Well, if what I would like should be the basis of of a religion or a moral framework, gee…? Not sure? Maybe I could defer to my superiors?
Western society is pretty much a reflection of “whatever you like”. The result isn’t good. I think, actually, it’s bad.
The cat is your superior as much as anyone else. What would the cat like to be true?
So non-Western society is better? Where would you like to live, without white or other ruling class privilege? Because of their superior morality or religion?
Fire= Used as a symbol of judgment and punishment
Punishment= Death
Release= Christ’s sacrifce
Second Death= ETERNAL Death
So according to this …
everlasting punishment = no punishment whatsoever, forever
nonexistence is not a punishment.
nonexistence is nothing at all.
To be sure the phrase “eternal punishment” is in some ways incoherent. The purpose of punishment is behavior modification, thus punishment which lasts forever is a failure of the purpose of punishment.
And yet Jesus certainly does teach eternal torment and never once teaches nonexistence. Jesus tells the following story…
Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz′arus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
And then how does Jesus’ story go…
Lazarus is brought back to life on the earth and the rich man does not exist anymore forever.
NOPE! Jesus never teaches any such thing.
Luke 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz′arus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz′arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz′arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’”
So the way Jesus tells the story is that no matter how we have lived our life there is something which continues to exist after we die. But our happiness in that state depends on how we have live our life.
So when Jesus says…
Matthew 25:45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal κόλασιν, but the righteous into eternal life.”
κόλασιν (kolasin) is a Greek word which like most words in most languages has a variety of meanings: chastisement, punishment, torment, deprivation, correction, penalty, or just consequences.
… is it reasonable to read this in a way contrary to how Jesus describes things in the story? Apparently some feel free to alter Jesus’ words from “eternal κόλασιν” to “nonexistence” altering the ending of the story to “Lazarus is brought back to life and the rich man does not exist anymore forever.”
Now what of universalism or universal reconciliation… I am not sure I buy it, but I think it fits the text better than annihilationism. If you read “eternal κόλασιν” as eternal correction, then the fit to the text is not so bad. For the story of Lazarus and the rich man it would mean adding an epilogue…
And after a very long time the heart of the rich man was changed and he became fit company for such as Lazarus and was brought out of Hades.
It is not really in the teaching of Jesus, but I think it is safe to say that there is much which is true but not in the teaching of Jesus.
No, I think the key is to understand the genre of the story – a parable – rather than change the words to mean something else. Look closely at the description: this is quite the wild afterlife. The rich man is in torment across a chasm from Abraham who has Lazarus on his lap. This afterlife is run by Abraham! We hear of Abraham, angels, Moses, prophets – but God is never mentioned. The rich man keeps calling Abraham “father” and Abraham calls him “child.” But Lazarus is the guy who actually gets to be with him, like a child on Daddy’s knee!
This is a bitingly sarcastic parody of the rich religious establishment. Read Luke 16:14 and it’s clear who the rich man in verse 19 represents. Jesus takes their expectations, based on being children of Abraham, and mocks them. The rich man ends up in torment, but even that is played for laughs. He’s suffering so bad that the only thing that would make him feel better is for Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and touch his tongue. He asks so politely! When Abraham demurs, he politely begs for Lazarus to be sent to his brothers instead of to his tongue. He doesn’t lose his cool until Abraham suggests his brothers wouldn’t listen. “No, father Abraham!” he says, flatly contradicting his hero. “They’re not that far gone! They’d listen. I know them better than you.”
But of course Jesus is right. Even when a real man named Lazarus was sent back from the dead, some of those religious elite “brothers” prepared to kill him along with Jesus (John 11:45–53 and 12:10).
This parable doesn’t give us a photo-realistic glimpse of the afterlife. We don’t need to alter Jesus’ words, but neither do we need to believe that the afterlife is really run by Abraham. It’s a reductio ad absurdum of the beliefs of the religious elite. Their smug confidence that they know God’s ways and perhaps even control God’s ways has blinded them to how God is working for their rescue.
“Nonexistence” is how the clergy retort to the Bibles clear message that the DEAD are DEAD, and that a future resurrection is what awaits them.
And, standing before Christ and receiving the Death Sentence is NOT a punishment?
C’mon, MM!
The dead are dead is the clear message of atheists and nonexistence is their reply to claims about God and other things.
If the dead are dead then they are not standing anywhere and a death sentence does absolutely nothing to those who are already dead and gone.
Are you one of these people who worship a sadistic demonic creature who would bring suicides back to life just so they can burned alive in a fire?
Even if it is a parable that doesn’t mean everything in it is to be ignored and discarded. The fact that Luke 18:1-8 is a parable doesn’t mean there are no such things as judges or that things do not happen in such a way. Too much of the parable in Luke 16 is all focused on how the torment which the rich man experiences is inescapable for this to simply be ignored and make it all about a parody of the rich establishment. Sure Jesus is criticizing the obsession of the religious establishment with money. But reducing what Jesus says to that alone is going too far. One aspect of what someone says is not a good excuse for ignoring everything else.
Whatever we believe about punishment or anything else in the next life, it seems clear to me that there is a “Last Judgment” and it won’t be all warm and fuzzy. It is mentioned many times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, sometimes quite violently. That is why the Nicene Creed says that Jesus “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” And the Dies Irae (“Day of Wrath”) is part of the requiem mass.
Yeah, very human. 100%. Not divine. In interpretation. The intent will have been different. I’m looking forward to it, to see how Jesus saves.
Who gets that? In which proof texts?
I’m a big fan of Keith Ward’s perspective from his book “Why there is almost certainly a God” - If we view disbelief as a form of ignorance in a world in which God is real, then at most what atheists are guilty of is intellectual myopia. Given that God is infinitely more patient and forgiving and loving than us, it stands to reason that God will treat ignorant people infinitely more mercifully than we would…and we just correct ignorance we don’t punish it.
More than this… How can we be so certain that the ignorance is theirs rather than our own. So I would apply Matthew 7 to say I wouldn’t want to be judged for my ignorance so it would be very unwise to judge other people for theirs.
Of course there seem to be people making this into a Pascal’s wager where it has to be an all or nothing bet. But this is a case where I think Einstein’s famous words “God does not play dice” has a sound theological meaning. A God who is so arbitrary like a slot machine doesn’t sound very good and just to me.
A very astute observation. Humility is one of the beatitudes and it strikes me that being open to being wrong is a very good way of practicing that.
Why would we do that in the absence of any reality of God in any real sense. Any.
I guess given that constraint the definition wouldn’t work. It would just be reasonable and understandable to not believe if someone never felt any reality of God. Based on the Gospels it seems like God would treat that person as the Father of the Prodigal Son treats the Prodigal Son.
That’s big of you Ryan. The first two sentences. But the third 
When would God do that? Seeing as many people never feel any reality of God. I’m pretty typical - as a Westerner - in that I do and I don’t. At the same time.
Correcting by “destroying” or burning peoples souls or something? Nice god you got there. Send him my cheers while im in isolation in hell😉
I guess I don’t necessarily see the correction as being destruction or burning in a punitive sense. Perhaps it’s similar to the “burn” felt by exercise - that type of experience is painful but it leads to greater physical capabilities and ultimately improvement. I think if we accept the premise of a loving God then the corrective measures would have to be for the betterment of the creature God loved, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to just punish you.
If he does though I will definitely say what’s up to him for you anyways.
Love betters better than punishment. Punishing the punished isn’t love.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
