Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

As of right now I would consider myself an Annihilationist in regards to my view of Hell. I'm not looking to try to push Annihilationism or get into a debate between the various views. I want to look more deeply into the issues around what Hell is with other minds and I would love to hear from those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, to the various reasons you believe it makes sense within Christianity. I'm looking to challenge my view and I was hoping you all could help me out.

[William]

[Replying to post 100 by The Tanager]

I do think a "moment" of "torment" (weeping/gnashing) occurs before actual annihilation. In the sense of people being raised again, still stubbornly and devastatingly self-centered, being judged and then being annihilated.

GOD is consciousness and all consciousness is GOD.
GOD is eternal, thus all consciousness is eternal.

If anything was to be annihilated it would have to be that which can be. Thus it would have to be the memories of these "still stubbornly and devastatingly self-centered" individuals which are deleted.

In that sense, the 'person' would be annihilated but the consciousness would remain...like a clean slate, ready for the next experience.

But in that, what good would it do to annihilate the personality after all it has been through and experienced in relation to being an individual unit of consciousness?

What you are suggesting is that there is a tiny moment where the blinders are finally removed and for that brief moment the individual gets to see things the way they never did and then after they react woefully, they are extinguished.

This type of thinking may well be acceptable to narcissists who would enjoy such notions, but really, how is it even sensible?

What would be the point of resuscitating a person just to say 'I told you so' and then killing them?
What is there for any person to learn in that? The whole concept is very juvenile. It smacks of invention by those who seek vengeance in the name of some twisted idea of justice of which - without - they would somehow not be wholesome themselves. Yet can such individuals really be considered to be wholesome in the first place?

[The Tanager]

What you are suggesting is that there is a tiny moment where the blinders are finally removed and for that brief moment the individual gets to see things the way they never did and then after they react woefully, they are extinguished.

This type of thinking may well be acceptable to narcissists who would enjoy such notions, but really, how is it even sensible?

What would be the point of resuscitating a person just to say 'I told you so' and then killing them?
What is there for any person to learn in that? The whole concept is very juvenile. It smacks of invention by those who seek vengeance in the name of some twisted idea of justice of which - without - they would somehow not be wholesome themselves. Yet can such individuals really be considered to be wholesome in the first place?

I said "moment" because I have no idea how tiny or big that moment will be. I'm also failing to see why you think this is an "I told you so" kind of thing. I didn't say their blinders were removed and they saw everything clearly and then they get extinguished. I said they continued in their stubbornness and self-centeredness. It's just time for their annihilation to come. It has nothing to do with vengeance or "I told you so."

[Claire Evans]

I'm not sure what I've said to imply that spirits are material beings. I'm saying that energy can be applied to the spiritual world. It is not exclusive to the physical universe/world.

Energy is commonly understood as a physical property. If you are using it analogously, you need to make that clearer. How would you define this energy you are speaking of?

Spiritual energy. It isn't understood by scientists but that is because there is a level of energy higher than our range of frequency so we cannot perceive it. It takes energy for a spirit to manifest itself into this dimension. That is why they draw on energy from electronics and batteries. They drain them.

Since consciousness needs energy, energy needs to exist in the spiritual realm. Both Satan and God think.

Why do you think consciousness needs energy?

I could say rather that consciousness is energy. It appears as if quantum physics prove this because it postulates "that as you go deeper and deeper into the workings of the atom, you see that there is nothing there " just energy waves. It says an atom is actually an invisible force field, a kind of miniature tornado, which emits waves of electrical energy.

Those energy waves can be measured and their effects seen, but they are not a material reality, they have no substance because they are well, just electricity. So science now embraces the idea that the universe is made of energy."

So energy is independent of the material world.

http://www.lifetrainings.com/We-are-mad ... atter.html

How does a God without energy create energy? No one can exist without energy. Adding energy does not mean it was created. It's energy added to energy already existing. Likewise, taking out energy doesn't mean it is destroyed but merely transferred.

Why do you think no being can exist without energy?

See above.

No. The chaff is completely destroyed. It cannot ever mingle with the wheat ever again because it is gone. Likewise, the wicked can never mingle with God's people again.

So, the chaff is destroyed and the wheat (that still exists) is gathered. And the destroyed chaff represents non-destroyed unrepentant people while the non-destroyed wheat represents non-destroyed repentant people? If the point was to talk only about separation and not destruction, why not use a different example: one where neither thing is destroyed?

