The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[razzelflabben]

I've not ignored anything. It's you guys that ignore the facts. Not one of you have yet made an attempt to show hwere this idea is taught in Scripture. Instead all that's been presented are verse of Scripture where the idea is inferred. I've shown already that that is Begging the Question.

I am speechless...showing scripture that directly states what I am saying is not inferring...seriously, I am totally speechless.

I have no idea where you got that from. Is this a straw man because you're not able to address my argument?

I am addressing your argument as you gave it against what I said. I said that according to scripture man has three parts, the body (made of dust) the soul and the spirit. You argued that man only has two portions because of Gen. where God breathed into the flesh of man. Scripture clearly says that the soul and spirit can be separated as I pointed out and you refused to accept. Not sure what else you want me to say...of course God gave man the flesh, the soul, and the spirit, man is created that would be a duh kind of statement but that does not equal the soul and spirit being the one and same thing as you have been trying to claim nor does it suggest that the soul/spirit of man is not eternal by nature...eternal here meaning a ray not a line to use math terminology.

What I said was, that Jesus is the Word of God in that passage, not Scripture. He is able to separate soul and spirit. They are not one, I didn't say they were. The spirit or breath of life from God is a part of the soul as seen in Gen 2:7. Jesus is able to separate the two. When they are separated the man dies.

actually that isn't what you said as far as your comments to me because if it was, you would have agreed with me not disagreed. You see how that works? If you agree that man has three parts not just two, you say, your right, man has three parts, you don't insist for pages that man only has two parts. It's really that simple.

I didn't, you addressed my post. However, you're disagreeing with Scripture. Gen 2:7 is crystal clear. Man+breath or spirit of life from God= living soul. Any interpretation that contradicts this is error. You're saying man consists of three parts, body, spirit, and soul. According to Gen 2:7 man "IS" a soul, it's not a part of him.

Now your back to confusing things...I also previously said many times over that the soul/spirit of man is that which makes the man who he is, you know, the part of man that we would recognize as his personality. this was also mentioned by other posters here who agree that according to scripture man has three parts, flesh, soul, and spirit...something you have repeatedly disagreed with.

It's not the passage, it's your interpretation of it. The passage fits nicely with what I've stated. Actually, it's the Father that quickens. Again, one doesn't need to read Hebrews to understand Genesis.

wow, just wow...you now change your story to agree with what I and other have said and pretend you aren't changing it....just wow. Did someone else spoof your computer and type in posts in your name?

Imposing one's theology on Hebrews and trying to backward engineer it into Genesis is not how one interprets Scripture. Moses, David, and Solomon knew what a man was and what happened to him at death.

Huh? I show how Gen. and Heb. compliment each other and confirm what you have been told and you make these accusations. here is a hint for you...false accusations of another poster is inflammatory and against forum rules. How about you stop trying to flame me and just accept that you now agree with what I have said or, if you still disagree actually tell us what you disagree with instead of repeating what I said and calling it disagreement.

They are not contradictory. What is contradictory is your interpretation of Heb 4:12. You interpret it as three parts of man. Gen 2:7 shows us that there are two parts that combine to become something else.

wow, see what you said above...above you say that the soul/spirit can be divided, thus two separate things, here you revert back to the claim that they are one and the same...you are a confusing bloke.

I doubt that. The point is that you gave your opinion rather than what is in Scripture. When you say, 'it likely means', you are just telling us what you think it means. What you think a passage means and what it means can be vastly different. And, since your interpretation is contradictory to Gen 2:7 I believe it's wrong.

and yet I quoted scripture...seems to me that quoting scripture and showing the consistency through common literary comprehension rules is more than just an opinion, but have at it, nothing you are saying in this post resembles anything of value to the discussion instead it's just full of grand standing and insults. Moving on...

From reading this post I don't think it's me that is misunderstanding. Your interpretation of Heb 4:12 is not complimentary to Gen 2:7 as I've point out above. You say there are three parts to man. In Gen 2:7 we see that to things combined to become something else. You say that the soul is a part of man. According to Gen 2:7 man "IS" a soul. The soul is not part of him it's what he is.

and yet Gen. also says man is flesh, you know dust....wow, how hard was that....? lol

Each of you guys has come to this discussion with the idea that the dead are conscious, yet not one of you has made a case from Scripture showing this. All that has been presented are passage from with that idea is inferred. It's Begging the Question. The premise is that the dead are conscious. The passages were presented. However, to interpret those passages as evidence one must begin with the idea that the dead are conscious that is Begging the question, a Logical fallacy.

