It would work in my ministry context.

Finally someone talking about the justice of God. Any discussion of eternity needs to include this.

Where sin is concerned do the math...
10 a day = 3650 a year
3650 a year = 36,500 a decade
73,000 on your 20 year class reunion just since since you graduated High school.
273,750 is you live to be 75

That is at just 10 a day. I do more than that. This is why I am grateful to Jesus for the cross and deserving the judgement of God apart from the cross.

Mark Driscoll represents for me someone who is less engaged with what scripture says about such topics as hell, and more engaged with the doctrinal teachings of reformers.

I'm not saying doesn't take what scripture says seriously. Instead, I am saying that he seems to be unwilling to read and understand scripture from any other point of view other than that which he understands the reformers allow.

The bible is not as clear and consistent about hell as Driscoll makes it to be.

His aggressive confidence in what he believes to be true should raise so many flags for people.

"Only God and certain madmen have no doubts" - Martin Luther

Andy - you bring up a good point.

Actually, if you review Greek Mythology surrounding Hades, you will see that they had really developed this teaching such that Hades had specific areas (almost like rooms in a house) of varying "badness".

For example, "Tartarus" is one of the really bad parts of Hades.

Mr. Driscoll basically takes liberty (where none is taking in scripture) to define various "rooms" depending on your "badness".

The truth is that the wages of sin is death. As per Rev 20, in the end death/hell actually die. Death will be swallowed up of life!

Hell ought to be irrelevant to a Christian, because if the only reason you're a Christian is to avoid hell, you may not be a Christian anyway.

"Pastorally sensitive"- Eye of the beholder

Dare I say that Driscoll isn't so "bold" and "in your face" in this?

He honestly acknowledges the difficulty of the statement for his audience.

He HAS been ham-hamhanded and bloviating in other things I've seen, but this doesn't strike me as anything amazing.

Then again the guy is generally over-rated in the first place.

There is certainly an honesty here, and a bluntness characteristic of Mark Driscoll. However, I would tend to embrace Mcmanus' style and explanation if for no other reason than the fact that he seems to be genuinely pleading with his people to embrace the Lord Jesus. Not that Driscoll is failing to do so, but he is simply not as empathic. He does present a clear, scriptural definition of hell, and I suppose that is what we should be striving to see.

This particular clip doesn't really strike me as much more "in-your-face" than McManus. They both acknowledge hell as a real place and a real destination for the lost. Driscoll explicitly says that some in the audience are headed that way, while McManus implies it by urging them to turn to Christ.

I'd have to see more than 2-minute clips from each to accurately evaluate their respective approaches.

Now I get it.
Ur is hosting a series about which style of speaker people prefer, not about the content of their message.
It would be a bit easier to make a decision about my preference of style if you could have located videos that had your speakers all talking about the same thing.

I am not sure where Leonard gets the "too much of the Reformers" idea from this video. It appears that you have pre-judged Driscoll based on something other than this video. Now, I am not Reformed in my theology, but it appears that you just want to bash Driscoll because of your "disdain" for him and Reformed theology.

@Gary Ware -
I don't think Ur is trying to do an over all 'preference test' as much as seeing how different teachers and preachers present a tough topic.

Dee,
Not bashing Driscoll at all, sorry if it came across that way. I am saying to only use the Love of God as an argument against hell is inadequate.

We sin a lot. God's justice is also a part of the equation. We say the punishment must fit the crime and think hell to harsh. In reality hell fits the crime because we all sin a lot. My "math" is just an illustration of the depth of our sinfulness.

I like driscoll and while I am not totally Reform in my theology, I am mostly.

I also appreciate that some here have done an excellent job of discussion this on the basis of theology, words, meaning and what was actually said verses those who are just uncomfortable with eternal damnation because that does not jive in their hearts with a loving God.

We sin a lot. God's justice is also a part of the equation. We say the punishment must fit the crime and think hell to harsh. In reality hell fits the crime because we all sin a lot. My "math" is just an illustration of the depth of our sinfulness.

