Can God "Uncreate?"

[Kirby D. P.]

Hello. Polite atheist here. I come here for opinion from a genuine Christian perspective. All I have to offer in return is: I am willing to be convinced to abandon my atheism. I admit, that is a fairly high bar to overcome, but I promise it is true. So you find in me a chance to do a good deed.

First, I’ll accept for the sake of argument that God is omnipotent, in whatever guise you take that to mean. So I’m not posing today’s question as any sort of, “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it,” kind of lame “gotchya” proposition.

In your opinions, can God destroy you? I don’t mean “kill you.” And I don’t mean “send you to Hell in the hereafter.” I mean, do you think he can “UNcreate” you. Remove you from existence.

So far as I understand it, Christianity (among other things) often entails the notion of some life eternal, even after physical death.

I have spoken with Christians who say they believe in a literal Revelation-style Hell. I have spoken with others who are convinced in something less literal, but which accords posthumous judgment in measures of reward and punishment in proportion to how a person lived out their moral obligations while on earth, but the particulars of these conditions are unknowable until after death. I know one devout (and intensely sweet and caring) Christian who believes in the full-blown lake of fire Hell, but who is convinced the God is too loving to ever actually send anyone there.

But all of these require or imply some everlasting soul. Even others with whom I have discussed these things frame Hell as eternal separation from the presence of God, and the closest we can come to imagining such horror is all the various earthly torments ascribed allegorically to a state of “physical” damnation.

But (again, whatever thoughts you’d care to share), can God just make you “go away?” No bliss of Heaven, but also no anguish of Hell?

As you consider, don’t feel you have to start at liturgical square one for my sake. I am, at the very the least, “Bible literate.” I have no problem finding all the passages in the Bible describing how God can bring things into being and to cause things to happen, including destruction. But I can’t find any strong scriptural point suggesting that he can, or at least, that he ever does UNdo things.

As a nonbeliever, I actually would prefer that neither Hell nor Heaven is real. I know at least half of that sounds crazy. If any of you are interested, I am happy to explain why. But, I wonder, if God does exist, is there this third “option” which never seems to be discussed? Or do you think it CAN’T exist. And if not, why not?

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[Hekuran]

Hello. Well-mannered theist here.

Short answer: I see no reason why God couldn't snuff me out, leaving nothing conscious or physical.

The more interesting answer is to dig a bit deeper into what the Bible view of what a person is. The idea of an immortal essence of a person contained within a mortal body comes from Ancient Greek philosophy -- Plato. It's a way of thinking that would be very odd to the readers of the Hebrew scriptures. The Biblical idea behind the word translated soul is far more holistic and physical - it is literally "breath" or "breathing thing".

That's part of the reason why the resurrection is so important.

I'll think a bit more and post more if you are interested. It's late now and my brain is shot.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Hello. Well-mannered theist here.

Short answer: I see no reason why God couldn't snuff me out, leaving nothing conscious or physical.

The more interesting answer is to dig a bit deeper into what the Bible view of what a person is. The idea of an immortal essence of a person contained within a mortal body comes from Ancient Greek philosophy -- Plato. It's a way of thinking that would be very odd to the readers of the Hebrew scriptures. The Biblical idea behind the word translated soul is far more holistic and physical - it is literally "breath" or "breathing thing".

That's part of the reason why the resurrection is so important.

I'll think a bit more and post more if you are interested. It's late now and my brain is shot.

Hiya, Hekuron! Yes, please. I’d love to know any further thoughts you might have. Thanks!

 

[B-A-C]

God is God. Can a God who is limited by anything truly be a God?

Having said that... that does not appear to be Gods way.
This is a subject that some are divided on.

The vast majority of Christians believe in eternal life or "eternal death". You don't truly die either way, but one way definitely more uncomfortable than the other way.
There is a group of Christians who believe in annihilationism.

In general this group doesn't believe that God really punishes anyone eternally, but only for a very short while if at all.
They believe that instead of going to hell or the lake of fire, God simply annihilates you. If you feel any pain at all, it's only for a short while and then you cease to exist.

There is quite a bit scripture that contradicts this however.

 

[Quantrill]

Hello. Polite atheist here. I come here for opinion from a genuine Christian perspective. All I have to offer in return is: I am willing to be convinced to abandon my atheism. I admit, that is a fairly high bar to overcome, but I promise it is true. So you find in me a chance to do a good deed.

First, I’ll accept for the sake of argument that God is omnipotent, in whatever guise you take that to mean. So I’m not posing today’s question as any sort of, “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it,” kind of lame “gotchya” proposition.

In your opinions, can God destroy you? I don’t mean “kill you.” And I don’t mean “send you to Hell in the hereafter.” I mean, do you think he can “UNcreate” you. Remove you from existence.

So far as I understand it, Christianity (among other things) often entails the notion of some life eternal, even after physical death.

I have spoken with Christians who say they believe in a literal Revelation-style Hell. I have spoken with others who are convinced in something less literal, but which accords posthumous judgment in measures of reward and punishment in proportion to how a person lived out their moral obligations while on earth, but the particulars of these conditions are unknowable until after death. I know one devout (and intensely sweet and caring) Christian who believes in the full-blown lake of fire Hell, but who is convinced the God is too loving to ever actually send anyone there.

But all of these require or imply some everlasting soul. Even others with whom I have discussed these things frame Hell as eternal separation from the presence of God, and the closest we can come to imagining such horror is all the various earthly torments ascribed allegorically to a state of “physical” damnation.

But (again, whatever thoughts you’d care to share), can God just make you “go away?” No bliss of Heaven, but also no anguish of Hell?

As you consider, don’t feel you have to start at liturgical square one for my sake. I am, at the very the least, “Bible literate.” I have no problem finding all the passages in the Bible describing how God can bring things into being and to cause things to happen, including destruction. But I can’t find any strong scriptural point suggesting that he can, or at least, that he ever does UNdo things.

As a nonbeliever, I actually would prefer that neither Hell nor Heaven is real. I know at least half of that sounds crazy. If any of you are interested, I am happy to explain why. But, I wonder, if God does exist, is there this third “option” which never seems to be discussed? Or do you think it CAN’T exist. And if not, why not?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Though your question is not the same as 'can God make a rock that He Himself cannot carry', it is on the same line. It is an attempt at pitting God against Himself. The answer to the 'heavy rock' question is God can make any rock any size He wants, and, He can carry any rock He makes.

