Kirk Cameron Takes Heat for His Annihilationist View on Hell

1Tonne said:

Gehenna was literally a valley outside Jerusalem (Valley of Hinnom) where trash and bodies were burned, and in Jesus’ time, it was used as a vivid image of judgment.

If taken literally, worms cannot survive fire. That’s why Jesus’ language is clearly figurative: the “worm that does not die” symbolizes ongoing conscious suffering and contempt, not actual insects feeding in flames. Literal worms wouldn’t persist in a burning rubbish dump; the imagery is meant to convey the unending consequence for the wicked, not real worms. And we see in Psalm 22:6 and Isaiah. 66:24 how the word "worm" was used back in the this time. It was used as a way of showing disgust upon a person.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. I posted that exact thing earlier in the thread. There was a constantly burning fire where trash would be constantly added to it keeping it burning. Within the refuse pile, the trash to be added, there were worms eating the trash. The judgement described was a comparison of that. Some of the worms would die and get burned up when new trash was added to the fire but there were a constant crop of new worms. Trash and refuse was completely consumed with in these burning hot fire pits. Sulfur was also added to these pits to keep them burning hot. Even earlier, child sacrifice was performed there (2 Chronicles). The worm here and the worm in Psalms are within 2 different contexts...which you incorrectly conflate together.

Have not the Southern Baptists built their empire on fire and brimstone? Are they threatened?

JulieB67 said:

Christ talked about the gulf and Gehenna, yes but I don't believe he taught ECT. I firmly believe in Matthew 10:28. And that the one we should fear is the one who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. You talk about fear and that's what were supposed to fear from our Father. Again, we should not want any part of his wrath or take part in the second death. But that's not enough for you, the fear of the second death. You want to instill fear that our Father would burn someone for an eternity. I don't believe Christ taught that. He set the example Gehenna because that's a sign of pure destruction. That's what his warnings are about. Quite different than telling someone they are going to burn for an eternity.

Click to expand...

You keep implying that I want to instil fear with ECT. Well, yes. I do not mind that. That is good because it will drive someone to the foot of the cross. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

JulieB67 said:

And you still haven't provided any verses that dictate apollumi is the primary meaning of being destroyed "fully" instead of the second meaning vs verses like Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16. You don't believe destroyed "fully" applies to them. So what verses apply?

Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that a word must always carry its so-called “primary meaning,” and that other legitimate meanings are off-limits. That approach is not sound hermeneutics.
The problem with insisting on a single “primary meaning” for every biblical word is that it’s not how language works, and it’s not how the Bible itself uses language.
If a word is only allowed to carry its so-called primary meaning, then secondary, figurative, contextual, or extended meanings are ruled out by definition, before the text is even read. That isn’t exegesis; it’s a personal linguistic rule imposed on Scripture.

By that method:
-“Lost” sheep must be annihilated sheep (Luke 15)
-“Perishing” food must cease to exist (John 6:27)
-“Dead” believers must be non-existent (Ephesians 2:1)
-God must literally be a rock, a fire, and a bird (Psalm 18; Deut 4:24; Psalm 91)

Yet no one reads Scripture that way, because context determines meaning, not an abstract ranking of definitions.
Biblical Greek and Hebrew words routinely carry a range of meanings, and authors select meaning by usage, context, and theological framework, not by a lexicon hierarchy. Lexicons don’t tell us “The correct meaning”; they catalogue how words are actually used.
The irony is that this “primary meaning only” approach is selectively applied. It’s enforced rigidly for words like apollumi (“destroy”), but quietly abandoned everywhere else in Scripture. That’s not consistency; that’s special pleading to make a weak doctrine stronger.
If Scripture itself shows a word used in multiple ways, and it does, then refusing to allow contextual meaning isn’t honouring the Bible. It’s flattening it.
The question is not:
“What is the primary meaning?”
The real question is:
“How does Scripture itself use this word here?”
Until that question is allowed, the conversation can’t move forward, because the conclusion has already been decided before the text is read.