Yes, humans sin a lot. That's why we needed the cross. God's justice and mercy there, and all the work needed for salvation for all time was done there. So in the cross God has demonstrated His justice for all time.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place where people will be separated from God, but if they are, it is because of there own willful separation, not because of God needing to demonstrate His justice. He already did demonstrate his justice in its entirety on the cross.

It's always kind of amazing to me that in one breath people will talk about the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross when it comes to salvation but in another act as if it wasn't sufficient enough to completely deal with all of our sin.

Eternal torture in fire (as it says in Mark) cannot be the just punishment for ANY finite amount of human depravity.

A human sacrifice can never remove your guilt. A metaphysical human sacrifice can never remove your guilt.

God could just forgive you. He made the rules. He doesn't need to incarnate himself and sacrifice himself to himself in order to hold you blameless if that's what he wants to do. That's just insane.

In any case, I'm not prepared to forgive God for heaping his creation with natural evil, ignorance, and a human nature that bears every indication of its origin red in tooth and claw.

You can argue that God defines what's right and wrong because he's god, but that's just a non sequiter, really. If God and morality were the same thing, people would all instantly recognize the same God present in all their moral intuitions, and they don't. It's not that I don't believe menstrual blood is impure or that you shouldn't love your enemies just to be difficult; I really, really, don't believe it.

The project you're engaged in right now, redifining the doctrine of hell so it sounds not so odiferious, is just one of many examples of how religion is subject to human moral judgment, and that's a good thing. If people didn't screen the bible like that, we'd end up like the Taliban.

Lots of luck.

While in the end I may not agree with much that Ryan says, can't we all agree that he certainly brings up some thorny questions that are worth discussing?...particularly as someone engaging with this topic who isn't a believer?

Has no one really considered that ETERNAL human torture by an infinite God on a FINITE sinner may not be the best case of "the punishment fits the crime?"

Phil, I hope you are not reading that the cross was not enough in my words. I would not think that nor would I teach that.

@Ryan, And isn't hypocritical of this Divine being to require his followers to forgive, ad infinitum, when this very same Divine being appears unwilling or unable to do so according to traditional teachings?

Phil, I hope you are not reading that the cross was not enough in my words. I would not think that nor would I teach that.

Leonard,
No, it wasn't my intention to accuse you of this. I was just pointing out what seems to be an incongruity in typical Evangelical theology. I know we could get into debates about limited versus unlimited atonement and all that, but I often wonder if that even matters to people.

From a practical standpoint, I think that one reason why a lot of Christians have a hard time living in the reality that God actually loves them has to with this very issue. If God is still wrathful towards sinners, than it simply follows that He must be wrathful towards me when I sin.

What I'm getting at is that I have a hard time squaring the belief that Hell is punishment for sin and the idea that Christ took all the sins of the world upon Himself when He died.

Could I possibly e mail Mark Driscoll has he got a e mail address I really would like to correspond with him ,

Thanks Michael.

He is certainly in keeping with a long-line of Christian preaching on the topic in this short clip.

At least for the Reformers, I don't think the ticket out of hell was "knowing" Jesus, but he might be using that word to signify something more developed than that. The devils in the Bible "know" Jesus.

The various gradations of punishment sounds more like Dante they the Bible.

Okay - this isn't exactly math but try it.

Get a blank sheet of paper and a pen.
I'll wait...........

Got 'em? Ok.
The paper represents eternity...
Yes, I know this is ridiculous.
Bear with me.

Starting in the top left-hand corner, draw a line on the paper to represent all of human history in relation to eternity (also ridiculous, I know). It should be "short" to say the least.

Select a segment of that line to represent a single human life (ridiculous) of perhaps 70 years. Tiny.

Now, lets make this line the life of a mediocre-to-bad American man. He goes to church as a kid but stops when he's 13 after his parents divorce. He hears the gospel a couple more times but just doesn't get it. He sleeps around in college. Gets married. Has a couple kids. Is a bit too self-centered to hold his family together. Looks at porn. Gets divorced. Cuts some corners at work. Has a few friends at the bar. Retires. Dies. His selfish and irresponsible life makes a few ripples that damage a few other people significantly.