I don't see my point of view being in congruent with the applicable scriptures. The unquenchable fire clearly means the unrepentant have a conscious eternal state of hell. That is why there is the apparent paradox.

The atheists I've come across don't want to live forever. They don't believe they can find eternal joy in heaven. That is why they try and enjoy life as much as they can. Some have said to be that they don't want to be with God because He is a monster. that's the impression they get from the OT.

Should they know the true Lord, many would want to live with Him forever but they do not have that knowledge.

Ceasing to exist is not a punishment because you want know you don't exist.

Why base our conclusions on their ignorance, rather than what we think is truth? We both believe eternal joy exists. Ceasing to exist is worse than that. Case closed. It doesn't matter that someone who doesn't think eternal joy (can or does) exists currently thinks ceasing to exist is a good alternative. It's not. Let's base our beliefs on truth, not opinion of those who don't believe that truth.

I don't think it is really eternal joy that is the problem to atheists. It's sharing the eternity with God that they have a problem with. That fills them with anger because of what they perceive Him to be: a monster.

And some just don't want to live forever.

There is even a Christian I have recently corresponded with that says he doesn't want to be resurrected but he has no choice.

I said if I had the choice.

I know. My point is that this is irrelevant to the point I made. What we would choose doesn't determine the truth and we are talking about the truth of the matter.

I am talking about whether annihilation is a punishment. If it is something preferable to hell, then it is not seen as a punishment. It's the easy way out.

The irony is that those who go to hell have inflicted the punishment on themselves. Hell is the complete separation from God. If the wicked don't want to be near God and want to hold on their sin, God cannot be in their presence. It is a fate to terrible to describe.

I agree. Both of our views include a self-inflicted consequence that logically results in a separation from God that is a truly terrible fate.

We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell.

The difference between us, it seems, is that you are saying that the unrepentant have to be aware they are being punished or it isn't a punishment or a negative. I think they may well end up knowing what they missed out on and that they will be annihilated, but even assuming with you that they won't know that, I don't think they have to have awareness of it for it to truly be a negative consequence or a punishment.

Evil people and beings don't want what they are "missing out" on. It is an anathema to them. In fact, hell would be better than spending eternity with God and that's saying a lot.

Therefore being annihilated would be very palatable to them.

And even though we agree this is self-inflicted, you are still saying God purposefully set up a system where they have to be aware that they are being punished. They have to experience an eternal "I told you so." Why do you think that?

Isn't it an i-told-you-so to be told of one's fate before being annihilated? God doesn't set up systems. It just is.

They would get that the fate of the wicked will be death. That's what they believed. However, Isaiah and Jesus go a step further and say the worms will not die. They will constantly eat the body. If this does not refer to eternal punishment, then the worms cannot feed forever as the body will no longer sustain them.

You are saying the worms represent physical punishment and, therefore, a worm that does not die represents eternal physical punishment. That's not what it represents in the image.

Worms eating the body represent shame not physical punishment. They aren't real worms; they are a metaphor. The worm isn't punishing the body. Having your body or the body of one in your family left unburied was shameful. If you could regain the body and give it a proper burial you were trying to erase that shame signified by worms eating it. You were trying to reverse the situation's element of shame and disgrace. So, to have a worm that does not die, means the death and the shame are permanent. That would be taking the imagery a step further.

Of course worms don't represent punishment literally. It is a natural result of death. However, the worms never dying and feasting on the body for eternity (obviously a metaphor) means eternal punishment of the spiritual person in hell.

It also mentions that the fire is not quenched. Of course worms can't feast on a burnt up person literally. This is what Isaiah has to say fire being the destiny of the wicked:


Isaiah 30:33 (HCSB) " Indeed! Topheth has been ready for the king for a long time now. His funeral pyre is deep and wide, with plenty of fire and wood. The breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone, kindles it.

That is not to taint Topeth with shame forever. This indicates eternal torment. If the fate of Topeth was annihilation, why would the Lord constantly kindle that fire?

There is no oblivion and wouldn't be seen as punishment to the wicked. Jesus made it clear there is eternal punishment:

So that we are clear, are you admitting Matthew 5 is consistent with both of our views? Because your response to me saying that you responded with completely unrelated points, not to the context of Matthew 5 itself.

