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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to William]

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.

Trust me, I get this. I hate when people think some things ought to be able to be explained in a sentence or two. But I was reading your post on my phone and had no intention of clicking on some link that quite frankly I knew was some pretty biased anti-Catholic sentiment " seems you have your mind made up about that. I find most people havent a clue about what the Catholic Church actually teaches " only what they think it teaches with a whole lot of misinformation thrown in that theyve heard repeated in various places " and the mis information is perpetuated.

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

Ha! Im sure you do, but Im also sure youll understand if I suggest they not call themselves Catholic. If they dont believe and accept all the teachings of the Church, then they really ought to be honest and find themselves a church that caters to what they want. That isnt the Catholic Church. If they recite the creed every Sunday, they are saying they believe those things. If they dont, why pretend?

As G.K. Chesteron says, I dont want a church to be right when I am right. I want a church to be right when I am wrong.

Lots of cafeteria catholics out there " picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they dont. Personally, then why believe any of it? Makes no sense.

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.

It isnt so much that I am so convinced as to the certainty of everlasting torment and or what that means. Like I said, I think there will likely be quite a lot we all got wrong. But I do think the only thing that makes sense is God wanted us all be one, which is why He set up His Church, where we go for answers. And right now His Church is teaching us eternal hell. Like I said, perhaps it is something we simply will be unable to grasp with the human mind until the here after when it actually will make sense. Also, perhaps then we will see evil as it really is and that eternal hell is in that sense is just.

Again, I just think there is too much we dont know or cant fathom right now. So, for whatever reason God wants us believe and accept His teaching on eternal hell. It would be like discussing the Trinity. There is Scriptural support of the Trinity and it is what the Church teaches. Now we can discuss the Trinity on what it means for God to be one, yet three persons, but it again is a mystery that the human mind will never fully get until we meet God face to face and see how it is possible. I think hell could be very similar. So, I prefer not to speculate about alternate reality or consciousness or New Age theories to explain hell. Rather, I think the only thing that makes sense is to trust and believe in God and listen to Him according to the means He established to communicate with us. How could anything else work? It doesnt. It simply fosters confusion and division.

[JP Cusick]

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.

That is misusing the old testament to define the new testament - which is doing it backward.

The New Testament changes the old perceptions.

The old testament paints God as an angry tyrant - while the new testament shows God to be a loving Father who forgives the sinners.

The old testament quotes you give are talking about physical sins in this life here and now, and yes God hates the sins but not the sinners.

Every person "reaps as we sow" in this lifetime, but the Father still loves the sinners, and if God does not save the sinners then there would be no one left to save because no one is righteous.

[The Tanager]

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.

I very much agree with you here. And I thank you, brother in Christ, for helping me search for understanding.

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.

No, I don't think that. I just don't equate the Catholic church with being the Church. It contained and still contains some of the Church that Christ establishes. Jesus established Peter and the other disciples and James and Paul and others as His Church. Authority rested in the Church because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers. The Scripture was not given to us by the Catholic church, but by the early Church before the rise of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome over other bishops which happened because of the political power of Rome. Catholicism is one set of interpretations, just like other denominations.

How do we know whose teachings are correct? We look back at the inspired word of God and reason together as believers seeking wisdom from the Holy Spirit. I don't trust any one group that says "we are the only true church."

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.

First, I certainly am not saying that anything any early Church father says is true. Secondly, this, to me, is a great folly of the Catholic church: putting so much stock in one person's interpretation, rather than in the collective wisdom of the Church around the world. Especially when Scripture doesn't say what the Pope is declaring.

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)

It's a quotation of part of Isaiah 66:24 which says "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

I understand that back then bodies of enemies were often left on the battlefield as a sign of contempt and shame. They didn't get a proper burial. Their shame would last forever, but the enemies came to an end. That kind of end and the shame of it was loathsome to all mankind. Jesus is comparing Hell to that.

The dead bodies in Isaiah definitely aren't experiencing torment in that passage, so why think Jesus is saying (here at least) that Hell involves the unrepentant consciously experiencing torment for ever and always.

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.

What translation are you using of Romans 11:22? In the NIV and NRSV, it looks like Paul says to note God's kindness and severity, not that we can't understand it.

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?

Of course that is illogical, but I never said both were true. Without having Scripture to back up the immortality of the soul you asked me to back up the conditional immortality of the soul from Scripture. I answered that I wasn't aware of the Bible attempting to answer such a question either way. That we should turn to other interpretations of how this fits in with other parts of Scripture and/or philosophy to form a belief.

You then turn to other interpretations of how this fits in with other parts of Scripture:

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.

What do you see as this plan? And why does it not fit with conditional immortality of the soul?

