Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Eckhart suggested that hell is a phase that everyone passes through after 
    dying.  It's a time to strip away attachments to earthly and mortal 
    "baggage" as a precursor to going to heaven.  The implication is that
    everyone gets to heaven eventually (if time has any meaning in the
    afterlife).
    
    The word psychic" is usually equated to "fraud", but there are some who
    seem to baffle even the best of the so called "de-bunkers" If their
    abilities are real, they seem to have some insight as to what's on "the
    other side".  You see a great deal of overlap between what these so
    called genuine psychics have to say and what those who have had near
    death experiences recall from their experience.  That afterlife picture 
    seems to be one of a place where everyone (spirits?) are striving to get 
    to the "light". (if you're christian, the light might equate to Jesus, 
    God or Heaven)  It's not a place of judgement, rather, it's a place of
    learning.  Coporeal life here in our existence is seen an opportunity to
    learn something which may get you closer to the light (sort of like
    taking a class or something).  The "light" is never conveyed as being
    judgemental or condemming.  Rather, one's experiences in life are
    reviewed, the focus being on what had been learned.  Hell is loosely
    described as a state far away from the "light".  The ones in hell have
    a great deal to learn. They seen as having really missed the lessons in 
    life.  They're described as being confussed or perplexed as one might be 
    when confronted with a very difficult puzzle.  They are not described as 
    being in and pain, just in varying degrees of dark, slowly working
    their way out.  The perplexed state is of their own choosing as they 
    continue to try to get to the "light", however distant they are from it.  
    Well, that's what they have to say about it anyway.  The noteworthy
    thing is that the psychics agree with the "near deathers" and that the
    "other side" is a place of learning where everyone is on their own
    level, all striving for the light.
    
    One last thing, the Tibetian book of the dead seems to note several
    different types of "light" on the other side.   There are bright light
    options one might choose (the good ones where the Bhuddas are) and then
    there are the dim light options which one might think of as different
    levels of hell.
    
    And then of course there's Dante's version :-)
    
    -dave
      

    The Bible states pretty clearly that there will be different levels of
    punishment in hell, thus, "different levels" may indeed be accurate.
    
    There are also different levels of rewards in heaven, as well.
    
    
    -steve

    Are we assuming one has to die first?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    >Are we assuming one has to die first?
    
    As in "Hell on Earth"?   or "a Living Hell"?
    
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm...... we've always been told that life is a gift, not a
    punishment.  

    Dave,
    
    	Our modern day notions of one's soul going to a destination called
    Heaven or Hell at the time of death is more Hellenistic (Greek) than
    Hebrew in origin.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re .5   (Richard)

Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God often.  And you're right, I don't recall
him ever associating it with an afterlife.  In fact, his statements that the
kingdom of God is "within", and "at hand" would suggest otherwise.

As for hell, if one is not in the kingdom of God, then is one by definition
in hell?   Or are there other possibilities?  Traditional thinking tends to
equate hell with some sort of eternal torment or punishment, but is it simply
a state of not being with God (no punishment, just learning and striving as
mentioned in .1)?  Yet didn't Jesus say that God is with us always?  Hmmmm...
perhaps "with us" but if we don't see him, then we're not in the kingdom of
God. (?)

Also, Jesus spoke of heaven in the context of life more than once (as in
"eternal life").  By this, I assume he was talking about the spiritual facet of
a person only.  Does spiritual non-existence = hell (non-living=death=hell)?

Good topic.

BTW, the parallels to eastern philosophy/religion on the point of the kingdom
of God being "within" and "at hand" are almost identical.  The verbage is a
little different, but you'd swear you were reading parts of the Gospel when
you read about attaining nirvana... and visa-versa.

 FWIW, An "imprecise" quote from the Ramana Maharshi...

 "Seeking the kingdom of God is like a man standing in water up to his chin,
 crying for a drink.  It's like a fish in that water crying of thirst.  It's
 like water being thirsty."

    If you read Revelation, there is no doubt that there is a "hell",
    though it is called the lake of fire.  It also mentions
    unending torment for those who end up there.
    
    Hell was not created for us, it was created for Satan.  However, we
    choose where we will spend eternity, and are given every chance to
    "choose life", rather than damnation (and keep in mind that not all
    will receive the same severity of punishment).
    
    Even a cursory reading of the Bible tells us that there is indeed a
    "hell", considered to be a very solid reality by those who wrote about it 
    in the Bible, rather than some sort of vague concept that it is reduced
    to by many today.
    
    
    -steve

re .7

;    If you read Revelation, there is no doubt that there is a "hell",
;    though it is called the lake of fire.  It also mentions
;    unending torment for those who end up there.

Steve,

There is a lot of confusion over what hell is, due to the fact that
the Bible translators chose to translate the Greek terms Hades & 
Gehenna with the same one English word hell.