1Tonne said:

So, since you have said that I am scaring people away from God, or that the only reason they accept is because of fear, I’ll ask you plainly: how do you personally speak the gospel to people outside the church, and how often? Do you see many people change? ....-Or does your annihilationism drive you to apathy?

Click to expand...

JulieB67 said:

I think it's more important to lead people into his Word through the gospel. I wouldn't go around warning them they if they don't accept they'll have to burn for an eternity. We need to encourage more people to seek truths for themselves instead of forcing ours on them.

Click to expand...

How do you personally lead people who are outside the church into His Word? Also how often do you do this?
Please answer this question because I would like to learn from you. You sound as though you tell the Gospel to a lot of people outside the church and have had much experience with many people choosing to honour God.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Yes, I know that. I posted that exact thing earlier in the thread. There was a constantly burning fire where trash would be constantly added to it keeping it burning. Within the refuse pile, the trash to be added, there were worms eating the trash. The judgement described was a comparison of that. Some of the worms would die and get burned up when new trash was added to the fire but there were a constant crop of new worms. Trash and refuse was completely consumed with in these burning hot fire pits. Sulfur was also added to these pits to keep them burning hot. Even earlier, child sacrifice was performed there (2 Chronicles). The worm here and the worm in Psalms are within 2 different contexts...which you incorrectly conflate together.

Click to expand...

I understand the point you’re making about literal worms surviving because they were not in the fire where Gehenna was but that they were around the outside and eventually made their way into the rubbish pile once the fire was put out. But the wording does point out that the fire is never quenched and the rubbish pile at Gehenna continually burned day and night. It did not go out. So therefore, the worms could not make it into Gehenna where the rubbish was. The language is therefore figurative.
I think Jesus is intentionally making a distinction. Real worms in a fire would die, so by saying “the worm does not die,” He signals that this is figurative and exceptional, not literal worms, but a representation of the person under judgment. If it were just normal worms surviving in the fire, why would Jesus even mention them? There would be no point. The imagery contrasts the temporary life of real worms with the ongoing, conscious suffering of the wicked, showing that God’s judgment is unending in its effect.

1Tonne said:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Click to expand...

That word fear means to respect

1Tonne said:

By that method:
-“Lost” sheep must be annihilated sheep (Luke 15)
-“Perishing” food must cease to exist (John 6:27)
-“Dead” believers must be non-existent (Ephesians 2:1)
-God must literally be a rock, a fire, and a bird (Psalm 18; Deut 4:24; Psalm 91)

Click to expand...

Again, you are bringing up instances where the second death has not taken place yet. And of course food has nothing to do with the second death. Verses like Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16 are about the second death. Where, yes, the primary meaning fits.

I've never stated the second meaning doesn't fit in some verses. So we then have to take in context and the context of the verses I posted fit the primary meaning. Especially when we are told about the fate of the wicked many many times which would also fit with "destroyed fully/utterly, etc. The secondary meaning fits into other verses I'm sure but I am only talking about verses were I see that the primary fits. You on the other hand believe the secondary fits every verse with apollumi apparently. I mean, according you it would seem that you believe the secondary should be the primary.

1Tonne said:

Until that question is allowed, the conversation can’t move forward, because the conclusion has already been decided before the text is read.

Click to expand...

So you can't come up with any verses where apollumi does in fact mean "destroyed fully"? Even though that is the primary meaning. You bring up context. What context would "destroyed fully" apply?

1Tonne said:

You sound as though you tell the Gospel to a lot of people outside the church

Click to expand...

I actually don't go to a church anymore. I've yet to find one that teaches verse by verse and chapter by chapter. One that only teaches God's Word, not man's. I sadly feel the like the churches of today are far removed from those early ones. I feel led in other ways as we are all led in different directions in the body of Christ. Some we know teach, witness, heal and so on.

