I have to say a lot of these discussions about Christian orthodoxy no longer concern me because of something I’ve noticed. The Synoptics-Acts teach the resurrection of BOTH the just and unjust attendant with the unjust being raised to be tossed into hell. However, that hell is annihilation per Jesus’ comment about fearing “him who can DESTROY both body and soul in hell.”  The epistular Paul and John on the other hand teach that he who believes in Jesus will be raised (John), or Jesus will raise those who “belong to him” when he returns (Paul), i.e. no unsaved or unbeliever or no on who does not “belong” to Jesus will be raised, the punishment for the unsaved being death “the wages of sin is death” and “destruction” and that is meant literally, as in the unbeliever ceases to exist instantly upon death and so only the saved can be resurrected because only they continue to exist after death.  In each system, the unsaved are eventually obliterated, not tormented forever. The Synoptics system does have them being tormented between death and the resurrection (i.e. Luke’s story of the rich man and Lazarus), but finally obliterated in hell after the resurrection. John and Paul have them instantly obliterated at death.  So its pointless to worry overmuch about “orthodoxy.”

Reminds me of Ecclesiastes 7:16-17

Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?

Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

The New Testament itself can’t agree on one coherent after-life view, but its two competing views certainly rule out the mainstream eternal torment view, and thus all the over freaking out about condemnation is beside the point. Is the law infinite? Is it going to condemn me no matter what? Will God invent a new law all of the sudden just to condemn me at the last minute, as Protestantism teaches?  Well then I’ll be obliterated.  Well then, in such a case, under such a tyrant of a god, I would simply agree with Job in Job 7:16

I loathe it; I would not live alway: let me alone; for my days are vanity.

I would not = I don’t want to. And Job had never even watched Starship Troopers:

Come on you apes, you wanna live forever?

Actually its interesting to me, that early Christianity was about escaping from obliteration to get to live forever via the resurrection. Modern Christianity is about some indestructible soul that not even God can obliterate so the best he can do with one he doesn’t like is dump it in a furnace.  And Buddhism is the idea that this life sucks but we keep getting born back into it and so the point is to let go of all desires and achieve “enlightenment” so that you can finally “go to Nirvana” which more or less means just finally cease to exist. Job 7:16 (maybe not the entire book, but that one verse) seems more in line with the last one.

PS: I will post two comments below, both of which I made on a post over on Argo’s blog, in a post he calls “The Christian Does Not Die, He Becomes Death: Spiritual Marxism masquerading as the Christian orthodox ideal, Part 17“.  I’m posting those comments here because you kind of need them to understand my theory of finite vs infinite law, which was referenced above because this post was initially written as another comment for that blogpost which I decided to just make a blogpost on my blog instead. Anyone curious as to why I mentioned Buddhism here, see my comments on another of Argo’s posts, called “God’s Categorical Knowledge is Both Irrelevant and Impossible for Humanity to Know and Claim“.

Advertisements