If you look at the Revelation account that you mention, you will
see that Hades (hell) and lake of fire (Gehenna) are to separate
things. 

Bible passages hold out a hope for those in hell, and that 
deliverance is possible, not so for those banished to the 
"lake of fire" Gehenna (comapre Acts 2:31,32, Rev 1:18, 
Hosea 13:14, Rev 20:13).

Phil.

Sometimes (often) I see internal conflict in the Bible.  This subject of hell
is no exception.  On the one hand, Jesus spoke of an omnipotent god with an
infinite capacity to forgive, love and care for all of his children.  Then on
the other hand you see this vision of a God created hell where many of God's
children are tormented eternally.  A scene where God is just sitting there on
the sidelines either powerless to do anyting about it, uncaring enough to
intercede or vindictive enough to orchestrate the whole thing.  Why would a 
caring, loving God not prevent (read "prevent", not attempt to persuade) his 
children from such folly?  I know that if I saw a child crawling toward an 
open flame, I'd do more than just stand on the side, warning of the impending
danger while holding the child's "free will" paramount. And even if I was too
late, and the child got to close and started to scream, I wouldn't just sit
there saying "jeesh kid, bad choice you made there with that free will of
yours".  I'd not only pull the child away, but I'd extinquish the fire if I
could, in an effort to prevent future harm to others.   And that's just me, a
mere mortal showing a little responsibility and care for a stranger's baby.  
God can't/won't do as much?

If a child disobeys a parent, punishment may sometimes be administered by a
loving parent.  But it's never eternal or damaging in any way.  The well being
of the child is always the first consideration.

If you believe everything in the Bible is true, you're faced with trying to
reconcile these two opposing ideas of God and hell.  But I wonder what Jesus 
himself would have to say about something like the book of revelations if he 
were confronted with it.  

In his day, Jesus was confronted more than once with apparent discrepencies
between his teachings and the old traditions and laws (working on the sabbath, 
stoning the prostitute, etc...).  His responses were magnificent and always in
keeping with his own teachings of a God who was a forgiving and caring father. 
In addition to this, Jesus often had to correct the misunderstandings and
misinterpretations of his own disciples with regard to his teachings.  They
would often "miss the point" but that was OK, Jesus still loved them and
corrected them and saved them, despite themselves.  Enter the evangelists
writting material like Revelations.  I wonder how Jesus would have responded to
this.
  
-dave

    God is also a God of justice.  I'll not judge Him by saying that His
    judgements are too severe, or that a loving God would not "insert
    whatever we, as humans feel he would not do".  God is God, and is not
    subject to any image that I have of Him, that is not supported by the
    Bible- the whole Bible (not just selective passages).  
    
    There is a lake of fire, and some will end up there.  This is stated as
    fact in the Bible.  I feel that there is more to this than we can
    possibly understand.  There is more to free will than just our current
    actions and choices, and there is more to God than parenthood (as we
    define it).
    
    That said, it is a very nice and comforting thought that no one will go
    to the lake of fire, and it is very tempting to take that position
    based on a "loving God".  However, God is also a God of judgement and a
    God of ultimate justice.  Who are we to say what is too harsh? we who
    do not know the hearts of those who will end up in the lake of fire?
    
    I prefer to read the Bible and believe it.  I understand that there are
    two words interpreted into English as "hell".  I think it is important
    to understand this and learn the meaning and application of both,
    within context of the scriptures (personally, I am still sorting this
    part out, and claim no superior interpretational prowess here  8^) ).
    
    
    -steve

There are definitely different levels of Hell.

Jesus himself threatened the inhabitants of Corazain and Bethsaida, on
account of their slowness to repent, with a stricter judgment than the
dwellers in Tyre and Sidon (Mt 11:22).

God is just, and the punishment of the damned is proportioned to each
one's guilt.

God is also merciful, and saves from eternal punishment all who repent.

/john

    It all seems to boil down to the same familiar theme, and that is you
    either believe the whole Bible, cover to cover, word literal or you
    don't.   If you hold the position of the former, then reconciling
    apparent biblical discrepencies of any kind is moot.  In other words, if 
    the  Bible said that 1+1=2 and then said 1+1=3 somewhere else, both must 
    (by definition) be true and that the discrepency is only percieved as 
    such by us humans. (I'm not being facetious.  Perhaps a few :-) are in
    order :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) )
    
    I have no doubt that the Bible has many passages which support the
    notion of Hell (many leveld or not).  I doubt whether they're all true.  
    In the same way, I have no doubt that the Bible tells the familiar story 
    of Noah.  What I doubt that it is anything more than symbolic.  With
    regard to the question of hell, I would have to lean toward the
    selected passages from what's supposed to be the most reliable message
    and.or messanger (Jesus' words).  Where there's contradiction, his word
    takes precedence.
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    

    The Revelation is filled with symbolism.  Taking the symbol as the
    literal thing is to me like favoring the map over the destination.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    So if Revelation contains symbolism, and you accept that, then where does 
    one draw the proverbial line between that which is literally correct and 
    that which is symbolic or metaphorical?  
    