No, that is not what I am saying. Matthew 5 is just another example of what hell is to support my view.

Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Why do you think the weeping and gnashing is eternal? These verses don't say there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth forever.

Revelation 20:10

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Why do you believe there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

And what do you make of Matthew 13:40? It compares the unrepentant to weeds that are pulled and burned in the fire. Weeds don't burn forever. So why would Jesus using an example of complete destruction refer to eternal non-destructing torment.

Matthew 13:40-43. As the tares are gathered " At the command of the owner of the field; and burnt in the fire " So totally destroyed as never to revive and flourish again; so shall it be at the end of the world " With regard to the finally impenitent: their destruction, not their annihilation, shall be complete and eternal; without any hope or possibility of a restoration.

Being burned in the fire refers to their final destruction which will be for eternity without any hope of restoration. Those in hell can never sin again. Don't mistake destruction for annihilation. It just means they no longer have anymore power because they have been condemned.

The fire cannot mean annihilation. Let's look at Matthew 13:42 again:

They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

They can't be annihilated in the furnace and be gnashing their teeth.

"The most extreme torment, attended with the height of anguish, rage, and despair; a despair aggravated by all the privileges they once enjoyed, and the vain hope which, as professors of the true religion, they once entertained. Therefore they shall not be annihilated, nor their misery alleviated by any expectation of being ever restored or delivered from their sufferings. "

http://biblehub.com/matthew/13-42.htm

There is. I didn't say otherwise. The wicked have consciousness and thus cannot be unaware after death.

But our difference is about whether this consciousness will be eternal. We agree consciousness survives death of the body. We disagree on whether it will survive Hell.

Scriptures indicate that it does. See scriptures above.

So they don't have the finality of condemnation like he has. There is no hope for him, but he thinks he can save his friends from the same state. Do you believe that there is a place where people are tormented first and then get annihilated?

So you don't think there is a resurrection and final judgment?

I do think a "moment" of "torment" (weeping/gnashing) occurs before actual annihilation. In the sense of people being raised again, still stubbornly and devastatingly self-centered, being judged and then being annihilated.

I do believe there is a resurrection and final judgment.

Your view needs to be corrected because no one can weep and gnash their teeth once being annihilated.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 103 by Claire Evans]


"We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell. "

If Jesus was full of sin I'd like a quote so to read it for myself.

[The Tanager]

Spiritual energy. It isn't understood by scientists but that is because there is a level of energy higher than our range of frequency so we cannot perceive it. It takes energy for a spirit to manifest itself into this dimension. That is why they draw on energy from electronics and batteries. They drain them.

You believe this to be true, but is there any reason for me to believe this?

I could say rather that consciousness is energy. It appears as if quantum physics prove this because it postulates "that as you go deeper and deeper into the workings of the atom, you see that there is nothing there " just energy waves. It says an atom is actually an invisible force field, a kind of miniature tornado, which emits waves of electrical energy.

Those energy waves can be measured and their effects seen, but they are not a material reality, they have no substance because they are well, just electricity. So science now embraces the idea that the universe is made of energy."

So energy is independent of the material world.

There are multiple interpretations of quantum physics, so why believe this one?

I am talking about whether annihilation is a punishment. If it is something preferable to hell, then it is not seen as a punishment. It's the easy way out.

That's begging the question that hell isn't annihilation. If the two options are eternal joy or annihilation, then annihilation is a punishment. If the two options are eternal joy or eternal torment, then eternal torment is a punishment. You can't make the comparison between eternal torment and annihilation, because only one of them is actually true and both are punishments when compared with eternal joy. That's my point. Either option isn't an "easy way out" because it's the worst of the two ways.

We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell.

Which verse(s) are you drawing on here?

Isn't it an i-told-you-so to be told of one's fate before being annihilated? God doesn't set up systems. It just is.

Again, I'm agnostic on whether they actually realize it or not. But, why would realizing annihilation was coming be an "I told you so"? Informing someone of a consequence can be done in different ways. I see "I told you so" as going beyond a mere informing of consequence and trying to make sure the person knows you are right and that seems to be what you are saying is a big part of why eternal torment is preferable.

