The Problem of Hell

[JonF]

Then wouldn't it be better for every human being to be turned into a non-human animal?

I mean, of course there would be no-one enjoying an eternal bliss of heaven in this scenario, but in my opinion that would still be a reasonable price to pay to prevent an immense multitude of living creatures from ending up in a state of "endless torture and horror".

Of course, this all gets a lot weirder when you think about the fact that God is supposed to have known from the beginning how things would turn out...

I answered this in post #56

 

[JGL53]

I answered this in post #56

No you didn't.

A non sequitur is not an answer. It is an evasion.

 

[JonF]

Let me be more clear.

The answer to your question is yes, but you are attempting to miss represent the Christian claim. If an armed man breaks into your house to murder you and your family. You sneak into the kitchen to get a knife to defend your self, but soon as you grab the knife you slip and fall and stab yourself, is the knife evil? or any less good? did it do any wrong?

The Christian claim is we all deserve hell, because of the actions we ourselves take, and that humanity has taken as a whole. I mean really, do you want to hold it as a general principle that if you do something and it has unfavorable consequences, what ever you did isn't worth it, or is necessarily bad? Again the Christian claim is the person who goes to hell, brings it on himself.

I get your point, if bob goes to hell bob would be happier never existing. But to what purpose was bob created in the first place? Christianity claims it wasn't for his own happiness or utility.

 

[Shane Roach]

Next question, if he's better off ceasing to exist, why did God create him just so that he could be tortured for eternity? Since, according to your theology, God knew before he was even created that he would be sent to hell.

Rom 9:18-24

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
KJV

Another Bible verse you can add to your siggy line.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'd also like to add an idea that's been bubbling up in my mind lately. People will say, "all sins are the same," by way of trying to legitimize hell for all sinners. Hell is not some great equalizer of sin. The wages of sin is death, but the Bible refers to the second judgment as the second death, and it is about a lot more than being imperfect in my opinion, which is based on my understanding of several concepts as they apply to the Bible's own teachings. I wouldn't pretend to try to pawn this off as anyone's official Christian answer, and if it seems to have an obvious flaw from the Christian point of view, please feel free to point it out.

We know that certain sins are "worse" than others because their secular punishments described in the Old Testament were worse. We find sin offerings for general sin, repaying a stolen amount of money sevenfold if we steel, and death for murder, for example. So how then is hell fair?

The Bible teaches that the nature of God is made clear to all people:

Rom 1:20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse :
KJV

We also have a series of verses that let us know that there is only one unforgivable sin, and that that sin would be the rejection of Christ. One states that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:31-32). Then there is the entire concept of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The verses are numerous and I don't expect anyone would argue against the concept as being more or less fundamental. Finally, there is the link between the two. We are told that the Holy Spirit is the one who testifies to us of Christ.

1 John 5:5-6

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness , because the Spirit is truth.
KJV

So far what I am seeing is that the wages of sin is death, but that sins do indeed have different degrees of seriousness. The most serious sin is blasphemy against the Spirit, and one of the functions of the Spirit is to testify to us of Christ. It appears to me then that one goes to hell for rejecting Christ, which is synonymous with blaspheming against the Spirit.

I think a lot of practicing Christians balk at this because it is not at all polite when having a discussion with ones friends and neighbors, many of whom one loves, to tell them that they are going to hell because they have denied the truth of God as communicated to them by the Holy Spirit. They will merely deny any such experience, leaving the hapless Christian in the position of backing off or else bluntly accusing the person of lying. I suppose another graceful way out is to say, "well, perhaps He has not come to you yet," but that seems to stretch the boundaries considering how ruthlessly the Bible insists that it is something made quite clear, such that no one has any excuses when rejecting the faith.

The bottom line is that if Christianity is true, that is exactly what happens when people deny Christ. There really is not a lot left to say after that, and the vast majority of people simply cannot stomach saying any such thing, but I find it hard to deny after studying the issue off and on for however many years you want to credit me, given the on again off again nature of my Bible study.

There is, incidentally, a hierarchy in heavenly rewards it would seem, whereby some will be rewarded more than others, which sort of reinforces the idea that sins have degrees of seriousness, since apparently righteousness also has some sense of weight or measure to it as well.

