Is annihilation false doctrine?

[Wootah]

This is the philosophical perspective.

This all assumes a just legal system.

When someone is sentenced to go to prison they will only be able to end that prison sentence by paying the measured fine or serving the measured amount of time in prison. If that person has served their prison sentence and then you kill them you are acting unjustly.

If God is holy, righteous and just and we have sinned against God then hell is the prison we go to unless we pay for our sins against God or until we serve our time.

Problem a - is that we can never justly pay for our sins against an infinite God and so can never leave the prison.
Problem b - is that annihilation means that the sentence is over and God killed the person after the sentence was over.

Therefore Annihilation makes God unjust.

Put another way, at the point where God intends to annihilate a being it means that God regards that they have served their sentence. Therefore the being should be allowed into heaven. They have paid for their sins against God.

If they have not served their sentence and God annihilates them fails because as I just said, at the point of annihilation it means they have served their sentence.

Anecdote: I am pro-death penalty but the biggest argument against the death penalty for me is that prison lets the criminal rot for longer. Something about the execution is unjust, it is too light a punishment. I would still reply back that the cost to the state for keeping the criminal alive takes resources away from others and in a fallen world the prisoner could escape.

--

Just thinking about this.

After annihilation has the person paid for their sins?

If yes, then why aren't they in heaven?
If no, then they have escaped punishment or, worse, is God unable to justly punish?

--

Is annihilation false doctrine?

[JoeyKnothead]

Speling edits

Jesus only saves if you repent and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord.

Why should we believe you in this matter?

Remember, the bible is not considered authoritative in this section of the site

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is ...
Search domain biblehub.comhttps://biblehub.com/romans/10-9.htm
If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

So says the bible.

Now, where have you established the following...

Jesus is 'Lord'
God raised Jesus from the dead
If people believe that hey'll be saved

Remember, the bible is not considered authoritative in this section of the site.


Notice what's going on here, dear observer. Our OPer is attempting to promote his religious "doctrine" in a section of this site that doesn't consider the bible authoritative . He's trying to use the cover of this section's reputation for strict reliance on reliable data, in order to push theological indoctrination (if only you'll just believe, you too can be saved).

But where, where in any of his preachings across this topic has OP ever, ever attempted to provide support that doesn't come from the bible?

It's an obvious attempt to preach, an obvious attempt to hide from the fact that bible claims cant be shown to be true.

He's trying to hide his preaching behind "Let's pretend the bible is authoritative".

We must stand firm against this obvious, dastardly attempt to corrupt C&A with nothing more than preaching. Nothing more than Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Help us keep this section free from the preachers. Help keep it's standards as pure as we possibly can. Call this preacher out.

Let him know we demand evidence, not make believe!


The liar lies and the preacher preaches!

[Bust Nak]

Actually, the judge can't just accept any money to pay your fine. It has to be money directed towards it. If you say that money isn't to go towards your fine then you haven't paid your fine. No matter what the judge might do with the $100.

Again, the point was that I can say that the money is to go towards my fine without believing that a substitute payment was offered. My belief about existence of the offer is irrelevant in the analogy, where as it's paramount in Christianity, the analogy fails to capture this aspect.

So you would argue that God is not omnipotent and therefore cannot recreate the innocent person? Or that God is omnipotent but not just and so doesn't have to let innocent people into heaven?

Neither. I would argue that God is omnipotent excluding the logically incoherent - recreating the person would undo the punishment and hence a recreated person would automatically not be innocent - "recreate the innocent person" is incoherent.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #28]

My position is that Hells and Heavens [and many other places outside of those two specific types] exist as creations to be experienced by those who create them [either knowingly or ignorantly as the case may be.]

I read your other thread with your three positions. I think you think we create our own heaven when we die or something like that? My view is the standard normative Christian view that God creates heaven and hell.

My view is that The Creator allows for this process to occur and that the heavens and hells and other places created by the individuals who experience them, are not permanent but more like holding cells.
This gives much more credence to the idea that "God is Patient" and removes the image that an almighty and unjust psychopath is calling the shots. Something often overlooked by those thinking themselves to be heaven-bound.

In relation to the doctrine of eternal hell and damnation there is no "until we pay our debt against an infinite God".

Yes - what I am arguing is that we cannot pay our debt to an infinite being and that is why hell is eternal. But technically if the debt was possible to be paid then I would expect the prison to be set free and then come to heaven.