Of course worms don't represent punishment literally. It is a natural result of death. However, the worms never dying and feasting on the body for eternity (obviously a metaphor) means eternal punishment of the spiritual person in hell.

I don't see why we should jump from a worm that doesn't inflict conscious punishment to a point about an eternal worm inflicting conscious punishment. That's doesn't seem to me to be a good use of metaphor.

Isaiah 30:33 (HCSB) " Indeed! Topheth has been ready for the king for a long time now. His funeral pyre is deep and wide, with plenty of fire and wood. The breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone, kindles it.

Where does the eternality come in in the verse?

That is not to taint Topeth with shame forever. This indicates eternal torment. If the fate of Topeth was annihilation, why would the Lord constantly kindle that fire?

Why think this is speaking about Hell at all, rather than just the earthly judgment on Assyria?

No, that is not what I am saying. Matthew 5 is just another example of what hell is to support my view.

Then why did you stop talking about it and just bring another verse in? You brought up Matthew 5 to support your view and I said it fits both of our views. The translation you shared simply said "For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." If eternal torment is true, then your whole body is being tormented. If annihilation is true, then your whole body (and not just your hand) is being lost, destroyed.

Revelation 20:10

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And you do the same thing here. We were talking about Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 and you said this supports your view. I asked where the idea of eternality comes in these verses. You don't share that, but throw another verse in. One we've already talked about. The Greek appears to literally be "ages of ages" not for ever and ever. I asked for context in that passage that shows it to be everlasting and you simply brought in other verses. It seems we are going in a circle.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm trying to approach this humbly with fellow believers. What you've shared doesn't make sense to me, so I keep trying to ask follow ups to see if I've missed anything, assumed anything, etc. I truly thank you for discussing these things with me, meeting my questions and sharing your interpretations.

Why do you believe there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Because Jesus said there will be. And I think it fits both of our views. In yours the weeping and anger and pain will last forever. In mine, it doesn't last forever.

Matthew 13:40-43. As the tares are gathered " At the command of the owner of the field; and burnt in the fire " So totally destroyed as never to revive and flourish again; so shall it be at the end of the world " With regard to the finally impenitent: their destruction, not their annihilation, shall be complete and eternal; without any hope or possibility of a restoration.

Being burned in the fire refers to their final destruction which will be for eternity without any hope of restoration. Those in hell can never sin again. Don't mistake destruction for annihilation. It just means they no longer have anymore power because they have been condemned.

The fire cannot mean annihilation. Let's look at Matthew 13:42 again:

They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

They can't be annihilated in the furnace and be gnashing their teeth.

They can gnash their teeth before annihilation, though.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 103 by Claire Evans]


"We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell. "

If Jesus was full of sin I'd like a quote so to read it for myself.

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

[Claire Evans]

Spiritual energy. It isn't understood by scientists but that is because there is a level of energy higher than our range of frequency so we cannot perceive it. It takes energy for a spirit to manifest itself into this dimension. That is why they draw on energy from electronics and batteries. They drain them.

You believe this to be true, but is there any reason for me to believe this?

I could say rather that consciousness is energy. It appears as if quantum physics prove this because it postulates "that as you go deeper and deeper into the workings of the atom, you see that there is nothing there " just energy waves. It says an atom is actually an invisible force field, a kind of miniature tornado, which emits waves of electrical energy.

Those energy waves can be measured and their effects seen, but they are not a material reality, they have no substance because they are well, just electricity. So science now embraces the idea that the universe is made of energy."

So energy is independent of the material world.

There are multiple interpretations of quantum physics, so why believe this one?

You must believe what you want to believe.

I am talking about whether annihilation is a punishment. If it is something preferable to hell, then it is not seen as a punishment. It's the easy way out.

That's begging the question that hell isn't annihilation. If the two options are eternal joy or annihilation, then annihilation is a punishment. If the two options are eternal joy or eternal torment, then eternal torment is a punishment. You can't make the comparison between eternal torment and annihilation, because only one of them is actually true and both are punishments when compared with eternal joy. That's my point. Either option isn't an "easy way out" because it's the worst of the two ways.

You don't understand. Those evil people don't see heaven as a reward. They don't want to go there. They are appalled by good and hate God. Annihilation is better to them.

We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell.

Which verse(s) are you drawing on here?

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

Being resurrected from the dead meant that Jesus was not annihilated.

