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.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 44 by William]

If what you believe about reality is true, then what you say probably does follow. I'm not convinced God is consciousness, rather than being an entity that is conscious. But you have pointed me to other threads for your belief it is the reasonable position on reality to take, should I want to pursue that further. For the moment I have nothing to say in response.

[JP Cusick]

So if you believe in Jesus, you know He was on the earth around 2000 years ago and established His Church, who He gave authority and promised to remain with. What you are suggesting is Christ left His Church and started it back up again 1000 years later under a new title like JWs or Seventh Day Adventist. This of course would contradict Scripture itself that Christ would remain with His Church " and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If JWs got it right, Christ left His original established church and started a new church, then you are saying the gates of hell prevailed. Which is it?

When we study 1st and 2nd century history of the Church then the history goes silent after the book of Acts about 64 CE, and after the death of Peter and Paul in 64-67 CE, and at that time Emperor Nero was persecuting the Christians and there is evidence that between Nero and Pilate they destroyed the Church and possibly killed ever Christian at that time.

Link = Dates for New Testament being written:

Later on history shows a completely different version of Christianity with historical records beginning around 150-160 CE calling their self as Christian but preaching a vastly different version of the Gospel and different from the early Church.

We call it the missing 100 years of Church history from around 60-160 CE.

In time this second Church died off too (or killed off) in 313 CE under the new emperor Constantine, link The Nicea Doctrine.

Christ said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and "hell" means the grave, so the real Church had to go into the grave and get resurrected in order for hell to not prevail.

[ttruscott]

Yes even Satan the Devil get saved in the end, because God loves His enemies, see Matthew 5:43-48.

Matt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

GOD is LOVE and so HE treats everyone in the most loving manner HE is able to give while (at the same time) in HIS heart HE abhors the wicked and hates them exceedingly: Psalm 11:5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.

HE hates those HE must condemn but HE treats them as well as love can treat them until the time for judgement.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by RightReason]

Yes, He did. And your little parable sounds exactly the kind of thing Satan would suggest to convince Christs followers that there is no eternal hell.

Or, it may be the truth of the matter. Indeed, my little parable makes more sense in relation to a lot of things attributed to having been spoken to by Jesus, than what the Romans may well have added in order to deceive people into following Roman rule under the pretense that it (Rome) was GODs authority on earth, through Christ.

Besides which, If people are to be deceived in Christs name, then only Christendom uses Christs name, so if 'the devil' has anything to do with that, he does so within those boarders which define Christendom.

So if you believe in Jesus, you know He was on the earth around 2000 years ago and established His Church, who He gave authority and promised to remain with

I am of the opinion that those who follow Jesus do so without being involved in ANY organised religion of Christendom.

What you are suggesting is Christ left His Church and started it back up again 1000 years later under a new title like JWs or Seventh Day Adventist.

Please allow me to clarify. What I am saying is that Rome infiltrated the early movement of the church after it became apparent that it couldn't dissuade people through murder.
The result of the infiltration is that they took over the authority and the rest as they say, is history.
The resulting schisms from the Roman organisation were not entirely clean and took with them some of those deceptions, even as they rebelled against other deceptions.

JW and SDA a part of that process. They (and you ) may think they are so far removed as not to be at all related...but 'whatever'.

This of course would contradict Scripture itself that Christ would remain with His Church " and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If JWs got it right, Christ left His original established church and started a new church, then you are saying the gates of hell prevailed. Which is it?

Jesus was correct as far as I can see. The gates of hell did not prevail against his church because his church is not an organised religion with political agenda. His church are not identified as being any particular denomination. His church are made up of all types of individuals who have no attachment to dogma, lore, tradition, race, creed, gender or cultural/political agenda. His church are those simply doing what he wants them to do - all threats removed - and who treat each other as equals and all with loving-kindness.

Such a doctrine has been very useful to Rome in many ways

Like what?

Christianity - a political device created for a specific purpose.<<<click for link to examples of 'like what?'

Also, I already posted all the Scriptural evidence supporting an eternal hell.

I am not one who regards everything biblical as evidence of truth. As I said, this doctrine is an invention of Roman manipulation to induce fear into those they wanted to control..in the name of Christ, and under the assumed authority of the Abrahamic GOD, in the role of 'The Father'.

The JWs use the Bible given to her by my Church (well, kind of " they actually changed some of the Scripture to fit their own theology, but they used what we gave them as their starting point).