Now. Starting at the end of that tiny line in the top left-hand corner, start making a line going right across the top of the page. When you get to the extreme right side, draw down 1/4 inch and (without picking up your pen) start drawing a parallel line going left. When you get to the extreme left, draw down another line down 1/4 inch and go right again. Repeat this process until the page is covered.
I hope I don't have to say this, but THIS line represents a TINY fraction of the version of eternity to which God (in your reading of scripture) consigns this man.

For example - if hell is a state of conscious existence that would make sadists proud, this is what this man's 70 years have "earned" him.

Which way in the debate does this tip you?
Which way would you tip if we made that tiny line the life of a young woman who rejects the gospel after she is raped by her youth pastor and dies of cancer at 40? Which way would you tip if the tiny line was the life of a much better man who was also an atheist? How about Ghandi?

The traditional Hell doesn't exist by itself. It exists as part of a theological system of salvation that excludes some people in eternity.

Here's some scripture for those who will complain about the lack of it above.
We can't assume that ONLY the scriptures that seem to talk about hell have anything to SAY about hell.

Colossians 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself ALL THINGS, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I Timothy 4:9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL men, and ESPECIALLY of those who believe. 11Command and teach these things.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Indeed. How much more?

Matt, Almost you persuade me not to believe.

Matt, your analogy is really great, it reminds me of how long it takes to scrape all the magnetic stuff off an etch-a-sketch. The only trouble is: it's man's wisdom, not God's. The lens through which you are viewing God seems to be your own and not His, and not the Bible's. The Bible is more than just the quoted words of Jesus (not that you quoted any of them). You are actually 'proof-texting' which is anathama on this blog site. Don't believe me? Just ask Paul C.

Anyway, the more comments I read here the more I puzzle about the 66 books of the Bible and wonder how many commenters have read them all as a package. They pack a wallop of judgement and God's intolerance of unrighteousness and severe punishment for it. And it all starts in Genesis chapter 1. No one really seems to address this. I don't claim to have all the answers and I know how difficult serious discussion is in blog format, but it seems to me that over this last month in the hell discussions, most comments come from the "I can't believe a loving God would punish anyone" corner. That is a nice sentiment but it just flies in the face of too much of the scripture. I don't understand why a person (not you, Matt) would even comment here if they only want to share their 'feelings' about who God is. If one is going to 'believe' in Jesus, it seems a phony belief to be at odds with most of what He said, doesn't it? And if a person says, "Well, I believe in Jesus but I don't believe the 66 books are all from God" then one wonders how they would even believe that Jesus actually existed.

G-d is consistent in his intent, and his communication...we, humans, are eternal creatures.
That is whole thrust of Y'shuas ministry on earth...your existence from the temporal to what the bible describes eternity started the second you were conceived...in fact, one could argue that we were destined for eternity the moment G-d viewed us as existent creatures.
Y'shua was/is quite clear...there is an eternity, and the choice of how we exist in eternity is up to us, individually.
There is no "oh you bad monkey, you, no salvation? You are so annihilated!"
The bible doesn't say that anywhere...no where.
What the bible does indicate is a conscious existence in a terrible place...one that burns...what that burning is we don't know because the source of the ordeal is not revealed in the scriptures...all we know is that it is bad, bad, bad.
And the though the concept of "Dante's inferno" as a potential possibility smacks of medievalism...we can not out and out dismiss it...because the bible alludes to that.
The totality of the bible points to two existences/destinations...one referred to as Heaven, and one referred to as "hell."

Rev. 21:
"27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Rev. 22:
"14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Why would the author talk about the fallen being outside the gates of the New Jerusalem if they were destroyed?
If they were annihilated...they wouldn't be a going concern about entering the New Jerusalem, now would they?

Just as Gehenna is outside the great city, so too, are those who forsaked G-d.

The scriptures are clear, and they leave no room for doubt.