1 Cor 3:13-15

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire.
KJV

So the layout is basically that all those who blaspheme against the Spirit go to hell, and everyone else is judged according to works, but the loss is that all bad works are destroyed, and good works rewarded, in the trial by fire.

The link to philosophy is simply this. We do not have a good grasp on the nature of our will or consciousness, yet these along with our intellect form the only foundation we have for knowledge, and these are the very instruments by which we are saved -- that is, the Spirit speaks to our consciousness of the validity of claims about Christ and salvation. Problematically, these issues cannot possibly be fully investigated using science, as the thing being studied here is the very thing from which the so called "subjective" arrises.

There are a lot of furiously animated fireworks constantly being set off that seem to lure one away from the simple, if rather frightful, Christian answer then to the problem of Hell. It is an eternal punishment implemented in response to a sin committed, as no other sin truly can be, against the eternal Holy Spirit Himself, in fact, against the very person of the Deity. As the scripture says, such a person makes God out to be a liar when He Himself speaks directly to the human heart about Christ. What possible reconciliation is there for this? How will you tell God that His judgement is false after He made Himself flesh, suffered torment and death in your stead, placed the knowledge of Himself and His salvation directly into your heart and mind, and you rejected it?

If you believe there is no God, and firmly believe that you have received no such revelation, then that's your experience. After a number of years wrestling with the idea of God, and my experience with an evangelical at a Baptist church, I could not claim any such ignorance any longer, so I now believe. I, like Paul, could wish I were wrong for the sake of many I love who claim not to have heard that voice, but I will not sacrifice my soul over any such faint possibility as my being wrong. Christ doesn't ask anything of me that would necessitate my abandoning the faith out of concience, so I find myself ultimately secure in the knowledge that no matter what the reality, my Faith is well placed, and I live my life in a way that can only bring me shame when I fall short of Christ's demands whether my judge is man or God.

Thanks to those of you who made it all the way through this for the time you have lost trying to make sense of my rambling.

 

[Adam007]

Wow,,,this thread has really grown last time I was here. Keep posting your opiions people! I'm really enjoying this.

 

[Nathan45]

I get your point, if bob goes to hell bob would be happier never existing. But to what purpose was bob created in the first place? Christianity claims it wasn't for his own happiness or utility.

I like how you tell us what christianity claims he wasn't created for, but don't say what he was created for.

If bob ends up in hell, what was bob created for?

i'd quote romans 9:22-23 back at you. ( already posted by someone else above) but i'd like to hear it strait from the horse's mouth.

 

[Nathan45]

I like how you tell us what christianity claims he wasn't created for, but don't say what he was created for.

If bob ends up in hell, what was bob created for?

i'd quote romans 9:22-23 back at you. ( already posted by someone else above) but i'd like to hear it strait from the horse's mouth.

I suppose you really already answered this question earlier in the thread.

God created us all for His glory. In this case he is Glorified by appealing to his attributes of righteousness and justice.

 

[DamonWV]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?


Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill Humans apparently can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet hell is an infinite punishment. In this vein, Jorge Luis Borges suggests in his essay La duración del Infierno that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".

I think its been laid out pretty simple. According to the Bible there is a heaven, there is a hell. There are no indications what so ever to assume there is no hell. Not believing in hell does not mean it does not exist. If you are in the belief it doesnt exist then you are not accepting the word of the bible. There fore your calling God a liar, or you dont trust or believe in what he says. You cant pick and choose what exists and doesnt exist in the bible. It says it exists, it exists.
Now does a person deserve to spend a infinite life in hell for a finite time of sin here ?
Look at it this way. God gives everyone the option , or choice, to either accept or reject him. Hes not a puppet master, we have total control of what actions and thought we perform. If we didnt have those choice, then we would be nothing more then a cold, heartless, non emotional robot incapable of love and or feelings.
So we have choice. People in life either choose to accept or reject. If someone dies with out becoming saved , meaning they willfully Rejected God, then God is giving that person exactly what they wish. That is Eternal Separation from God. Do you think a person who is alive, and is rejecting god, and their intention is to always reject god, would change their mind if given a large or small amount of time to make the choice ?
Does god not give time for people to make a choice ? it can be made at any time, instantly. People have this idea of hell and fire and brimstone and satan with a pitch fork stirring you in some Cauldron of burning oil like some human stew.

