Eternal Torment or Annihilation (hell, punishment, doctrine, Revelation)

[maat55]

I'm fairly new here and a recent convert to Atheist. Before becoming an Atheist, I struggled with the doctrine of ET. I discovered that ET was not biblical, yet, I'm shocked at how many pastors and Christians believe this doctrine to be biblical and even worse, reasonable. I cringe when I here Christians say that another human should burn in hell for eternity. I found the bible to clearly support annihilation.

My question is: Do you believe in ET and do you consider it just punishment? If so, have you really considered what that means?

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by maat55

I'm fairly new here and a recent convert to Atheist. Before becoming an Atheist, I struggled with the doctrine of ET. I discovered that ET was not biblical, yet, I'm shocked at how many pastors and Christians believe this doctrine to be biblical and even worse, reasonable. I cringe when I here Christians say that another human should burn in hell for eternity. I found the bible to clearly support annihilation.

My question is: Do you believe in ET and do you consider it just punishment? If so, have you really considered what that means?

Why don't you show us your Biblical support for annihilation?

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by maat55

I'm fairly new here and a recent convert to Atheist. Before becoming an Atheist, I struggled with the doctrine of ET. I discovered that ET was not biblical, yet, I'm shocked at how many pastors and Christians believe this doctrine to be biblical and even worse, reasonable. I cringe when I here Christians say that another human should burn in hell for eternity. I found the bible to clearly support annihilation.

My question is: Do you believe in ET and do you consider it just punishment? If so, have you really considered what that means?

If the Bible supports annihilation then why are the beast and the false prophet shown to be alive and in torment even after having been in the lake of fire for a thousand years, and then have it said of them that they will be tormented day and night forever and ever? Compare Revelation 19:20 with Revelation 20:1-10. That doesn't exactly qualify as annihilation. Both the beast and the false prophet will be sent into the lake of fire when Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation. They will still be there, and in torment, when they are joined by Satan at the end of the Millennial kingdom a thousand years later at which time those members of the human race who appear at the great white throne judgment will also join them.

But you are now an atheist and don't believe any of this anyway, so . . .

[TroutDude]

An atheist shouldn't be bothered by bible babble.

This Animist isn't.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

Why don't you show us your Biblical support for annihilation?

Considering how I titled the thread I will provide you with a strong case for annihilation. Yet, this is really not the intent of this thread. It is to get your opinion/rationale of the doctrine you support.

I held on to my faith a while longer after discovering annihilation to be biblical. But, other doctrines lead me to give up my faith.

Again, I want your honest rationale for the doctrine you support. You are welcome to waste your time on this lengthy support for annihilation.



Hell: Eternal Torment or Complete Annihilation? - By Jeremy K. Moritz

[maat55]

Originally Posted by Mike555

If the Bible supports annihilation then why are the beast and the false prophet shown to be alive and in torment even after having been in the lake of fire for a thousand years, and then have it said of them that they will be tormented day and night forever and ever? Compare Revelation 19:20 with Revelation 20:1-10. That doesn't exactly qualify as annihilation. Both the beast and the false prophet will be sent into the lake of fire when Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation. They will still be there, and in torment, when they are joined by Satan at the end of the Millennial kingdom a thousand years later at which time those members of the human race who appear at the great white throne judgment will also join them.

But you are now an atheist and don't believe any of this anyway, so . . .

I found through research that ever and ever could be age to age. This could put a time limit on the torment of these characters due to the transition from one age to the new age.

But again, I'm looking for your rationale for the doctrine you support and not a debate of which is right biblically.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

An atheist shouldn't be bothered by bible babble.

This Animist isn't.

Yes, I could careless about the doctrines. I'm interested in the mindset of the believer of these doctrines. As a Christian, I was content with annihilation being fair and biblical. I found ET ridiculous and a game changer for belief in this God. Further study sent me packing anyway.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by maat55

I found through research that ever and ever could be age to age. This could put a time limit on the torment of these characters due to the transition from one age to the new age.

That argument has been debated on this forum many times. You do realize that there are theologians who know the Greek language and believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. Depending on the context, the word aionios and its cognates can refer to a limited amount of time, or to an endless period (eternal).