With your question, 'can God uncreate' you bring into question as to why God created? For Him to uncreate would mean there was either lack of purpose or error in creating. Because God knows all from beginning to end, there is no way He will uncreate, for His purpose in creating will be accomplished. (Acts 15:18)

It is understandable that you would prefer being uncreated rather than eternity in hell or the lake of fire. But no, it is no option.

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

Hiya, Hekuron! Yes, please. I’d love to know any further thoughts you might have. Thanks!

These aren't my thoughts. It comes from the Bible Project, and I've been chewing over these ideas for a few months now. There's also a podcast which goes into more detail.

Nephesh: "Soul"
For thousands of years, every morning and evening, Jewish people have prayed these well-known words as a way of expressing their devotion to God. They’re called the Shema.

Hear O Israel the lord is our God the lord is one, and as for you, you shall love the lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your strength.​

We’re going to look at the word “soul.” The Hebrew word is nephesh; it occurs over 700 times in the Old Testament. The common English translation of this word is “soul,” and that's kind of unfortunate. Here’s why:

The English word “soul” comes with lots of baggage from ancient Greek philosophy. It’s the idea that the “soul” is a nonphysical, immortal essence of a person that’s contained or trapped in their body to be released at death. It's a“ghost in the machine,” kind of idea. This notion is totally foreign to the Bible. It's not at all what nephesh means in biblical Hebrew.

The most basic meaning of nephesh is “throat.” Like when the Israelites are wandering in the wilderness, they're hungry and thirsty, and they say to God, “we miss the cucumbers and melons we had in Egypt, and now our nephesh has dried up!” Or when Joseph was hauled off into slavery in Egypt, his nephesh was put into iron shackles.

But nephesh doesn’t only mean “throat.” Since your whole life and body depend on what comes in and out of your throat, nephesh coud also be used to refer to the whole person. Like in Genesis, there were thirty-three nephesh in Jacob’s family, that is thirty-three people. In the Torah, a murderer is called a “nephesh slayer,” and a kidnapper is called a “nephesh thief.”

On the first pages of the Bible, both humans and animals are called “a living nephesh,” and if the life-breath has left a human or animal, the nephesh remains. It’s just called a “dead nephesh,” that is, a corpse.

So in the Bible, people don’t have a nephesh; rather, they are a nephesh: a living, breathing, physical being. Now that might surprise you because most people assume the Bible says the “soul” is what survives apart from the body after death. And while the biblical authors do have a concept of people existing after death waiting for their resurrection, they rarely talk about it, and when they do, they don’t use the word "nephesh."

So even though nephesh is often translated as “soul,” the Hebrew word really refers to the whole human as a living, physical organism. In fact, this is why biblical people can often use this word to refer to themselves, and it gets translated “me” or “I.” Like in Psalm 119, most translations read, “let me live, that I may praise you.” In Hebrew, the poet literally says, “let my nephesh live, that it may praise you." By using nephesh, the poet emphasizes that their entire being, their life and their body, offer thanks to God.

In the Song of Songs, the young woman constantly refers to her lover as “the one my nephesh loves.”11 And of course, “love” isn’t just an intellectual experience; it’s an emotion that activates your whole body, your entire nephesh.

This helps us understand the brilliance of other biblical poets who could combine multiple meanings of nephesh in one place. Like in Psalm 42, we read, “as the deer pants for the water, so my nephesh pants after you, my nephesh thirsts for the living God.”

So on a physical level, your throat can be thirsty like a deer’s, but then that physical thirst can become a metaphor for how your physical being longs to know and be known by your creator.

Which brings us all the way back to the Shema. To love God with all your nephesh means to devote your whole physical existence to your creator, the one who granted us these amazing bodies in the first place. It’s about offering your entire being with all of its capabilities and limitations in the effort to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

And that’s the Hebrew word for soul.

 

[KingJ]

Hello. Polite atheist here. I come here for opinion from a genuine Christian perspective. All I have to offer in return is: I am willing to be convinced to abandon my atheism. I admit, that is a fairly high bar to overcome, but I promise it is true. So you find in me a chance to do a good deed.

First, I’ll accept for the sake of argument that God is omnipotent, in whatever guise you take that to mean. So I’m not posing today’s question as any sort of, “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it,” kind of lame “gotchya” proposition.

In your opinions, can God destroy you? I don’t mean “kill you.” And I don’t mean “send you to Hell in the hereafter.” I mean, do you think he can “UNcreate” you. Remove you from existence.

So far as I understand it, Christianity (among other things) often entails the notion of some life eternal, even after physical death.

I have spoken with Christians who say they believe in a literal Revelation-style Hell. I have spoken with others who are convinced in something less literal, but which accords posthumous judgment in measures of reward and punishment in proportion to how a person lived out their moral obligations while on earth, but the particulars of these conditions are unknowable until after death. I know one devout (and intensely sweet and caring) Christian who believes in the full-blown lake of fire Hell, but who is convinced the God is too loving to ever actually send anyone there.

But all of these require or imply some everlasting soul. Even others with whom I have discussed these things frame Hell as eternal separation from the presence of God, and the closest we can come to imagining such horror is all the various earthly torments ascribed allegorically to a state of “physical” damnation.

But (again, whatever thoughts you’d care to share), can God just make you “go away?” No bliss of Heaven, but also no anguish of Hell?

As you consider, don’t feel you have to start at liturgical square one for my sake. I am, at the very the least, “Bible literate.” I have no problem finding all the passages in the Bible describing how God can bring things into being and to cause things to happen, including destruction. But I can’t find any strong scriptural point suggesting that he can, or at least, that he ever does UNdo things.

As a nonbeliever, I actually would prefer that neither Hell nor Heaven is real. I know at least half of that sounds crazy. If any of you are interested, I am happy to explain why. But, I wonder, if God does exist, is there this third “option” which never seems to be discussed? Or do you think it CAN’T exist. And if not, why not?

Thanks for any thoughts.

What you are talking about is a common belief among many Christians. Namely 'Annihilation'. There is quite a lot of scripture that if interpreted literally would make it seem to be true for all those destined for hell.

A Christian believing this will not win a debate however. The bible uses the words 'eternal contempt'. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So the short answer to your post is YES. God can do anything Eph 3:20. But as BAC has touched on, it is not His way.

In a debate on free will the necessity for an eternal hell becomes obvious. If only heaven existed there is no free will. Since God wants to be good to us / the message ''we have known'' from the beginning is that ''He is light with no darkness in Him at all'' 1 John 1:5 and that He is impartial Acts 10:34, eternal hell has to exist.