I was raised in a baptist church. My parents even drove a church bus and I was thankful for that experience because it's part of the reason I came back over and over to God when I would backslide through my lifetime. But over the last 20 or so years after reading the bible in it's entirety I dropped many doctrines (pretrib rapture, ECT) that I was led to believe. So these days I feel more led in that direction towards other Christians. Especially the pretrib rapture because I feel it's a very dangerous doctrine that can lead to apostasy at some point down the line. When I read about Christ telling people to depart and that he never knew them to those who claimed to have cast out spirits in his name it tells me to take notice. And the foolish virgins who are waiting on the bridegroom but didn't have enough oil. We aren't talking about non believers we are talking about people waiting on Christ. Those are the ones I worry about just as much as the unbeliever at times. So I plant seeds just as someone did for me back in the day. That's how I feel more led these days. But I commend those that are out spreading the gospel more than me. But as I said- hopefully it will drive them into seeking not only the milk and foundation but the meat of God's Word after receiving the gospel.

Once again, I will post this. (With a few minor alterations)
Matthew 25:46: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
This verse contrasts plainly those who receive eternal life with those who receive everlasting punishment. Everlasting life is easy to understand; we are with Jesus forever. The issue annihilationist's have is that their form of punishment is over and done with and is not everlasting. Only the result of the punishment remains.

1. It’s like being accidentally cut on the hand, and the wound heals, leaving only a scar. Then the person says that they are being constantly cut because the scar remains.

2. Or it’s like someone who has been incarcerated for a crime. The prison sentence is the punishment, and eventually it ends. But the consequences, say, a permanent criminal record, remain. No one would say that serving the sentence continues just because the record exists. The punishment itself is over; what remains is only the result of it.

-By contrast, an annihilationist is like a person being burned to nothing and then saying that is nothingness a continual punishment. Nothingness is nothing. It is not punishment. It is only the result of punishment. Just like a scar is not being cut constantly, it is only the result.

Annihilationist's treat the final result (nonexistence) the same way, they claim it is ongoing punishment. But nonexistence is not punishment; it is merely the consequence of the punishment. True everlasting punishment, as Scripture describes, is conscious, ongoing, and unending, like the “worm that does not die” and the “unquenchable fire” in Mark 9:48.

timothyu said:

That word fear means to respect

Click to expand...

You are imposing your personal view onto the word and excluding the remained of what the rest of the word means.
We are speaking about Proverbs 9:10 where it uses the Hebrew word "yir'â". "Yir'â" means "fear, terror, fearing"
In Scripture, reverence and fear of consequences are not opposites; they belong together. Yirah is used repeatedly in contexts where God’s holiness, justice, and wrath are very much in view (e.g., Deut 10:12–13; Prov 16:6). It is reverent fear because God is holy and judges sin, not because He is harmless.

JulieB67 said:

Again, you are bringing up instances where the second death has not taken place yet. And of course food has nothing to do with the second death. Verses like Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16 are about the second death. Where, yes, the primary meaning fits.

I've never stated the second meaning doesn't fit in some verses. So we then have to take in context and the context of the verses I posted fit the primary meaning. Especially when we are told about the fate of the wicked many many times which would also fit with "destroyed fully/utterly, etc. The secondary meaning fits into other verses I'm sure but I am only talking about verses were I see that the primary fits. You on the other hand believe the secondary fits every verse with apollumi apparently. I mean, according you it would seem that you believe the secondary should be the primary.

Click to expand...

Going in circles

JulieB67 said:

I actually don't go to a church anymore.

Click to expand...

Explains a lot. Thanks

JulieB67 said:

I feel led in other ways as we are all led in different directions in the body of Christ. Some we know teach, witness, heal and so on.

Click to expand...