Sure. As I said, they are still one of the off-spring of Christendom/Rome.

Those? As in Jesus Christ? Like I already showed, Scripture is full of God revealing the truth about hell.

You are confused and deceived. As can be shown (google is your friend) the idea of hell came from more ancient belief systems. Rome was quite apt at adapting all manner of popular belief into its canons if and as it saw a usefulness in doing so.

There is nothing much more harder to accomplish than for an adherent to step back and honestly evaluate their own religion. The doctrine of hell makes that even harder to accomplish. Not impossible, but extremely difficult.

Also, your parable suggests reality does not actually exist.

Not really. It suggests that anything can be experienced as real, but some things experienced are not real.

That we create our own reality.

Yes.

I disagree with such psychological mumbo jumbo.

Yes you do.

Thinking I am a poached egg does not make me a poached egg.

Thinking you are serving Jesus by accepting the authority of the Roman church and following after its doctrines, does not make you a follower of Jesus.

That is the kind of meaningless drivel that people discuss when their stoned,

We are not stoned and nor are we calling one another poached eggs.

Is the color blue you see, the same color blue I see?

That is a question of philosophy and one needn't be stoned in order to ask it or to see the relevance within it.

Are any of us really here? Sounds so profound when your high, but in reality is useless drivel and an actual denial of reality.

Yes we are. It is a question of philosophy rather than something which is only thought about when someone is under the influence of drugs. I think you are taking what I said and putting your own spin on that. As a debating tactic, it is rather remiss. You are basically inferring that I am stoned, and that this is the only possible reason why anyone would contemplate such ideas.

Anything which is not everlasting is not real, but this does not mean that such things cannot be experienced as real. It means that their impermanence makes them less real when compared with the permanent.

There is also another problem with your parable. The girl was perfectly happy in her heaven.

No she was not perfectly happy. Like someone addicted to drugs or gambling or religious dogma, she thought she was happy because she had nothing else in her present to compare her situation with. She became unhappy when the anomaly was introduced. The anomaly contradicted her understanding of what heaven should be like.

When she realized it was only her own imagination, what was her reality like then?

Of her own volition - after being shown that her arguments were based upon false ideas and concepts, she agreed to see what it was that the anomaly had spoken of, and in that happening, her beliefs changed to accommodate the new information.

Was the actual place she ended up better than her heaven. You mention nothing about it.

I did mention something about it, and yes, the reality was better than the heaven she had been experiencing.

Essentially there was no enthroned GOD figure which people worshiped. People were going about freely doing things which she herself had no problem with accepting as something she herself would be more than happy to also be part of. Helping others. Being the anomaly to others.

How would I know if I actually want it?

You would know if you actually wanted something real or simply wished to remain within a false construct you create for yourself.

The choice would always be yours. The anomaly wouldn't give up trying just because of that. But it would always respect your choice to be where you wanted to be. For as long as you wanted to be there.

There is no escaping consequence of action. No action requires the eternal damnation of hell.

There is no thing which anyone can do which could ever justify such a penalty. The concept is a human construct wrought through an ignorant superstitious mind-set, not GOD ordained.
As I said. The idea is sourced in ancient lore, was popularized by Rome (in relation to the Dogma of Christendom) as a device for provoking fear in people as a means of controlling them. The mere fear of questioning the existence of hell as something a GOD created to place individuals into for not doing what was demanded of them (follow Rome in the name of Christ, because GOD ordains it) allowed for Rome to effective placate the populace, and also reduce spending in that department. Crushing rebellion is very costly.

If the consequence can be eternal bliss, why cant a different consequence be eternal hell?

Because neither teach anyone the truth. The are effectively prisons which prevent truth from developing.

Could anyone actually deserve heaven?

I think no one deserves heaven or hell. Everyone deserves truth. The truth sets people free from the lies. The lies are so thick that it requires a forceful will to discern what is wheat and what is chaff, so to speak.

Deserve LOVE for eternity?

I have learned that if GOD is eternal and GOD is love and we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, then we are LOVE and we are eternal beings. So it is not a matter of deserving that which we truly are. It is a matter of deserving to know who we truly are. In that, it is our responsibility, both to our SELF, and also towards one another, that we discover this to being the case. Belief is the first step. Knowing is the final step.