There has been no evidence that I am aware of which is given to support the idea that any debt is involved. Belief in the notion appears to derive solely from those who are unforgiving and want what they call 'justice'. Call it what you will, but I do not see how justice is involved in receiving an everlasting sentence of intolerable agony for something which - in the grand scheme of things - is no more that a misstep on the path of eternity.

Perhaps consider a re-think then.

The purpose of the thread is to allow other ideas to change my view.

That is great. I hope you consider my ideas in relation to that purpose.

Let me try to change your view: Can a person who is evil in your view, create heaven better than the heaven that is created by a person that is good?

That is not my view. For one, I do not judge people 'good' or 'evil'.
Also, re;

[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.

"What they did" is another way of saying 'how they behaved' and so it is not really just a matter of pretense which will somehow have one creating some lovely place for themselves. Their overall personality [hidden/concealed parts included] determines what it is they create for themselves. The more an individual has to hide, the more likely it is that they will not know that they are the ones creating their next-phase experience.

Generally speaking - just like notions of good and evil, positive and negative, light and dark are different - one personalities heaven is another personalities hell and visa versa, so my view is that anything unpleasant for the individual which is created by the individual, is done so through the individual's own attitude, which is a far more just way of dealing with such issues than the "Hell is created by a god who will put you there forever" belief created and endorsed by Christianity over the last 20 centuries.

Such belief has had its damaging ripple effect on the course of human history in real terms.

Especially a hedonist - surely they know how to create a good heaven for themselves?

Sure. If the hedonist was the kind of personality who possessed qualities which enable them to do so, then that is just, yes?

And if people create their heavens and hells then doesn't that imply that they get what they want. Where is the justice?

If anything [3] says that they get what they need - and "for the time being", and that is just, as far as I can tell. Certainly more just than the doctrine of an Almighty Entity creating horrific places in which to put undesirables, or magnificent places in which to place desirables.

Allowing the personalities own psyche determine to what they will create for themselves in the next phase is far more just, than the generic Christian ideas of the next phase [positions [1] and [2].]

Anecdote: I am pro-death penalty but the biggest argument against the death penalty for me is that prison lets the criminal rot for longer. Something about the execution is unjust, it is too light a punishment. I would still reply back that the cost to the state for keeping the criminal alive takes resources away from others and in a fallen world the prisoner could escape.

Since you think of this current phase [life on earth] as a 'fallen world', wherein can anyone 'escape' really? The planet acts as a type of prison anyway.

Would it be justice, that those who believe in a god who created hell and expect individuals to be placed there, would also have to endure hearing the tormenting screams and smell the burning flesh of those placed there, for as long as hell exists, or would that spoil their heavenly experience too much to be called 'justice'?

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to tam in post #2]

I thought I might add to my first post, because although death (the first death) is the wage of sin (cause and effect)... annihilation (the second death) is the judgment that comes (for some) AFTER the resurrection (of the dead).

One is cause and effect (sin and death). One is a judgment.

For example, say you drink and drive and get in an accident, severely injuring yourself (regardless of whether or not you injured someone else). Your severe injury is a consequence (cause and effect) of you drinking and driving. Your injury (and healing) is a separate issue from prosecution and judgment.


**

This is the philosophical perspective.

This all assumes a just legal system.

Ok.

When someone is sentenced to go to prison they will only be able to end that prison sentence by paying the measured fine or serving the measured amount of time in prison. If that person has served their prison sentence and then you kill them you are acting unjustly.

Sure but this assumes that the judgment has already happened and that hell is the sentence. It is not. The Judgment has not yet happened. "Good" or "bad", the dead (except for those in Christ who go under the altar) go to 'hell' (the world of the dead), to await the resurrection (where some will be resurrected to LIFE and some will be resurrected to judgment and the second death).

If God is holy, righteous and just and we have sinned against God then hell is the prison we go to unless we pay for our sins against God or until we serve our time.

But that is not what hell is. Hell (hades/sheol) is simply the world of the dead, where the dead go (except for the dead in Christ, who go under the altar) to await the resurrection of the dead. At that time, hell is emptied out, at which time, some receive eternal life, and some receive judgment and the second death. Before that time, no one has yet been judged.

Rev 20: 11-15

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death AND HADES gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire

Problem a - is that we can never justly pay for our sins against an infinite God and so can never leave the prison.

Well then the problem with 'problem a' is that everyone in 'hell' DOES indeed leave 'the prison'. Because 'hell' will be emptied out of all the dead in it (see reference above). That is the resurrection of the dead. The Judgment occurs at that time, wherein some are resurrected to LIFE, and some are are resurrected to judgment and the second death.