IE Accept God, go to heaven. Reject God, go to hell. Not 'Reject God, cease to exist'. That sounds like a Tyrant. God is a God looking for a bride. Humans to accept Him. David says ''give thanks because God is good'' in Psalm 136:1. So, God can be a tyrant, but all of scripture does not point to Him being a tyrant.

Now hell is a subject that it seems is taught predominantly by god bashers or those looking to make a quick dollar. Hell in scripture is only bad because of eternal separation. It is a home for the unrepentant sinners. Repentant sinners accept Jesus and will not be denied heaven Psalm 51:17. So you need to picture being surrounded by unrepentant sinners for all eternity. God judges the depth of our hearts and minds Jer 17:9-11. Anyone sold out to sin goes to hell. IE Anyone hating what is good more then they love it Rom 12:9. God's reasoning, that we who get to heaven will all agree on, is simply that you cannot have a pedophile with a kid. A murderer with the innocent. A rapist. Now granted not all who go to hell are grievous sinners, but what you must grasp is that they are ''unrepentant'' in their sins. Hardened their hearts to repentance. God has tried all He can to get through to them.

Luke 13:28 says just about all you need to know about hell ''There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out''. They look up and see a good God. They see prophets be friendly to one another. They look at the person next to them and they see someone who won't lay their life down for them.....for all eternity. They also 'grasp' themselves. That they are evil. That they chose to be where they are. It is scary and I feel for them that go there. Which is why I will debate anyone saying God will stop me from visiting hell. They are cast out and cannot go to heaven. Says nothing about us going to visit them. Or us ensuring there is no miss treatment. What has to sink into everybody's minds on hell is that God is ''''gooood'''.

If humans can pioneer the Geneva convention, God can do better.

Humans go to hell because they love what is wicked, that is the verdict John 3:19.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

God is God. Can a God who is limited by anything truly be a God?

Having said that... that does not appear to be Gods way.
This is a subject that some are divided on.

The vast majority of Christians believe in eternal life or "eternal death". You don't truly die either way, but one way definitely more uncomfortable than the other way.
There is a group of Christians who believe in annihilationism.

In general this group doesn't believe that God really punishes anyone eternally, but only for a very short while if at all.
They believe that instead of going to hell or the lake of fire, God simply annihilates you. If you feel any pain at all, it's only for a short while and then you cease to exist.

There is quite a bit scripture that contradicts this however.

Hello, B-A-C! And happy new(ish) year.

YES! I forgot. I have (only occasionally) come across the doctrine of annihilationism. Setting aside for the moment which doctrine makes the most logical sense, do you suppose the prospect of annihilation would be/is a very effective deterrent to sin/inducement to faith?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

These aren't my thoughts. It comes from the Bible Project, and I've been chewing over these ideas for a few months now. There's also a podcast which goes into more detail.

Nephesh: "Soul"
For thousands of years, every morning and evening, Jewish people have prayed these well-known words as a way of expressing their devotion to God. They’re called the Shema.

Hear O Israel the lord is our God the lord is one, and as for you, you shall love the lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your strength.​

We’re going to look at the word “soul.” The Hebrew word is nephesh; it occurs over 700 times in the Old Testament. The common English translation of this word is “soul,” and that's kind of unfortunate. Here’s why:

The English word “soul” comes with lots of baggage from ancient Greek philosophy. It’s the idea that the “soul” is a nonphysical, immortal essence of a person that’s contained or trapped in their body to be released at death. It's a“ghost in the machine,” kind of idea. This notion is totally foreign to the Bible. It's not at all what nephesh means in biblical Hebrew.

The most basic meaning of nephesh is “throat.” Like when the Israelites are wandering in the wilderness, they're hungry and thirsty, and they say to God, “we miss the cucumbers and melons we had in Egypt, and now our nephesh has dried up!” Or when Joseph was hauled off into slavery in Egypt, his nephesh was put into iron shackles.

But nephesh doesn’t only mean “throat.” Since your whole life and body depend on what comes in and out of your throat, nephesh coud also be used to refer to the whole person. Like in Genesis, there were thirty-three nephesh in Jacob’s family, that is thirty-three people. In the Torah, a murderer is called a “nephesh slayer,” and a kidnapper is called a “nephesh thief.”

On the first pages of the Bible, both humans and animals are called “a living nephesh,” and if the life-breath has left a human or animal, the nephesh remains. It’s just called a “dead nephesh,” that is, a corpse.

So in the Bible, people don’t have a nephesh; rather, they are a nephesh: a living, breathing, physical being. Now that might surprise you because most people assume the Bible says the “soul” is what survives apart from the body after death. And while the biblical authors do have a concept of people existing after death waiting for their resurrection, they rarely talk about it, and when they do, they don’t use the word "nephesh."

So even though nephesh is often translated as “soul,” the Hebrew word really refers to the whole human as a living, physical organism. In fact, this is why biblical people can often use this word to refer to themselves, and it gets translated “me” or “I.” Like in Psalm 119, most translations read, “let me live, that I may praise you.” In Hebrew, the poet literally says, “let my nephesh live, that it may praise you." By using nephesh, the poet emphasizes that their entire being, their life and their body, offer thanks to God.

In the Song of Songs, the young woman constantly refers to her lover as “the one my nephesh loves.”11 And of course, “love” isn’t just an intellectual experience; it’s an emotion that activates your whole body, your entire nephesh.

This helps us understand the brilliance of other biblical poets who could combine multiple meanings of nephesh in one place. Like in Psalm 42, we read, “as the deer pants for the water, so my nephesh pants after you, my nephesh thirsts for the living God.”

So on a physical level, your throat can be thirsty like a deer’s, but then that physical thirst can become a metaphor for how your physical being longs to know and be known by your creator.

Which brings us all the way back to the Shema. To love God with all your nephesh means to devote your whole physical existence to your creator, the one who granted us these amazing bodies in the first place. It’s about offering your entire being with all of its capabilities and limitations in the effort to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

And that’s the Hebrew word for soul.

