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.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

I swing between Annihilation and Christian universalism, but am willing to play devil's advocate, with one caveat: the 'torment' will be in some sense 'self-inflicted'. As C.S. Lewis says the doors of hell are locked from the inside. Hell is a state of consciousness analogical to, say, the severe addict: his misery is self inflicted; and yet he would rather be thus miserable than face sobriety. The terror of hell would be complete isolation, as hell is the result (one might say the reward) of self-centeredness.

[2ndRateMind]

To treat your enemies lovingly because that is your nature is NOT TO SAY HE LOVES THEM!

God loves all of us. If He can find a way to love me, which He seems to have done, He can find a way to love you, and yours, and even the worst of us. Yet, if we choose to reject that love, and wallow in some misery of self-pitying self-centredness, or worse, some inferno of malice and hatred, that is not something He can help. It is our decision, and He gave it to us for us to make. I agree with The Tanager and Liamconnor on this.

Before God can give us bliss, and all the riches of Heaven, we need to learn to that love is bliss, however vulnerable it renders us, and learn to appreciate those riches, which seem to me to be the virtues of God, and the rest of humanity. And we can only learn to love virtue in others by freely practicing virtue ourselves, else we cannot understand it's cost.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

To believe in annihilation is to believe in murder - and that is the error because the Father does not murder people, and because the Father loves His enemies.

Again JP, what is your biblical support for this statement?

To treat your enemies lovingly because that is your nature is NOT TO SAY HE LOVES THEM!

The Bible text that God loves His enemies is very specific, see here = Matthew 5:43-48

It dramatizes the fact that even hateful people love their own comrades, so the virtue is only when love is given to those who are against us - our enemies.

Real Godly love is an action word where we do love - it is not really a feeling where we feel love but do nothing.

And I like to emphasize that "enemy" does not really mean a warfare combatant because often times the soldiers in war are not really enemies at all because soldiers will fight and kill each other as strangers without any anger or malice against each other.

An enemy of ours means any person who tells us a lie, or any person who steals from us, and person who cheats us is our enemy, any sin against us is an enemy act, and so to "love our enemy" will most often apply to our friends or family members who do us wrong.

Remember that Jesus was betrayed by a kiss from one of His disciples - so too many enemies come with affection.

And it is Jesus who tells us to "Love thy enemies" and it is Jesus who tells us that the Father loves His enemies, see again the text and link above here.

The reality of Hell is that every person gets saved because the awesome fire of God is to clean and to purify, see 1 Corinthians 3:15-16

[Monta]

JP Cusick posted:

To believe in annihilation is to believe in murder - and that is the error because the Father does not murder people, and because the Father loves His enemies.

RESPONSE:
Actually, God gets others to do his murdering for him.

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses. (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Actually, the Bible is quite clear on this. It does not say 'This is what God says'. It says*, 'This is what Samuel says God says'. They may or may not be the same thing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*1 Samuel 15:1 KJV

I was going to comment on 2RM observation above but as usual checked it with another translation.
Now it is rather confusing as I had always held KJV in high regard.

1 Samuel 15:2-3King James Version (KJV)

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

[Monta]

In the OP you said to challenge your view - not to pamper your view.

I said challenged specifically by those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, which is not your view. This thread is asking why does the eternal conscious torment view make sense. I'm not going to argue for annihilationism against the eternal conscious torment view. I want to understand the eternal conscious torment view better as a specific way to challenge my view in annihilationism.

I think JP has given it to you and I could not think of a worse eternal punishment.
If by ultimate punishment he means eternal death, that would be a blessing in comparison.

JP post8
"We all do get saved from the ultimate punishment - but nothing will ever save us from our own guilty conscience - and yet again I see this as another blessing that we can never ever be truly exonerated from our own guilty conscience."

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 14 by Monta]

Oh dear. It seems I have to write out what you can easily read and construe for yourself.

1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.

1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... etc

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and destroy all that they have, and spare them not ... etc

ie, This is what Samuel said the Lord said. In other words, it could just be that Samuel was exceeding the limits of his authority, and describing what he wanted God to say, as opposed to what God actually did say.

My own suspicion is that genocide is not one of God's preferred, or even accepted, tactics. Even the Jews did not like it when it was inflicted on them, (1941-45) by fascist Germany and satellite nations. Despite Samuel, if genocide is not good against Jews, why should it be good against anyone, at all?

Best wishes, 2RM

[JP Cusick]

I think JP has given it to you and I could not think of a worse eternal punishment.
If by ultimate punishment he means eternal death, that would be a blessing in comparison.

JP post8
"We all do get saved from the ultimate punishment - but nothing will ever save us from our own guilty conscience - and yet again I see this as another blessing that we can never ever be truly exonerated from our own guilty conscience."

I do believe that we all need to understand that when God punishes then it is to bless and not to harm.

As a loving Father to a disobedient child - the punishment is to teach and not to do damage.

The punishments from God are a blessing to us.

See Hebrew 12:
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. KJV.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

I swing between Annihilation and Christian universalism, but am willing to play devil's advocate, with one caveat: the 'torment' will be in some sense 'self-inflicted'. As C.S. Lewis says the doors of hell are locked from the inside. Hell is a state of consciousness analogical to, say, the severe addict: his misery is self inflicted; and yet he would rather be thus miserable than face sobriety. The terror of hell would be complete isolation, as hell is the result (one might say the reward) of self-centeredness.

I've actually swung between this view of Lewis and annihiliationism.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 16 by 2ndRateMind]


"ie, This is what Samuel said the Lord said. In other words, it could just be that Samuel was exceeding the limits of his authority, and describing what he wanted God to say, as opposed to what God actually did say.

My own suspicion is that genocide is not one of God's preferred, or even accepted, tactics."

I hear you but are you not on a shaky ground? Yes perhaps Samuel over reached but how do we know if he did or did not. So either Samuel over reached or God said things S. claimed but they are not to be taken literally and if not literally then how.
To understand the Scripture properly we need to know which one of the two.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 19 by Monta]

Yes, I realise I am on 'shaky ground', as far as literalists are concerned. Yet, I can only interpret the Bible through the lens of my conception of God as I have come to know Him, which is through the Old Testament (awesome and terrible), and though the New Testament (the just, merciful, redeeming and loving father of all humanity), and through my own experience of Him (an ecstasy of love, equal parts agony and joy at our human affairs).

And so it is that my conception of God is quite incompatible with Samuel's, if he felt that God could order genocide, and yet still retain the perfect virtue we know that God possesses. In the thousands of years since Samuel, humanity has made moral progress. Mainly by making our mistakes, and learning from them, the current state of human ethics has become somewhat more advanced than those Samuel knew.

Best wishes, 2RM.