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?

Why is that difficult to believe?

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.

Well, I don't come to it from an argument of silence. In Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians, chapter 17 he writes:

"For this cause the Lord received ointment on His head, that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church. Be not anointed with the ill odour of the teaching of the prince of this world, lest he lead you captive and rob you of the life which is set before you. And wherefore do we not all walk prudently, receiving the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ? Why perish we in our folly, not knowing the gift of grace which the Lord hath truly sent?"

Immortality is a gift from Jesus to the church in this passage. Those who perish aren't receiving this gift of immortality.

And in his letter to the Magnesians, chapter 10 he possibly refers to annihilation when he writes: "Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be." Although other translations have "lost" and "undone" in place of "cease to be" so we'd need some original language work there to have a clearer picture.

The Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 21, has:

"It is well, therefore, that he who has learned the judgments of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them. For he who keepeth these shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; but he who chooseth other things shall be destroyed with his works. On this account there will be a resurrection, on this account a retribution. I beseech you who are superiors, if you will receive any counsel of my good-will, have among yourselves those to whom you may show kindness: do not forsake them. For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one]."

Irenaeus in Against Heresies book II, chapter 34, verse 3 writes:

"For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance. The prophetic Spirit bears testimony to these opinions, when He declares, "For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created: He hath established them for ever, yea, forever and ever." And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: "He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever; " indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: "If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? " indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever."

Arnobius, in Against the Heathen writes: "And to make manifest what is unknown, this is mans real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end"annihilation: this, I say, is mans real death,"

Arnobius did teach there was a time of fiery torment before the annihilation occurs.

Athanasius wrote:

"For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time. For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption."

[The Tanager]

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

One, what do you mean we are made up of vibrations?

Two, assuming this is true, it wouldn't mean that our spirits would have to be vibrations as well. A human could be made up of material vibrating as well as non-vibrating immaterial spirit.

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?

Assuming your view true here, if God is at least one of the creators of the system, God could still destroy some energy even if other beings have the same power.

What do you mean by energy not being destroyed in an open system?

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.

Why do you believe their version of what happened to them?

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

I don't know. My point is that it does not seem logically impossible unless you beg the question by how you define those terms. But maybe you have an argument that shows such a thing is impossible without begging the definition.

Do you believe in 'mind' as separate from the brain?

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.

To quench something, you overcome it. If the fire is speaking to the act of destruction (and Matthew 3:12 talks of the fire destroying the chaff completely), then for that to not be quenched would mean the destruction will not be ended prematurely; it will finish the job and the process is irreversible. Using the word 'unquenchable' makes perfect sense.

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

Okay. I don't know Satan that well, but I'd guess Satan would prefer annihilation. What do you think follows from this?

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

Not at all. Different authors (like we have in Timothy and Revelation) could be using it in different ways. Even the same author could be using it in different ways in their own writings. That's why we look at context.

Now, if all we had to go on for God's length of existence was 1 Timothy 1:17, then we couldn't conclude God was necessarily eternal in the sense you mean. But we don't have only that verse. The rest of Scripture paints a different picture of that, doesn't it? The rest of Scripture doesn't clarify this in regards to Hell, however.

[wiploc]

... reasons you believe [Eternal Conscious Torment] makes sense within Christianity.

Jehovah created the world to maximize his glory. He does this by, at great personal cost, saving unworthy people from the worst possible fate.

He could have made people worthy, and he could have made the world nice, but, in Jehovah's messed-up mind, that wouldn't glorify him.

If people were worthy, and saving them was easy, and if they didn't even need saving in the first place, how would that glorify god?

So he created the worst of all possible worlds, universal eternal conscious torment. And he made the people (again, in his messed-up viewpoint) worthy of that torment. And he made it so that it would be "unjust" (and therefore somehow impossible) for him to save anybody without doing a great deal of self harm (the crucifixion).

And then he did the self harm in order to rescue a handful of the unworthy from the worst of all possible worlds. But he leaves most people in Hell for the contrast.

Glory be to god!

[The Tanager]

... reasons you believe [Eternal Conscious Torment] makes sense within Christianity.

Jehovah created the world to maximize his glory. He does this by, at great personal cost, saving unworthy people from the worst possible fate.

He could have made people worthy, and he could have made the world nice, but, in Jehovah's messed-up mind, that wouldn't glorify him.

If people were worthy, and saving them was easy, and if they didn't even need saving in the first place, how would that glorify god?

So he created the worst of all possible worlds, universal eternal conscious torment. And he made the people (again, in his messed-up viewpoint) worthy of that torment. And he made it so that it would be "unjust" (and therefore somehow impossible) for him to save anybody without doing a great deal of self harm (the crucifixion).

