Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Proxy]

If heaven is eternal life in the presence of God, then it must follow that hell is the opposite. This would lead us to conclude that hell is annihilation/eternal death. Not a place of eternal torture. A place of eternal torture would imply that life is still present and consciousness is still aware. This is completely illogical.

[jimwalton]

It depends how you see your opposites. I would say the Bible teaches that heaven is eternal existence in the presence of God, and hell is eternal existence separated from God. Still an opposite. The torment of hell isn't fire, but rather separation from God, just as the bliss of heaven isn't harps but rather the presence of God. I don't see anything illogical about it if you are looking at the issue in a biblical way.

[Proxy]

I'm not looking at it strictly from a biblical perspective tho. I'm taking into consideration the fundamental principles of dualism. How our world is made of light and dark, or positive and negative forces that are intermingling. Christianity makes the claim that these forces can be teased apart. That light can exist without darkness, that life can exist without death. If heaven is a place of eternal life then it would only make sense that this is because life was pulled apart from death, and that death is what happens to those that don't enter into the kingdom.

[jimwalton]

Thanks, that helps. There's nothing in the Bible that smacks of dualism. When God deals with Satan, it's more like shooting fish in a bucket than cosmic warfare. When Jesus casts out demons, there's no contest. At the end of time when Jesus ends the battle of Armageddon, it's with a spoken word. It's more like the wave of a hand than any kind of conflict. There's nothing about the Bible that's dualistic.

You're right that the Bible sees the world in binary terms: light and dark, kingdom of God vs. the kingdoms of the world, life vs. death, etc. It's true. Positive and negative forces intermingle, but that's for us and as far as our perspective.

> Christianity makes the claim that these forces can be teased apart. That light can exist without darkness, that life can exist without death.

On Earth, no; in the afterlife, yeah.

> If heaven is a place of eternal life then it would only make sense that this is because life was pulled apart from death, and that death is what happens to those that don't enter into the kingdom.

This is true.

1 Corinthians 15.26: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Isaiah 25.8: "He will swallow up death for ever"

Revelation 21.4: "...and death shall be no more..."

So it does seem that life is pulled apart from death, and death is what happens to those that don't enter the kingdom (Rev. 21.14-15: "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.").

But death in the Bible is never a cessation. Death in the Bible is a different state of existence.

So explain to me, again, why hell is illogical? I'm honestly trying to understand.

[Proxy]

> But death in the Bible is never a cessation. Death in the Bible is a different state of existence.

For this to be so we would have to change our current definitions of words such as: perish, destruction, death, end, disintegration, etc.

All of these words are used to describe what happens to those who aren't saved.

John 3:16 is a perfect example.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The options are clear as day here. To perish or, to live forever. It would be silly to think that perish means to still maintain some form of life-eternal in a state of punishment.

[jimwalton]

> For this to be so we would have to change our current definitions of words such as: perish, destruction, death, end, disintegration, etc.

We just have to explore what the Bible means when it uses these terms. If you're read philosophy, you know that the writer takes time to define his terms first, not just assuming you're going to default to the same definition. So also a lawyer. Do you remember the famous line by President Bill Clinton? "It depends upon what the meaning of the word is is" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8).

John 3.16. What is love? The Greeks had 3 words for it. Is God's love different from our love? Should we understand when it says "God so loved the world" as qualitatively different than anything we mean by the word love? I think so. This love is *agape* (1st aorist form: ἠγάπησεν), considered to be the noblest and strongest term, connoting an act of the will rather than emotion, a personal and sacrificial love. It helps to understand terms.

"The world" is κόσμον, the entire human race. It's not the abstract geological sphere, but humanity on that sphere—the whole cosmos of human beings.

"His one and only son." His μονογενῆ. There is no thought of generation here, but more realistically of uniqueness and special relationship. It doesn't denote the source, and is without reference to derivation, but means more like "unique; unparalleled; incomparable." But it also speaks of relationship.

"Whoever" (πᾶς) is fairly straight forward. Indefinite and all-inclusive. This option (of believe) is truly open to all.

"believes in him" (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν). Belief here implies both mental assent and oneness in relationship.

"Shall not perish" (ἀπόληται). We finally get to the word at hand. It can mean to destroy or kill (which seems to imply cessation), but it can also mean to lose or suffer loss from (which seems to imply detriment). In the middle voice (as here), it often means to be ruined or to be destroyed, which could go either way. The word is used of both physical and eternal death, and also of things (objects) being lost (still existing but no longer in sight or in possession). Sometimes it means to render something useless.

It's in the aorist tense, which signifies nothing as to duration. It states the fact of the action or event without regard to its duration.

So possibly the options aren't as clear as day as you presume.

To me it is obviously meant to contrast eternal life, which follows immediately after it. So it means continuation in a state of loss rather than continuation in a state of life.

[Sam Hill]

so the fire is just for show?

[jimwalton]

Fire is figurative language to relate to us the horror of being separated from God.