Jesus told us all to go and preach the Gospel to as many people as possible and we should not use our giftings as an excuse not to tell the Gospel.
We are all different parts of the body of Christ, and we don’t all have the same giftings, but we have all been called to tell as many people the Gospel as possible.
-If you are an ear, listen to people’s problems; then tell them the Gospel.
-If you are a hand, serve others practically; then tell them the Gospel.
-If you are a mouth, teach; then tell the Gospel.
-If you are feet, go out into the streets or parks; and tell the Gospel.

Our gifts are not an excuse to avoid sharing Christ; they are tools to bring Him glory. Personally, I’m often a “foot”, going into the parks to share the Gospel. Sometimes I serve like a hand, or listen like an ear. But whatever role I’m in, the end goal is the same: to make Christ known - the spoken message.
We are not all called to be street preachers, but we should all have the desire to share the Gospel with as many people as possible.

JulieB67 said:

So I plant seeds just as someone did for me back in the day.

Click to expand...

The seed is the Gospel which is a spoken message(Matt 13:3-23, Luke 8:11, 1 Cor 3:6-7). Please tell me how you tell people the Gospel. As you pointed out, I am not very good at it because I am scaring people away from God, or that the only reason they accept is because of fear. If you can tell me how you speak the Gospel with people and how often you do it, then I may learn off of you. --That is unless your doctrine of annihilationism makes you apathic towards the lost.

1Tonne said:

You keep implying that I want to instil fear with ECT. Well, yes. I do not mind that. That is good because it will drive someone to the foot of the cross. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Click to expand...

I really don't see how you can have a genuine loving relationship with Someone as Their child when the only or even just one of the reasons you came to Them in the first place was because you'd been taught that they were going to torture you endlessly in a place called hell one day, otherwise. Sorry, this just doesn't make sense.

And it really seems obvious, at least to me, that the word fear in the context of "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" is reverence, not being afraid that He will do literally infinite harm to you. Besides, there is at least one verse (don't remember which book and chapter off the top of my head) that specifically says it is the Lord's lovingkindness that leads one to repentance, which i think is pretty synonymous with salvation, right?

1Tonne said:

The issue annihilationist's have is that their form of punishment is over and done with and is not everlasting. Only the result of the punishment remains.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is an issue at all. If you are dead forever (and it is a punishment, the very first consequence or punishment that God ever warned of in the Garden of Eden, in fact), with no chance of ever coming back to life, then the punishment sounds like it is everlasting, no problem. I have always thought that this verse really isn't a good argument for either ECT or conditional immortality, honestly. It can be pretty rationally used for or against either side, really.

1Tonne said:

Explains a lot. Thanks

Click to expand...

Okay, now, let's not go for personal blows like that, all right? Churches do not know everything on doctrine, and you don't know what @JulieB67's reasons are for not being in a church pew every Sunday; there might have been a particularly bad experience she'd had with a harmful church for all you know. This does not determine salvation status or even how much knowledge she might have of Scripture. Did the Bereans in the Epistles not search Scripture for themselves to see first whether their teacher St.Paul himself was just blowing smoke or not? (He wasn't of course, but I recall them still being commended for not just instantly taking what was taught to them as gospel truth, without some personal investigation first).

1Tonne said:

I understand the point you’re making about literal worms surviving because they were not in the fire where Gehenna was but that they were around the outside and eventually made their way into the rubbish pile once the fire was put out. But the wording does point out that the fire is never quenched and the rubbish pile at Gehenna continually burned day and night. It did not go out. So therefore, the worms could not make it into Gehenna where the rubbish was. The language is therefore figurative.
I think Jesus is intentionally making a distinction. Real worms in a fire would die, so by saying “the worm does not die,” He signals that this is figurative and exceptional, not literal worms, but a representation of the person under judgment. If it were just normal worms surviving in the fire, why would Jesus even mention them? There would be no point. The imagery contrasts the temporary life of real worms with the ongoing, conscious suffering of the wicked, showing that God’s judgment is unending in its effect.

Click to expand...