    I'm curious, do you believe in the story of Noah?  If so, why cannot
    you interpret it as symbolic as you do Revelation?
    
    -dave

Note 1213.14

>    So if Revelation contains symbolism, and you accept that, then where does 
>    one draw the proverbial line between that which is literally correct and 
>    that which is symbolic or metaphorical?  

I took a university-level course on the history of the New Testament.

The use of symbolism in the Revelation was deliberate.  The Revelation was
written and circulated at a time when believers would have been severely
punished if caught in the possession of subversive materials.  The believers,
the insiders of that time for whom the Revelation was written, would have
"known the code," but not so others.

>    I'm curious, do you believe in the story of Noah?  If so, why cannot
>    you interpret it as symbolic as you do Revelation?

As I understand Torah, the people and events starting with and following
Abraham are more historically based than those which preceded Abraham,
though probably not completely.  And so, I'm not inclined to take Noah to
be as much of a historical figure as, say, Joseph.  It also appears that
there are actually two stories of Noah and that a third person somewhere
along the line may have meshed the two.

I might recommend "Who Wrote the Bible," by Richard Friedman.

Shalom,
Richard

Regarding the "lake of fire" being literal....

The Bible does help the reader to see that it is
symbolic of something. "This means the second death
the lake of fire." Revelation 20:14b NWT Further
symbolic characters "the wild beast and the false
prophet" (verse 10) are seen in this lake of fire.

The meaning of the lake of fire, the second death
points to eternal destruction. According to verse
14 Hades and death are thrown there and in confirmation
of this death and Hades (hell, or graveyard of mankind)
are done away with never to return to plague mankind
as God guarantees this in Revelation 21:3-5. The 
symbolic lake of fire holds it's captives, there will
be no resurrection for these, and this gives a guarantee 
that the things that cause suffering today will never 
return. This is important to understand for many reason
that wickedness and the conditions we see will return
after Armageddon and the end of the Thousand years just
as they did after the flood. However, God is telling us
that Armageddon will be a final and conclusive battle. 

If one still believes the lake of fire to be literal 
(perhaps because of the tradional viewpoint), then
I would see one understanding the significance of death
and Hades being thrown into a lake of fire a difficult 
one to comprehend.

But from the other replies such as Richard's last one,
the bible also tells which characters should be taken
as literal. Hence, we see the importance the Hebrews had
in keeping genealogical records and God had in ensuring
they were recorded in his word (compare Luke 3:23-38).


Phil.

      Hi Steve,
    
        You said, "God is also a God of justice.  I'll not judge Him
        by saying that His judgments are too severe."
    
        Are you so sure that is what those whose belief differs than
        yours do?  This gets into the motive of the heart.  Have you 
        had an 'inside look'?
    
        I happen to be one who has done a fair bit of study on this
        doctrine and come to a different understanding of what you 
        understand God's justice and His judgments to be.
    
        Regardless of belief, motive is very important.  
    
        Anyway, a question for anyone out there...
    
        Who dwells in the unquenchable fire?
    
    						Tony

      Hi Dave,
    
        Is it not perhaps a more humble road to take to consider the
        possibility that, in our state of spiritual immaturity, we
        are sometimes unable to discern harmony?  And that if we were
        more mature, we might come to a point of discerning harmony 
        where, at one time, something appeared to be contradiction?
    
        In my own experience, I have had occasions of seeing texts that
        seemed in contradiction only to find (sometimes years later)
        BEAUTIFUL harmony.
    
        1 Corin 8:2
        If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he 
        ought to know.
    
        Perhaps this might even refer to the 'certainty of knowledge' that
        this or that is contradiction.
    
    
    							Tony

    Hi Tony:
    
    There's always doubt in anything we perceive, including perceived
    biblical contradictions.  You're absolutely right, there could be
    complete harmony in the bible and we're just not able to see that.
    IMO, that's where faith is needed, a means to accept things which don't
    make sense on the surface.  But when/where is faith justified?  If a 
    moslem missionary approached you asking you to have faith in the truth 
    of the Koran, would you jump?  Why?  Why not?  There could have been
    complete (yet unperceived) harmony and truth in Ancient Greek mythology
    as well.  Scoffing at that may well be a gross display of ignorance on
    our part.  See what I mean?
    