Those who do not know this, still will exist for eternity, because we are eternal beings. So we have eternity in which to rediscover our true selves. One by one.
I dear say it won't take an eternity for all of us to accomplish this and get back on track. But in terms of 'time', it will still take a long while at that, going by current trends.

If you believe that, then why not the other?

As you can see, I don't believe either as real - in the permanent sense - but I do believe that either can be experienced as real. For as long as the self created illusion lasts.

[RightReason]

[Replying to The Tanager]

A major part of the passages you bring up has to do with the original meanings of the words being translated as everlasting, for ever and ever, etc. These include the Hebrew words olam and ad which, according to lexicons, are used in other places to refer to a specific duration, even a past time that has ended (among other things). And the Greek words aion and it's adjectival form aionios which have to do with an age, or the present age as contrasted with a future age, or the quality of life in such an age.

So, the question seems to me to be what in the context of the passages you speak of lead to necessarily interpreting these words as lasting for ever?

Again, Ive read about all this before. There are several different meanings and usage of the words you mention. This is why it is so important to recognize Christ entrusted One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to safeguard and interpret Sacred Scripture. Nothing else makes sense. Why would you trust one personal interpretation over another? How do you decide who to trust? Do you look into all the original text in its original language yourself? Do you trust yourself? What if you missed something? What if the person/historian/scholar/group you put your trust in missed something? The only thing that makes sense was to have One authoritative Church. Everything else is simply personal interpretation and Ive seen way too many times sincere, truth seeking individuals coming to very different conclusions about the exact same passage. So, whats a sincere, truth seeking individual to do?

And even if it does, Daniel 12:1-3 shows the contempt being eternal, not the one being abhorred.

See, now Id call that reaching, but thats just my personal opinion, which I dont consider infallible.

How do you interpret this passage? Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:47)

So, your argument is that the Bible teaches that fire doesn't destroy and that, therefore, the fire of Hell won't?

No, Im just pointing out Ive seen annihilationists make the argument that something cant burn forever, but as it seems you and I both agree all things are possible for God.

RightReason wrote:

Then annihilationists argue it would be beyond the nature of God to allow someone to be tortured for eternity, but this argument is not based on Biblical passages. Humanly speaking, we cannot understand either "kindness and severity of God" Rom 11:22


Well, it would be

No, it wouldnt be as this passage shows we cannot understand Gods severity.

Yes, I can understand that if you are a Catholic, you should believe this.

Yes, and I understand you think you understand that, but it goes a little deeper than that. My point isnt simply, I believe because the Church says so, rather I am trying to point out the importance of recognizes Gods design that it be this way. Im not exactly sure you get that part of it -- the wisdom of God.

You seem to think, well maybe the Church got it wrong. Maybe the Church misinterpreted Scripture and is teaching a false teaching on hell. But I just find that funny. Christ established His Church, told us He would send her the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth, told us to listen to His Church because He would remain with her. The Church is the one who gave you the Scripture that you now perhaps accuse her of misinterpreting. Why accept the Scripture from her? Unless, you believe she had the authority and power to compile it? And if you believe that, then why not believe what she teaches about hell? It is simply illogical to me.

RightReason wrote:

What evidence from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition supports this potential theory? And does Satan exist or potentially exists?


I'm not aware of passages that answer this question directly one way or the other. So, then we either turn to philosophy or what follows from other Biblical understandings.

You mean your personal interpretation? I call that dangerous and illogical.


[qutoe]I was mentioning a distinction of the views, not making an argument. Your view still has the unrepentant being connected to God because God is sustaining their existence, giving them life. Annihilationism has the unrepentant being completely separated from God as He no longer sustains their life.[/quote]

Again, I think I touched on it in my previous comments, I find it illogical to believe the soul is created immortal and simultaneously believe it not immortal. Which is it?

I think there is sufficient evidence that God wouldnt just will away His creation given what we know about creation. The story of creation shows us God has a plan for every soul He creates. Also, we are told He created us in His own image, so it would be difficult to believe He would erase that which has been created in His own image?

From the catechism . . .

II. Body and Soul but Truly One

362
The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic LANGUAGE when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.


363
In Sacred Scripture the term soul often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But soul also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231** that by which he is most especially in Gods image: soul signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364
The human body shares in the dignity of the image of God: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

365
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the form of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366
The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God"it is not produced by the parents"and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

1703
Endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."

RightReason wrote:

Also, keep in mind the groups that came up with annihilation theory were some Johnny come latelys (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.) It wasnt until almost the 1900s when these groups began and started making such false doctrines popular.


