So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...

[Lev]

I find eternal punishment of the wicked a comforting doctrine. Islam does teach burning in hell fire and I am not sorry or apologetic for it. There are truly wicked people who need their come uppins. Why should I believe and have faith and do good and those who do evil get off light?

I hear what you're saying, BH, but what would it mean about God for there to be an unrelenting, never-ending torturous existence for his enemies? God wants me to love my enemies. Shouldn't he do the same?

Lev

[Lev]

KLP,

Really interesting questions/thoughts you bring up. I can't respond to all of them, but would like to say something about a few of them below.

1. Jesus says that there is reason to fear an entity that is able to kill both the body and the soul. If one does not have a soul to begin with then why fear that...it seems Jesus thought man had a soul and that it was a fearful thing to consider what God could do to it.

This is actually one of scriptures commonly referred to by those who argue the "annihilation" interpretation of what happens after death for the wicked. Indeed, what does it mean to "kill" something other than "to make it cease to exist"?

8. Sure there is very little technical information or proof of an after life (good or bad). Is there really that much less information about Hell than there is about actual information about Heaven? Why is Heaven more believable based on the little information there is on hand? Seems to Heaven is just more acceptable and desirable but there is still little information other than "it exists and you can go there someday". And really that is about all there is about Hell..."it exists and you can go there some day".

I would argue that our interpretation of "heaven" is, in large part, also unscriptural. For a long time the church (not just the COC) has promoted an "I'll fly away" version of the afterlife for both the righteous and the wicked. The earth is gone, the good go one way and the bad go the other way. Beginning with a reading of Surprised by Hope, I've come to question that interpretation, if not reject it completely. That said, there does seem to be ample scriptural evidence that the righteous will live forever. Whatever they will experience, and wherever, seems to be wholly positive. While the description of what the wicked will experience is certainly wholly negative, I don't know that there's scriptural support for the idea that it will last forever. Many passages talk of "death" or "destruction"--both of which seem to indicate annihilation, not continued consciousness.

10. Ultimately I think discounting Hell leads to a rejection of the entire thing. I do not see how one can reject the notion of Hell without admitting that Jesus was in some way in error. For those that accept Jesus as the perfect and sinless Son of God, how can anyone presume to know better than Jesus? So if Jesus (and apostles) did not deceive or mislead then there must be a problem with the text itself. At some point then the dominoes start to fall it would seem. And of course the existence of a slippery slope does not itself argue one way or the other. But it would seem reasonable to at least entertain the notion that if there is no Hell then perhaaps there is no Heaven or afterlife. I do not see how someone can contain the topic to just discounting Hell.

I don't know that those of of who are seeking to gain a more scriptural view of the afterlife (including "hell") should be seen as discounting anything. If anything, we're seeking to do a better job of going where scripture leads us. At least that's what I'm doing.

Lev

[B.H.]

I find eternal punishment of the wicked a comforting doctrine. Islam does teach burning in hell fire and I am not sorry or apologetic for it. There are truly wicked people who need their come uppins. Why should I believe and have faith and do good and those who do evil get off light?

I hear what you're saying, BH, but what would it mean about God for there to be an unrelenting, never-ending torturous existence for his enemies? God wants me to love my enemies. Shouldn't he do the same?

Lev

It says in the Quran that only the most wicked people go to hell. They are so hardened in sin if they were let out they would go right back to doing their evil as before.

[KLP]

...
I don't know that those of of who are seeking to gain a more scriptural view of the afterlife (including "hell") should be seen as discounting anything. If anything, we're seeking to do a better job of going where scripture leads us. At least that's what I'm doing.
Lev

Sorry if the term "discounting" was too pejorative, it was not meant to be. I see a disconnect between Jesus saying there is a reason to fear that one that can kill the soul and saying that the soul is annihilated. I mean why fear the destruction of the soul if it really is a non-event as far as being aware (conscience) of it happening?

But yes, I see the logic and reasoning (and have for a long time) of the idea that there is at some point an annihilation or destruction of souls. Yes, the words destroy and death would any other context indicate a termination. So then how to make the "eternal punishment" stuff jive is the problem. I am enjoying being made to revisit and think through this stuff, so I am not arguing anyone is right/wrong.

Same for the AD70 eschatology. I can see the reasoning and how the passages read and how that it makes sense. But then there is this other stuff that Paul was saying that does not make sense if that was the case.

So yes, I can see the case for annihilation (and first seriously encountered this is idea 20yrs ago in a Bible class and I fought against it hard at the time...rash response to stamp out false doctrine on my part). I can see it now but I cannot yet accept it. And so for me, I put it in the context of "what difference does it make to how I live now". I do not buy all the talk that the Gospels and most books of the NT are fakes and forgeries...so I am still accepting the teachings attributed to Jesus. Therefore, I am still siding with Jesus and thinking there is reason enough to fear whatever it happens to negatively judged souls and ought to try and avoid that disposition. This is a matter of choice and faith because I do not believe that anything can be known concretely, it can only be accepted on faith.

Ultimately fear is a limiting motivator and should only be a baseline or starting point in motivation as to how to live.

[agricola]

maybe 'eternal punishment' means 'dead forever' instead of 'dead temporarily and then you get resurrected'?

[Lev]

Sorry if the term "discounting" was too pejorative, it was not meant to be. I see a disconnect between Jesus saying there is a reason to fear that one that can kill the soul and saying that the soul is annihilated. I mean why fear the destruction of the soul if it really is a non-event as far as being aware (conscience) of it happening?

