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.

[JP Cusick]

'I will give them a clean heart...' yes to those who desire it.

The people will be changed (no choice) as is done in this text:
Ezekiel 11:
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
-

All of us sinful people will be changed, and it will be wonderful, and it is not our choice - it is our blessing.

Can you force someone to love you?

We know that pretending love in marriage does not work.

It is a different kind of love.

It is not romantic love, it is not the feeling kind of love.

Jesus said " If ye love me, keep my commandments. " John 14:15

It is a kind of love based on action, as we must see the love in action = keep the commandments.

And this too in John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

When the Bible says to "Love thy enemy" Matthew 5:43-48, then it means with actions as in sending the rain and pray for them and salute them - but we still do not like what they do because those "enemies" are the sinners - they are still enemies to love.

[The Tanager]

There is no proof energy gets destroyed in an open system let alone in the spiritual dimension.

Is there any proof there is energy in the spiritual dimension?

The energy cannot be depleted in the open system as the quote says. Do you have a source that says energy can be destroyed in an open system?

I'm not trying to argue against it, just trying to figure out why you believe it and if I should believe it as well. The same wikipedia page your quote comes from says "An open system is a system that has external interactions. Such interactions can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the disciplines which define the concept."

My view is that the Creator is separate from creation. I don't believe God is made up of energy, but is the Creator of that energy. This would make the whole physical universe to be an open system. And then the energy of this system can be added to (created) or taken out of it (i.e., destroyed). Your quote would then come in and seem to mean that the source of this energy is potentially infinite, not that energy in an open system can't be destroyed.

When one is clinically dead, or brain dead, there is no consciousness. Yet people have recollected the conversations of surgeons while being brain dead. It appears that consciousness is separate from the brain.

Thanks for clarifying your view up for me there. I think I was misunderstanding you, but I feel that is cleared up now. But why do you think our spirits are material?

No. What I am saying is that consciousness is not dependent on a body because God doesn't have one.

Oh, I agree with that.

No. Jesus will treat the hypocrite, unrighteous religious men as chaff. That is to cast them aside when they are burnt because they are useless. When chaff is destroyed, it cannot be blown back to mingle with the wheat. The wicked will be never mingle with the righteous again.; the unquenchable fire is the conscious eternal state of hell.

I'm not even sure Matthew 3:12 is about Hell at all, because it is connected with the baptism Jesus will bring. But assuming it is talking about Hell, you seem to be saying chaff isn't completely destroyed when burned and, therefore, this is simply a picture of separating burnt chaff from the wheat. I just don't see that in the passage, but thanks for sharing your interpretation.

Atheists don't think so. It's a natural thing to them. No punishment to them. If I was wicked and I had to choose between oblivion and eternal torment

If you asked an atheist to rank these three things in order: eternal joy, ceasing to exist, eternal pain this would be the order chosen by most if not all:

1. eternal joy
2. ceasing to exist
3. eternal pain

Ceasing to exist is a negative compared to eternal joy. It doesn't matter if it isn't the worst possible case. It's still a negative. That was my point.

I'd choose the former.

We don't get the choice.

If one is in oblivion, they cannot be aware they are being punished.

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

The worm is identified with its owner; the one that is being consumed by worms for ever. Of course a worm cannot feed off a corpse once a corpse is no longer edible for a worm. A worm that never dies will cause eternal torment. This is graphic imagery yet Jesus was emphasizing the horrors of hell.

If Jesus wanted to invoke the imagery you think He is, then why would Jesus use a well-known image that meant something very specific to His audience. That would cause confusion. Jesus would have just used new imagery. Instead He uses a sign in that culture of finality and shame. And, in your view, uses that to speak of eternal conscious torment. I just don't see it in that passage.

Matthew 5


30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

And you think this verse shows annihiliationism to be illogical? This verse seems to me to fit with both of our views. If Hell is complete destruction, this verse still makes sense. It is better to lose one hand and live the abundant eternal life then it is to lose your whole body to the destruction of Hell.

If there is no consciousness after death, how can an intermediate state exist?

I thought you said there was consciousness after death. I think there is.

How can the rich man be condemned to hell before Judgment Day?

Isn't your point that this passage is about Hell, rather than an intermediate state of the dead before the resurrection and judgment day? If so, then what would be the point of the rich man asking Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 89 by JP Cusick]


"We can say that people choose our own sins, but it is not a fair nor free choice, because the people are improperly educated, spiritually blind, live under the pressure of this evil world, we have to make a living, protect our loved ones, and people suffer from addictions, from mental depression, from being defeated over and over again, and most (if not all) sins are done out of simple ignorance. "

I also claim that we must have chosen our own sinfulness or someone else is responsible. And I also agree that here on earth we do not have a free will due to the points you made and even more.

Can you force someone to love you? We know that pretending love in marriage does not work.

No...forced love is not love and a forced marriage is a rape, not a marriage.

The Bible ends when GOD marries His Bride after all those who will never accept HIM nor ever love HIM and have destroyed all possibility that they will ever be His Bride are banished to the outer darkness.

[ttruscott]

'I will give them a clean heart...' yes to those who desire it.