Hey, Hekuran

I am no stranger to the Shema. Indeed, I had occasion to recite it in congregation 4 or 5 times this just past Saturday. But the ideas you cite raise what I consider a deep contrast between the doctrines of the OT and NT. Your references cohere with my own understanding of Jewish dogma, that “soul” nephesh and “living person” share an identity. But that conception means the destruction of either, by definition, implies the extermination of both. While the Psalmist is unquestionably fond of celebrating his (and everybody’s) nephesh, I don’t think he mentions any posthumous survival of nephesh. Down to today, Rabbinic Judaism entails liturgy which lauds God as he who, “keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust,” a clear euphemism for the dead. But except for some arguably allegorical references (See KingJ’s citataion of Daniel 11 below), it isn’t coupled with an explicit concept of resurrection until the NT. The finality of death so suggested is consonant with the traditions of other Bronze Age cultures of the Levant (Sumerian, Acadian, etc.). The dead simply went to their grave (though sometimes poetically described as a shadow land/limbo). The Hebrew word is “she’ol.” My recollection is that only the vaguest notion of any afterlife began to find some currency among the Hebrews during the Babylonian exile. I may not be remembering correctly, but I think the Babylonians HAD an afterlife, and the Jews didn’t like acknowledging their triumphant conquerors had something they did not. This would have been the genesis of “modern” Jewish mysticism (as opposed to the arch-sorcery of the Priestly Jewish tradition, which went on hiatus after the destruction of the First Temple and was finally extinguished after the destruction of the Second). We refer to this post-priestly mysticism, which does treat of posthumous survival of the nephesh on some level, as “Kabbalah.” But, except for a very few esoteric sects, it is generally regarded as heretical, or silly, or both.

As for the Shema, Jewish tradition does not dwell particularly upon the “soul-iness” of its verses. Complete and utter commitment to God, “body, heart, and soul” is taken as given throughout Jewish liturgy. Instead, the Shema is distinguished as the defining creed of Jewish solidarity. When it was coined it set Jews apart form their overwhelmingly pagan milieu, to wit: a declaration of a dynamic, even militant monotheism, “The Lord is ONE!”

I think your source glosses over, and fails to address, this OT/NT demarcation. For over a thousand years before the events and concepts articulated in the NT, generation after generation of Jews, both pious and wicked, behaved as they did without any conception of any just desserts after death. Devout though they were, until the Exile, it does not seem to have occurred to them to so much as question the finality of physical death.

I don’t think I have any major point to make here, except to spotlight this distinction. If the sages who decided to keep the OT and the NT both as canonic texts hadn’t done so, I don’t think they both reflect a single philosophy of life/death.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Though your question is not the same as 'can God make a rock that He Himself cannot carry', it is on the same line. It is an attempt at pitting God against Himself. The answer to the 'heavy rock' question is God can make any rock any size He wants, and, He can carry any rock He makes.

With your question, 'can God uncreate' you bring into question as to why God created? For Him to uncreate would mean there was either lack of purpose or error in creating. Because God knows all from beginning to end, there is no way He will uncreate, for His purpose in creating will be accomplished. (Acts 15:18)

It is understandable that you would prefer being uncreated rather than eternity in hell or the lake of fire. But no, it is no option.

Quantrill

Thanks for the consideration, Quantrill.

I promise, I am not trying to paint God into any corner. I am genuinely curious about differences between peoples’ views on any distinction between literal punishment and annihilation, as well as any distinctions they see between “destruction” versus “uncreation.”

There is a definite logical appeal to the perspective you raise. It explains why God destroys with a world-engulfing Flood and incinerates Sodom and Gomorrah with such cataclysmic violence, rather than simply “disappearing” them, without all the concomitant violence and suffering. I suppose, according to this understanding, he created the pre-Flood world KNOWING he would be destroying it, and that its corrupt nature and destruction play a role in some larger agenda. In order to teach human posterity some vital lesson(s).

It might be tempting to point out we are told “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Gen 6:6), a sentiment similar to his repenting of the evil he does to the Hebrews in Ex 32:14, which could suggest he is able to do things he does not anticipate regretting. But these, too, might just as well be some form of “teaching moment” commentary. So, setting aside an unvarnished reading of the text, I suppose we are MEANT to learn from what God PURPORTS to feel about these actions.

As to my own personal hash in this stir fry, I can’t honestly conceive of any genuine preference for avoiding Hell (however it is defined) as I don’t sense the reality of that menace. I think, on balance, if I actually thought I were bound choose either of two, and only two, options, I would opt for Heaven over Hell. However, if there are 3 options on offer (Heaven, Hell, and annihilation), for me it’s a no brainer. I’m with Mark Twain when he said, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

I hope you don’t find any offense when I say this. None is meant. Nor do I even mean to be flip or dismissive. It is my honest sentiment. And I assume you’d prefer my honesty.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

What you are talking about is a common belief among many Christians. Namely 'Annihilation'. There is quite a lot of scripture that if interpreted literally would make it seem to be true for all those destined for hell.

A Christian believing this will not win a debate however. The bible uses the words 'eternal contempt'. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So the short answer to your post is YES. God can do anything Eph 3:20. But as BAC has touched on, it is not His way.

In a debate on free will the necessity for an eternal hell becomes obvious. If only heaven existed there is no free will. Since God wants to be good to us / the message ''we have known'' from the beginning is that ''He is light with no darkness in Him at all'' 1 John 1:5 and that He is impartial Acts 10:34, eternal hell has to exist.

IE Accept God, go to heaven. Reject God, go to hell. Not 'Reject God, cease to exist'. That sounds like a Tyrant. God is a God looking for a bride. Humans to accept Him. David says ''give thanks because God is good'' in Psalm 136:1. So, God can be a tyrant, but all of scripture does not point to Him being a tyrant.

Now hell is a subject that it seems is taught predominantly by god bashers or those looking to make a quick dollar. Hell in scripture is only bad because of eternal separation. It is a home for the unrepentant sinners. Repentant sinners accept Jesus and will not be denied heaven Psalm 51:17. So you need to picture being surrounded by unrepentant sinners for all eternity. God judges the depth of our hearts and minds Jer 17:9-11. Anyone sold out to sin goes to hell. IE Anyone hating what is good more then they love it Rom 12:9. God's reasoning, that we who get to heaven will all agree on, is simply that you cannot have a pedophile with a kid. A murderer with the innocent. A rapist. Now granted not all who go to hell are grievous sinners, but what you must grasp is that they are ''unrepentant'' in their sins. Hardened their hearts to repentance. God has tried all He can to get through to them.

Luke 13:28 says just about all you need to know about hell ''There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out''. They look up and see a good God. They see prophets be friendly to one another. They look at the person next to them and they see someone who won't lay their life down for them.....for all eternity. They also 'grasp' themselves. That they are evil. That they chose to be where they are. It is scary and I feel for them that go there. Which is why I will debate anyone saying God will stop me from visiting hell. They are cast out and cannot go to heaven. Says nothing about us going to visit them. Or us ensuring there is no miss treatment. What has to sink into everybody's minds on hell is that God is ''''gooood'''.

If humans can pioneer the Geneva convention, God can do better.