Isn't it an i-told-you-so to be told of one's fate before being annihilated? God doesn't set up systems. It just is.

Again, I'm agnostic on whether they actually realize it or not. But, why would realizing annihilation was coming be an "I told you so"? Informing someone of a consequence can be done in different ways. I see "I told you so" as going beyond a mere informing of consequence and trying to make sure the person knows you are right and that seems to be what you are saying is a big part of why eternal torment is preferable.

You said in post 92:


Claire Evans wrote:
If one is in oblivion, they cannot be aware they are being punished.

You:


And you think God needs or wants to make them realize how wicked they were? Like an eternal "I told you so"?

That is why I brought up the "I-told-you-so".

Of course worms don't represent punishment literally. It is a natural result of death. However, the worms never dying and feasting on the body for eternity (obviously a metaphor) means eternal punishment of the spiritual person in hell.

I don't see why we should jump from a worm that doesn't inflict conscious punishment to a point about an eternal worm inflicting conscious punishment. That's doesn't seem to me to be a good use of metaphor.

Eternal worms represent a never ending state of a person. They are dead in sin. Their punishment is eternal hence the words, "and the fire is not quenched".

Isaiah 30:33 (HCSB) " Indeed! Topheth has been ready for the king for a long time now. His funeral pyre is deep and wide, with plenty of fire and wood. The breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone, kindles it.

Where does the eternality come in in the verse?

That is not to taint Topeth with shame forever. This indicates eternal torment. If the fate of Topeth was annihilation, why would the Lord constantly kindle that fire?

Why think this is speaking about Hell at all, rather than just the earthly judgment on Assyria?

Because how can God on earth constantly kindle a fire? It doesn't take fire to burn for an eternity to burn up a body.

No, that is not what I am saying. Matthew 5 is just another example of what hell is to support my view.

Then why did you stop talking about it and just bring another verse in? You brought up Matthew 5 to support your view and I said it fits both of our views. The translation you shared simply said "For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." If eternal torment is true, then your whole body is being tormented. If annihilation is true, then your whole body (and not just your hand) is being lost, destroyed.

The "whole body" is metaphoric. Of course a body cannot go to hell, whether it means eternal torment or you claim that it means annihilation.

Why can an eternal fire annihilate someone? A fire doesn't need to be eternal to burn a body. Eternal means without end. Annihilation is not an ongoing punishment.

Revelation 20:10

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And you do the same thing here. We were talking about Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 and you said this supports your view. I asked where the idea of eternality comes in these verses. You don't share that, but throw another verse in. One we've already talked about. The Greek appears to literally be "ages of ages" not for ever and ever. I asked for context in that passage that shows it to be everlasting and you simply brought in other verses. It seems we are going in a circle.

In those verses, you can't weep and gnash teeth after being annihilated. Annihilation comes first, what you think hell is, then gnashing of teeth and weeping. How's that possible unless there is consciousness in hell?

I already gave you an explanation of the "ages of ages" argument and you have disregarded it.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm trying to approach this humbly with fellow believers. What you've shared doesn't make sense to me, so I keep trying to ask follow ups to see if I've missed anything, assumed anything, etc. I truly thank you for discussing these things with me, meeting my questions and sharing your interpretations.

Thank you as well.

Matthew 13:40-43. As the tares are gathered " At the command of the owner of the field; and burnt in the fire " So totally destroyed as never to revive and flourish again; so shall it be at the end of the world " With regard to the finally impenitent: their destruction, not their annihilation, shall be complete and eternal; without any hope or possibility of a restoration.

Being burned in the fire refers to their final destruction which will be for eternity without any hope of restoration. Those in hell can never sin again. Don't mistake destruction for annihilation. It just means they no longer have anymore power because they have been condemned.

The fire cannot mean annihilation. Let's look at Matthew 13:42 again:

They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

They can't be annihilated in the furnace and be gnashing their teeth.

They can gnash their teeth before annihilation, though.

As I mentioned, no one gnashes their teeth once they have been annihilated.

[The Tanager]

You must believe what you want to believe.

Are you saying we should believe what we want to rather than having rational reasons to believe something to be the truth?

You don't understand. Those evil people don't see heaven as a reward. They don't want to go there. They are appalled by good and hate God. Annihilation is better to them.

But it's not better for them.

