All Activity

Appendix 4. Annihilation in the Lake of Fire I think John Schoenheit's doctrine above is a different viewpoint from what I've read above. It's all BS to me, but it might be of interest to someone. It's a long appendix so I'll quote what I think is the most pertinent part (underlining is mine). "10. People will be punished in proportion to their sin. Scripture says people will receive punishment for what they have done, and that the punishment will be in proportion to the sin they have committed. Romans 2:5 says of stubborn people, “you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath.” Just as godly people by their good works store up treasure for the life to come, wicked people store up wrath for themselves. It would make no sense to say that a person “stored up wrath for themselves” if every person got the same “wrath,” that is, eternal torment. Jesus taught that people would be tortured “until” they paid back what they owed for their sin (Matt. 18:32-35). Theologians who believe in eternal torment claim that no one can ever pay for their sin, but no Scripture says that. In fact, Scripture is clear that sin can be paid for, and that is exactly what Jesus taught in Matthew 18:34 and what verses such as Romans 2:5 indicate. The clear message of Scripture is that unless people get forgiveness for their sins they will receive punishment for the evil they have done, but never does Scripture say the people deserve being punished forever (Ps. 62:12; Eccl. 11:9; Jer. 17:10; 32:19; Ezek. 33:20; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 2:23). Beings such as the Devil and his demons have stored up much wrath for themselves and will be punished for a very long time before they are destroyed. God metes out two different types of justice: corrective justice and retributive justice. Corrective justice is punishment that is meant to correct a behavior, while retributive justice is retribution, or repayment, for something that the person did (see commentary on 2 Thess. 1:8). Torment and then destruction in the Lake of Fire is not corrective, it is retributive; it is a righteous repayment for harm done. The demons knew this justice was coming, and so they said to Jesus, “Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24). Some theologians have argued against annihilation because they say it would not make sense for God to resurrect someone from the dead only to kill them again. That misses the fact that God’s annihilation in the Lake of Fire is a judgment, a retribution, a fulfillment of a promise, and a lesson to those still living. We can assume many evil people, the Pharisees are a good example, have died in complete confidence that they will be saved, and as rich and powerful people, often died in the comfort of their own homes, well-fed and cared for. Not only do wicked people such as those Pharisees need to be judged and fulfill the promise that “every knee will bow,” but their annihilation is not immediate. The wicked are annihilated after a period of suffering, and that period of suffering fulfills the Word of God and the justice of God. It seems clear that not every sinner spends equal time suffering, but the more wicked a person is, the more severe the punishment, fulfilling the Scripture that they have stored up wrath for the Day of Wrath. It is God’s just retribution that those who have ignored God and caused pain and suffering on earth will suffer in proportion to the evil they have done. Also, the suffering of the wicked before they are annihilated will show those who have everlasting life that God is truly just. God, through Jesus Christ, offered to pay for the sins of anyone who wished to accept that payment. Those people who rejected God’s offer, and thereby decided by default to pay for their own sins, had to make good their decision, and pay for their sins with suffering and death, just as Scripture said: “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

I need to correct the above post. After listening to the tape again, John Schoenheit did not use the phrase "right" translation, he said a "good" translation.

If you wonder why and how I came to write my memoir, Undertow, this blog post I wrote some years ago answers that question: Dear Rachel: This is How | Charlene L. Edge

I'll wait in this place where the sun never shines, wait in this place where the shadows run from themselves.

Vigilante I.C.U. The Wolf of Wall Street Whiskey Tango Foxtrot The Legend of Tarzan I, Tonya George

I Am, I said Night Moves

Moving on "She was a black-haired beauty with big dark eyes And points all her own sitting way up high"

The topic of this thread is objective v subjective morality, not objective truth claims v. subjective truth claims, a whole different subject.

We would have to restrict any references to the land post 1948. We would have to keep it in doctrinal (since in this forum too many of us would just say "No, God didn't give you the land, stop using ancient fairy tales as an excuse for what you want to accomplish in the 21st Century." So the question would have to be, "do you believe modern day Israel has a claim to the promises recorded in Genesis and/or the Bible. To avoid politics, the answer would be Yes or No followed by an analysis of what the Bible has to say about the subject (the closest we could get to modern politics is establishing that modern Jews are the descendants of ancient Jews and Arthur Koestler was proved wrong by DNA).

A corollary of my point is that all morality is subjective by definition, including God's, assuming his existence. Objective morality, in that framework, is merely acceding to HIS subjective morality, which would be as perfect as we presume Him to be.

I submit that these are conflicting claims to objective truth. I don't see anything subjective in either claim other than the decision of which claim to accept. Objectively, only one can be right (but both can be wrong, objectively).

Defining the Covenants or judging the Covenants? I think we established morality (value judgement) can be based on scripture, but it is still subjective morality. And that’s just fine! I don’t see subjective=worst, objective=best. It may be helpful to understand the terms as descriptive.

Your point well taken of me interchanging denominations and religions. Thank you. The article states there are approximately 45,000 different denominations and I posted there are over 45,000. Let’s give or take a few thousand then. And you are correct many denominations have the sames rules for salvation. Let’s assume there are only a total of 9 major/minir denominations to chose from. How are you going to choice the one you want yo follow? What was your process of eliminating the other eight? Then throw in Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism - what is your thought process for not accepting/rejecting them as the way to salvation? RC - Confessnmortal sins to a priest.