Here is a link to a definition of Begging the Questions.

actually it is just the opposite...the passages we have shown directly show that man has some form of consciousness...where as the other passages infer a lack of consciousness....but that doesn't really amount to a hill of beans if you don't even know if the soul and spirit are two separate things as Heb. tells us or not.

 

[food4thought]

How is it that you posted it in conjunction with mine yet claim, i using dueling passages. I have reconciled all of the passages. It's the other side that hasn't.



You talk about reading things into the text and yet that's just what you're doing. The text doesn't say that man is flesh dust and spirit. It says the man (flesh) and the breath of spirit of life from God "BECAME" a living soul. The text doesn't say man is three parts. He is flesh, I'll post it again.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

It's crystal clear, God formed the man of the dust of the ground. That is what a man is, the dust of the ground. It wasn't until God breathed His breath or spirit of life into the man that he became something else that he was not previously. That is a living soul.

Secondly the soul is not eternal. Paul states plainly that the Father alone has immortality.

14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
(1 Tim. 6:14-16 KJV)

The Father alone has immortality. So, no one is immortal. Anything that lives lives because God is continuously giving it life.

13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, (1 Tim. 6:13 NKJ)

12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. (Heb. 4:12-13 NKJ)

I appreciate your imput, Butch5, but it can be shown just from Genesis that man is body, soul, and Spirit.

Body and soul:
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [literally soul].
(Genesis 2:7 NASB)
Spirit:
And they were a grief of spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah.
(Genesis 26:35 LITV)
Now in the morning his spirit was troubled, so he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all its wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh.
(Genesis 41:8 NASB)

It is true that God gives and sustains life, but it appears that He sustains life even in the 2nd death... I don't think scripture states it explicitly, but it is implied by the descriptions of the existence of the wicked dead in Revelation.

 

[razzelflabben]

Might possibly be because I csn find no post 587---it goes from 580 to 592----

Oh, wait, I hadn't gone to the last page and then those other posts came up.




Destroy---You say it does not have to mean annihilation--true, you can destroy someone's power, without destroying them. Context is what it is all about. Now---I see nothing in all of this that states the soul is immortal and can not die. I see a lot of conjecture on your part--but nothing that states the soul is immortal. Now, I am very tired, have many health issues and have not slept good in weeks--so maybe my hazy brain missed it--just please quote it.

wow, so where I say context is important to know which meaning is intended, you read what exactly? Let me give you a bit of friendly advice...you might want to look up the meaning of the word conjecture and compare it to the definition of the word context....since I used context to show the intended meaning it would be a false statement to claim I was conjuring my points....at least as per definition of the words...but we all know some of you all here like to change the meaning of words to suit your bias, so whatever...

As to the soul being immortal, as I said, that comes later in the context of the passage.

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
(if it does not mean cease to exist--what context does kill not mean the same as death--to cause to cease to exist?)

as pointed out many times over, translation is important when finding the meaning of scripture in a study that rightly divides the word...look it up since you apparently can't read it when it is cut and pasted in the thread.

Mat_16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Eze_18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

yep...just like we are saying to you.

I am not able to stay here very long at a time now, I have to stop frequently and try to sleep---sorry, I am being inconsistent, I'll try later, but may have to give up for a while, it's hard to catch up.

sorry about your health issues, I know from experience how difficult that can be. I will tell you this however, based on some of your false claims, you are doing more harm to your position than good as far as I am concerned. In fact, if your approach was "fair" it would go a long way to making your case even if it is still flawed. May you rest peacefully in our Lord and return renewed in body and mind and soul.

 

[mmksparbud]

What God created He can certainly destroy but I do not know of any verse which states any souls have been or will be destroyed.

The soul that sinneth shall die is clear enough when not trying to twist into something it doesn't say.

