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]

Are you saying that being annihilated is being held accountable for ones actions?

What kind of actions do you regard through your beliefs to being ones which require the individual is annihilated?

I am saying annihilation is holding one accountable to their choices in life. The choice that would bring about annihilation (or the alternative of everlasting hell) is the free will refusal to submit to God and live life as our own god. When we become self centered we cause problems for those around us. I do not think God will allow that to infect eternity.

[myth-one.com]

But why did He have to die?

Hell is eternal torment for those who are unrepentant and those who God could never forgive.

[Claire Evans]

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? Couldn't He have done that without dying for us? If God could not have forgiven sin, then Jesus would never have resurrected as He would have been dead to sin forever. He could not have been forgiven as Jesus took on the sin of the world.

When one dies for someone else, they experience death in place of another so that this other person can be spared the same fate. Likewise, Jesus took on our sin and took on the punishment of hell so that we wouldn't have to if we repented for our sins.

Here is what will actually save Christians:

The two testaments of the Bible contain covenants between God and man. The inheritance received by heirs under either testament is everlasting life.

The path to eternal life under the first covenant was to never sin, as the wages of sin was death. However, there was a fault in that first testament in that all mankind sinned!

Since the first covenant contained a fault, God created a second or New Testament Covenant.

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?

The Word was made flesh as the man Jesus, and Jesus lived a sinless human life under the Old Testament Covenant. Thus, He became the only human to ever qualify for everlasting life under that covenant. The name Jesus Christ is written into the Book of Life as an inheritor of everlasting spiritual life.

However, He will not accept His just reward and inheritance, but will offer it as a gift to those who believe in Him as their Savior under terms of the New Testament Covenant.

By believing in Jesus under the New Testament Covenant, we become joint heirs with Jesus Christ and our names are written into the Book of Life along with His.

Thus everlasting life (salvation from the wages of our sins) becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ.

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world?

[myth-one.com]

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? Couldn't He have done that without dying for us? If God could not have forgiven sin, then Jesus would never have resurrected as He would have been dead to sin forever. He could not have been forgiven as Jesus took on the sin of the world.

When one dies for someone else, they experience death in place of another so that this other person can be spared the same fate. Likewise, Jesus took on our sin and took on the punishment of hell so that we wouldn't have to if we repented for our sins.

Here is what will actually save Christians:

The two testaments of the Bible contain covenants between God and man. The inheritance received by heirs under either testament is everlasting life.

The path to eternal life under the first covenant was to never sin, as the wages of sin was death. However, there was a fault in that first testament in that all mankind sinned!

Since the first covenant contained a fault, God created a second or New Testament Covenant.

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?

No, I never said that.

I said the first covenant contained a fault, so God created a new covenant.

The Word was made flesh as the man Jesus, and Jesus lived a sinless human life under the Old Testament Covenant. Thus, He became the only human to ever qualify for everlasting life under that covenant. The name Jesus Christ is written into the Book of Life as an inheritor of everlasting spiritual life.

However, He will not accept His just reward and inheritance, but will offer it as a gift to those who believe in Him as their Savior under terms of the New Testament Covenant.

By believing in Jesus under the New Testament Covenant, we become joint heirs with Jesus Christ and our names are written into the Book of Life along with His.

Thus everlasting life (salvation from the wages of our sins) becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ.

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world?

By living a sinless human life under the Old Testament, Jesus became the only heir to everlasting under that covenant.

Then under the New Testament, He offers His inheritance of everlasting life as a free gift to all who believe in Him.

His offer covers the sins of the entire world -- whosoever believeth.

[brianbbs67]

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?


From what I know, He does not make mistakes. But, He does change his mind, depending on what we choose. Boiling it down, an answer from God could be : Yes, No, Maybe later and I changed my mind or no response at all.

[marco]

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?


From what I know, He does not make mistakes. But, He does change his mind, depending on what we choose. Boiling it down, an answer from God could be : Yes, No, Maybe later and I changed my mind or no response at all.

In modern times the preferred answer is the last one.

Given how many appeals have been made for him to correct false impressions his silence is deafening. No Red Sea changes. And no threats of torture or torment for those who misquote him.

[myth-one.com]

So you are saying God made a mistake?

Once again, I never said that God made a mistake.

I said there was a fault in the first covenant. That is what the Bible states, and thus what I believe:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

God did not make a mistake.

And:

There was a fault in the first covenant,

Are both true statements.

[myth-one.com]

Given how many appeals have been made for him to correct false impressions his silence is deafening. No Red Sea changes. And no threats of torture or torment for those who misquote him.

Christians are instructed to pray for God's will to be done on earth: "Thy will be done on earth . . ."

Those who "misquote" Him and point Christianity in the wrong direction are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- Misleading others and contributing to the failure of the Christian Church.

Scripture prophesies that under mankind, the Church will fail.

It's thus God's will.

Clergymen clothe themselves in royal robes and attach multiple honorary doctoral degrees to their names. Many have become prosperous and powerful.

And through it all, the scriptures are sealed from their understanding.

Nonetheless, they do a fine job of unintentionally misleading Christianity.

[The Tanager]

Sure. The problem with what to do with reprobate individual personalities who are purposefully none compliant and go out of their way to harm rather than help...from human perspective, the death penalty is an answer as to how to remove the harm... or locking them away might remove the harm they can do to the general population, but ultimately this is a quick fix band aid on a deep wound 'solution' which is not really a solution at all. This type of thinking though has found its way into some of the organised religions doctrines and simply supports the juvenile approach to the problem with the aforementioned quick fix 'solution'.
Indeed, in terms of law, the religious idea of GOD and punishment have found there way into the dictates of human society and the solutions are no more or less than sweeping things under the carpet, which essentially is the 'solution' hell and damnation
also metaphorically provide.
Eternal damnation is no solution any more than annihilation is. However, the reprobate have to be contained somehow, which is why I think this is a far better idea that ...well I give a brief summery of this here;

♦ My thoughts on death.


It is all about self responsibility in relation to self identity. If our identity of SELF is less than what we truly are, then we will only ever reach for that lesser standard and once there, believe that we have attained our highest outcome.

For example. If we believe that we are 'stardust' then there is no particular impulse to become anything more than that.
If we believe we are separate from GOD and in need of reconnecting, but our idea of GOD is inaccurate, we will only reach for that.
If we believe that we are aspects of GOD-consciousness and any separation from GOD is just illusion, we will reach for that - by systematically removing anything which is involved in maintaining that illusion.

Therein is real growth.

So, is your point that your view of hell as self-induced illusion is a better solution of containment of evil than eternal torment or eternal separation or annihilation? Why do you think this is a better solution? One problem I see with this kind of view is explaining how or why illusion arose in the first place within God consciousness. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something about your view and any corrections will spur additional thoughts.

[brianbbs67]

So you are saying God made a mistake?

Once again, I never said that God made a mistake.

I said there was a fault in the first covenant. That is what the Bible states, and thus what I believe:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

God did not make a mistake.

And:

There was a fault in the first covenant,

Are both true statements.

God came up with the Covenants. Hebrews and Isreal agreed . The covenant wasn't flawed. The people were. God gave them what they asked for. Even if they were unable to live up to it. They either overestimated their ability and resolve or God wanted to show them the difficulty of being righteous as a human.