That simply isn't true. Conditional immortality was taught by Ignatius of Antioch, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Arnobius in the 4th century, Athanasius.

I have read about some of this revisionist history and havent found it that compelling. It has been shown that some revisionist historians concluded some early church fathers as believing in conditional immortality from an argument of silence. Since they could find nothing in their writings saying they believed in the immortality of the soul, they concluded they believed in the opposite.

Also, I have some words here from Iranaeus that show the opposite and some from Justin Martyr to throw in:

No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments. -St. Justin Martyr

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . *t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire, they will be damned forever -St. Irenaeus*

And once again to make another point, there is a reason the early church writings are not part of Scripture or held as truth. Believe it or not, even if every early Church father believed Mary was born with sin, the Pope in one single declaration could declare otherwise. And what the Pope has declared would be what should be considered what God wanted us to believe as truth.

Now, an interesting question, however, is how important is it that we get it right? IOW, if as you say, there were early church fathers who did not believe in eternal damnation, can they still be heaven? I would think so. We might all be getting lots of stuff wrong. We'll find out soon enough. I think as long as we didn't have a willful obstinacy to know and accept the truth, Our Lord will be lenient if we were mistaken. Of course, it is better to correctly understand something, but if our understanding of hell wasn't perfect, but we still lived a life in accordance with God's will, not sure it will matter much. And that, is my purely speculative 2 cents.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by William]

I am of the opinion that those who follow Jesus do so without being involved in ANY organised religion of Christendom.

I correct myself. What I meant to say was I am of the opinion that those who follow Jesus do so without feeling it necessary to be involved in ANY organised religion of Christendom.

Which is to say, one does not need to be involved with Christendom, but one can be. The point being, Jesus and his followers are not bound by any organised religions dogma/doctrine.

The main reason for my correcting myself is that the initial statement infers that everyone involved in organised religions of Christendom are by that, NOT followers of Jesus. Certainly i don't wish to infer anything of the sort.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 52 by JP Cusick]

We call it the missing 100 years of Church history from around 60-160 CE.

You mean anti-Catholics? LOL!

Christ said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and "hell" means the grave, so the real Church had to go into the grave and get resurrected in order for hell to not prevail.

Ha, ha, ha . . . nice try. Im afraid that takes some creative interpretation and makes Christ a liar.

We were told to listen to Christs Church. If we couldnt do that for any period of time, then Christ left us high and dry and it would make Him a liar. It also makes no sense.

[RightReason]

[Replying to William]

Or, it may be the truth of the matter. Indeed, my little parable makes more sense in relation to a lot of things attributed to having been spoken to by Jesus, than what the Romans may well have added in order to deceive people into following Roman rule under the pretense that it (Rome) was GODs authority on earth, through Christ.

Speculate much? Gee, lets all just make up parables and suggest they could be equally true.

I am of the opinion that those who follow Jesus do so without being involved in ANY organised religion of Christendom.

So, do you believe or accept Scripture? Because if so, Scripture says otherwise. Scripture clearly shows Jesus established an actual, visible, authoritative Church. It even had a hierarchical structure from the get go. If not, where have you received your information about Jesus? Does He audibly speak to you?

Please allow me to clarify. What I am saying is that Rome infiltrated the early movement of the church after it became apparent that it couldn't dissuade people through murder.
The result of the infiltration is that they took over the authority and the rest as they say, is history.

Uh huh. Anyone who doesnt follow Christs established Church invents some kind of Great Apostasy to justify their lack of adherence to Christs Church. Its quite convenient to pretend to above organized religion and just do ones own thing " LOL! Of course what one is left with is nothing more than personal interpretation and never sure he is getting it right. Exactly what God hoped to prevent.



Quote:

Jesus was correct as far as I can see. The gates of hell did not prevail against his church because his church is not an organised religion

Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church. He who hears you, hears me, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Sounds pretty organized. Also, how could someone take something to the church if the church wasnt actual, visible, one, etc. And how can an invisible or figurative church bind something? Forgive sins?

His church are those simply doing what he wants them to do

How do we know what He wants them to do? What if two sincere individuals come to different conclusions on the matter? Who is right? How can we know we are getting it right? Sorry, makes no sense and NOT what Christ established. Thank God.

Christianity - a political device created for a specific purpose. <<<click for link to examples of 'like what?'