 

[mmksparbud]

wow, so where I say context is important to know which meaning is intended, you read what exactly? Let me give you a bit of friendly advice...you might want to look up the meaning of the word conjecture and compare it to the definition of the word context....since I used context to show the intended meaning it would be a false statement to claim I was conjuring my points....at least as per definition of the words...but we all know some of you all here like to change the meaning of words to suit your bias, so whatever...

As to the soul being immortal, as I said, that comes later in the context of the passage. as pointed out many times over, translation is important when finding the meaning of scripture in a study that rightly divides the word...look it up since you apparently can't read it when it is cut and pasted in the thread. yep...just like we are saying to you. sorry about your health issues, I know from experience how difficult that can be. I will tell you this however, based on some of your false claims, you are doing more harm to your position than good as far as I am concerned. In fact, if your approach was "fair" it would go a long way to making your case even if it is still flawed. May you rest peacefully in our Lord and return renewed in body and mind and soul.

I asked for a verse that states the soul is immortal and I don't see it. I do see where it says the soul that sinneth it shall die. I have made no false claims. I have stated scripture, it is you that wants to change the context and meanings of words but if we say a word can be translated differently than how you translate it, then you say we make false claims??
Just provide the verses that the soul is immortal.

 

[razzelflabben]

I asked for a verse that states the soul is immortal and I don't see it. I do see where it says the soul that sinneth it shall die. I have made no false claims. I have stated scripture, it is you that wants to change the context and meanings of words but if we say a word can be translated differently than how you translate it, then you say we make false claims??
Just provide the verses that the soul is immortal.

as I showed, the context of the entire passage leaves very little wiggle room on this issue and that is just one of many passages. i really don't know why context is giving you so much trouble.

as to translation, if a word can mean one or more different things, you look at context to determine what the intent is, that is elementary school stuff...as to providing the passages, I even went into depths with the one you presented, showing context and you just say, no you didn't, you need context...context is the very thing I gave you, that makes your claims false accusations of me....like it or not, you are bearing false witness of what is going on here.

 

[Der Alte]

The soul that sinneth shall die is clear enough when not trying to twist into something it doesn't say.

By quoting bits and pieces of scripture out-of-context one can prove almost anything.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
. . .
Ezekiel 18:18-20 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. ​

In this passage the word "soul" refers to people not dying for the sins of others but for their own sins.
ETA: The Hebrew word translated "soul" in the OT is נפשׁ/nephesh occurs 753 times in the OT, it is only translated soul 420 times. So 333 times in the OT נפשׁ/nephesh is not translated "soul." Here are a few verses where nephesh is not translated soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature [נפשׁ/nephesh] that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [נפשׁ/nephesh] after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [נפשׁ/nephesh] I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, [נפשׁ/nephesh] that was the name thereof.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life [נפשׁ/nephesh] thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives [נפשׁ/nephesh] will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life [נפשׁ/nephesh] of man.
Gen 23:8 And he communed with them, saying, If it be your mind [נפשׁ/nephesh] that I should bury my dead out of my sight; hear me, and intreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar, ​

 

[Commander]

For all have sinned, and He died for all-Romans 3:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:15

 

[mmksparbud]

In this passage the word "soul" refers to people not dying for the sins of others but for their own sins.

So, the word soul does not mean "soul" in this case?--Then why, when we say the very same thing do you guys get all irate and insist that soul is not the physical body---except of course, for when you want to.

 

[Der Alte]

So, the word soul does not mean "soul" in this case?--Then why, when we say the very same thing do you guys get all irate and insist that soul is not the physical body---except of course, for when you want to.

See my edit to my previous post. The Hebrew word translated soul in the OT is נפשׁ/nephesh. It occurs 753 times in the OT of that it is translated "soul" 420 times. The other 333 times it is not translated soul. It is not what people want but context which determines the meaning of a word. As I showed in my previous post "soul" was used synonymous with "person" and referred to the death of the person not the destruction of souls. But some folks got their own agenda. And OBTW I notice you ignored the bulk of my post only addressing one sentence.

 

[Achilles6129]

But explain to me how this level of torture is loving and good. Explain to me how torture in flames for all eternity fits the crime of a committing a finite amount of sin here on this Earth.


...

That's the point of the OP. Why don't you address it?