Melody -
You could go ahead and use my analogy as a warning against hell if you wanted : ) I could imagine a hellfire evangelist (not that that's you) using it to great effect. As far as prooftexting goes, I'm not a fan of it either, but I want to point out that there are texts that exist that point in another direction. For a fuller commentary on this from Romans... 5-8 I think, read Jan Bonda's "The One Purpose of God"
I actually don't have a problem with God's severe judgement and punishment for unrighteousness. I DO have a problem with most TRADITIONAL versions of hell. As far as my reasoning versus God's - I recognize that "my ways are not God's ways and my thoughts are not God's thoughts." I guess it comes down to this:
1. I believe the the 66 books of the Bible are God's attempt to communicate with humanity.
2. God uses many analogies and metaphors to accomodate His communication to our (or, first century and prior people's?) language and reasoning, therefore we are free to use our language and reasoning. I believe everything God tells us is for our benefit, though it may not all be perfect literal representation of the being and nature of God and reality. For instance, we might get the impression that God needs our adoration or worship - which would make God petty. I think God's demand for worship guards his children from worshipping anything else - knowing that humans are worshipping creatures who become like what they worship. Another example would be Jesus' ascent. Do we really think Jesus traveled vertically from Israel to heaven, or did Jesus' "ascend to the Father" because it was the best way to communicate what was happening to his audience?
3. In similar fashion, I take ALL the warnings in scripture seriously and assume they are for my benefit even if I don't take them literally.
4. I find the character of the God portrayed in scripture irreconcilable with a TRADITIONAL hell. If the traditional "eternal conscious punitive torment" hell is reality, then I think words like gracious, merciful, loving and compassionate have no meaning that I can understand or emulate, but I trust that those words, or the Hebrew and Greek equivalents (like hesed) DO bear resemblance to what I think they mean or God would not have used them. For me it becomes a big question of what trumps what when scripture interprets scripture in formulating belief. I personally cannot sustain the tensions I perceive between a loving, gracious, merciful, compassionate God that I am to emulate, and traditional hell.

Disbelieving in the traditional hell gives me MORE passion for evangelism because I am more excited about the good news I have to share, and it makes me no more accepting of unrighteousness because I really DO believe that willing submission to God's standards of behavior is the most wonderful way for anyone to live, but even here (headcoverings and on and on) I make a lot of exceptions, as did the Acts 15 church.

Sheerahkahn,
I just don't buy the "eternal creatures" idea. Eternal has 2 directions. Creature = created. Created = not eternal. Christian theology has ALWAYS affirmed that everything except God CONSTANTLY depends on God for its existence. Humans do not have an innately eternal existence. "In him we live and move and have our being." Maybe you don't conceive of hell as being seperated from God. That's kind of new-fangled jargon about hell anyway.

As far as Revelation goes... there is so much to go into. Why all the eternally open gates to the New Jerusalem? There is the implication of traffic to and fro (maybe this was the inspiration for Lewis - Great Divorce). It's not clear to me that "the nations [walking] by its light" are actually IN the city. It is the new JERUSALEM after all, and "The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations"

Lastly, the word translated "eternal" and/or "everlasting" in some of the "eternal punishment" texts is aeon/aion which also gets translated "world" and "age" in some translations and places. Whether this word properly means "eternal" is actually a pretty hot topic, but I'm not qualified to debate it.
Young's woodenly literal translation translates iaeon "age-during" in Matthew 25 and some other places. Check some of your references here for alternate readings if you're interested.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT-Bible/

I honestly worry about posting all this, but I assume we have a pretty mature readership here but in case someone with a "house of cards faith" slips in, it's possible I'm wrong about hell, but I'm ssurely right about trusting Jesus and trying to follow him. That IS where salvation lies.

"...THIS line represents a TINY fraction of the version of eternity..."

"[An] objection turns on the apparent disproportion between eternal damnation and transitory sin. And if we think of eternity as a mere prolongation of time, it is disproportionate.

"But many would reject this idea of eternity. If we think of time as a line - which is a good image, because the parts of time are successive and no two of them can co-exist; i.e., there is no width in time, only length - we probably ought to think of eternity as a plane or even a solid.

"Thus the whole reality of a human being would be represented by a solid figure. That solid would be mainly the work of God, acting through grace and nature, but human free will would have contributed the base-line which we call earthly life: and if you draw your base-line askew, the whole solid will be in the wrong place.

"The fact that life is short, or, in the symbol, that we contribute only one little line to the whole complex figure, might be regarded as a Divine mercy.

"For if even the drawing of that little line left to our free will, is sometimes so badly done as to spoil the whole, how much worse a mess might we have made of the figure if more had been entrusted to us?"