No time. Prefer you summarize in your own words.

As I said, this doctrine is an invention of Roman manipulation

Said the anti Catholic manipulator? You are entitled to your opinion, but it is unfounded. God is the one who used words like wailing, gnashing, and grinding of teeth. The Church did not invent the passages on hell.

You are confused and deceived. As can be shown (google is your friend) the idea of hell came from more ancient belief systems.

Google is your friend too. Perhaps, it is you who is being deceived. It would be just like Satan to cast doubts into the existence of hell by suggesting it was simply an invention.

There is nothing much more harder to accomplish than for an adherent to step back and honestly evaluate their own religion.

Right back at ya.

Quote:
Thinking I am a poached egg does not make me a poached egg.


Thinking you are serving Jesus by accepting the authority of the Roman church and following after its doctrines, does not make you a follower of Jesus.

You dont know that. How do you know thinking you are by adhering to the doctrines of your choosing (and yes, all men have doctrines. Yours just differ from mine) makes you a follower of Jesus?

You are basically inferring that I am stoned, and that this is the only possible reason why anyone would contemplate such ideas.

No, I was pointing out the age old philosophical tactic of suggesting maybe we all arent really even here, we just think we are. It isnt new. Like I said, it is the rudimentary discussion by every human being the first time they try weed. No, that doesnt mean it isnt a fun question to contemplate and have philosophical discussions about, but like I said its nothing new and I find it boring. It often unravels into not accepting any reality any truth and hence why even discuss any of this. I just find it fruitless.

Quote:
There is also another problem with your parable. The girl was perfectly happy in her heaven.


No she was not perfectly happy. Like someone addicted to drugs or gambling or religious dogma, she thought she was happy because she had nothing else in her present to compare her situation with. She became unhappy when the anomaly was introduced. The anomaly contradicted her understanding of what heaven should be like.

Im sorry, but you failed to show she was better believing your version then her own. And your version reminds me a little of JW type thinking in their Paradise Earth theology. They think we all just end up back on earth and get to live on a beautiful earthly paradise with green pastures and streams, failing to realize the prize of heaven wont simply be material, rather being with our Lord who is beauty, truth, and love. It is hard for them to imagine that being in Gods presence will be our fulfillment. They seem to still see things in earthly ways " they want unlimited hot fudge sundaes and unlimited sex. They cant imagine that perfect happiness could include not desiring those things and yet still be fulfilled.

I did mention something about it, and yes, the reality was better than the heaven she had been experiencing.

Essentially there was no enthroned GOD figure which people worshiped.

Again, you fail to communicate why this would be better.

People were going about freely doing things

Why cant people worship God and go about freely? Cant we do both?

You would know if you actually wanted something real or simply wished to remain within a false construct you create for yourself.

But your false construct doesnt seem to interest me.

There is no thing which anyone can do which could ever justify such a penalty. The concept is a human construct wrought through an ignorant superstitious mind-set, not GOD ordained.

There is much we cannot fully understand. I know you think it is a human construct, but I disagree. I think you are wrong.

As I said. The idea is sourced in ancient lore

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . and Christianity is not suppose to be true because people believed in gods prior to Christianity and some stories from Greek mythology resemble Christian stories. We can find similarities in just about everything when were looking for them. The mind is an incredible thing.

,

was popularized by Rome (in relation to the Dogma of Christendom) as a device for provoking fear in people as a means of controlling them.

You realize this theory reads like a Dan Brown novel. It is the kind of propaganda people love.

Quote:
If the consequence can be eternal bliss, why cant a different consequence be eternal hell?


Because neither teach anyone the truth. The are effectively prisons which prevent truth from developing.

Unless the truth is eternal heaven or eternal hell. Perhaps you see them as prisons because you have been indoctrinated to see organized religion in this way. Mind blowing.

Could anyone actually deserve heaven?
I think no one deserves heaven or hell. Everyone deserves truth.

And what is the truth? Jesus was posed the same question. Pilates longing to know truth actually prevented him from seeing it, because he didnt want to see it when it was standing right in front of him.

I have learned that if GOD is eternal and GOD is love and we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, then we are LOVE and we are eternal beings.

Hmmmmmm . . . this isnt too far off, but be careful it is starting to sound very close to Oprah Winfrey New Age heresy. The power is within, we are all are own gods, etc mentality, which doesnt sit well with me. I just dont buy it.