I feel like that's a fool's errand. There's too much ambiguity for a decisive answer.

Of course. It's interesting. When I try to google an actor's most famous movie quotes, most of the results are not from the movies. George

I was thinking more along the lines of accurately defining the Old and New Covenants using objective/subjective standards which appears to be the topic of this thread.

And thus you are right back at the heart of the issue. Should religious texts be accepted as the authoritative source? Three Abrahamic faiths. Which one? Nobody's right if everybody's wrong....Hey! That would make a good song lyric.

Three agents. Each following the god of Abraham. Each having their own scriptures upon which they justify violent suffering. Did I fix it?

How does one talk about this issue only biblically then? That's what I'm trying to do. If you can develop some rules of the game that would satisfy everyone it would be terrific.

It all boils down to being a geopolitical issue. HERE

How do I know? I don't. I picked a Catholic version (notice I say "a" because there's a schism in catholicism as well) because a friend thought I'd be wanting to return after decades of absence. I took the RCIA course of her church, enjoyed it, and was confirmed. Then I strayed from that and joined a staunch traditional, Latin version. Both guns blazing. It's what I'm doing right now but I'm not opposed to checking out other versions. I've been to other versions and it's all interesting. I'm even open to attending a Muslim meeting if a friend invited me to one.

This is not political... please follow... With the U.S. bombing of Iran, I've gotten into a couple of debates with Jews who believe God gave them that land for eternity and American Christians are supposed to understand that and acquiesce. (Old Covenant) However some Christians (myself) believe that Jesus' crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension and glory began a New Covenant wherein Jews who believe in Christ are no more Jews but now members of the body of Christ along with the Gentiles who also believe. The Old has been supplanted by the New (according to my belief). Here are the questions: Would it be accurate to say that both of these beliefs are subjective? Or, is the Jewish religion really the objective one, and the Christian religion the subjective (being an adaptation of the first)?

Well, I'd like to weigh in, here. I'm hoping we can avoid personal shots. In an absolute sense, I'm not sure I'd consider ANY standard as "objective." Let's suppose (for a moment only) that an Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity went and wrote a single standard into all of reality below the quantum level, so that the smallest things that make up the things that make things into things were all based on this single standard. So, all of reality would have it. It would be universally consistent. But would it be "objective"? It would be the decision of a single being whose IQ was so far above mine I couldn't fathom it. So, a standard by a being far, far smarter than me, and potentially far better than anything I could come up with. (Presuming at least as much justice and mercy as me, but more brains and more ability to perform.) That having been said, it would be a subjective standard because it was formed by a being (even if this being was The Being.) So, I may be misunderstanding what we're even discussing. (Forgive me if I am, if I am, it's not on purpose.) When it comes to more general standards of morality, ethics, and so on, I find, for the sake of discussion, I keep drawing on the 9 box alignment grid from AD&D. It's easy to picture. Draw a tic tac toe board on a paper. Leave space all around the nine boxes. Leave space inside each box to write in. Above the top line of boxes, write "Good." Below the bottom line of boxes, write "Evil." To the left of the leftmost, write "Law". To the right of the rightmost, write "Chaos." So, the top row are "Good," the bottom row are "Evil", the leftmost are "Lawful", and the rightmost are "Chaotic." If it helps, think of "Lawful" as "ordered", and "Chaotic" as "independent." (I've found that helps, when discussing this.) So, the nine possible Alignments are: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral ("Neutral Neutral"), Chaotic Neutral. Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. Discussing True Neutral ("Neutral Neutral") starts arguments all by itself, so let's skip it or leave it for later, please. Lawful Good are those who say to benefit the most people, follow the rules. Superman and Captain America are Lawful Good. The Adam West Batman was Lawful Good. Neutral Good says to benefit the most. Follow the rules, or break them, whichever works best. The TOS Jim Kirk was Neutral Good. Chaotic Good says to benefit the most by circumventing the rules and freeing the people. Robin Hood was Chaotic Good. Lawful Neutral says to play by your rules, and that's what matters. Jean-Luc Picard and Frank Martin the Transporter are Lawful Neutral. Chaotic Neutrals avoid the rules and just want their freedom. Captain Jack Sparrow was Chaotic Neutral. Lawful Neutrals say the rules are so I can hold power. Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Saruman were Lawful Evil. Neutral Evil say power is all that matters. Jafar from Disney's "Aladdin" was Neutral Evil. Chaotic Evil's want the freedom to grab or smash anything. Jason Voorhees and Gollum were Chaotic Evil. I left out real people entirely to avoid arguments. (We know Robin Hood by his legends, not his history.) Of course, characters- and people- can have tendencies leaning one way or another while holding an alignment. One Lawful Good may focus more on the Good than the Lawful, another may focus more on the Lawful than the Good. (We might say the first has Neutral Good tendencies, the second has Lawful Neutral tendencies.) We can discuss things in light of the alignment chart. (We don't have to, here or elsewhere, but we can.) I've found it helpful discussing why people or characters are different from each other. https://easydamus.com/alignment.html