The people will be changed (no choice) as is done in this text:
Ezekiel 11:
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

How GOD does all this is described in Heb12:5-11 which as you can read, esp v8, it isn't about the illegitimate children.

These people are being trained in righteousness which implies some up and downs, some righteous choices and some wrongful choices which earn them painful discipline to encourage them to choose better. It is their free will that was returned to them at/by rebirth that is being trained, and not by any magic or spiritual rape of their will power.

[Claire Evans]

How can you be condemned on Judgement day and get salvation at the same time?

That happens based on the eternal concepts of love and forgiveness.

The sins are condemned - while the person gets saved.

See it said here = 1 Corinthians 3:15-16

You have gotten the quote of the scripture wrong because it is not in context. Paul was comparing himself to a wise builder who laid the foundation while other builders built on it (verse 10-11).

Paul warns the apostles to take heed on how they build upon his foundation. They must provide sound instruction. If they don't, a convert may fall away and is burned in hell. The teacher will suffer loss because the former convert went to hell because of his unsound instruction. Yet that does not mean the teacher's salvation is jeopardized because of the fate of the ex convert as he had no malintent.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... rough-fire

You cannot apply this to the evil.

Why can't God make evil people good now if they don't have a choice?

God really does forcibly suppresses evil people against their will - as in the worst sinners being put into jail (gaol) or into prison or else just being killed at the scene of their crime (their sin). See here = Romans 13:1-14

But does that make a person good because they are being punished? And what about those who get away? Like corruption in the government, for example?

And God punishes every other person here-and-now even for our smallest of sins, see here = Galatians 6:7-8

A person who sows to please the flesh now will reap destruction later on Judgement Day. Like a righteous person will reap eternal life after death.

There are an enormous amount of people who remain unpunished today.

We can say that people choose our own sins, but it is not a fair nor free choice, because the people are improperly educated, spiritually blind, live under the pressure of this evil world, we have to make a living, protect our loved ones, and people suffer from addictions, from mental depression, from being defeated over and over again, and most (if not all) sins are done out of simple ignorance.

God takes into account of all of our circumstances. We will have a chance to repent but there are those who know full well what they are doing and want to hold onto their evil. There are those who will never repent and thus will never have salvation.

And there is a beautiful doctrines which is factually true = that God visits those in jails and in prison, see Matthew 25:34-36

No, that's a parable where people with mercy visit people in jail. You cannot reach out to a person in prison who is unrepentant. It's a different story if the prisoner is repentant. Forgiveness means a lot to them.

You cannot just disregard Jesus' words.

Mark 3
28Truly I tell you, the sons of men will be forgiven all sins and blasphemies, as many as they utter. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of eternal sin.

I say that we are all guilty of eternal sin, and even if most sins are forgiven - our sins will never be forgotten, and eternal sin or eternal punishment does not mean eternal continuous punishing.

If we are all guilty of eternal sin, then we cannot inherit eternal life as sin cannot exist in the Kingdom of Heaven. Eternal punishment is continuous. Eternal means without end.

We must not disregard Jesus' words, but we do need to apply all of the words, including that Jesus tells us that the Father loves His enemies, so punishment from our loving Father does not mean constant never ending punishing without end. See Matthew 5:43-48

You totally disregarded the context I gave you about "loving one's enemies". That is not acceptable.

Answer me this: Do you believe Jesus loves Satan?

In the text you quote above of Mark 3:28 it says that every person = "will be forgiven all sins and blasphemies" (all forgiven, not punished) and then it is saying that only one (1) sin will not be forgiven, and I expect that virtually no one ever really gives blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.

If no one really blasphemes, then you are saying Jesus is mistaken or is a liar. Yes, people blaspheme against Jesus all the time. The unforgivable sin, however, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The people accused Jesus of having devils dwell in Him and not the Holy Spirit. They were calling the Holy Spirit devils.

Your problem is a lack of understanding of evil.

[JP Cusick]

Answer me this: Do you believe Jesus loves Satan?

Yes of course = Jesus said to even love thy enemies.

Plus I am not convinced that Satan is the enemy of Jesus or of God - but just an enemy to sinful humanity.

The Apostle Paul declares that sinful people are to be given over to Satan in order to save the person, here in 1 Corinthians 5:3-7

In that text case then Satan can be seen as an adversary to the sinful person but doing the service for God at the same time.

Even in the "temptation of Christ" it shows the Devil as an adversary for sinful people but not for Jesus, see Luke 4:1-14

[Monta]

Answer me this: Do you believe Jesus loves Satan?

Yes of course = Jesus said to even love thy enemies.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44 NIV)

Note that according to CIA insider reports there are several restaurants in DC and NYC and around the world (including one in Saudi Arabia) that serve cooked child flesh as a secret and very expensive delicacy for top Satanists.

Top Dutch Banker Ronald Bernard was offered initiation into the top Illuminati circles but refused when he was informed that the initiation involved Satanic child sacrifice.

ytube for anyone who wants to check it out -
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/10/1 ... n-america/

To date this is the highest level, best report of how human compromise involving satanic ritual and child sacrifice is used to control the governments of America, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the European nations and most nations of the world.