It was a dump. Refuse was not burned immediately. So worms got to it first before it was burned. The fires were not put out, they continuously burned with refuse added constantly...

SarahsKnight said:

I really don't see how you can have a genuine loving relationship with Someone as Their child when the only or even just one of the reasons you came to Them in the first place was because you'd been taught that they were going to torture you endlessly in a place called hell one day, otherwise. Sorry, this just doesn't make sense.

And it really seems obvious, at least to me, that the word fear in the context of "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" is reverence, not being afraid that He will do literally infinite harm to you. Besides, there is at least one verse (don't remember which book and chapter off the top of my head) that specifically says it is the Lord's lovingkindness that leads one to repentance, which i think is pretty synonymous with salvation, right?

Click to expand...

When a new believer first hears the truth of God’s holiness and judgment, it naturally produces a fear, an awareness of the seriousness of sin and the reality of consequences. But as they begin to repent and turn from sin, that initial fear begins to dissipate. They start seeing the fruit of living a life that honours God, which reassures them of the reality of their salvation. Over time, this fear matures into reverence and awe, and eventually develops into a loving reverence for God.
In other words, fear is not the end; it is the starting point of wisdom, guiding the believer toward holiness, trust, and ultimately, a loving relationship with God.

SarahsKnight said:

I don't think it is an issue at all. If you are dead forever (and it is a punishment, the very first consequence or punishment that God ever warned if in the Garden of Eden, in fact), with no chance of ever coming back to life, then the punishment sounds like it is everlasting, no problem. I have always thought that this verse really isn't a good argument for either ECT or conditional immortality, honestly. It can be pretty rationally used for or against either side, really.

Click to expand...

Regarding Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, their punishment was being expelled from the garden, and the consequence of that is that they are not allowed back. The punishment itself was over and done with, it was the act of being judged by God and removed from fellowship. But the consequences go on. They cannot go back.
Saying that the consequence is the punishment itself is like claiming that a healed scar continues to cut forever, or that a criminal record after release is the actual punishment. The consequence is not the punishment; it is the effect of the punishment. True punishment is the ongoing experience or suffering resulting from judgment, not merely the residual sign it leaves behind.
So, my point still stands firm.

SarahsKnight said:

Okay, now, let's not go for personal blows like that, all right? Churches do not know everything on doctrine, and you don't know what @JulieB67's reasons are for not being in a church pew every Sunday; there might have been a particularly bad experience she'd had with a harmful church for all you know. This does not determine salvation status or even how much knowledge she might have of Scripture. Did the Bereans in the Epistles not search Scripture for themselves to see first whether their teacher St.Paul himself was just blowing smoke or not? (He wasn't of course, but I recall them still being commended for not just instantly taking what was taught to them as gospel truth, without some personal investigation first).

Click to expand...

The reason I responded defensively is because the gospel itself was criticised, not merely my tone or method. The claim was that presenting eternal judgment would scare people away from God rather than draw them to Him. That is a serious charge, because it directly challenges the way Jesus and the apostles warned people.
If someone argues that a gospel including fear of judgment is ineffective or harmful, then it’s reasonable to ask what they believe the gospel is and how they proclaim it faithfully and fruitfully. That isn’t a personal attack; it’s a theological question. Strong claims about the gospel naturally invite scrutiny regarding both biblical grounding and practical experience.

My intent wasn’t to question anyone’s salvation or motives, but to defend the integrity and power of the gospel itself, and to understand what alternative is being proposed.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

It was a dump. Refuse was not burned immediately. So worms got to it first before it was burned. The fires were not put out, they continuously burned with refuse added constantly...

Click to expand...

I understand what you’re saying about how refuse might have been processed, but that still doesn’t address Jesus’ wording. Ordinary worms do die, whether by fire, starvation, or decay, and ordinary fires do consume what they burn. Yet Jesus deliberately says, “the worm does not die” and “the fire is not quenched.”
If this is only a description of normal dump activity, worms eating first, then refuse being burned; then there is nothing exceptional about it, and no reason for Jesus to emphasize those phrases. The point of the imagery is not the mechanics of waste disposal, but the permanence and seriousness of judgment.

