From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Damnation
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:53:38 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:

>In article <Oct.4.22.11.40.1992.6038@geneva.rutgers.edu> julian@sfu.ca (Julian
>Shillcock) writes:

>>I think it is well known that eternity does not simply mean "time without
>end",
>>as I understand the term it has more to do with quality of life than the
>>quantity. So in heaven it is not that we are there "for ever" but that 
>>there is no time by which to mark our stay....

>I dont have a copy handy, but you should read CS Lewis "Mere Xianity" and the
>chapter about time.  If memory serves me correct, he has many good comments to
>make on this subject.

I have read it several times and like it a lot. I have tried to devleop his
ideas in my own thinking, and my post is what I came up with.

>> So, given
>>that people in heaven do not experience time, I make the assumption that
>>(the hyperthetical) people in hell do not.... 

>What is your basis?  Yes, Xians do a diservice if they merely reduce eternal

The basis is that time is a physical concept tied to our notions of this
universe. To assume that the same concept applies to heaven and hell is
rather a large assumption to my mind; especially when I recall verses
like "a day is as a thousand years to the Lord".  


>First, one thing a believer is that a nonbeliever isn't, is "in Christ." 
> Second, reread Rev 20:15ff.  The antiX & the false prophet are still in the
>lake of fire after a 1000 yrs when Satan is finally thrown in.  
>"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and
>brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be
>tormented day and night forever and ever.(Rev. 20:10 )
>Doesn't say much for a temporary judgement.  

Well, the devil, etc are not people so my argument does not apply to them.
I am trying to investigate the fate of humans. Unfortunately I do not know
much greek but I would like to know how the phrase "tormented day and night
for ever and ever" comes out in Greek. It sounds rather figurative to me
(Is there a day and night in a lake of fire?). I could well see satan
being tormented by the fact of the failure of his rebellion against God
and that his would last "for ever". However to return to people.

[Several verses using the phrase "for ever and ever omitted]

>Now if you are willing to do away with the eternal reign of Christ, the eternal
>existance of God, and the eternal life of the believer in Christ, then you can
>do away with an eternal hell...BUT not before.  You must exegete not eisegete.

No, I am trying to find out what the relation between people and hell is.
The fact that John uses a phrase in several different places does not 
mean that it has exactly the same meaning in all those places.
A crude example in english is:
(Mother to children: Come down, the brekfast is ready to eat.
In the jungle the lion is ready to eat).
It seems possible to me that a phrase may have a figurative as well as
a metaphorical meaning. Again, I do not take even the "eternal" reign of
christ to mean that you can measure its existence in seconds or centuries.
It is a mode of existence outside of the usual notions of space and time,
and to try to understand heaven and hell in terms of earthly reigns, and
durations of punishment or happiness is to miss the point.


>Hmmmmm. Are you a JW by chance?  

A non sequitur unless you mean to draw some inferences from imposing a 
label on me.

>>The lake of fire presumable burns up all that is cast into it. 
>>It is not possible for ex-human beings to exist there. 

>As in a legal court case, one should look to see if a precedent had already
>been made.  We have two of them in Scripture.  THe first is in the OT in that
>the bush was not consumned by the fire.  THe second is in the NT is the already
>quoted verse about the Anti-X & FP still in there after a 1000yrs. So it is
>clearly possible for this to happen.


No, no, no.. this is just obfuscation. The angel guarding the entrance to
Eden had a fiery sword: can I use this to infer something about a lake of
fire. I am beginning to get the feeling of a party line being given to me.
An attempt to harmonise (in my opinion) wrong views of scripture in order
to get consistency. I prefer to take the parts of scripture that are clear,
and absolutely necessary to any understanding of God and use them to interpret
other, less obvious passages. The burning bush was either a bush that had
the appearance of burning to give a message to Moses or it was not a real bush
at all. I assume God is capable of making a real woody bush appear to burn
continuously. He is also capable of making Shadrach et al say alive in
a very hot furnace. Does this mean that the people in the lake of fire
are not touvhed by the flames? One cannot simply find bits of the bible
that have a word in common and assume that God means us to link them.
If this were true the episode in the fiery furnace is a far nearer parallel
than the burning bush, and what conclusion can you draw from it?
Also the 1000 years (assuming it is meant literally) refers to earthly time
not time in this supernatural lake of fire. (If the lkae is not supernatural
where is it? a volcano?)

