Hell and Anihillationism

[spauline]

…

But of course, I don’t think anyone would ever believe this, much less think it’s possible, unless something like a man rose from the dead. The Catholic Church does not expect men to blindly believe in God or miracles. If a person wants hard-headed reasons to believe, they are there: the God of monotheism and the existence of the human soul can be proved from reason alone, and history and logic show the only plausible explanation for the beginnings of the Catholic Church are that the historical person Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead.

One cannot object to Catholicism on objective grounds, only subjective: like “I’m scandalized.” Neither pedophile priests nor merciless inquisitors disprove the ultimate true and loving foundations of the Catholic Church, any more than the fact that there are some bad cops must mean the entire police system is corrupt. The first thirty popes were martyrs. One does not go to a horribly torturous death in witness to good and beautiful truths if one’s ultimate motives are really to selfishly gain power and pleasure or mercilessly manipulate people with fear and domination.

While we are at it, we should note this theology of “infinite insult” will be quite useful in dialoguing with Jehovah’s Witnesses or Seventh-Day-Adventists, who do not believe in everlasting punishment for the damned. Indeed, JW’s are consistent in not only believing that Hell is not eternal but also that Jesus is not God, for, certainly, if our sin does not have infinite consequences, then neither would our Redemption need to be accomplished directly by God Himself. But, it stands that if you choose to prefer some finite, created good to the Infinite, Uncreated Good of God Himself (which is essentially what you are doing in a mortal sin), then you are necessarily implying that you believe the inferior good is superior. Hence, this is insulting to an infinite degree, since the gap between the two goods is infinite. But how do make up for an infinite insult? Essentially, you can’t, and so, if you don’t repent, you must suffer endlessly, never fully atoning for it.

Finally, as far as the left goes, they would say it’s unfair and merciless of God to limit our chance for mercy. Why can’t he wait forever for repentance? Why not always give another chance? Because that works out practically to indifference. If God will wait indefinitely for repentance, then it basically equals: “Well, it doesn’t really matter whether you obey or not, whether you’ll love me in the end or not. It’s OK. Either way I’m OK with that.” But God cannot be that way because God is Love itself. Love, by definition, means that you care about the fidelity of the other person. Consider the absurdity of a marriage in which the spouses technically do not care if the other cheats. Could we call that love? Or, analogously, suppose that God had created us as demigods, possessing varying degrees of strength, capable of experiencing physical pain, but immortal. Then, consider the absurdity it would mean if Hitler happened to be a stronger god and was detaining the lesser strong Jews in ovens, where they burned perpetually in torment while Hitler lived in luxury eating turkey and mashed-potato dinners all day. The Jews would cry out for relief, but God would shrug His shoulders and say, I’m sorry, I have to wait indefinitely for Hitler to repent! And so it works out that if love is to matter, if we are to matter, then there must come a day when our time for mercy ends and we meet with either mercy or justice.

 

[Hellisreal]

I have no problem with accepting that there is a Hell. Objections to Hell are tantamount to an objection to Heaven.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Heaven is what we all want. No one wants to go to Hell. Only the people that want to go to Hell will be there in glee eternally cursing God.

They all deserve to be there in other words.

 

[Nagoda]

Must we see the vengeance here as God… inflciting harm? See thats what I have a problem with, this idea of God HARMING people. I can see it in terms of, the person is getting what they want, and god is giving it to them out of respect for free will and thusly its the only punishment that’ll fit the debt, I can accept that but what I can’t except is God “getting back at people”. Perhaps revenge is the wrong word to use?

 

[Hellisreal]

Must we see the vengeance here as God… inflciting harm? See thats what I have a problem with, this idea of God HARMING people. I can see it in terms of, the person is getting what they want, and god is giving it to them out of respect for free will and thusly its the only punishment that’ll fit the debt, I can accept that but what I can’t except is God “getting back at people”. Perhaps revenge is the wrong word to use?

Then dont look at it that way. But, God being the Father does what a Father ought to do.

We certainly dont like to think about Hell, and all the people that unfortunately may fill it up, but we must not despair and start doubting that God is somehow not all he is cracked up to be because there is a Hell.

We will understand these things better when we are in Heaven!

 

[Fidelis]

Must we see the vengeance here as God… inflciting harm? See thats what I have a problem with, this idea of God HARMING people. I can see it in terms of, the person is getting what they want, and god is giving it to them out of respect for free will and thusly its the only punishment that’ll fit the debt, I can accept that but what I can’t except is God “getting back at people”. Perhaps revenge is the wrong word to use?

Revenge is the right word to use, if properly understood as I attempted to explain above. However, if this specific word causes you difficulty, discard it and phrase it in another way.

I think part of what you said above is spot on, specifically:

…I can see it in terms of, the person is getting what they want, and God is giving it to them out of respect for free will and thusly its the only punishment that’ll fit the debt, I can accept that…

Keep in mind that the Church has never officially defined what the pains of hell consist of, only that it will be both pain of sense and pain of loss (conversely, private revelation – like visions of saints, etc. – have provided lurid descriptions, but we are not required to believe in these literal details, only what the Church officially teaches).

Whatever hell consists of, suffice to say it will not be the joys of heaven–and isn’t that, in the final analysis, what God wants us to choose and where we all want to go?

 

[Nagoda]

Yep you are correct. I situation that plays in my mind trying to understand Hell is as follows:

Man: I hate you and want nothing to do with you!