Humans go to hell because they love what is wicked, that is the verdict John 3:19.

Hellooooo, KingJ.

Yes. I had forgotten about the doctrine of annihilation.

You raise lots of juicy food for thought, from the completeness of absolution in repentance to the appropriateness of an unrepentant pedophile roosting in heaven next to his victim versus a pedophile who has apologized to God next to a similar victim, one to who no apology seems to be required. Unless you’re interested in going off on (admittedly interesting), I’ll try and cleave to examining annihilating v damnation here.

Your point is well taken: if there is a Hell, surely that is the destination for unrepentant rapists, murderers and pedophiles. But, as you say, it is also the forwarding address for the unrepentant doers of ALL sins, great and small. Just by dint of the fact worthy Christians comprise only a fraction of all humanity, I would argue the vast majority of Hell’s tenants are not rapists, murders and pedophiles, but people (let’s be honest –– of all my sins, pride is DEFINITELY not one) more or less like me.

Now, I freely admit I am not fond of the notion of an eternity stewing in a lake of fire. But (correct me if I’m wrong), if I read you correctly, two additional overarching miseries of consignment to Hell are (A) eternal separation from the joys and glory of God’s presence, and (B) inescapable fraternity with unrepentant sinners, the vast majority of whom are (more or less) like me.

Again, these are not “gotchya” questions. In your opinion, are these two punishments very different from the separation from God I now experience? And the close association with mortal sinners, more or less like me, in which I now take part?

Finally, just a humorous observation: Anybody who thinks simmering in a lake of fire is the most effective way to elicit weeping and gnashing of teeth from me has never seen me stub my little toe. If Hell is real and (as has often been romanticized) is custom made to administer punishment perfectly suited to the damned, my cell will be full of low, heavy furniture with sharp corners and all the floor between strewn with Legos.

 

[Quantrill]

Thanks for the consideration, Quantrill.

I promise, I am not trying to paint God into any corner. I am genuinely curious about differences between peoples’ views on any distinction between literal punishment and annihilation, as well as any distinctions they see between “destruction” versus “uncreation.”

There is a definite logical appeal to the perspective you raise. It explains why God destroys with a world-engulfing Flood and incinerates Sodom and Gomorrah with such cataclysmic violence, rather than simply “disappearing” them, without all the concomitant violence and suffering. I suppose, according to this understanding, he created the pre-Flood world KNOWING he would be destroying it, and that its corrupt nature and destruction play a role in some larger agenda. In order to teach human posterity some vital lesson(s).

It might be tempting to point out we are told “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Gen 6:6), a sentiment similar to his repenting of the evil he does to the Hebrews in Ex 32:14, which could suggest he is able to do things he does not anticipate regretting. But these, too, might just as well be some form of “teaching moment” commentary. So, setting aside an unvarnished reading of the text, I suppose we are MEANT to learn from what God PURPORTS to feel about these actions.

As to my own personal hash in this stir fry, I can’t honestly conceive of any genuine preference for avoiding Hell (however it is defined) as I don’t sense the reality of that menace. I think, on balance, if I actually thought I were bound choose either of two, and only two, options, I would opt for Heaven over Hell. However, if there are 3 options on offer (Heaven, Hell, and annihilation), for me it’s a no brainer. I’m with Mark Twain when he said, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

I hope you don’t find any offense when I say this. None is meant. Nor do I even mean to be flip or dismissive. It is my honest sentiment. And I assume you’d prefer my honesty.

You say you don't sense the reality of Hell. Well, neither do you sense the reality of God. So it really shouldn't be a question you are concerned with period. Why look for an alternative solution as an atheist? Mark Twain was wrong. He hadn't been dead billions of years. He didn't exist for billions of years. Therein is the rub.

As I said before, of course you would prefer annihilation, or uncreated. That is understandable. But it is not on the table.

As to you opting for Heaven over Hell, I can only take you at your word that you would choose Heaven. But, as an atheist that you claim to be, I don't think so. Whether you are aware of it or not, the people who go to Hell want nothing to do with God. And to be with God would be hell to them. They don't want to be in Hell but neither do they want to be with God. Perhaps this is why you seek annihilation.

Like it or not, you are alive now. Thus you will live eternally...somewhere. And here is a thought. Wherever that eternal place is, you cannot get away from God. God is Lord over Hell just as He is Heaven. Now that's hell, ain't it?

Quantrill

 

[Christ4Ever]

I am no stranger to the Shema. Indeed, I had occasion to recite it in congregation 4 or 5 times this just past Saturday.

Hello Kirby D. P.,
Been a while since you've been here. So, far nothing has changed or has it???
The reason I ask is once again you proclaim yourself upfront as an atheist and yet make the statement quoted above? I'd almost say that you're hedging your bets, in case the intellectual side of you is wrong!

Sorry to interrupt your discussion.
Carry on wayward son.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[B-A-C]

Setting aside for the moment which doctrine makes the most logical sense, do you suppose the prospect of annihilation would be/is a very effective deterrent to sin/inducement to faith?

Not at all, if there is no punishment, no wrath of God so to speak, then there is really nothing to be "saved" from.

 

[KingJ]

Hellooooo, KingJ.

Welcome back Kirby. Always nice to chat.

You raise lots of juicy food for thought, from the completeness of absolution in repentance to the appropriateness of an unrepentant pedophile roosting in heaven next to his victim versus a pedophile who has apologized to God next to a similar victim, one to who no apology seems to be required. Unless you’re interested in going off on (admittedly interesting), I’ll try and cleave to examining annihilating v damnation here.

Repentance has to be truthful and pass God's judgement. Note how Psalm 51:17 says ''broken and contrite heart''.

Your point is well taken: if there is a Hell, surely that is the destination for unrepentant rapists, murderers and pedophiles. But, as you say, it is also the forwarding address for the unrepentant doers of ALL sins, great and small. Just by dint of the fact worthy Christians comprise only a fraction of all humanity, I would argue the vast majority of Hell’s tenants are not rapists, murders and pedophiles, but people (let’s be honest –– of all my sins, pride is DEFINITELY not one) more or less like me.

Agreed. 1 Pet 4:18 'The righteous are barely saved'. This implies the shades of black run close to a fine line.

Those that go to hell, may not all be grievous sinners but they have crossed a line. They have rejected Jesus. Jesus who taught turning the left cheek, loving neighbor as yourself. If they have rejected Him, they have rejected what He taught and stood for. They are not nice people.