    If one accepts the bible, cover to cover, on faith, it appears then
    that one looks at it's contents from the "inside out"... (everything
    within is correct and harmonious, it's just that some parts remain to
    be discovered as  such by the believer).  If you approach the bible
    from the outside  (objective examination), it appears as a heavily
    edited and exaggerated collection of ancient Hebrew folklore and
    philosophy based on a thin  foundation of probable facts.  That leap of
    faith is what makes all the difference.
    
    I was interested in trying to understand how the faithful reconcile
    some of the apparent contradictions.  As I'm beginning to learn, the
    bible is accepted as fact, and human understanding of it is 2nd to that
    fact.  For those who accept the bible as "literally" correct, it's
    easy... just read and accept everything, regardless of how much it might
    "make sense".  Attempting to make sense out of it might be interesting
    but is in the long run, moot.  For those who accept parts as symbolic, 
    other parts as literally true (myself included), it's interesting to see 
    how far one leans toward symbolism and why.  Sometimes you see
    subjectiver "leaning" to accomodate self interest and that's dangerous!
    
    -dave
    

      Hi Dave,
    
        Actually, I see almost all of it as symbolic!  I see most if
        not all actual historical occurances as literal *and* symbolic.
    
        For one example...
    
        Jesus said the Father has passed judgment to the Son.  Jesus
        also said that "in the day" He (Jesus) will judge no man, but
        the word will judge.
    
        I have come to believe that the thing which saves the saved
        is the exact same thing which causes sin to destroy the lost.
        It is a revelation of God's love which saves the saved.  This
        revelation, received by faith, cleanses the heart from sin.
    
        The lost refuse to drink in this 'word' by faith.  It (thus)
        comes to them all at once.  This revelation of God's love causes
        them to see who they are to such a clarity (revealing their
        sinfulness) that they will be destroyed.  This is how the word
        judges.
    
        Now to the literal *and* the symbolic...
    
        Jesus said the last days would be like Noah and Sodom and 
        Gommorhah (sp?).
    
        The Bible, metaphorically, describes revelation as being fire
        and water.  Both of these accounts describe a situation where
        there is a tremendous amount of revelation that comes in a short
        time period.  This flood was survived by Noah.  Those that were
        not prepared for it were destroyed.  Admittedly, the Lot account
        is not as parallel.  He was not in the midst of the fire and
        brimstone, but again, I believe the fire and brimstone symbolize
        that same revelation (see Dan. 3 where the same fire Daniel's
        friends are thrust in, the *Babylonian* guards are destroyed by).
    
        Kind of like two houses hit by the *same* storm.  One stands and
        the other falls.  The number of times the Bible uses metaphor to
        describe that the last generation and the lost are submitted to
        the same thing is staggering.
    
        So, I believe Noah is literal *and* symbolic.  The story really
        happened and has an apocalyptic application which is metaphorical.
    
        Finally, you raise a good and fair point about the Koran.  Why
        the Bible?  I can only testify to the large number of times I
        have been blessed to see symbol out of what I at one time saw
        nothing and (better yet) to see passages all over the place merge
        to enunciate beautiful truth; so much so that I am convinced the
        word is of divine origin throughout!
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony:
    
    Several times you pointed out what Jesus said ("Jesus said the Father
    has passed judgment to the Son...." "Jesus said the last days would be
    like Noah and Sodom...", etc...).  But how much credance can you give
    what he supposedly said?  From what I can see, the only potentially
    reliable sources of what he actually said are the gospels, and despite
    considerable overlap, there are also many, shall we call them
    "discrepencies" (contradictions, gross ommissions, etc...).  How
    accurate are these 4 accounts, written the better part of a century
    after Jesus died and some of those from word of mouth?  From what I can 
    see, you can get a "flavor" of the man given the gospels but not much
    more.  When you say "Jesus said the Father has passed judgment to the
    Son." I have to ask "To what degree of confidence do you have that he
    actually said something like that?".  And even if you have a high level
    of confidence, how much symbolic interpretation may or may not be in
    order when trying to understand it?  
    
    If I have have good reason to doubt the integrity of word literal
    passages  (for the reasons mentioned), I tend to carry that doubt along
    when trying to understand what was actually trying to be said. Know
    what I mean?
    
    As far as a response to the Koran/Bible thing, do you ever wonder how
    many times you "might" have been blessed if you worked to see truth in 
    the Korsn, Upanishads, or the writtings of Confucius?  I read a book 
    called "Genisus and the Big Bang" where a physicist/theologian
    attempted  to reconcile modern physics with Genisus.  The mental
    gymnastics this guy performed to bridge the two were borderline comedy. 
    Some of his use of physics was outright invalid.  Yet this guy believed
    that modern physics has been slowly and clumsily coming to conclusions
    already made evident in the bible.  Maybe he's right, I certainly don't
    have the truth market cornered.  But from what I can see, the book was
    an exercise in "forcing" truth from the bible using whatever means that
    could be made to work, whether it made sense to use those means  or
    not.  Point being that I believe he "forced" truth from the bible 
    where none ever existed.  
    