So it is not a matter of deserving that which we truly are. It is a matter of deserving to know who we truly are.

I know who we are " sons and daughters of Christ. Are value is in that " not in what we do or accomplish, but simply in our divine filiation.

Those who do not know this, still will exist for eternity, because we are eternal beings. So we have eternity in which to rediscover our true selves. One by one.
I dear say it won't take an eternity for all of us to accomplish this and get back on track. But in terms of 'time', it will still take a long while at that, going by current trends.

As long as you are willing to admit, there might be a lot we both are getting wrong. I am excited to find out all the stuff we got right and all the stuff we got wrong. Should be fun. Eye has not seen . . . And right now I still find what the Catholic Church teaches to be the most beautiful and reasonable. Everyone else seems to be out there trying to make it all up on their own " not the way to go, IMO. Just dont be surprised to find out your salvation came by way of the Church.

[William]

[Replying to post 58 by RightReason]

No time. Prefer you summarize in your own words.

Those are my own words and it is not something which can be summarized any more than it already is. Your mind is made up anyway, so there would be no point in your perusing alternate views on the subject.

I know a few Catholics and not all of them express the same beliefs as you are doing in this thread.

Each to their own. You obviously feel certain about your one true church beliefs. I have no particular desire to debate with anyone so convinced of the certainty of everlasting torment. I leave such beliefs to the narcissists.

[Claire Evans]

Spirits vibrate at different frequencies, which is energy. When a spirit is seen, it is because there frequency is dialing into our own.

That's a statement of belief. A controversial one, at that. Why should we believe it is true?

Because humans are also made up of vibrations. We just don't tune into frequencies of the spiritual world, another dimension.

And even if we assume our spirits are material energy, why think energy cannot be destroyed? If you are talking about the law of conservation of energy, that law talks about the total energy in a closed system. Something outside of that system can add or take away energy from the no longer closed or isolated system. As creator of that system, there would be nothing illogical about God taking out or destroying some of that energy.

But energy cannot be destroyed in an open system. Therefore why assume that energy can be destroyed in other dimensions?

Are we to assume God is the only creator of the system? What about the devil himself? Isn't the atom made of opposites?

Or, it seems to me, even if you want to assume energy cannot be destroyed in any way, our destruction could be a change of our energy into some other use, while "we" are destroyed.

People who have Near Death Experiences have been pronounced as clinical dead yet they still had their consciousness. It did not convert into something else at death.

The presence of a spirit can mess with people's electronics.

If true, this alone wouldn't mean that spirits themselves are material, just that they can have an affect on material things.

How does a non material spirit have an effect on electronics?

The blazing furnace is forever.

Matthew 3:12
His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

This analogy, it seems to me, might speak more to annihilation. Chaff is annihilated by the fire, it doesn't burn in the fire forever. And in that understanding an unquenchable fire would simply mean that the destruction will take place, it will not be thwarted or quenched.

If a fire is unquenchable, it cannot be put out. It means it is impossible to destroy. Destruction is a once off process and this cannot be described as unquenchable.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Satan would prefer annihilation where he just has no consciousness or eternal torment?

Satan doesn't have a say. God's preference is what matters.

I'm asking, if we had a choice, what do you think he'd prefer?

He will be tormented 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.

This is definitely a harder problem than some of the other passages, in my eyes. But my understanding is that people say the Greek translated by some as "for ever and ever" is literally "to the ages of the ages" which doesn't necessarily mean continually, for ever. Which means we go to context. What preceding and following 20:10 makes you think it necessarily has to be translated "for ever and ever" rather than to mean for a certain, if long, duration?

What does this translation mean for something like Revelation 19:3 that also uses the phrase "to the ages of the ages" concerning the city of Babylon?

So you are saying that the devil and the false prophet will be in the Lake of Fire for just a while and then annihilated?

If we are going to refer to "age" as meaning a limited time span, then we need to apply this to God also.

Forever in Greek is translated as ainas which appears in Revelation 20:10. The English translation is age.

http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/20-10.htm



However, 1 Timothy 1:17 says:

1 Timothy 1:17New International Version (NIV)

17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Greek translation is:


tw de basilei twn aiwnwn afqartw aoratw monw sofw qew timh kai doxa eiV touV aiwnaV twn aiwnwn amhn

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B54C001.htm#V17


The transliteration of aiwnaV is aion.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... mothy+1:17

So if what you say is correct, then God only has glory and honour for a limited time.