>>I find it very, very difficult
>>to take christians seriously who believe that a loving God will send
>>little children who were... into hell

>Who said anything about children going to hell?  Show me in the Scriptures
>where you get that doctrine?  Quite actually, the opposite is taught.  I don't
>remember the book and verse, but look up David's trial in the death of his son.
> I think it is in 2 Sam.  He also mentions it somewhere in the Psalms.  He
>fully expects to see his son in heaven.  This brings us into the doctrine of
>the age of accountablility.  

Hmm, If a child rejects God's offer of salvation and dies what happens to it?
I know several christians who teach their children how to "praise Jesus"
even before they can walk (almost). They claim that they (the children(
understand that they are sinners and need salvation. If this is true
(and I have grave doubts about it) it works both ways. Children that do
not accept the faith, at whatever age, are by these people's own doctrine
damned. This I refuse to accept.
God cannot be unjust, I take this as a given. Hence we must all appear
before the Judgement to answer for our lives. But we are not all born 
equal, nor do we all have equal understanding. But we can all have an opportunity
to come to faith before we are judged. If God judged the way some christians
do he would not be worthy of worship. He knows each person better than
they know themselves so he knows what is a fair opportunity to accept
Christ as Saviour. For some people this does not appear to happen in their
lives. I am speculating on when it does happen.
>SIMPLE!  
>"And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning
>and the end. I will give to the one who *thirsts* from the spring of the water
>of life without cost. He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will
>be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and
>abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and
>all liars, their part {will be} in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone,
>which is the second death." (Rev. 21:6-8 )
>".....and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall
>ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of
>life." (Rev. 21:27 )
>"Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy,
>still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice
>righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." (Rev.
>22:11 )


But we have all lied, and some nurderers are in heaven (David for instance,
although he did not actually kill Uriah he had him killed). The trouble
with simply quoting verses like these is it assumes we know how to interpret
the meaning. None of us is holy or righteous these are words addressed to 
people who were being perscuted to encourage them. It is almost a 
staement of the obvious: those who are holy will continue to be holy,
while those who do evil will continue to do it. But it is still possibler
for someone who is evil to come to Christ and "thirst" and be given water,
ie admitted into God's presence.

The point is what does it mean not to be in God's presence? After the earth
has passed away (taking time with it and the whole physical universe as
we understand it now) how is it possible for there to be a state of existence
which is not directly related to God? Is God going to somehow sustain Hell
in opposition to heaven? I think rather that we have an attempt to talk aboutr
something that is unimaginable (ie existing apart from God). At the moment
in our earthly lives, we are sometimes close to God and sometimes not
(at least that is the way it feels to me) but by faith I believe that God is
ALWAYS with me, only my perception of Him changes. So I am laready in the
presence of God NOW, the rest of my earthly life is simply to let God
use me for his work. After I die I will be continually with him with none
of the changeability of feeling that I now experience. As one who suffer
from depression periodically I cannot believe that such experiences are a part
of heavenly life so the only difference between my christian life now and
then is my point of view, not my actual relation to God.
Thus I argue that hell is not a state of existence at all (unlike heaven
which is) it is the end result of choosing to be without God. After long 
enough a person who makes such a choice will cease to be a person. They 
are not willing to be sustained by God so they will cease to be sustained.
This I take to be annihilation. But this cannot happen unless such a person
has been given a fair chance to accept God's gift. 


[much on choises deleted]

>makes no demands is an abstraction.  We are responsible creatures.  We are made
>in the image of God.  We have real, though finite freedom.  But responcibility
>nessisarily brings with it accountablity.

What does "real though finite freedom" mean? Consider several people:
A A person with a happy disposition and comfortable life.
B A person with a happy disposition who struggles to overcome feelings
  of worthlessness inherited from an abusive home background, but
  who mainly copes well.
C A person who is alienated as a child because of aphysical deformity
  and grows up with few close friends and bitter towards others.
D A person with a severe personality disorder that breaks into thier
  life suddenly and causes them to be hospitalised for the rest of their
  life.
E Same as person D but with lithium treatment they manage to live a normal
  life and cope well.

These are not hyperthetical I know A, B, C, and have read about D, E.
in a psychology journal. The point is our minds are not all equal.
Some people have a hard time just surviving and not killing themselves.
Others have all the material benefits they could want. Any decision made
by these people about the eternal destiny cannot be regarded as equally
free as it is influenced so strongly by their mental processes. I maintain
that God takes these differences into account in giving them an opportunity
to accept salvation.


>    If you really are serious about this, please rerady my post -Death of
>Absolutes.  It takes this a little bit farther.

>Rex 

Where is it? You can email me at : julian@fraser.sfu.ca.

Peace

julian