    -dave
    

      Hi Dave,
    
        I can only testify as to what the Word has done for me.
    
        Clearly one of your intelligence (and I mean this seriously)
        is quickly able to grasp what may be required in order for
        the Bible to be inspired - God.
    
        The premise is that the words are inspired by God Himself.
    
        Now I ask you.  Does or does not God have the capacity to
        provide an inerrant book through several centuries???
    
        What would lead anyone to believe that He could not?
    
        BUT, I prefer this topic stays mainly on its initial course
        and so I'll repeat my question:
    
        "Who dwells in the unquenchable fire?"
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    >The premise is that the words are inspired by God Himself.
    
    Yes, that's the premise. If the premise is correct, there's good reason
    to believe the bible is filled with truth, both evident and
    undiscovered, in every passage.  If it was inspired by  God, but "edited" 
    by man, one has to search for the truth with a filter.  If the premise is 
    incorrect or invalid, then truth may still be there but one has to use 
    other "tools" to glean it (discriminating logic, etc...).  I agree 100%
    if you claim that the premise is required to justify "forcing" truth
    from a text which would otherwise be held suspect.
    
    >        Now I ask you.  Does or does not God have the capacity to
    >        provide an inerrant book through several centuries???
    >
    >        What would lead anyone to believe that He could not?
    
    Given the definition of God, nothing is impossible, including authoring
    a text of truths, channeled to us via men.  But just because it's not
    impossible doesn't make it true.  It's not impossible for God to
    suddenly make the Earth spin in the direction opposite to the direction
    it's spinning now, yet it does not.
    
    >"Who dwells in the unquenchable fire?"
    
    Given that I hold the origin of the passage potentially less than
    "divine", I might look at the situation of the evangelists with a more
    objective, outsiders view.  They were in a position of pursuading large
    numbers of people to join the church and/or remain in the church, PLUS
    follow the church's doctrines without question.  One way to accomplish
    this (Jesus' way) was to wave the carrot of heaven as a so called
    prize.  An equally effective way to get someone to go where you want
    them to go is to poke them in the ass with a flaming pitchfolk. This
    sort of tactic might also work well to rally people together, as in
    "those non-christians are the  ~bad~ people who are going to hell, not
    like us ~good~ people".  
    
    When  asked to deal with the notion of hell vs "flavor" of Jesus
    gleaned from  the gospels, it makes more sense (to me) that hell was a
    fear tactic  used by the early builders of the chirch to control their
    following.  
    
    I find it "very interesting" that if hell actually exists and is a
    punishment for disbelievers, that someone as loving, careing and
    insightful as Jesus would have all but ommited this in his teachings.  
    I do not believe this was an oversight on his part, not something THAT
    important.  The fact that Jesus was not reported to have spoken about
    this in ALL the gospels and in more than one instance gives me reason
    to hold suspect the idea of "hell as fact and not artifact".
    
    -dave
    
    (Thank GOD for long program compiles and executions... time windows to
    play in this very interesting conference)
    
    
    

.22

>        "Who dwells in the unquenchable fire?"

Nobody I am personally aware of. ;-}

Richard

    I dunno Richard, if there is a hell, methinks there's a spot reserved
    for me, right between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. No air conditioning 
    but I hear they serve great cigars and the saunas are free  :-}
    
    

    Isaiah 33:14b-18a
    "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?  Who among us
    shall dwell with everlasting burnings?"
    
    He who walks RIGHTEOUSLY and speaks uprightly, He who despises
    the gain of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands refusing
    bribes, who stops his ears from hearing bloodshed, and shuts
    his eyes from seeing evil:
    He will dwell on high; His place of defense will be the fortress
    of rocks; bread will be given him, his water will be sure.
    
    Your eyes will see the King in His beauty; they will see the land 
    that is very far off.
    Your heart will meditate on terror;
    
      
    The RIGHTEOUS dwell in the everlasting burnings.
    
    Why?  And why don't the unrightous dwell there?
    
    						Tony

    >    The RIGHTEOUS dwell in the everlasting burnings.
    
    Wait a minute, isn't that bass-ackwards?
    
    

      re: -1
    
      No, its not!
    
      Dave, consider rereading my reply on fire and water and what
      each one is.  Remember who survived the fiery furnace in
      Daniel 3 (and who did not).  Recall who survived the flood
      (and who did not).
    
      Interpret the scriptures as scripture itself invites us to
      interpret it; Isaiah 28 (line upon line, precept upon precept,
      here a little there a little).
    
      Read Song of Solomon 8:6-7 and see what God's fire is metaphorical
      of!
    