But again, I'm looking for your rationale for the doctrine you support and not a debate of which is right biblically.

It's not a matter of my rationale or of how I feel about it. It's a matter of revelation, of what the Bible says.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by maat55

I found through research that ever and ever could be age to age. This could put a time limit on the torment of these characters due to the transition from one age to the new age.

But again, I'm looking for your rationale for the doctrine you support and not a debate of which is right biblically.

It's reasonable because sinners offend an infinitely holy and just God.

[mitchellmckain]

He asked me about this in another thread so I will post my response here as well since it was somewhat off topic there anyway.

Originally Posted by maat55

So, you believe in ET? Exactly what does that look like? How do you separate it from sadism?

I would see the following question as crucial...

Who or what is this salvation your religion is talking about supposed to save us from?

typical answers
1. It is salvation from the wrath of God.
2. It is salvation from an evil being called the Devil.
3. It is salvation from ourselves and our own self-destructive habits.

Consider the implications of these three answers.

1. If God is offering us a way to save us from Himself then this fits the description of a protection racket. And perhaps the being you believe in should best be described as a mafia godfather who rules with fear, threats, and promises demanding mindless obedience and calling all this "love."

2. This answer is theologically problematic in a number of different ways. It is hard to see how introducing a bad guy can absolve God of responsibility unless it makes God a bit too much of a victim of this evil being. However it is not simply a matter thinking the omnipotence of God rules out this possibility.

I believe real omnipotence must mean that God is capable of taking risks, making sacrifices, giving privacy, i.e. a God who CAN make a rock so big that He cannot lift it. Indeed I believe God did such a thing in the creation of life (i.e. free will) and also when He became a helpless human infant. So it would seem possible that God might end in a situation given by answer 2. But what doesn't make sense to me is that God would create helpless children in a world where such a creature existed to be eternally victimized by it. It seems rather irresponsible or inept to me.

3. This is my answer to the question. To me it seems quite clear that the greatest enemy of mankind is ourselves and some terribly self-destructive habits we exhibit.

It seems to me God's creation of life came down to a choice to value love and freedom over power and control. Life only exists because of fixed rules (what we call the laws of nature). So God's creation isn't a matter of dreaming up some logically incoherent perfect world. Instead I think the universe was created to make self-organizing processes possible which could give rise to life. And thus it is the essence of life that we participate in the process of our own creation and thus make crucial choices with an impact on our eternal destiny.

I believe in hell because I see it in the world. But what I see is not a creation of God but something that human beings create for themselves. Furthermore like many atheists have often observed, I know that what makes a place "hell" isn't the scenery but the inhabitants. But I see people doing things which are quite irrational all the time, following habits which they know are self-destructive and even habits by which they torment themselves as well as others. Thus the only hell after death which I can believe in one which people create for themselves.

Furthermore, I don't believe in any unstoppable power of love like the universalists which can supposedly save people from themselves no matter what. If what you call love is a means to power then I don't think it is love at all. Love requires that the person you love has a choice and can reject the love you offer.

BUT none of this is in any way an attempt to justify fundie xtian extortion tactics which declare that the atheists are all going to hell because they don't believe. To me that shouts the same kind of entitlement which Jesus condemns in Matthew 7:21-23. For all I know it is the atheists who are going to heaven and it is the Christians who are condemned. (Though I think it more likely that beliefs have very little to do with this either way.)

Originally Posted by maat55

And again, how does Jesus dying on a cross pay for it?

That is another rather big question. So let's just make a start on it.
I believe the talk of paying for our sins is metaphorical in much the way we say men fighting in the world wars paid for our freedom.

As for how, let's just say that I reject both magical ideas (like human sacrifice has some kind of magical power) or that God needs some special song and dance in order to forgive people. The only thing that makes sense to me is that it is accomplished by changing the way we think about God and ourselves and the purpose is to restore our relationship to God in the sense that it makes it possible for a relationship with God to have a positive value in our life. Implicit in this is that I generally think that a belief in God is not necessarily of positive value to people. I think it is a scientific fact that a belief in God plays a role in some people's psychopathology and the best treatment is to eliminate their belief in God.