No offense taken. I think it's human nature to fear nonexistence. Even most ardent believers in the afterlife (and that they'll go to the good place) fear death when actually faced with it. If it's logical to fear the destruction of the body, a fear that Jesus was teaching against by implicitly acknowledging its widespread existence, then it's even more logical to fear spiritual annihilation. The reason we should not fear the death of the body is that we have the opportunity to live on after death. Without such opportunity, the otherwise justifiable fear of the death of the body becomes perfectly rational, considering that there is no chance to live after death. This is what I think Jesus was saying.

But yes, I see the logic and reasoning (and have for a long time) of the idea that there is at some point an annihilation or destruction of souls. Yes, the words destroy and death would any other context indicate a termination. So then how to make the "eternal punishment" stuff jive is the problem. I am enjoying being made to revisit and think through this stuff, so I am not arguing anyone is right/wrong.

Before feeling compelled to make the eternal punishment stuff jive, let's go back, reread the scriptures, and see if it was actually there to begin with. This is the stage in the progress that I'm at now. I must say that the evidence for eternal punishment isn't nearly as overwhelming as I thought that it was. The evidence for annihilation is much more common than I had been taught.

...I can see it now but I cannot yet accept it. And so for me, I put it in the context of "what difference does it make to how I live now".

For me, at least, this sort of thing does make a difference to how I live. This is because my view of the afterlife changes my view of God. A view of a retributive God who does not show love to his enemies but instead tortures them without end forever would shape my life in a much different way than a view of a loving God who, regretfully ("not willing that any should perish"), allows some lives to be snuffed out and not regenerated (i.e. to "perish") while others are given the gift of eternal life. Like you, I'm still working out which of these is more likely. That said, I'm sure it's obvious which one I'm leaning toward, owing to the scriptural evidence and the theological implications.

Lev

[agricola]

Something relevatory to me - all those verses in Torah (the Pentateuch) where so and so died 'and was gathered to his fathers' which sounds 'afterlife' if that is what you are taught -

and THEN I learned that burial practices of that time and place would lay a body in the burial cave (common in limestone country, or easily dug out of the relatively soft rock) for a year or two until all the flesh was gone - and then they would go back IN and grab the loose bones and toss them into a dug out trench (later into a special stone BOX) together with all the bones of the PREVIOUS dead. 'Gathered to his fathers': bones gathered up and put together into a special collection location - usually under or near the bench where the body (bodies) were originally laid down.

[KLP]

God told Abraham he would go to his ancesters in peace...not go to his family cemetery in pieces.

Hey, that part comes later!

[KLP]

... If it's logical to fear the destruction of the body, a fear that Jesus was teaching against by implicitly acknowledging its widespread existence, then it's even more logical to fear spiritual annihilation. ...

If there is something to fear in the spirit realm and the fear is having one's spirit annihilated or even killed (dead forever) then it seems to infer then that man has a spirit or soul component while also in the physical realm. Other wise God would be creating a spirit component in order to immediately annihilate it, seems silly. So if it is reasonable to fear what happens to the spirit (in anyway or manner) then it must presuppose there is such a thing as a soul/spirit in man. So is there agreement that man even has a soul based on what we have as OT/NT scripture? ( not what do atheist or Buddhist think, just looking for commonality or starting point)

So It seems that this soul topic has several aspects:
1. Does man have a soul
2. Are souls eternal
3. Can souls be terminated

[agricola]

Good topic, klp! Maybe we should move it to its own thread?

It was the position of the Sadducees that man did not have a 'soul' that was a separable, immortal item. Their opinion of 'soul' was more like 'life'. You have a body which is alive. Then you are dead - the soul (whatever it is) is gone (back to God, apparently - see Genesis, where God gives man breath and he becomes alive). It appears that the earliest level of the Bible assumes that life is your breath, and breath is 'soul'. When it leaves the body, the body is dead. Since the breath came from God, presumably it returns.

Most of the Hebrew Bible ('the OT' basically) does not support the idea of life after death, or immortality, or even an end of time/judgement day.

The Pharisees - a populist movement that arose during/after the Babylonian exile - believed that the soul was more than just the breath, and that it survived the death of the body, and that God had custody of it, and would (at the end of days) resurrect the body (in perfected form) and restore the soul to the body, at which point the person lives again.

This is part of the NT, clearly, but it is also present in other Second Temple era writings, such as the Dead Sea scroll texts and in the Talmud. Plus it is the position of rabbinic (up to modern) Judaism, which is also (like Christianity) descended from the Pharisaic movement.

However, it is important also to look to Greek and Roman ideas about the soul. They believed that there was a material world and a spiritual world, and that things existed in both places, but the spiritual versions were superior (more pure, more perfect) and also 'immortal' or indestructible. So to that mindset, a human was a body WITH a soul, and the soul part survived the death of the body and was immortal by its nature as a spiritual 'thing'.

That is in contrast to the Jewish (Pharisaic) view that a human was a body/soul entity, and the soul was not immortal by its nature, but instead was a gift from God (and gifts may be given, or withheld).

So - to your questions -
Christianity:

1. Does man have a soul (yes)
2. Are souls eternal (yes, by their nature)
3. Can souls be terminated (no, or at least, only by God)

Judaism:

1. Does man have a soul (man IS a soul/body entity, man does not 'have' a soul)
2. Are souls eternal (possibly, if God chooses)
3. Can souls be terminated (yes)


Let me know if you want to pick up these last two posts and start a new thread.