      Here's another example.  
    
      Psalm 11:5
      The Lord tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who
      loves violence His soul hates.
      Upon the wicked He will rain coals.
    
      Now, what do you think of when you picture a God who will
      rain coals upon the wicked?
    
      Do you picture this?
    
      Romans 12:20
      Therefore, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, 
      give him a drink; For in so doing you will HEAP COALS OF FIRE
      ON HIS HEAD.
    
      Look what an Isaiah 28 study (the one which GOD prescribes) has
      just revealed!
    
      There is no doubt that God purposely veiled His word so as to
      make Him appear, on the surface, far less loving than He really 
      is.  (There is a reason for this.)
    
      There is also no doubt that, as we ride on the surface of the
      word, it will appear as stammering lips to us (see Isaiah 28).
    
      The reason the righteous can dwell in the everlasting burnings
      is because sin cannot exist in the presence of the everlasting
      burnings and if one has sin in the heart, one cannot survive.
      That which consumes sin cannot but help consuming the sinner.
    
      Redemption is deliverance from sin in the heart.
    
      The lost are destroyed because of a reality implicit in God's
      character of love.  It is a law of perception which is simply
      that to behold stark contrasts is painful.  If one has been in
      a pitch black cave for two weeks, one cannot bear to behold a
      bolt of lightning.  If one is 'black' in character, one cannot
      bear to behold its unveiled contrast (perfect love).
    
      The basis for this is God's love for He created as an act of 
      love and He created His intelligent creatures with a certain
      perception; the ability to see right and wrong and to perceive
      a difference.  Therein lies the reason the everlasting burnings
      destroy the lost.  They have this perceptual ability.  They chose
      sinfulness and (in effect) tied God's hands by disallowing Him
      to save them from sin.
    
      God ultimately simply shows them who they are.
    
      Death is inherent to sin.
    
      Life is inherent to righteousness.
    
      This is a reality God Himself is bound to.
    
      Part of the plan of redemption is the veiling of perfect righteous-
      ness for a season in order to give man a probation and an oppur-
      tunity to choose life (righteousness).
    
      If a person persistently rejects that oppurtunity, God cannot save
      him.
       
    						Tony
    

    Hmmmm... an ingenious way to look at this  given the biblical
    parameters to work with.  It doesn't seem too different from Eckhart's
    ideas with regard to hell being a place/time where the bad stuff gets
    "burned away".  For those who are already righteous, hell's a breeze. 
    For those with a lot of baggage, it's... well... it's HELL!  If this is
    along the lines of your thinking, and if you like to watch movies, I
    recommend renting "Jacob's Ladder".  
    
    -dave
    
    

      Hi Dave,
    
        Yeah, thats basically it.  Hell, as I understand it (and here
        I'm not referring to 'helle' which simply means the grave or
        the temporary lifeless abode of the dead between death and 
        resurrection) is God's love unveiled.
    
        I'm not sure if I was clear, but I believe the ultimate state
        of the lost is nothingness, i.e. they are anihilated.  I am not
        a believer in eternal conscious torment.
    
    							Tony

    I think the major difference between your ideas and those of Eckhart's
    in this matter is that he believes (believed) that everyone gets to
    heaven.... eventually.  It's all a matter of the time and effort needed
    to "burn away" the bad earthly stuff first.  
    
    May "near-deathers" and psychics seem to think that life is a learning
    process.  One's life is judged... well maybe "reviewed" in the
    afterlife.  The good stuff learned from life is to be retained, the bad
    must be "unlearned" (maybe a sort of hell?).  Whatever that's worth.
    
    -dave

>        I'm not sure if I was clear, but I believe the ultimate state
>        of the lost is nothingness, i.e. they are anihilated.  I am not
>        a believer in eternal conscious torment.
    
    I'm so glad to hear you say that. I just can't reconcile divine love
    with eternal torment. If God loves like that, allows eternal torment,
    then He doesn't love at all like humans do. How can we possibly
    understand His love then and love Him back?
    
    John

      Amen John!
    
      I cannot fathom the 'evangelical Christian view.'  They maintain
      that God is love and yet must accomadate, within their concept
      of God's love, that He PREFERS eternal conscious torment for the
      lost rather than cessation of existence.  He PREFERS the eternal
      perpetuation of sin and torment rather than the eventual end of it.
    
      What kind of God is that???
    
      I acknowledge that others cannot accomadate eventual anihilation
      for the lost with a loving God as many people insist that universal
      salvation is the only possibility that can accomadate the idea
      of an all-loving God.
    
      To this I can only say that it is ultimately an act of love that
      we are endowed with free choice and somehow people can get themselves
      to the point of choosing some mighty perverse things (like sin
      instead of righteousness).
    