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

But why think "bearing our sins" is equal to "being full of sin"?

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

What is the context of this verse? Jesus cures the sick and demon-possessed. That is what Matthew directly says fulfills the verse in Isaiah. This isn't about the cross.

Being resurrected from the dead meant that Jesus was not annihilated.

I agree. I never said Jesus was annihilated. You are saying that Jesus had to experience our experience of Hell to bear our sins. I don't. You say Hell is eternal torment. So, you think Jesus is in eternal torment?

You said in post 92:


Claire Evans wrote:
If one is in oblivion, they cannot be aware they are being punished.

You:


And you think God needs or wants to make them realize how wicked they were? Like an eternal "I told you so"?

That is why I brought up the "I-told-you-so".

I know why you brought it up, I'm wondering why you think it applies to annihilation and/or why it doesn't apply eternal torment.

Eternal worms represent a never ending state of a person. They are dead in sin. Their punishment is eternal hence the words, "and the fire is not quenched".

Then you would have to say that the non-eternal worm represents an ending state of a person. On the surface, we may say "That's right, it represents the person is dead." But I don't think that is accurate. The worm represents shame, not that the person is dead. Those who died in battle, if you take the worm away (i.e., give the body a proper burial), this doesn't change the state of the person being dead. That tells me that the worm is about shame, not the state of the person being dead. But perhaps we will have to just disagree here.

Because how can God on earth constantly kindle a fire? It doesn't take fire to burn for an eternity to burn up a body.

Where does it say in Isaiah 30:33 that God constantly kindles the fire? It just says God kindles it in the translation you gave.

The "whole body" is metaphoric. Of course a body cannot go to hell, whether it means eternal torment or you claim that it means annihilation.

Metaphoric of what? I thought you said you believe in the bodily resurrection of everyone before the final judgment. Maybe I was wrong there?

If you don't believe we will have a body, I still don't see why this verse doesn't fit both of our views. If eternal torment is true, your "whole body" is eternally tormented. So, you should have just lost "a hand" and gone to Heaven. If annihilation is true, your "whole body" is annihilated. So, you should have just lost "a hand" and gone to Heaven.

Why can an eternal fire annihilate someone? A fire doesn't need to be eternal to burn a body. Eternal means without end. Annihilation is not an ongoing punishment.

The verse says the fire is not quenched, not that it is eternal. It is paired with a worm that doesn't die. Which is talking about shame again. These bodies aren't being given a proper burial to shame them and their families.

Annihilation is ongoing in a sense. Obviously, it is a different way than eternal torment is ongoing. But with annihilationism there is no reversing things, no changing the situation. It is final. Just like you believe there will be no getting out of eternal torment; it is a final and irrevocable state.

In those verses, you can't weep and gnash teeth after being annihilated. Annihilation comes first, what you think hell is, then gnashing of teeth and weeping. How's that possible unless there is consciousness in hell?

Why do you think annihilation comes first? The passage says Hell will involve weeping and gnashing of teeth, but doesn't give a timeline of Hell. There is room for that happening and then being followed by annihilation and no more weeping and gnashing of teeth. The passages don't say the weeping will go on forever, it just says Hell will involve weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I already gave you an explanation of the "ages of ages" argument and you have disregarded it.

Then I honestly missed it. Could you point me to where you said it, so I can look back over it or repeat it for me again? I really am trying to approach this humbly as fellow children of God and I don't want to misrepresent you or misunderstand you or miss your responses.

[William]

[Replying to post 102 by The Tanager]

I didn't say their blinders were removed and they saw everything clearly and then they get extinguished. I said they continued in their stubbornness and self-centeredness. It's just time for their annihilation to come. It has nothing to do with vengeance or "I told you so."

The implications are still there. The point being that no matter how long the 'moment' the result is the same and the presumption therein is that once the blinders are off, there will be those who continue to be stubborn and self centered and deserving of annihilation...it is a rather juvenile idea in which all participating don't seem to learn anything useful. There is no sign of any real growth.

[The Tanager]

The implications are still there. The point being that no matter how long the 'moment' the result is the same and the presumption therein is that once the blinders are off, there will be those who continue to be stubborn and self centered and deserving of annihilation...it is a rather juvenile idea in which all participating don't seem to learn anything useful. There is no sign of any real growth.

Why must there be sign of real growth?