And then he did the self harm in order to rescue a handful of the unworthy from the worst of all possible worlds. But he leaves most people in Hell for the contrast.

Glory be to god!

Any support for these views for us to rationally look at?

[William]

[Replying to post 64 by The Tanager]

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.

Why do you believe their version of what happened to them?

I think that what folk say they experience is noteworthy - it is worthwhile taking note of. For me it is not a question of believing what they say they experience is the truth of the matter but rather to consider it as possible and that they may indeed be telling the truth.

My own interest in what is generically referred to as 'Astral Projection' grew from my own experiences with leaving my body and experiencing a different state of being. In each case I did not consciously experience what are often referred to as the 'Astral Plain' I remained within what was recognizably, this universe only I was no longer experiencing it as a solid state. I could consciously move through objects and still retained the ability to have sensations.

When it comes to peoples stories of their experiences, I have noted that while their stories are all uniquely different, they all share common themes.

I see nothing untoward in taking into account what others have to share, whatever it is they say, be that religious belief, or non religious belief. Many of the biblical stories echo stories I have read which people have shared about their own experiences with the Astral Plain, and this leads me to conclude that this is likely the source of some of those those biblical stories.

I suspect Jesus was very adept at Astral Projection.

It appears obvious that the idea of heaven(s) comes from Astral Projection into the Astral Plain (universe) as such stories are shared in many - if not all - cultures long before those cultures began to interact with one another. Long before religions were formulated. Long before religion became organised.

FOCUS 3
Focus 3 is even more interesting: This area of consciousness is a collective term that incorporates all of Monroe's Focus 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 areas. This region features all the 'Hollow Hells', 'Hollow Heavens' and everything in-between. Monroe's Focus 27 represents the 'upper level' of my Focus 3. Focus 3 is where we all go when we 'die' i.e. after physical death our primary focus switches from Focus 1 to Focus 3. Focus 3 is also known as the Transition Area, for reasons which will be explained in due course.
Focus 3 is what I call a 'common area' of our Consciousness Continuum. This means that unlike Focus 2, which is ours alone and can only be experienced by ourselves, our Focus 3 area of consciousness intertwines with everyone else's; we can all share in each other's Focus 3 areas of consciousness and interact with each other. As you step into Focus 3 then you will find that it is much like the physical is. Here you can meet people in a totally objective sense exactly as you can while physical. Within this region it is obvious these people are not merely creations of your own imagination. It is as obvious as it is apparent that other people are not merely creations of your imagination within the physical.
There are billions of people on the mid to upper branches all interacting with each other in an objective sense, just as we all do within the physical. The upper branches of Focus 3 are VERY physical-world like indeed, even better in fact on the top-most branches. In my mind I call it the supra physical, sort of like the physical on steroids! In Focus 3 you will find an almost infinite variety of different environments that people have created for themselves to live in, either knowingly or unknowingly. Many of these environments are wonderful and beautiful, some are boring and others are horrific.

~ quoted from The Frank Kepple Resource

[wiploc]

... reasons you believe [Eternal Conscious Torment] makes sense within Christianity.

Jehovah created the world to maximize his glory. He does this by, at great personal cost, saving unworthy people from the worst possible fate.

He could have made people worthy, and he could have made the world nice, but, in Jehovah's messed-up mind, that wouldn't glorify him.

If people were worthy, and saving them was easy, and if they didn't even need saving in the first place, how would that glorify god?

So he created the worst of all possible worlds, universal eternal conscious torment. And he made the people (again, in his messed-up viewpoint) worthy of that torment. And he made it so that it would be "unjust" (and therefore somehow impossible) for him to save anybody without doing a great deal of self harm (the crucifixion).

And then he did the self harm in order to rescue a handful of the unworthy from the worst of all possible worlds. But he leaves most people in Hell for the contrast.

Glory be to god!

Any support for these views for us to rationally look at?

It's just what I was taught in a Western Civ class. Of course my attitude towards it comes thru in the way I described it.

It makes sense to me, because it gives god motive for behavior that would otherwise be just insane.

But if you want citations or authority, then, no, I don't have those.

[Claire Evans]

Are you saying that includes the Devil? That God intends for Satan to be purified?

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

But that does not mean that Satan will get purified as that is different from being saved.

After Satan has no more power then Satan becomes harmless and so saving Satan does not have to include purifying Satan.

In 1 Corinthians 3:15-16 it only says that the works ( the sins ) are to be burned and the person saved - by the fire of God.

I would change my view that possibly people are not really "purified" just because our sinful works get burned away when we all get saved.

I can't believe what I am reading. Satan doesn't want to be saved. He cannot said the presence of God and hates Him. The source of all evil can't be saved.