      I've more I'd like to say (time permitting).
    
    							Tony

    
    Tony,
    
    The "evangelical Christian view" of judgement is the orthodox and historic
    Christian understanding of the Scriptures.  Jesus spoke about the subject 
    and it is pretty clear that hell is a literal, eternal judgement for
    the unbelieving.
    
    So you Tony are at odds with orthodox Christianity and the Bible on
    this subject.  I would say that you (and others) idolize your own
    concept of "love" at the expense of the Biblical conception.  You are
    just as certainly preaching "another gospel" as any present and
    historic heretic.  And I presume you understand the serious
    implications and consequences of doing so.
    
    jeff

re .34

Jeff,

;So you Tony are at odds with orthodox Christianity and the Bible on
;this subject.  I would say that you (and others) idolize your own
;concept of "love" at the expense of the Biblical conception.  You are
;just as certainly preaching "another gospel" as any present and
;historic heretic.  And I presume you understand the serious
;implications and consequences of doing so.

I can't speak for Tony, but if hellfire (Sheol, Hades & Gehenna 
certainly are biblical) is false doctrine. Then those who preach 
it would be besmirching God's name. In his model prayer, Jesus said
that his disciples should pray for God's name to be sanctified 
(Matthew 6:9). The bible teaches that the practice of burning people 
is not something that has come into God's heart (Jeremiah 7:30,31).

Phil.

    
    Right.  But hellfire is biblical and is the teaching of Jesus.  Those
    preaching against it are preaching something different from the Bible.
    
    jeff

  Hi Jeff,

    I do not believe that anything is true on the basis that it is
    orthodox or historic.  Were that true, I suppose I might have
    continued sacrificing lambs and (thus) rejected the Messiah
    if I were around 2000 years ago.

    I appreciate your zeal in defending the everlasting gospel and
    the sacredness of the scriptures.  I would hope to do the same.
    Please understand, I discern that the basis of my belief is the
    sacredness of the scriptures.

    We're talking discernment here, Jeff, not overt (conscious) 
    attempts to contradict scripture.
    

    I could take a lot of avenues.  My favorite one, perhaps, is my
    conviction that the recipe of Bible study which the Bible calls
    for (line upon line, etc.) will totally destroy any credibility
    in your view.  Your greatest enemy will someday be seen to be the
    result of exhaustive line upon line, precept upon precept, here a
    little there a little studies of the scriptures.  When studying
    fire, you will want to do anything but search the scriptures 
    diligently to see what they say.  Ignore Daniel 3, ignore Isaiah
    33, ignore Songs 8:6-7 - in effect ignore the scriptural recipe of
    unearthing truth.

    The law that demands death is God's moral law.  It demands it in
    precisely the way scripture says that it does so.  It doesn't
    *desire* death in the sense that it achieves any pleasure out of
    condemning anyone, it does so from the standpoint of the sheer out-
    workings of spiritual reality.  The unveiled presence of God revealed 
    (which is the coming of the commandment) cannot but help to destroy 
    sin and anyone in whose heart is sin.

    This shining truth upholds any decent concept of what agape is - one
    for which you and your gospel falls far short of.  And that is what
    the gospel is - the good news of who God is and of what His dealings
    with creation are.

    Your reply has a certain roughness to it.  I suppose it is in direct
    proportion to your rough understanding of God's character, His gospel,
    and His word.

    Its probably impossible to rise above anyone's personal conception of
    what Deity is.

							Tony

Annihiliation prevents the possibility of finally coming to believe.

Can it not be possible that the "eternal torment" ends for those in it
when they finally come to believe?

/john

      Hi John
    
      Heb 12:16-17
      lest there be any fornicator or prophane person like Esau
      who for one morsel of food despised his birthright.
      for when he wanted to receive the blessing, he was rejected,
      because *he found no oppurtunity for repentance* though he
      sought it diligently with tears.
    
      I guess this and other scriptures lead me to believe that
      it is possible to so reject salvation that one cannot come
      to the place of saving faith anymore.
    
      I wish universalism were true!  But, alas...
    
    						Tony

What Esau sought was the blessing.

But he wasn't about to get the blessing for all his tears without repentance,
and _that_ he did not find.

/john

    
    John,  Are you a universalist?
    
    jeff

I believe God desires not the death of a sinner, but that all shall live.

But I also believe that there are people who will never repent, and will
not be saved.  I believe that the only ones who will not be saved are
those who by their own free will choose to turn their back on Jesus
forever, no matter how much grace God pours out upon them.

God is both infinitely merciful and infinitely just, and this creates a
paradox that may be beyond our ability to presently comprehend.

Not _everything_ about the afterlife and about judgment is fully
revealed.  Today we see as in a glass, darkly, but then, face to face.