See also John 5:29

Problem b - is that annihilation means that the sentence is over and God killed the person after the sentence was over.

No, annihilation IS the sentence, the judgment. Hades (hell) is emptied out, and people are then judged, sentenced.

Therefore Annihilation makes God unjust.

Except that the assumptions leading up to this statement are incorrect.

Put another way, at the point where God intends to annihilate a being it means that God regards that they have served their sentence. Therefore the being should be allowed into heaven. They have paid for their sins against God.

See above.

If they have not served their sentence and God annihilates them fails because as I just said, at the point of annihilation it means they have served their sentence.

See above. Annihilation is the sentence, the judgment.

Anecdote: I am pro-death penalty but the biggest argument against the death penalty for me is that prison lets the criminal rot for longer. Something about the execution is unjust, it is too light a punishment. I would still reply back that the cost to the state for keeping the criminal alive takes resources away from others and in a fallen world the prisoner could escape.

Thankfully, God's ways truly are higher than man's ways.

I would also like to point out that people fight to get the death penalty taken off the table. Death is the ultimate punishment; there is no coming back from it. Life in prison is still life and as long as there is life there can be hope.

Except in the 'hell' that man has invented of course, where there is no hope and punishment is just for the sake of punishment. There is no end to it, there is no learning from it, there is no point whatsoever TO it. And that is what some people think is part of the plan that God came up with. Even that some might be 'in heaven' with their loved ones sentenced to 'hell' for all time, a million billion trillion years and not one millisecond closer to the end of their torment. What is the point or purpose in that?



**

I would also just like to mention quickly that the parable about the debtor's prison is meant to highlight the following (which is in line with the rest of what Christ taught):

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours. Matt 6:14, 15

For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matt 7:2

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Matt 5:7

Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Judge not or you will be judged.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #43]

Again, the point was that I can say that the money is to go towards my fine without believing that a substitute payment was offered. My belief about existence of the offer is irrelevant in the analogy, where as it's paramount in Christianity, the analogy fails to capture this aspect.

That doesn't make sense. I can believe the world exists and is destroyed every time I blink.

Neither. I would argue that God is omnipotent excluding the logically incoherent - recreating the person would undo the punishment and hence a recreated person would automatically not be innocent - "recreate the innocent person" is incoherent.

I agree that God is omnipotent excluding the logically incoherent. I don't see the logical incoherence in my post. On the side of annihilation however, I do.

I think you are saying that recreating the person would mean they were still under sentence. Therefore they should be in hell. How is letting someone out of prison just unless they have paid their fine? How is killing someone just after letting them out of prison unless letting them out was unjust?

[brunumb]

How is letting someone out of prison just unless they have paid their fine?

Is it just to let a criminal out of prison because someone else paid their penalty for them?

[Wootah]

How is letting someone out of prison just unless they have paid their fine?

Is it just to let a criminal out of prison because someone else paid their penalty for them?

How isn't it? Definitionally, assuming a just system, the fine that is set is just and the payment of the fine, if possible, is just.

[brunumb]

Call it what you will, but I do not see how justice is involved in receiving an everlasting sentence of intolerable agony for something which - in the grand scheme of things - is no more that a misstep on the path of eternity.

I would just like to reiterate that sentiment. The notions of sin, hell, annihilation expressed in the Bible are just very, very bad fiction. It's sad to see that many people are incapable of seeing it as such. I think it speaks to a darker side of human beings that they can regard such concepts as eternal suffering or judgment and annihilation as justice rather than a subconscious desire for bad people to eventually get what they perceive is deserved.

[brunumb]

How is letting someone out of prison just unless they have paid their fine?

Is it just to let a criminal out of prison because someone else paid their penalty for them?

How isn't it? Definitionally, assuming a just system, the fine that is set is just and the payment of the fine, if possible, is just.

It might satisfy the system, but is it really justice? No. The criminal has paid no penalty. What if the crime was murder and the penalty was death. Would it be justice if someone else was executed instead of the culprit?

[Wootah]

[Replying to brunumb in post #49]

The best I can offer is that most insanity is in the form of being too rational.
GK Chesterton says a lot about that: https://thekingandid.wordpress.com/2018 ... of-reason/

As you note with your agreement with William his abhorrence is emotional, not rational. This is a debating forum, which errs on the side of being rational.

However, Hell is quite rational and for those that are emotional quite loving.

It is very emotionally resonating to me that God will protect his children.