Now, I freely admit I am not fond of the notion of an eternity stewing in a lake of fire. But (correct me if I’m wrong), if I read you correctly, two additional overarching miseries of consignment to Hell are (A) eternal separation from the joys and glory of God’s presence, and (B) inescapable fraternity with unrepentant sinners, the vast majority of whom are (more or less) like me.

Nobody is going to be stewing in a lake of fire. The analogy to a brazen bull is perhaps the biggest Christian fail of all time. A brazen bull is wicked plus. A God looking for a bride to 'desire to be with Him' is ''nuts'' if He is that type of God. Can you imagine the king who used the brazen bull trying to find a bride? No bride will come to him out of love. Then does the brazen bull sound like something used by a King who would lay his life down for others John 3:16 and instruct all to love their enemy James 5:44? The devil's easiest route to putting people off God is to paint Him as wicked. Nobody, absolutely nobody serves / accepts a wicked God by choice. God has never tortured anyone and never will.

The fire is figurative. God has a tendency to not beat around the bush in describing a place away from Him. Look at how He describes earth to Adam and Eve. '''you will sweat and labor, you will suffer in child birth''. What He does not mention is that He leaves them with brains that can invent pain killers. Muscles that can grow and relish the workout. In comparison to the garden of Eden, earth was hell. But yet earth is not 'that bad'. Wages of sin is death. When we think of death we imagine the worst. But yet those in Abrahams bosom were in death, Adam and Eve out of the garden were in death.

We need to look 'closer' at scripture. I can go on all day.

Again, these are not “gotchya” questions. In your opinion, are these two punishments very different from the separation from God I now experience? And the close association with mortal sinners, more or less like me, in which I now take part?

Yes it will be very different.

I believe there will be an initial punishment for your sins. Based purely off Rev 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? These saints in heaven want God to punish those who murdered them. Avenge them. They are asking for vengeance with a clear expectation (God must have given it to them), frustrated only by God delaying it. I imagine it to be either 1. God removing the wicked from earth via a trumpet of catastrophe or 2. A whipping of sort. Instant punishment / worst case being 'eye for an eye'. The bible mentions that we Christians will be tortured for eight days and then put to death. So it could be that those who do that receive the same eight days of torture? It is open for discussion as there could be a disconnect between what the saints in Rev 6 desire and what God actually delivers. As only God is good Mark 10:18. Those saints in heaven qualify to be there, but they are not ''good like God''.

At the moment you cannot grasp eternity, you cannot fully grasp an environment with no children / no people who 'hate what is evil' and since you are an active atheist, I believe you have no idea of how good God is. When you are in hell you will grasp all of this. You will also grasp who you are. What evil you have done. The evil of those around you. There will be nothing sweet. You will not look forward to talking / interacting with those around you like you do now. They are '''unrepentant''' sinners. They do not want to apologize for lying. Stealing. Backbiting. Your neighbor is a liar. The shopkeeper a thief. The landlord a pedophile. Where are the selfless? They are nowhere.

Jesus says of the devil in 1 John 3:8 'He has been sinning from the beginning''. He has never ever wanted to repent. Just sin, sin, sin. Sin, not in the sense of saying ''I reject Jesus''. Sin in the sense of relishing seeing others in pain. Being full of pride.

Nobody fully grasps hell as we have sweet people around us and still have moral laws in place.

 

[Hekuran]

Ag

Hey, Hekuran

I am no stranger to the Shema. Indeed, I had occasion to recite it in congregation 4 or 5 times this just past Saturday. But the ideas you cite raise what I consider a deep contrast between the doctrines of the OT and NT. Your references cohere with my own understanding of Jewish dogma, that “soul” nephesh and “living person” share an identity. But that conception means the destruction of either, by definition, implies the extermination of both. While the Psalmist is unquestionably fond of celebrating his (and everybody’s) nephesh, I don’t think he mentions any posthumous survival of nephesh. Down to today, Rabbinic Judaism entails liturgy which lauds God as he who, “keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust,” a clear euphemism for the dead. But except for some arguably allegorical references (See KingJ’s citataion of Daniel 11 below), it isn’t coupled with an explicit concept of resurrection until the NT. The finality of death so suggested is consonant with the traditions of other Bronze Age cultures of the Levant (Sumerian, Acadian, etc.). The dead simply went to their grave (though sometimes poetically described as a shadow land/limbo). The Hebrew word is “she’ol.” My recollection is that only the vaguest notion of any afterlife began to find some currency among the Hebrews during the Babylonian exile. I may not be remembering correctly, but I think the Babylonians HAD an afterlife, and the Jews didn’t like acknowledging their triumphant conquerors had something they did not. This would have been the genesis of “modern” Jewish mysticism (as opposed to the arch-sorcery of the Priestly Jewish tradition, which went on hiatus after the destruction of the First Temple and was finally extinguished after the destruction of the Second). We refer to this post-priestly mysticism, which does treat of posthumous survival of the nephesh on some level, as “Kabbalah.” But, except for a very few esoteric sects, it is generally regarded as heretical, or silly, or both.

As for the Shema, Jewish tradition does not dwell particularly upon the “soul-iness” of its verses. Complete and utter commitment to God, “body, heart, and soul” is taken as given throughout Jewish liturgy. Instead, the Shema is distinguished as the defining creed of Jewish solidarity. When it was coined it set Jews apart form their overwhelmingly pagan milieu, to wit: a declaration of a dynamic, even militant monotheism, “The Lord is ONE!”

I think your source glosses over, and fails to address, this OT/NT demarcation. For over a thousand years before the events and concepts articulated in the NT, generation after generation of Jews, both pious and wicked, behaved as they did without any conception of any just desserts after death. Devout though they were, until the Exile, it does not seem to have occurred to them to so much as question the finality of physical death.

I don’t think I have any major point to make here, except to spotlight this distinction. If the sages who decided to keep the OT and the NT both as canonic texts hadn’t done so, I don’t think they both reflect a single philosophy of life/death.

Hi Kirby,

Agree with all the details of this (I'm taking your word for it on ancient Sumerian beliefs about the afterlife).

Yes, it seems that ideas about life after death developed over time throughout the Old Testament period. We have odd incidents such as the Spirit of Samuel being summoned by the witch at En Dor (1 samuel 28). By Jesus' day, one of the big divisions between the sect of the Pharisees and Sadducees was that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection and the Sadducees rejected the idea.

To my understanding, Jesus and Paul did not introduce a radically new understanding of the Pharisees beliefs about the resurrection of the dead. They both grew up steeped in a Hebrew mindset and lived among people who shared that worldview. (I'm not forgetting that Jesus said: "I am the resurrection")

I'm trying to read the New Testament framed by Old Testament thought rather than Ancient Greek philosophy. Haven't got close to working it out, but for me, it puts a significant question mark over immortal souls and eternal torment.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Welcome back Kirby. Always nice to chat.