- C. S. Lewis

Matt, as is the crazy nature of blogging, I find myself basically agreeing with you after basically diagreeing with you. In light of that may I ask, do you believe that born-again believers will spend eternity with Jesus?

still,
Thanks for that quote from Lewis! Where is that from?

Melody,
Absolutely.

Melody,

Excerpts taken from the book "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.

Rejoice!

still

"Sheerahkahn,
I just don't buy the "eternal creatures" idea. Eternal has 2 directions. Creature = created. Created = not eternal..."

What the...where in my writing did you get the idea that I was saying we are eternal by self-directive?

"Maybe you don't conceive of hell as being seperated from God."

Where'd the...wait...how did you arrive at that impression from my writing?

Matt...I'm assuming you did read what I wrote, and if there is some where in my writing that I'm unclear...I'm more than willing to explain myself...really, all you have to do is ask for clarity.

Sheerahkahn,
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your views.

In my statement about eternal I'm trying to clarify what eternal means to me. Maybe I'm confusing philosophy and biblical theology. To me, eternal and dependent are mutually exclusive. If humans do exist ever after, then however little exertion it requires of God to sustain us, it is still a decision on God's part and he is not bound to it. To me "destined" implies a divine intention that may be contravened (I'm not a Calvinist). "Are eternal" implies (to me) an attribute that is possessed by the subject.

This has implications for the second item you addressed. I should have said "total separation" since that is what I meant and that is the language that a lot of people are using to describe hell. I did not see anything in your statement above about separation and while you wrote of a "chasm" in previous posts, you also described hell as a regular conversation with God: "That...is what hell is...a constant begging and pleading with a Holy G-d who tells you over and over again..."you had your chances, and you rejected each of my overtures...here, let me hit playback for you so you can see exactly where I came to you each time...see there, there, and there..."

It's okay with me if you don't think of hell as "total separation" and its okay with me if the above is just metaphorical too.

All I'm saying is that if hell is TOTAL separation from God, then total separation from God would be annihilation because anything that exists must in some way be sustained by God's activity. If humans exist in hell for eternity, it is because God is in some sense active in running the joint, not because he couldn't suspend the existence of hell or its residents.

I have one more thought about the Rich Man and Lazarus Parable but I'm starting to feel like this stream has run its course.

Graduations of punishment?
Hmmm... I don't think so. If "hell" is a place of eternal conscious judgement (of which I'm not convinced) then any torment for all eternity will be terrible beyond imagination. If my hand was to be held over an open flame for all eternity it would be unbearable. So too if it was my whole arm. The punishment that fits the crime is this:
“Whoever publicly acknowledges me I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven."

I agree that the stream is fairly well spent but I have one last question: How does one tell when a Biblical passage is speaking in metaphor or speaking literally?

Melody,
Good question. There's more than just metaphor and literal to deal with too.
There's "signs" like the sign of Jonah.
There's simile - in those days it will be like in the days of Noah...
It's hard to set rules here.
Hyperbole. We assume Jesus doesn't really advocate self-mutilation, even when he speaks in the imperative.
There are a LOT of biblical imperatives that we routinely ignore without much guilt.
Parables are pretty obvious but we have a hard time interpreting them unless Jesus gives it to us. And even then, there's a lot we can miss. What about places where everything seems literal but does that mean it is perfect communication?
As already stated: "I am ascending to the Father."
I know all this is messy and I know that people are afraid of the slippery slope.
I'm so sick of that fear.

Hmm, I think I'm seeing where you are coming from, and I think we have a differing view of separation.
How to explain my view...hmm...okay, how bout this.
A husband and wife have been married for thirty years, they live in the same house, eat at the same table, talk about the kids, and yet the emotional connectiveness that makes a marriage a marriage is not present...they're like two room mates, but with no affection...the relationship has gone cold, and now their going through the mechanizations of a marriage though their hearts are far apart.
That is part of the separation I'm speaking of...the one where the wife reaches out to her husband, but he eschews her for his own "thang." and conversely, where the husband reaches out to the wife, but she is far to enamoured with her own wishes to be bothered by his constant "want."
So yes, their in conversation, but no, they are never together...a "sort of" relationship where the individual is constantly reminded of what they eschewed for their own desires...and here is the gripper, also addressed by the rich man...he was not interested in bridging that gap between him and G-d...nope...he was only thinking about how to get out of his predicament.
That is what the people existing in hell will be like...always wanting the end to the torment/ordeal, but never wanting to be in a relationship with G-d...which is what Christianity is all about...or should be.