Hell is a grim realization that you have made the choice of rejection of god in life, and now your getting your desire and that is having nothing to do with god. Hell is being there looking accross the inpassable chasm to heaven, knowing you could had asked jesus into your heart, but instead you rejected him, and indulged in your sins. Now you get to live your infinite life out feeling the guilt of your sin, like a saturated towel clinging to you pulling you down.

What i cant understand is that alot of christians reject the idea of hell. It really makes me wonder if they know the bible at all, or they want to think that a place doesnt exist so much that they are making their thoughts change the idea, the integrity of the bible, and that is a very dangerous course of thought.

 

[JGL53]

OK.

I am not a Christian.

Problem solved.

(Would that real problems were this easy.)

 

[Nazzul]

@alien2earth

We only have ourselves and the others around us to measure what is sadistic and what is good. Morality is a very subjective thing that can not be considerd black and white. I dont know about you but even with our very subjective morality it still seems that torture for even a finite time is immoral and sadistic. Perhaps your idea of torture as immoral is different then mine and others. Are you saying that humans deserve torture for eternity no matter what and god is just nice enough not to torture us if we get on our knees and pray to him?

If i am understanding you right your god created humans just so they can worship him and if wed ont worship this almighty creator he will send them to hell to be tortured forever. This is a God that is more akin to a demon or devil then an all good and all loving creator. If god is all poweful then he created us with the knowledge that we were going to fall anyway. If your god truely did not want humans to suffer in hell then he would have done a better job at showing himself as a all loving being and not a god who would just as easily throw someone in hell for the fact of not believing in him. I would have rather not been created in the first place to to be tortured forever after life. What a meanie.

Oh wait we have free will right? We do have the freedom to believe in your god, but after all these threats is he really a god that should be worshiped?

 

[Vigilante]

Wow,,,this thread has really grown last time I was here. Keep posting your opiions people! I'm really enjoying this.

I can't believe this thread is still going either.

To all those audacious enough, in the face of God no less, to claim that an eternal lake of fire isn't "good enough" to believe in, well, I only have one thing to say to you: I agree.

Actually, I have a second thing to say: God agrees. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that it is we who agree with God (this may be an unwitting agreement--at least from the Christian's perspective--for present day nonbelievers!).

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I'll quote the first great Christian father of the Patristic era (that era immediately following the Apostolic era), St. Clement of Alexandria. Pay close attention to what he says:

"St. Clement of Alexandria (150-220) was a student of Pantaenus and became his successor as the head of the Didascalium. Among his main goals was to convince pagans that Christianity is an intellectually rigorous worldview, and to convince Christians that one could be a well-educated philosopher and a follower of Christ at the same time. He believed that God has planted the seeds of truth in every rational mind, and that "the Law is for the Jew what philosophy is for the Greek, a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ." In the year 202, Clement had to flee Egypt due to persecution of the Christian community by the Romans, and he ended up as the leader of a church in Cappadocia. On the issue of salvation, Clement wrote in his Stromata and Pedagogue:


"For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections, by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who have become more callous to repent.... So He saves all; but some He converts by penalties, others who follow Him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of His honor, that every knee may be bent to Him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10), that is angels, men, and souls who before his [Christ's] advent migrated from this mortal life.... For there are partial corrections (paideiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord's people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence... for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually."
[Source: http://www.christianuniversalist.org/articles/history.html ]

We might split this into two noteworthy claims. First, St. Clement tells us that God has ordered things toward "the salvation of the universe." The salvation of the universe? This sounds strikingly like 1 John 4:14, which says, "The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

But wait a minute! How in any meaningful sense can a person be called "the savior" of something that he does not in fact save? Calvinists read 1 John 14:4 this way: "The Father sent the Son to be [adequate to be] the Savior of the World." In other words, Jesus could have saved the world, but the Father didn't want to. Jesus was adequate--but that's moot. "Savior of the world" as such? Surely not.

Arminians read 1 John 14:4 this way: "The Father sent the Son to be the [potential] Savior of the world." In other words, Jesus could save the world, but not if anyone in the world doesn't want to saved (or hadn't personally heard the news). Jesus had potential--but that's moot. "Savior of the world" as such? Surely not.