Repentance has to be truthful and pass God's judgement. Note how Psalm 51:17 says ''broken and contrite heart''.



Agreed. 1 Pet 4:18 'The righteous are barely saved'. This implies the shades of black run close to a fine line.

Those that go to hell, may not all be grievous sinners but they have crossed a line. They have rejected Jesus. Jesus who taught turning the left cheek, loving neighbor as yourself. If they have rejected Him, they have rejected what He taught and stood for. They are not nice people.



Nobody is going to be stewing in a lake of fire. The analogy to a brazen bull is perhaps the biggest Christian fail of all time. A brazen bull is wicked plus. A God looking for a bride to 'desire to be with Him' is ''nuts'' if He is that type of God. Can you imagine the king who used the brazen bull trying to find a bride? No bride will come to him out of love. Then does the brazen bull sound like something used by a King who would lay his life down for others John 3:16 and instruct all to love their enemy James 5:44? The devil's easiest route to putting people off God is to paint Him as wicked. Nobody, absolutely nobody serves / accepts a wicked God by choice. God has never tortured anyone and never will.

The fire is figurative. God has a tendency to not beat around the bush in describing a place away from Him. Look at how He describes earth to Adam and Eve. '''you will sweat and labor, you will suffer in child birth''. What He does not mention is that He leaves them with brains that can invent pain killers. Muscles that can grow and relish the workout. In comparison to the garden of Eden, earth was hell. But yet earth is not 'that bad'. Wages of sin is death. When we think of death we imagine the worst. But yet those in Abrahams bosom were in death, Adam and Eve out of the garden were in death.

We need to look 'closer' at scripture. I can go on all day.

Yes it will be very different.

I believe there will be an initial punishment for your sins. Based purely off Rev 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? These saints in heaven want God to punish those who murdered them. Avenge them. They are asking for vengeance with a clear expectation (God must have given it to them), frustrated only by God delaying it. I imagine it to be either 1. God removing the wicked from earth via a trumpet of catastrophe or 2. A whipping of sort. Instant punishment / worst case being 'eye for an eye'. The bible mentions that we Christians will be tortured for eight days and then put to death. So it could be that those who do that receive the same eight days of torture? It is open for discussion as there could be a disconnect between what the saints in Rev 6 desire and what God actually delivers. As only God is good Mark 10:18. Those saints in heaven qualify to be there, but they are not ''good like God''.

At the moment you cannot grasp eternity, you cannot fully grasp an environment with no children / no people who 'hate what is evil' and since you are an active atheist, I believe you have no idea of how good God is. When you are in hell you will grasp all of this. You will also grasp who you are. What evil you have done. The evil of those around you. There will be nothing sweet. You will not look forward to talking / interacting with those around you like you do now. They are '''unrepentant''' sinners. They do not want to apologize for lying. Stealing. Backbiting. Your neighbor is a liar. The shopkeeper a thief. The landlord a pedophile. Where are the selfless? They are nowhere.

Jesus says of the devil in 1 John 3:8 'He has been sinning from the beginning''. He has never ever wanted to repent. Just sin, sin, sin. Sin, not in the sense of saying ''I reject Jesus''. Sin in the sense of relishing seeing others in pain. Being full of pride.

Nobody fully grasps hell as we have sweet people around us and still have moral laws in place.

I appreciate your nuanced and reasoned understanding of Hell. I know it comes as no surprise to you this view is not universally accepted among Christians. If I had a dime for every time a faithful Christian insisted I would spend eternity cooking in a literal lake of fire I’d have… well… not all THAT much money. But definitely more than a dollar.

A few years ago, during one of my desultory re-reads of scripture, I got hung up on the Parable of the Sower and Jesus’s own post-game commentary to his disciples (Mark 4: 1-20).

On this occasion I had decided to read the scriptures in non-canonical sequence, but rather in the order of their agreed age of composition, according to which, Mark comes first, BEFORE Matthew. And whoever wrote Mark probably did not know others would follow and certainly didn’t know what exactly they would say. As such, Mark 4 comes across as a rather explicit user’s manual for scripture. Generally speaking, Jesus teaches in parables. Even much of his contemporary acts are parables acted out as object lessons. And he stresses unbelievers will miss the point of his parables, while the truly devout will grasp their meaning.

I HATE when activist atheists debate fundamentalist/Bible literalist Christians and the subject of supposed “inerrancy” of scripture is discussed. In the extreme, the fundamentalist will insist there is not a single factual or scientific flaw in the gospels. Their debating adversary will pounce with something like Jesus characterizing the mustard seed as the world’s smallest of all seeds, when, in fact, this was known not to be the case even 2,000 years ago. Whether the atheist knows it or not, they are living up to Jesus’s diagnosis of faithlessness: failing to get the point. And, to the extent the fundamentalist resorts to some apologetic to square that verse with scientific fact, THEY are showing a lack of faith themselves. THE WHOLE POINT of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is neither to prove, nor even suggest, that mustard seeds are the world record holder of botanical smallness (FYI, mustard seeds are between 1 and 2 mm). The point is to illustrate how sincere faith, even in its most meager form, can bloom into something as good and beautiful as a tree filled with happy roosting birds. It’s gorgeous. I love it.

Likewise with the episode of Jesus “cursing” the fig tree.

Each iteration of this tale takes pains to point out FIGS WERE NOT IN SEASON. Jesus KNEW this when he tried to get some from the tree. Then, in a burp of very human petulance, he “curses” the tree. Though, if you and I were among his disciples, seeing this, I’m pretty sure we’d agree he was joking, that he was really “cursing” himself, as if to say, “What the heck did you expect, Jesus? It’s not even fig season. CURSE YOU, TREE!”

The next day, when his company see the tree has died (and it doesn’t stipulate his “curse” is what killed it), he turns it into a SUPERB teaching moment. In crude terms, it could be put, “See, fellas? Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.” A more reverent phrasing is something along the lines of, “Always and only ever be pure of heart when you pray. If you are, and for some reason you have a worthy cause to pray for a mountain to be flung into the sea, you have every right to expect your prayer will be pleasing to God. But if you ever pray for something wicked, and that thing comes to pass, you have every reason to feel guilty for having prayed for it.”

Mark says it so much better.