One other thing...it's okay to develope a philsophy about life, the bible, G-d, etc, it's quite another to allow it free rein...I keep my philosophy aligned with the bible...so if my "nature" does get the better of me...I can self correct with the word of G-d.
Just something I do.

You know what I found out about Jesus' teaching about hell? Something very, very interesting!

Some people like to allude to hell as a 'state of mind' or some kind of idea, or that the Bible is not REALLY that clear on it. Hmmm...

Notice something very simple in the story of Lazarus & the rich man in Luke 16, that made it different than ALL the other parables Jesus ever spoke: He used names (Lazarus & Abraham). He described two specific places.

This may not mean much to you...but it means so much to me. Jesus did not typicially use names in His parables. In fact He would usually say "The kingdom of GOD is like...". With this description of hell, He used facts, people's names, a description of heaven and hell, using sight, hearing, taste and touch (feeling). In hell, people were able to remember, to feel, communicate and regret. Unlike a parable, which is a story designed to teach truth...this strikes me as a true story.

Father Abraham's response to the rich man strongly reminds me of when Paul made the statement of being 'surrounded by a cloud of witnesses'. Father Abraham knew of the rich man's life and Lazarus.

Believe what you may, Jesus has warned us about hell. I'd rather take the 'risk' and choose to believe His word & description on it (even based on this description alone!) versus someone else's who would rather not choose to believe it simply b/c the literal idea of hell being a real place deep down inside makes them uncomfortable

Dominique,

Suppose in the context of Luke 16 Jesus is as usual showing the Pharisees the error of their ways and beliefs. Suppose the Pharisees had in their traditions the exact same picture of the afterlife Jesus is about to describe. Jewish historian Josephus (who became a Pharisee) erroneusly believed and described this same kind of picture without any acknowledgement of this reference by Jesus in Luke.

Suppose Jesus who said he would never speak to the Pharisees except by parables was taking their own belief and turning it back on them. Suppose they were the mammon loving rich man. Suppose Jesus was talking about the same Lazarus he raised from the dead. Suppose it was this raised Lazarus's witness Jesus is talking about and Jesus is showing these hypocritcal Pharisees once again they are holding to their power enabling traditions (this erroneous view of the afterlife instead of believing Moses and the prophets...read in John 11 what the Pharisees said after the raising of Lazarus).

In case all this is seemingly nonsensical, my point is that this is not a Biblical illustration of heaven and hell but rather another sarcastic response to the Pharisees.

As for your statement, "using sight, hearing, taste and touch (feeling). In hell, people were able to remember, to feel, communicate and regret," I invite you to read the following Scriptures about the place and state of the dead before the resurrection: Psalms 6:5;Psalms 49(whole chapter);Psalms 88:11; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:2-4; Isaiah 38:18. I just want believers and enquirers to think and search the Scriptures and learn the context and meanings of words used apart from tradition of man.

Here is another thought provoker. Read Acts 2:29,34;13:36 and consider that David (a man after God's own heart)is used here to illustrate David's death and non resurrection as compared to what happened when Jesus died.

Sheerahkahn,

Your view of separation and example is traditional. No where in Scripture is your view explained and it is only inferred if one holds the traditional view. By the way, only God is immortal: 1 Timothy 1:17;6:16.
We only have immortality if He grants us the status in Him. As Matt implied, apart from Him we are dead in our sins and dead is dead until it no longer exists.

Melody,

Keep searching for truth. Jeremiah 29:11-13

Reece,

Truth.

Still,

Thanks for the great quote from C.S. Lewis

Matt,

I think you are pretty much right on.