Purification means to make us clean before God through repentance and without that, we cannot be saved. So you can't say you get salvation without purification.

I think you have no clue who Satan is. You cannot possibly apply Matthew 5:43-48 to the devil. You don't know the context:

43 You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 4

Back then the gentiles and Jews hated each other and were each other's enemies. They only loved their own kind, hence Jesus was saying they must love each other and not just their own kind. There is no reward in loving only one's own kind. There is reward, however, in extending that love to outsiders.

Jesus did not love the Pharisees, let alone the devil.

[Claire Evans]

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

One, what do you mean we are made up of vibrations?

Two, assuming this is true, it wouldn't mean that our spirits would have to be vibrations as well. A human could be made up of material vibrating as well as non-vibrating immaterial spirit.

Everything in Life is Vibration " Albert Einstein

The law of nature that states everything has a vibration. If you've taken a chemistry class you probably remember learning about atoms, and that everything is made up of atoms. These atoms are in a constant state of motion, and depending on the speed of these atoms, things are appear as a solid, liquid, or gas. Sound is also a vibration and so are thoughts. Everything that manifests itself in your life is there because it matches the vibration from your thoughts.


http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter463/

Consciousness also is vibrational, something apart from the body. Likewise this applies to the spirit.

In order for a spirit to appear to someone, there frequency emitted has to be the same as the person it is appearing to. For example, you have to dial in the correct frequency of a radio in order to hear a particular station.

Also


You might be wondering why you need to raise your vibration. The universal Law of Attraction states that like energy attracts like energy; and because the beings in the spiritual realm will not lower their vibration, you must raise yours to connect with them. The more you stay in a higher, lighter, clearer vibration, the more you will connect with the spiritual realm

Just ignore the New Age stuff in here.

https://sunnydawnjohnston.com/blog/the- ... t-world-2/

When we have feelings of hate, jealously, anxiety, etc, are vibrations decrease. Since demons are lower vibrational creatures, they have more of a hold on us. Our vibrations of these emotions are accessible to them. The higher vibration, like love, makes us more accessible to God.

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?

Assuming your view true here, if God is at least one of the creators of the system, God could still destroy some energy even if other beings have the same power.

Then the co-creator can just make the energy again. There's a constant battle.

What do you mean by energy not being destroyed in an open system?

"The definition of an open system assumes that there are supplies of energy that cannot be depleted; in practice, this energy is supplied from some source in the surrounding environment, which can be treated as infinite for the purposes of study. One type of open system is the radiant energy system, which receives its energy from solar radiation " an energy source that can be regarded as inexhaustible for all practical purposes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_syst ... ms_theory)

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.

Why do you believe their version of what happened to them?

Because some medical experts have confirmed it. It is not possible to have any recollection at all.

http://skeptiko.com/eeg-expert-on-near- ... xperience/

This is why we have consciousness after death. After all, how does God have consciousness?

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

I don't know. My point is that it does not seem logically impossible unless you beg the question by how you define those terms. But maybe you have an argument that shows such a thing is impossible without begging the definition.

Do you believe in 'mind' as separate from the brain?

Yes. Consciousness is separate from the brain. If not, then spirits cannot have any consciousness. The devil and God are devoid of physical bodies.

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.

To quench something, you overcome it. If the fire is speaking to the act of destruction (and Matthew 3:12 talks of the fire destroying the chaff completely), then for that to not be quenched would mean the destruction will not be ended prematurely; it will finish the job and the process is irreversible. Using the word 'unquenchable' makes perfect sense.

But unquenchable means there is no final destruction. It just goes on and on forever.
Once a chaff has been burnt, it's finished. The fire has been quenched.

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

Okay. I don't know Satan that well, but I'd guess Satan would prefer annihilation. What do you think follows from this?

Really? Are you a Christian or not? The devil involves himself in every facet of life. You should get to know him. Since you admit Satan would prefer annihilation, then what punishment is it to the evil? Atheists believe it is a fact of life that there is no life after death. It's natural. It isn't a punishment.

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

Not at all. Different authors (like we have in Timothy and Revelation) could be using it in different ways. Even the same author could be using it in different ways in their own writings. That's why we look at context.

Now, if all we had to go on for God's length of existence was 1 Timothy 1:17, then we couldn't conclude God was necessarily eternal in the sense you mean. But we don't have only that verse. The rest of Scripture paints a different picture of that, doesn't it? The rest of Scripture doesn't clarify this in regards to Hell, however.

That's the point. There are different contexts for each passage so one cannot assume that "age" used in Revelation means a limited time.

I think there is enough clarification on hell being eternal. Here are some other examples:

Mark 9:44"49

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.


Luke 16:23"24


and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.