Satan is a hijacker, a murderer, and a liar, and all evil is inspired by him. He dwells in any who invite him in, and for many of those who are willing to give him their very souls, he will reward them with untold riches, power and status. As long as they are willing to pedophile children and sacrifice them.

Big difference between an enemy like thief who robbed my house and an enemy whose sole aim is to destroy my soul.

[JP Cusick]

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44 NIV)

Satan is a hijacker, a murderer, and a liar, and all evil is inspired by him. He dwells in any who invite him in, and for many of those who are willing to give him their very souls, he will reward them with untold riches, power and status. As long as they are willing to pedophile children and sacrifice them.

Big difference between an enemy like thief who robbed my house and an enemy whose sole aim is to destroy my soul.

Jesus still said to love thy enemy as does the Father. Matthew 5:43-48

To love does not mean that we have to like what they do = Hate the sin but not the sinner.

Martin Luther King Jr., preached a sermon about this as "Agape Love" and he told how he had people who really did want to kill him and to slaughter his wife and his children and burn his house down, and so his view of enemies was very real and compelling, and yet MLK preached the word to "love thy enemies" without liking what they do.

Link = Agape Love: A sermon by Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is a hard doctrine, and yet we can do it if we try.

[Claire Evans]

There is no proof energy gets destroyed in an open system let alone in the spiritual dimension.

Is there any proof there is energy in the spiritual dimension?

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

The energy cannot be depleted in the open system as the quote says. Do you have a source that says energy can be destroyed in an open system?

I'm not trying to argue against it, just trying to figure out why you believe it and if I should believe it as well. The same wikipedia page your quote comes from says "An open system is a system that has external interactions. Such interactions can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the disciplines which define the concept."

My view is that the Creator is separate from creation. I don't believe God is made up of energy, but is the Creator of that energy. This would make the whole physical universe to be an open system. And then the energy of this system can be added to (created) or taken out of it (i.e., destroyed). Your quote would then come in and seem to mean that the source of this energy is potentially infinite, not that energy in an open system can't be destroyed.

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.

When one is clinically dead, or brain dead, there is no consciousness. Yet people have recollected the conversations of surgeons while being brain dead. It appears that consciousness is separate from the brain.

Thanks for clarifying your view up for me there. I think I was misunderstanding you, but I feel that is cleared up now. But why do you think our spirits are material?

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.

No. Jesus will treat the hypocrite, unrighteous religious men as chaff. That is to cast them aside when they are burnt because they are useless. When chaff is destroyed, it cannot be blown back to mingle with the wheat. The wicked will be never mingle with the righteous again.; the unquenchable fire is the conscious eternal state of hell.

I'm not even sure Matthew 3:12 is about Hell at all, because it is connected with the baptism Jesus will bring. But assuming it is talking about Hell, you seem to be saying chaff isn't completely destroyed when burned and, therefore, this is simply a picture of separating burnt chaff from the wheat. I just don't see that in the passage, but thanks for sharing your interpretation.

I suppose it is about the power that Holy Spirit will give Jesus. We will have the authority to judge. What else could it be referring to?

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.

Atheists don't think so. It's a natural thing to them. No punishment to them. If I was wicked and I had to choose between oblivion and eternal torment

If you asked an atheist to rank these three things in order: eternal joy, ceasing to exist, eternal pain this would be the order chosen by most if not all:

1. eternal joy
2. ceasing to exist
3. eternal pain

Ceasing to exist is a negative compared to eternal joy. It doesn't matter if it isn't the worst possible case. It's still a negative. That was my point.

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.

I'd choose the former.

We don't get the choice.

I said if I had the choice.

If one is in oblivion, they cannot be aware they are being punished.

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

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.

When Jesus was taking on the sin of the world, He cried: "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

That's because sin cannot be near God.

The worm is identified with its owner; the one that is being consumed by worms for ever. Of course a worm cannot feed off a corpse once a corpse is no longer edible for a worm. A worm that never dies will cause eternal torment. This is graphic imagery yet Jesus was emphasizing the horrors of hell.

If Jesus wanted to invoke the imagery you think He is, then why would Jesus use a well-known image that meant something very specific to His audience. That would cause confusion. Jesus would have just used new imagery. Instead He uses a sign in that culture of finality and shame. And, in your view, uses that to speak of eternal conscious torment. I just don't see it in that passage.

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.

Matthew 5


30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

And you think this verse shows annihiliationism to be illogical? This verse seems to me to fit with both of our views. If Hell is complete destruction, this verse still makes sense. It is better to lose one hand and live the abundant eternal life then it is to lose your whole body to the destruction of Hell.

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

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.

If there is no consciousness after death, how can an intermediate state exist?

I thought you said there was consciousness after death. I think there is.

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

How can the rich man be condemned to hell before Judgment Day?

Isn't your point that this passage is about Hell, rather than an intermediate state of the dead before the resurrection and judgment day? If so, then what would be the point of the rich man asking Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family?

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?

[The Tanager]

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?

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

Why do you think consciousness needs energy?

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?

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.