By highlighting that the worm does not die, Jesus is intentionally contrasting real worms (which do die) with something beyond the ordinary. That pushes the language toward figurative, judicial imagery, not a literal explanation of how rubbish dumps function.

1Tonne said:

It is not punishment

Click to expand...

Death has always been considered punishment. Just because you don't think it's enough does not mean it's not everlasting punishment.

1Tonne said:

Explains a lot. Thanks

Click to expand...

Hey, I've learned much more on my own than I ever did sitting on a church pew every Sunday listening to men's sermons, not God's Word. I don't consider that "church". It's good to be around like minded people and to gather together and it's good have honest teachers teaching chapter by chapter and verse by verse But if you're not getting that, you're not getting fed properly. I certainly don't claim to know everything and every day I am in his Word hoping to grow more but we are told to move past the laying the foundations. And some churches never move past them.

1Tonne said:

The claim was that presenting eternal judgment would scare people away from God rather than draw them to Him.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but many people are rightly turned off with a God that would burn someone for an eternity. We should have a healthy fear of not wanting to take part in God's wrath at the end and of the second death. But no, instilling fear of burning in hell for an eternity as part of gospel teaching is something I don't agree with. If opportunity arises where the gospel can be shared than yes, I would love to witness to anyone. That's all I'll say on it. I think we're finished because I too believe we are going in circles.

But of course feel free to have the last word if you want.

1Tonne said:

I understand what you’re saying about how refuse might have been processed, but that still doesn’t address Jesus’ wording. Ordinary worms do die, whether by fire, starvation, or decay, and ordinary fires do consume what they burn. Yet Jesus deliberately says, “the worm does not die” and “the fire is not quenched.
If this is only a description of normal dump activity, worms eating first, then refuse being burned; then there is nothing exceptional about it, and no reason for Jesus to emphasize those phrases. The point of the imagery is not the mechanics of waste disposal, but the permanence and seriousness of judgment.

By highlighting that the worm does not die, Jesus is intentionally contrasting real worms (which do die) with something beyond the ordinary. That pushes the language toward figurative, judicial imagery, not a literal explanation of how rubbish dumps function.

Click to expand...

There was a constant fire burning with new trash being added to keep it burning. Since trash piles up, there are constantly worms. Yes he is using it as a comparison because everyone knew about it. He is saying that it is constant. The fire is not quenched and the worms are there constantly because trash is added daily. All refuse is either eaten by worms or burned up...with nothing left. Yes, permanently....

JulieB67 said:

Death has always been considered punishment. Just because you don't think it's enough does not mean it's not everlasting punishment.

Click to expand...

I’m not arguing that death is not a punishment. Scripture clearly treats death as punishment. The disagreement is whether death itself is the ongoing punishment as in Matthew 25:46, or whether the punishment ends in the second death and only its result, non-existence, remains.

Everlasting punishment is not defined by whether I think it is “enough,” but by whether the punishment itself continues. Punishment, by its nature, is something that is experienced. Once a person no longer exists, there is no subject left to experience punishment. What remains is an outcome, not an ongoing penalty.
That’s why the analogy matters: a scar proves that punishment occurred, but the scar is not the punishment. Likewise, non-existence may be the irreversible consequence of judgment, but it is not itself a continuing punishment.

In Matthew 25:46, Jesus deliberately parallels everlasting life with everlasting punishment. Eternal life is not a momentary act with permanent consequences; it is an ongoing state of conscious existence. If the punishment side is reduced to a brief event followed by nothingness, the symmetry of Jesus’ contrast collapses.