 

[Achilles6129]

1 Corinthians 15:25-28
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."

If God is love and He will eventually destroy death and be all in all, then how can people exist in torment forever if God's love has filled all? <important to me to have an answer to this question.

You do realize that Revelation portrays death as the last enemy and being destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire, right?

"14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." Rev. 20:14 (NASB)

 

[Achilles6129]

Eliminating poetic expressions you have nothing in the Old Testament close to the concept of hell in the New Testament.

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's certainly true that hell is not portrayed in the OT as it is in the NT, but as I have explained that's because Christ is the only one who's worthy to talk about hell. Here, for example, is one passage from the Psalms that sounds very much like NT "hell verbiage":

"Upon the wicked He will rain [c]snares;
Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup." Ps. 11:6 (NASB)

 

[Achilles6129]

Notice Rev. 20:10 says they will be tormented forever. Other places the fire is said to burn forever but the appears to be the only place that insists that they are tormented forever, at least in my estimation.

Hi Mark - you're forgetting Rev. 14:10-11:

"10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed [f]in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and [g]brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and [h]whoever receives the mark of his name.”" Rev. 14:10-11 (NASB)

And also Matthew 25:

"41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;...46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”" Mt. 25:41...46 (NASB)

​

 

[Achilles6129]

You realize it's possible that you and everyone you ever loved may go there, right? So you think you're all getting what you deserve? And if you really think everyone gets what they deserve.......yikes.

Anyone who goes to hell gets exactly what they deserve. Apparently you don't agree?

I will suggest......no wait, in fact I am stating here and now...that your conclusions are faulty.

Then you can show how they're faulty. You didn't in your post.

Since everyone other than Jesus and Mary did this, according to you, scripture puts Moses, Abraham, the Apostles (the list goes on) in a heinously evil light.

Not at all. Someone can be entirely obedient to God's commands. God only holds one accountable for conscious disobedience. We're not forced into being evil as some on here appear to believe.

 

[Achilles6129]

Of course it's 'figurative' of fire. So what does GOD figuratively do with fire? He makes things pure....

The fire described in Scripture inflicts punishment. How does that "make things pure"? Where does God say that his fire is going to make the wicked "pure"?

and guess what the Greek word for fire is? PUR....a word which etymologically is figurative enough for me to figure out.

Actually, the Greek word for fire is "pyr," not "pur":

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4442&t=NASB

And the English pure is from Latin according to the dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure

You think He'll do it with eternal torture, but I think he'll do it with figurative 'saving fire' (1Co 3:15).

The "saving fire" of 1 Cor. 3:15 applies to someone who's already saved:

"10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, [d]precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test [e]the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." 1 Cor. 3:10-15 (NASB)

You have to lay the foundation of Jesus Christ first. Then you built upon it. The wicked never had the foundation of Jesus Christ, so none of this applies to them.

EDIT P.S. BTW you really never answered MY QUESTION; How would you answer your question? Do you think 'baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire' is literal fire?

Flesh your answer out for me.

I did answer your question. It's obviously something like literal fire or else the word "fire" wouldn't be used. And in Acts, there did in fact appear to be flames of literal fire over them.

But why would it matter? I mean, if you're going to take the fire in the lake of fire as figurative, then obviously it still resembles literal fire in some fashion. So I really just don't understand the point.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's the point of the OP. Why don't you address it?

Yeah, you really didn't address the morality of the issue of justice in original post, though. You just are saying that the wicked are childs of satan, etc. Is that the crime? Does not one's actions determine who they are? If so, then surely there should be fair justice or punishment to punish each and everyone sin a person commits and no more. Because to punish somebody beyond what the crime calls for is unjust. But I am not so sure you understand in what I am talking about, though. You believe this is what God's church believes. The morality behind it is a mystery; And it should not be questioned. Hence, why I did not reply to your other post to me. For would you really be convinced different of your position if you were to truly discover that the Scriptures taught contrary to what you believe? Would you truly believe differently if a real world example (parable) were to tell you that your belief was morally wrong?


...

