks will shout). The words of the prophets should be taken in their normal literal and historic sense, unless the context demands they be taken otherwise. If we cannot find support for a symbolic interpretation (i.e. show the symbol to be a well known symbol at the time of the writing), we cannot legitimately demand a symbolic or figurative interpretation.

[SDAinFLA]

Ok...let's switch gears here.

The Bible says that "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." Revelation 20:9.

Here we have a visual of New Jerusalem sitting on the earth...and the wicked try to attack the city. All of sudden fire comes and destroys the wicked.

The question is...Do we co-habitate on the same planet for eternity with those burning? Do the wicked are the righteous live on the same planet throughout eternity?

[EricH]

Ok...let's switch gears here.

The Bible says that "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." Revelation 20:9.

Here we have a visual of New Jerusalem sitting on the earth...and the wicked try to attack the city. All of sudden fire comes and destroys the wicked.

The question is...Do we co-habitate on the same planet for eternity with those burning? Do the wicked are the righteous live on the same planet throughout eternity?

Revelation 20:9 is not a reference to the new Jerusalem. It is a reference to Jerusalem at the end of the millenial reign of Christ (Revelation 20:4). There will be a final rebellion of Satan (Revelation 20:7) who will lead humanity into a final rebellion against God at the end of that 1000 years. Christ defeats them and they are judged. The new heaven and earth are then created (Revelation 21) as well as the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2)

So there is no question of us cohabitating the New Jerusalem with the wicked. I don't see the issue