God: You don’t really want that, trust me, you really don’t.

Man: Yes I do! I don’t want any part of you, I’m leaving!

God: I’d suggest that you don’t. Don’t you realize the pain you’ve caused me?

Man: I don’t care. You can be in an immense amount of pain and I wouldn’t care. I’m leaving.

God: I wish you wouldn’t. Don’t you know that I just want what’s best for you?

Man: I don’t care for what you want. I hate you. I want what I want. Bye.

God cries

I think that pretty much sums it up. Hell is a tragedy and an outrage to God, an outrage because of the mistakes his children make and the pain and offense they cause him, but also an outrage because his children keep sending themselves there. Perhaps the fires could be understood as actually feeling the pain and outrage they’ve caused God, and thusly they’d understand why the eternal justice was necessary but it’d be too late?

 

[Fidelis]

Yep you are correct. I situation that plays in my mind trying to understand Hell is as follows:

Man: I hate you and want nothing to do with you!

God: You don’t really want that, trust me, you really don’t.

Man: Yes I do! I don’t want any part of you, I’m leaving!

God: I’d suggest that you don’t. Don’t you realize the pain you’ve caused me?

Man: I don’t care. You can be in an immense amount of pain and I wouldn’t care. I’m leaving.

God: I wish you wouldn’t. Don’t you know that I just want what’s best for you?

Man: I don’t care for what you want. I hate you. I want what I want. Bye.

God cries

I think that pretty much sums it up. Hell is a tragedy and an outrage to God, an outrage because of the mistakes his children make and the pain and offense they cause him, but also an outrage because his children keep sending themselves there. Perhaps the fires could be understood as actually feeling the pain and outrage they’ve caused God, and thusly they’d understand why the eternal justice was necessary but it’d be too late?

I think you’ve got it now.

I’d only add one more exchange to the conversation you posited:

Man: I hate you and want nothing to do with you!

God: You don’t really want that, trust me, you really don’t.

Man: Yes I do! I don’t want any part of you, I’m leaving!

God: I’d suggest that you don’t. Don’t you realize the pain you’ve caused me?

Man: I don’t care. You can be in an immense amount of pain and I wouldn’t care. I’m leaving.

**God: You know, of course, there are only two ultimate and eternal destinations after this life: heaven and hell. Heaven is eternal happiness with me and all the angels and saints. Hell is…well, isn’t like that.

Man: Understood. I don’t care about that either. I’m leaving.**

God: I wish you wouldn’t. Don’t you know that I just want what’s best for you?

Man: I don’t care for what you want. I hate you. I want what I want. Bye.

God cries

 

[Hellisreal]

This was a good thread.

I love it when someone embraces the idea of Hell.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 (King James Version)

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53For this corruptible must put on** incorruption**, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

All of the dead, righteous or wicked are raised with the same immortal, incorruptible body, a body that can not be destroyed by fire like the burning bush in Exodus 3, a body that can not be consumed.

Matthew 25:46 (King James Version)
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

based on the word choice and grammar of this verse if you shorten the length of one place you shorten the length of the other. The same word “eternal” is used for both punishment and eternal life.

BTW, this argument from I cor 15 keeps getting me kicked off of SDA, JW type fourms.

 

[Hellisreal]

Dont mess with Dan. He is a pro. I used his evidence to fight off a oneness pentecostal and she leaves me alone now (on religion that is) and I think she is doubting her faith in that group now.

 

[Nagoda]

This was a good thread.

I love it when someone embraces the idea of Hell.

I never didn’t embrace it… I just had a hard time understanding it

 

[Hellisreal]

I never didn’t embrace it… I just had a hard time understanding it

Okay, sorry I worded it that way!

I am glad for you that is now the past.

 

[Nagoda]

However no one seems to have answered my original question: who and what is Jesus talking about in Matt. 10:28???

 

[Fidelis]

Forgot about that one.:doh2:

Here’s the original question:

Jesus talks about someone who can annihilate the body and soul in hell/gehenna. Now what on earth is he talking about here and who’s the figure he’s mentioning?

Here’s what the Navarre Bible Commentary on Matthew says about Matthew 10:28 (RSV-CE):

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Using this and other Gospel texts (Matthew 5:22, 29; 18:9; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5), the Church teaches that hell exists; there those who die in mortal sin suffer eternal punishment (cf. “St. Pius V Catechism”, I, 6, 3), in a manner not known to us in this life (cf. St. Teresa of Avila, “Life”, Chapter 32)…

Therefore, out Lord warns His disciples against false fear. We should not fear those who can only kill the body. Only God can cast body and soul into hell. Therefore God is the only one we should fear and respect; He is our Prince and Supreme Judge–not men. The martyrs have obeyed this precept of the Lord in the fullest way, well aware that eternal life is worth much more than earthly life.

According to *Vine’s Expository Dictionary *(page 164), the Greek word used here for “destroy” (apollumi) does not connote “extinction, but ruin; loss not of being, but of well-being.” It uses the example of the ruined wineskins in Luke 5:37 and the sheep who have wandered off from the shepherd in Luke 15:4, 6 etc. In the case of Matthew 10:28, continues Vine’s, it refers to “the loss of well-being in the case of the unsaved [in the] hereafter.”

In other words, “destroy” here does not mean annihilation, but total loss; in this case from heaven and to hell.

Hope that helps.

 

[Nagoda]

yessir it does thankyou very much