 

[mmksparbud]

See my edit to my previous post. The Hebrew word translated soul in the OT is נפשׁ/nephesh. It occurs 753 times in the OT of that it is translated "soul" 420 times. The other 333 times it is not translated soul. It is not what people want but context which determines the meaning of a word. As I showed in my previous post "soul" was used synonymous with "person" and referred to the death of the person not the destruction of souls. But some folks got their own agenda. And OBTW I notice you ignored the bulk of my post only addressing one sentence.

That's what I mean. Those that believe in an immortal soul, will say the word soul does not mean a person, except when it suits them and they claim context. When we do the same thing, and say soul does mean a person and claim context, you guys will say were wrong, it doesn't mean that. I say the soul that sinneth will die, you say that means a person. When I quote
Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
You still do not believe that Jesus meant the soul will be destroyed even though it says both body and soul. Context is what you claim it to be. I know the word soul can have different meanings. I also have looked up Hebrew and Greek meanings--that is why I believe the way I do. The Hebrew can be incredibly complex, and very different in concept from our modern ideas.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I have been repeatedly told that this is when we were given our immortal souls--even though that verse says no such thing.

Genesis 2:7
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded the human of powder from the ground and he exhaled in his nostrils a breath of life and the human existed for a living being,

ha'a'dam
the~HUMAN
lê'ne'phesh
to~BEING
hhai'yah
LIVING

Genesis 1:21
and Elohiym fattened the great crocodile and all the living beings the treaders which swarm the waters to their kind, and all the flyers of the wing to his kind, and Elohiym saw that it was functional,
ne'phesh
BEING

Genesis 1:24
and Elohiym said, the land will bring out living beings to her kind, beasts and treaders and living ones of the land to her kind, and he existed so, ne'phesh
BEING

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/012.html

....In Genesis 2:7 we find that man is a "living soul" and in Genesis 1:21 we find that animals are "living creatures"......these two English phrases were the translations of the same Hebrew phrase - nephesh hhayah. Why would the translators translate nephesh hhayahas "living soul" in one place and "living creatures" in another?
In the Hebrew mind we are composed of multiple parts. The body is the flesh and bones, the vessel. The organs are viewed as the seats of thought (the heart), emotion (the kidneys), intuition (gut), etc. The breath is ones character, what makes a person who they are.
The soul is the whole of the person, the unity of the body, breath and mind...... some general definitions for them. The body is the flesh, bones and blood, the vessel. The mind is ones thoughts and emotions. The breath is ones character, what makes a person who they are. It is not some immaterial spiritual entity it is you, all of you, your whole being or self.

I addressed this one sentence for it is what stood out to me.

 

[Achilles6129]

Yeah, you really didn't address the morality of the issue of justice in original post, though. You just are saying that the wicked are childs of satan, etc. Is that the crime? Does not one's actions determine who they are? If so, then surely there should be fair justice or punishment to punish each and everyone sin a person commits and no more. Because to punish somebody beyond what the crime calls for is unjust. But I am not so sure you understand in what I am saying is wrong. Hence, why I did not reply to your other post to me.


...

Of course I addressed the morality of the issue of justice. Read the initial post. I didn't just say the wicked are the children of Satan. Do you want me to elaborate further? I thought I had covered this sufficiently.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course I addressed the morality of the issue of justice. Read the initial post. I didn't just say the wicked are the children of Satan. Do you want me to elaborate further? I thought I had covered this sufficiently.

Again, your original post doesn't make sense. You are saying that the wicked are murdering God for all eternity. Do they have a time machine whereby they are attempting to kill God thru out all eternity or time? Makes for a nice science fiction novel but it doesn't sound like reality to me. Yes, a person who hates his brother is like a murderer (1 John 3:15), but the crime for someone hating their brother should not be infinite just because the individual (they are committing the crime against) is immortal. For example: The Marvels comic book character named Wolverine is basically immortal (because he has a mutant healing factor). So are you saying that crimes committed against Wolverine should be more extreme or for all time just because he lives longer than others? Or are you saying because God is more important than others is the reason why they should be punished for all eternity? For example: You might say that the crime committed against a leader of a country is more severe and it is justified because they are more important. But even the crime against such an individual would have it's limits, though. The punishment still has to ultimately fit the crime no matter who is the recipient of the sin or crime. It's what fair justice is all about.


...