And yet St. Clement seems to think that Jesus was, as such, the Savior of the world. How odd. This clearly doesn't work if one presupposes (1) the stay of the those in the lake of fire to be eternal duration and (2) some people will find themselves in it.

But wait! St. Clement talks about "needful corrections" or "partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis)." Why is this significant? It's significant because he's using the same language as the Savior of the world, as such.

Jesus mentions the lake of fire in Matthew 25:46. Let's check it out in our English Bibles:

"And these [the 'goats' of Jesus' parable] will depart into eternal punishment [...]."

Was St. Clement wrong? Let's use a little of our newfound knowledge of Greek to find out:

"And these will depart into eternal kolasis [...]."

Eternal chastisement? That doesn't make sense. How can you correct (in St. Clement's words) someone forever? Well, the Greek word for "eternal" is aidios. Let's check this passage one last time:

"And these will depart into aionion kolasis [...]."

Whoops--that's not aidios! Actually, that's not adialeipton either, which would mean "endless." Aionion means "age-lasting" or "that which pertains to an age" (derived, as it is, from aion, which is where we get our English word eon). How long is the age of a thing? Well, that depends on the thing in question. Aionion is used all throughout Greek literature, from the Greek Classics to the time of the Early Christian Church, to refer to virtually anything the author desires: prison sentences, the duration of the mountains, the Mosaic covenant, God, etc.

St. Clement of Alexandria was a native Greek speaker. How did he read the first part of Matthew 25:46? He read it this way:

"And these will depart into age-lasting chastisement [...]."

The age of a chastisement, it would seem to any reasonable person, would be finite, whether or not we know of any details of just how long it is to last in the quantified sense. St. Clement explicitly uses this term 'kolasis' in reference to the kind of correction a teacher or father gives to children, and he offers this as a model for how our Father corrects us; and no one supposes that any teacher or father has corrected, or wants to correct, a child for eternity. That would defeat the point a corrective method.

Most of those in the Early Christian Church would agree. Observe:

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known." - Schaff-Herzog, The Encyclopedia of Religions Knowledge (1908), Vol. 12, p. 96.

Nor, as we've just seen, was St. Clement alone in this teaching. He was in the majority for about half a millennium. Let's not gloss over this point: Even St. Gregory of Nyssa, a man canonized as a Saint by both the Western and Eastern Churches--a man described as the very "flower of orthodoxy"--believed in St. Clement's "view to save the universe." Why is this significant? St. Gregory of Nyssa was the Father who devised the doctrine of the Trinity, perhaps the most important Christian doctrine of all. This belief was no "lunatic fringe." It was the epicenter.

But wait! If the majority of early Christian theologians taught universal salvation predicated upon the twin beams of (1) a literal teaching of Jesus' aionion kolasis--they were Greek speakers, after all--and (2) Jesus as the Savior of the world (as such!), how is it that so many Christians have taught, after the fifth or sixth century, the ghastly delusion of eternal punishment?

That, my friends, I leave to you:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

This book, generously provided in electronic format for free, tells you what you want to know.

I will not deny that the lake of fire is real. I think it is. I will not deny that some people will suffer in it. Some will. But those who will suffer will be those who, by God's birds-eye judgment, deserve it; and the length of their stay will be decided by what they deserve. No one--no one--deserves eternal punishment, and no one will get it.

Succinctly put: There is no 'Problem of Hell.'

/thread

 

[Shane Roach]

"Where their worm does not die..."

If the age lasts forever, then age long and eternal are synonyms. It is a word game. My full explanation is here:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50163330&postcount=65

It's eternal punishment for turning ones back on an eternal God. Right now is the best time for you to make a decision regarding whether or not you will deny Christ. The Holy Spirit does not fail to teach every person of the importance, though in His own time and to each person as He has ordained.

Just bear in mind... people have tried to tell you. The very nature of life in this world drives you toward the knowledge of God, and His nature.

You'll have to judge for yourself what to believe.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Right now is the best time for you to make a decision regarding whether or not you will deny Christ.

Why not after death?

Just bear in mind... people have tried to tell you.

People have also tried to tell me the importance of seeking Buddhist liberation in order to escape samsara. People tell me lots of things.

The very nature of life in this world drives you toward the knowledge of God, and His nature.