Simple annihilation, i.e., that at the moment of judgment the evil are
simply "made to be not", is certainly not in keeping with God's sense
of justice, for we know that the evil will be punished and will feel
the pain of the punishment, and the pain will be worse for those whose
crimes are worse.  Simple annihilation would not be punishment, because
it would not be felt.

But God is also merciful, so I cannot imagine a merciful God leaving
the evil person in some form of torture; the pain of being cast into
the outer darkness must be something different than what we as humans
imagine as torture.

For some, it may be "growing pains" which restores them, even after final
judgment.  At judgment, God already knows whether "growing pains" would
in the future bring repentance or not; thus his judgment for some could
consist of temporal punishment until the necessary growth is achieved
for a not-totally-evil person to be able to come into God's presence
"with a song".

For those that God knows, at the final judgment, would never, through no
amount of grace, through no amount of "growing pains", ever acknowledge
Him as Lord and Saviour, we know that the final punishment will be eternal,
everlasting, painful -- but will it be unceasing -- or will the person,
after sufficient punishment to satisfy both God's justice and his mercy,
receive a merciful punishment of being made to no longer exist?  I don't
know.  I only know that annihilation at judgment is condemned as a
heresy, but I don't know if just punishment for a sufficient time (as
determined by a just and merciful God) followed by annihilation has
ever been fully formulated by professional and honest theologians,
discussed, prayed over, and left as "pious speculation" or condemned
as heresy.

There is also a third possibility: that the just punishment is felt
for a sufficient time, that God's mercy causes the pain to cease but
not be forgotten, and that the unrepentant then simply continues to
exist with the only remaining punishment being the complete loss of
God's presence -- being cast into outer darkness -- being "sat in
the corner", possibly all alone for ever.  That may be both just and
merciful for the person who simply doesn't want to be with God.

/john

"Eternal punishment" is an oxymoron.  Punishment is a means used to modify 
behaviour after which time the punishment ceases.  No, in the scenario of 
eternal dammnation, the word punishment does not apply.  Maybe it's eternal
exclusion or something like that, but with no hope of escape, it's not
punishment.  If, as you suggest, God is infinitley merciful and infinitley
judicious, then maybe he can also be infinitley vindictive... or infinitley
hating?  If not, then is not that "less than infinte" status a limitation?  Is
not God limitless in all aspects?  God's position is not clarified any when he
is granted all the "infinities".   And the idea of "eternal punishment" either
needs to be  renamed, discarded, or reinterpreted to something else (using the
bible if you wish).

Another notion that bothers me is that of "free will".  It's been said that we
"choose" to go to hell, reject God, accept God, go to church, etc... .  If God
resides outside of time (that's to say that "time is a creation" which BTW is
impossible) then when we were "created" God would have to know everything about
our future.. where we were going, what we'd choose to believe, etc... Anything
less would be saying that God was ignorant of something and that violates
the very definition of God as "all knowing".  If God created someone in such a 
way that the person was going to hell, did not "HE" damm that person to 
hell... by design? 

-dave

    
    Thanks John, for your extensive reply.  I don't think you've ever
    written such a long note. ;)  At any rate, I'm in almost perfect
    disagreement with your position, yours being largely Catholic dogma (and
    error, in my estimation).
    
    jeff

I would not be so quick to label my reply as "largely Catholic dogma"; from
a strict reading of Catholic dogma:

	1. annihilation is specifically condemned as heresy,
and 
	2. no hope other than the lake of fire exists for those who are
	   not members of the Roman Catholic Church in good standing and
	   without serious sin when they die.

I hope that God is a little more merciful than that; w.r.t. #2, modern
Roman Catholic theologians will consider the possibility that there are
some (such as you) who are "in a way" within the Catholic Church even
though they don't recognize themselves that they are and that such
persons can be saved.

/john

    
    So on what authority or standard do you base the view you shared a
    couple back?
    
    jeff

Legitimate speculation consistent with the Bible.

/john

    
    Thanks John, for your honesty.  Speculation has its appeal but I'm not
    used to seeing you speculate! ;)
    
    The Bible knows nothing of "purgatory".  The Bible knows nothing of
    men innocent in themselves, only depraved men redeemed by the Lord
    Jesus' substitionary atonement.
    
    jeff

>    The Bible knows nothing of "purgatory".

I certainly wasn't speaking of the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory in
my reply; however, there are clear biblical verses which speaking of being
purged as in a refiner's fire, which you choose not to interpret in the
way Roman Catholics and Anglicans do.

/john

I really don't see what difference this line of disagreement makes.

Richard

| <<< Note 1213.50 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Christ Power & Light Co." >>>

| I really don't see what difference this line of disagreement makes.

	One always has to be right between those 2, Richard. :-)  This will go
on for an eternity! :-)