Ryan,

I feel your pain and anguish. It is almost palpable but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Read the Scriptures with scepticism but not with loathing. If you want to know what God is like look at Jesus Christ. Everything negative He says is directed at the Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees ie. the religious hypocrites of His day. When you criticize Christians for their hypocrisy, you are in good company. When you criticize God you are doing so because of misunderstanding of who He is. In a sense you are judging Him in the light/darkness of your own image thus playing God yourself. This is understandable based on your beliefs. Just remember, your beliefs and feelings though genuine may also be wrong. Continue to seek truth, but be careful not to fall into the traditions of unbelievers even as some of us fall into the traditions of believers.

Everyone else,

I'm too tired to answer each of you right now.

I do, however, want you all to know that I believe that the bottom line is that in Jesus is life: 1 John 5:11-12

Jesus really only gave us three commandments: Matthew 22:37-40 and Matthew 28:19-20 ie. Love God, Love each other, and teach others to do the same. And this love is evidenced by discipleship: Luke 6:46 and this love is beautifully described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and is further evidenced by fruit bearing: Galatians 5:22

I am tired of hatred and fear and greed wherever it appears. Blessings to all.

Randy,
I have to say your idea of Y'shua using the parable of the Lazarus and the Rich man as a sarcastic twist on the relationship between Y'shua and the Pharisees is a new one on me...and to be honest...quite plausible. I don't have a problem with it...in fact, it does make me think a bit more about that interaction.

However...
"By the way, only God is immortal: 1 Timothy 1:17;6:16.
We only have immortality if He grants us the status in Him. As Matt implied, apart from Him we are dead in our sins and dead is dead until it no longer exists."

And once again...really, where did I say we are immortal by self directive?
Please read my posts before responding...it's getting rather irritating having to address this.

BTW, Randy, in response to your "dead is dead" commentary...I present for your consideration...Mark 9:1-8.
Please, illuminate why Moses and Elijah seem to be very coherent and alive I have yet to encounter a coherent explanation for this event?
For me...perhaps, things in this universe are not as clear cut as we would like them to be...I'm not so traditional or egotistical that my thoughts become an immovable citadel to be vigorously defended when challenged with new information.

Sheerahkahn,

Perhaps I wasn't clear; the Bible to my knowledge nowhere says that God will take the mortal unsaved man and grant him immortality just to punish him eternally. The promise of everlasting life is only for believers. The rest will either be saved and therby become sons of God by adoption or they will perish.

Good question about Mark 9:1-9 but not difficult. If you look at the context and the parallel passages in Matthew 17 and Luke 9 you will get a clearer understanding. Cutting to the chase, it was a vision as stated in Matthew 17:9. They were heavy with sleep seemingly awoke to this vision and then "poof" it was gone and Moses and Elijah with it.

Feel free to keep the questions coming. You'll have more. That's how we both get challenged to a deeper walk.

Another thought for you. Have you ever wondered why Paul never discusses or mentions the word hell (hades). Peter only uses the word once (tartarus) and applies the place to fallen angels. James only uses the word once (gehenna) in reference to a slandering tongue. Luke in the book of Acts only quotes David in the Psalms in reference to the resurrection of the body of Jesus. Don't you think it strange that the apostles don't delve into this matter in the light of Jesus's references to hades and gehenna? Perhaps, just perhaps, the hell referenced by Jesus has nothing to do with our concept of hell as a place of torment for the eternal souls of unbelievers.

A few more questions for you to ponder:

If separation from God in death and destruction is punishment and those dead are never bodily resurrected to eternal life, then isn't that punishment everlasting?

Other than the Luke 16 passage, is hell ever connected by Jesus to conscious torment? Have you ever wondered why living worms are also consigned to hell along with us? Are these specially resurrected bad worms? Do these worms have some kind of spirit body to keep them from burning up while the unsaved dead are tortured in flames for eternity?

Randy, maybe fire for the body and worms for the soul? Just kidding. Blessings.

Is it reasonable to see a disjunction between a belief in the destruction of Death and Hell as proclaimed in Revelation, and the belief that the unrighteous nevertheless go back into this same state of being "dead" in the "lake of fire" after the post resurrection judgment? Don't Death and the Grave/Sheol/Hades, by definition, continue in existence as long as they have the power to keep their victims and contain tenants?