So, this isn’t about personal preference or emotional weight. It’s about whether Scripture presents punishment as something that endures, or merely something that ends with an enduring result. In Matthew 25:46, the life is ongoing, and by the same construction, so is the punishment.

JulieB67 said:

Hey, I've learned much more on my own than I ever did sitting on a church pew every Sunday listening to men's sermons, not God's Word. I don't consider that "church". It's good to be around like minded people and to gather together and it's good have honest teachers teaching chapter by chapter and verse by verse But if you're not getting that, you're not getting fed properly. I certainly don't claim to know everything and every day I am in his Word hoping to grow more but we are told to move past the foundations. And some churches never move past them.

Click to expand...

I agree that personal study is essential, and Scripture commends the Bereans for examining the Word daily. No faithful Christian should outsource their thinking to a pulpit.
That said, Scripture never presents growth in Christ as a solo project. The same Bible that calls us to study also commands believers not to neglect gathering together, to submit to godly elders, and to be built up through the gifts Christ gives to the church (Heb 10:25; Eph 4:11–16).
Poor teaching doesn’t redefine what church is; it points to the need for a healthier, more biblically grounded congregation.
“Moving beyond the foundations” (Heb 6) doesn’t mean abandoning them, or the body Christ established, but building on them together. The New Testament pattern is Word, Spirit, and church, not one without the others.
NOTE: The Church in Corinth had serious issues, yet Paul did not abandon it; he wrote to guide, correct, and build them up.

JulieB67 said:

I'm sorry but many people are rightly turned off with a God that would burn someone for an eternity. We should have a healthy fear of not wanting to take part in God's wrath at the end and of the second death. But no, instilling fear of burning in hell for an eternity as part of gospel teaching is something I don't agree with. If opportunity arises where the gospel can be shared than yes, I would love to witness to anyone. That's all I'll say on it.

Click to expand...

So, while you speak as if you have experience sharing the Gospel, you are not willing to help me learn how to do it more effectively. People’s eternal lives are at stake, yet you remain silent. That is apathy.
My observation is that, like many believers, you may rarely share the Gospel, if at all. Much of this stems not just from fear, but also from a lack of urgency—which can be influenced by beliefs like annihilationism. If I’m wrong about your practice, I want to learn from you, so please correct me.

NOTE: True love for the lost motivates us to speak, even in the face of fear. Love overcomes fear, and fear is not a valid excuse. If the Gospel is truly precious to us, we will share it.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

There was a constant fire burning with new trash being added to keep it burning. Since trash piles up, there are constantly worms. Yes he is using it as a comparison because everyone knew about it. He is saying that it is constant. The fire is not quenched and the worms are there constantly because trash is added daily. All refuse is either eaten by worms or burned up...with nothing left. Yes, permanently....

Click to expand...

I understand what you’re saying about the mechanics of the trash pile and worms. My main point isn’t how a dump works, but what Jesus is teaching with His words. He emphasizes that the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched to illustrate the seriousness and permanence of judgment, not to give a literal lesson on waste disposal.

We can agree that He was using imagery everyone understood; the question is what that imagery communicates spiritually, not the logistics of trash or worms?

1Tonne said:

I understand what you’re saying about the mechanics of the trash pile and worms. My main point isn’t how a dump works, but what Jesus is teaching with His words. He emphasizes that the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched to illustrate the seriousness and permanence of judgment, not to give a literal lesson on waste disposal.

We can agree that He was using imagery everyone understood; the question is what that imagery communicates spiritually, not the logistics of trash or worms?

Click to expand...

Again, He is comparing to it as a metaphor (Isaiah 66:24). Everyone understood what happens there. Worms eat trash and trash gets burned up constantly. He also uses the symbolism of the wheat and the tares...both are harvested but wheat is kept while the weeds are burned up in the fire. When something is cremated, there is nothing left but ashes. It is a devouring fire...everything is completely and utterly destroyed (Matthew 3:12). This was also the place where Judas hung himself...Akeldama.