Anyway, having nothing to do in any way with my atheism, from an early age I have always suspected that all human descriptions of Hell are allegory. I was fairly amazed when I read Mark 4 in this new light. I don’t care what anybody says, now. If Hell is real, this is what it’s like: Imagine the absolute WORST thing you can imagine. Got it? Can you see it? Lake of fire forever and ever? Sure. Why not. Hell is WORSE than that.

 

[KingJ]

Not at all, if there is no punishment, no wrath of God so to speak, then there is really nothing to be "saved" from.

This is a false statement. Jesus saves absolutely nobody from hell. He saves us from death. We save ourselves from hell by repenting of our sins. In the OT this is what caused a separation between sinners in Hades.

If Jesus was never crucified, God would not send all to hell. There would still be a divide of sort.

 

[KingJ]

I know it comes as no surprise to you this view is not universally accepted among Christians. If I had a dime for every time a faithful Christian insisted I would spend eternity cooking in a literal lake of fire I’d have… well… not all THAT much money. But definitely more than a dollar.

Church attendance. God's mafia. Come to church or burn in hell.

It is from cherry picking scripture, quite literally not grasping one iota of God and not even trying in the least to think of the future. How will they be 'ok' with God when they sitting around a table drinking tea and eating scones, knowing that there is a place where those who did not make it and some who '''just''' did not make it are burning in fire not for ten minutes, not for an hour, not for a week, not for a month, not for a year, not for million years, trillion, billion, centillion....nope, for all eternity. They will be ''ok'' with God doing that to someone who '''''just'''''' did not make it. They will then teach '''God will remove your memories''. They get that from Rev 21:4 ''God will wipe away your tears''. How do they get ''remove memory'' from ''wipe away tears''?

What in the universe is so hard to understand about 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from the beginning 'God is light with no darkness in Him at all'. I guess God is a hypocrite. He tells us to love our enemies but He utterly hates His? He is deceiving us. 'Surprise, I am actually extremely wicked'. God is not a human that He should lie Num 23:19. We can hold God to every scripture. The fire of hell needs to be read in light of all scripture. Many Christians think judging God is beyond us. But it is not. How else are we supposed to accept God / Jesus as our groom? God has put us on a level where we can grasp and judge Him. Gen 3:22 says we know what is right and wrong just as He does. Paul says in 1 Cor 6:1-9 that we will judge angels. He says in 1 Cor 11:31 For if we were judging ourselves, we would not come under judgment. He says in Eph 3:18 that you may have power, together with all the Lord's holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.

We also just have to look at how God interacts with those '''He utterly hates'''. In Matt 4:1-11 the devil tempts Jesus. If we do a role reversal with say Nero and a Christian. Dear Nero, can I tempt you three times? What? How dare you. Guards, arrest this Christian and make his pike longer and blunter, I want him to suffer for a few more hours''. Jesus entertains the devil's ''nonsense'' on not one but three occasions. Then politely ends the discussion. The devil and the demons know their fate but yet there are no lines like '''Oh cruel and merciless God who will make me burn in misery for eternity''. There are also no lines from Jesus to the devil like 'I can't wait to see you swallow your tongue and cry in pain and misery for all eternity''. Instead we see the devil tempt Jesus. We see Jesus honoring the request of the demons to be cast into pigs. It does seem odd to want to be cast into pigs, but the fact is, Jesus / God honored their request. Even if we look at how God speaks to the devil in Job 1:7-9 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” Where is the utter hatred from God and fear of hell by the devil in this line? If you knew ( and the fallen angels do know ) that this Being that created you was going to place you in a brazen bull for all eternity, all communication would be very different. There would also not simply be ''weeping and gnashing teeth'' or asking for ''a drop of water on your tongue''. It would be screaming and begging for bucket loads of water.

 

[KingJ]

I HATE when activist atheists debate fundamentalist/Bible literalist Christians and the subject of supposed “inerrancy” of scripture is discussed. In the extreme, the fundamentalist will insist there is not a single factual or scientific flaw in the gospels. Their debating adversary will pounce with something like Jesus characterizing the mustard seed as the world’s smallest of all seeds, when, in fact, this was known not to be the case even 2,000 years ago. Whether the atheist knows it or not, they are living up to Jesus’s diagnosis of faithlessness: failing to get the point. And, to the extent the fundamentalist resorts to some apologetic to square that verse with scientific fact, THEY are showing a lack of faith themselves. THE WHOLE POINT of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is neither to prove, nor even suggest, that mustard seeds are the world record holder of botanical smallness (FYI, mustard seeds are between 1 and 2 mm). The point is to illustrate how sincere faith, even in its most meager form, can bloom into something as good and beautiful as a tree filled with happy roosting birds. It’s gorgeous. I love it.

Likewise with the episode of Jesus “cursing” the fig tree.

Each iteration of this tale takes pains to point out FIGS WERE NOT IN SEASON. Jesus KNEW this when he tried to get some from the tree. Then, in a burp of very human petulance, he “curses” the tree. Though, if you and I were among his disciples, seeing this, I’m pretty sure we’d agree he was joking, that he was really “cursing” himself, as if to say, “What the heck did you expect, Jesus? It’s not even fig season. CURSE YOU, TREE!”

The next day, when his company see the tree has died (and it doesn’t stipulate his “curse” is what killed it), he turns it into a SUPERB teaching moment. In crude terms, it could be put, “See, fellas? Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.” A more reverent phrasing is something along the lines of, “Always and only ever be pure of heart when you pray. If you are, and for some reason you have a worthy cause to pray for a mountain to be flung into the sea, you have every right to expect your prayer will be pleasing to God. But if you ever pray for something wicked, and that thing comes to pass, you have every reason to feel guilty for having prayed for it.”

I like your explanations and view of those parables. You have some nice insight there.

Anyway, having nothing to do in any way with my atheism, from an early age I have always suspected that all human descriptions of Hell are allegory. I was fairly amazed when I read Mark 4 in this new light. I don’t care what anybody says, now. If Hell is real, this is what it’s like: Imagine the absolute WORST thing you can imagine. Got it? Can you see it? Lake of fire forever and ever? Sure. Why not. Hell is WORSE than that.

Hilarious. We have to tap into the dark side of our minds to imagine worse. Something like Dante's inferno. Who can even think of that? It is the most messed up people in history that invented torture devices. God has no dark side. I guess God utterly fails this test. Is He aloud to take part?

These people make me think of the guy who invented the brazen bull. The king, for whom he made it, was so shocked at how cruel it was that he threw the inventor in after it was completed. Some people are so desirous of seeing others suffer and are ok with their God doing such. All because they read '''fire'''' in scripture. They serving the wrong god. The devil does that.