The very nature of life in this world has driven me towards knowledge of a godless Universe, and its nature.

You'll have to judge for yourself what to believe.

Yes, I do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Vigilante]

If the age lasts forever, then age long and eternal are synonyms.

Yes, I agree.

My full explanation is here:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50163330&postcount=65

Full explanation? You did not deal with aionion, aidios, kolasis, or anything else pertinent to my post.

"Where their worm does not die..."

This is horrible, horrible "evidence" for eternal damnation, especially in the face of the strong evidence I provided you with to show that the purpose of the lake of fire is chastisement. Do you denounce St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Didymus the Blind, and the rest of the lion's share of Early Church Patriarchs? Were those Greek speaking Fathers closest to the time of Christ mistaken?

"Where the worm does not die" is an allusion, as you probably know, to gehenna. Gehenna became a metaphor for eschatalogical judgment during the intertestamental period. The bodies of executed criminals that were sent to the literal gehenna (Valley of Hinom) were set on fire, and worms ate up the corpses. Did the worms die? Yes, they did. All worms die. However, there were always worms in gehenna for as long as gehenna was in use. This is the source of the phrase "worm [that] does not die." It refers to a perpetuity of worms that underscores the horrible nature of escatalogical judgment and the kind of people who will be subject to it (viz., the same kind of people that got tossed in the literal gehenna), not to some awesome little invincible worms in hell.

But all this is moot, anyway. Even if we assume that this is a place where "worms literally hang out in the lake of fire and they don't die," this is simply a metaphysical fact about the worms. It is not, strictly speaking, a durational fact (how long the worms exist), and to claim that the worms cannot cease to exist without dying would be begging the question.

[staff edit]

 

[Shane Roach]

My full explanation of why eternal damnation is acceptable is at the link. My partial explanation of why no one should pay any attention to your explanation is in your round about description of the worms scripture, the way your argument regarding words used hinges on a strict adherence to a single denotation that does not follow typical use of language anywhere at any time, and on an appeal to authority, as if the Biblical texts themselves, closest of all to the time of Christ, did not make it plain.

 

[Shane Roach]

Ezek 28:14-19

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
KJV

Rev 20:12-15

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death .

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
KJV

Rev 21:7-8

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death .
KJV

Find for me anywhere in the Bible that there is discussed a return from the second death. Like all words, aionios is understood partially in its context. There is no requirement that the age referenced is a finite age.

 

[Vigilante]

Find for me anywhere in the Bible that there is discussed a return from the second death.

Ever heard of a non sequitur? Here's one:

1. The New Testament claims that some will be sent to the lake of fire.
2. Therefore, no one will get out of the lake of fire.

The issue should be up in the air. But since you asked, here's two places where the Bible discusses an apparent return from eschatalogical judgment:

"Therefore just as one man's [i.e., Adam's] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's [i.e., Jesus'] act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-10 (NRSV)

"For as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ." - 1 Corinthians 15:22 (NRSV)

Like all words, aionios is understood partially in its context. There is no requirement that the age referenced is a finite age.

Wow. Sounds like another non sequitur:

1. Aionios is understood by its context
2. There is no requirement that the age referenced is a finite age
3. Therefore, the age referenced is an everlasting age (implied by you)

Actually, there are good reasons to suppose the age is finite. First, the two passages I quoted above. Second, the fact that the age is used for chastising or correcting those subjected to it. You don't "infinitely correct" people. That's nonsense.


Once again,
/thread

(And seriously, if your next post isn't a lot better thought out, I won't respond to it.)

 

[Shane Roach]

One of my posts was specifically chosen from the Old Testament. The "never shalt thou be anymore" portion is not Greek, and flatly counters your assertion.

You have not a single verse that says anything about returning from the second death, and a word that is legitimately interpreted as eternal, yet you insist it does not mean eternal based on your presumption that the concept of hell is indefensible.

Not one single verse to even remotely imply a return from the second death or any sense of a second change at eternal life... Yeah, I didn't think so either. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Vigilante]

One of my posts was specifically chosen from [...] not a single verse that says anything about [...] a word that is legitimately interpreted as [...] the concept of hell [...].

Thanks for confirming.

fixed.

le sigh... not worth responding to. have a good day, sir.