Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)
Happy Thanksgiving.
This is a non-identical article, with edits from today, of a June 2007 post. This article was not read by most of my current readers. I think it is a slightly different type of article for this blog, and the topic is good for me to review. In other words, it is more Biblical Studies focused than most of my philosophical theology and philosophy of religion posts.
My Mom and I have caught two errors so far in the copied and pasted material from the June 2007 post. The errors were not in the original. That is frustrating! Blogger!!
I fix when I see.
The term eschatology is derived from the Greek word eschaton meaning last and refers to the ultimate culmination of history where Jesus Christ returns to earth and fully establishes his rule and Kingdom. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Eschatology is the theology that seeks to fully understand the direction and purpose of history and progressing events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Henry C. Thiessen writes that eschatology includes the concepts of the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, judgments, the millennium, and the final state. Thiessen (1956: 440).
Revelation is a complex book.
Revelation uses figurative language in parts.
There are a variety of interpretations for parts of Revelation within orthodox Christianity.
Caution should be taken with secondary doctrines established via Revelation.
I am not going to write in any great detail on millennial theory within this article as that is a complex subject apart from the complex subject that I am already discussing in a very non-exhaustive fashion. My purpose in this article is to examine the book of Revelation where it appears to portray the idea of two final battles against evil, and this seems to indicate an understanding of some type of figurative and not plain literal view of much of the book. There is a millennium or some length of time between the defeat of the beast and the false prophet and the ultimate defeat of Satan.
1. The final battle with the beast and false prophet
Robert H. Mounce writes that in Revelation 19:19 the beast, also known as Antichrist has brought his forces against Jesus Christ and his army. Mounce (1990: 349). In Revelation 16:13-16, the dragon, beast, and false prophet send out demons to the kings of the world and gather them for war against Almighty God. Mounce (1990: 349). Mounce explains that in the Hebrew this place is known as Har-Magedon and some scholars read it as Armageddon. Mounce (1990: 301). F.F. Bruce reasons that the term Har-Magedon is better here than Armageddon. Bruce (1986: 1620). Greek scholar, James Strong defines the term Armageddon or Har-Megiddon as referring to a symbol, or name. Strong (1986: 17). Another Greek scholar, Walter Bauer notes that Armageddon is a mystic place said to be Hebrew, and has been identified with Megiddo and Jerusalem, but interpretations have been faced with many difficulties. Bauer (1979: 107). Mounce writes that it is not very clear where this battle will take place exactly, but it could be a mountain or hill country near the ancient city of Megiddo. Mounce (1990: 301). Both Mounce and Bruce pointed out that there is no mountain at Megiddo. Mounce (1990: 301) Bruce (1986: 1620). Mounce writes that if the term Armageddon is favoured over Har-Magedon the reference may relate to the city of Megiddo rather than to a mountain, or hill country. Mounce (1990: 301-302). Revelation 19:20 describes the capture of the beast and false prophet and their casting into the lake of fire that is the place of final judgment. In the first final battle, the one who sits upon the horse, Christ, defeats the beast and false prophet. This is the battle of Har-Magedon, but yet according to the book of Revelation is not the final battle between God and Satan.
2. The final battle with Satan
In Revelation 20:1-3, Satan is captured, and thrown in the abyss for a thousand years. This takes place after the defeat of the beast and false prophet and their casting into the lake of fire. Neither Bruce nor Mounce claim that the abyss is the same place as the lake of fire and Mounce explains that the abyss was thought of as a place of confinement for disobedient spirits. Mounce (1990: 352). Bauer defines the abyss as depth and the underworld. Bauer (1979: 2). Specifically, in Revelation 20, it is an abode where the devil is kept. Bauer (1979: 2). I cannot see any direct connection here with the lake of fire which is the final judgment place for Satan, and those persons outside of Christ, as in Revelation 20:11:15. This means that quite possibly the abyss is not the same place as the lake of fire. I have noticed that Revelation 20 does not state that demonic beings are thrown into the lake of fire, but Erickson correctly points out that Jesus in Matthew 25:41 states that the devil and his angels shall be cast into the same everlasting fire. Erickson (1994: 451). This statement from Jesus appears to rule out demonic beings being punished in the abyss forever. There seems to be a reasonable possibility that the abyss is the same place as Hades, as in Romans 10:7 for example, where Paul uses the term abyss as meaning the abode of the dead. The abyss in one sense is the place of the dead and therefore all departed spirits, and in another sense is Hades where those outside of God and Christ reside in spirit form before the resurrection as in Luke 16:19-31, and where Satan shall be bound for a time until his final battle with God. Revelation 20:7 explains that after the thousand years, Satan is released and will deceive the nations of Gog and Magog that shall be gathered against God and his followers in the beloved city. But, verse 10 notes the devil is captured and thrown into the lake of fire. Chapter 20 continues as those persons outside of Christ are judged and thrown into the lake of fire. Mounce explains that Gog and Magog in Revelation are symbolic figures that do not represent specific geographic regions. They represent hostile nations from all over the earth. Mounce (1990: 362). Bruce agrees the Gog and Magog are symbolic and represent world powers against God. Bruce (1986: 1625).
Interestingly, in the defeat of the beast and false prophet, the one who sat upon the horse, Christ, brings with him an army, and the beast and false prophet are captured and the Lord kills the rest with a sword from his mouth in Revelation 19:21. In Revelation 20:6 after the capture of Satan, the resurrection of those in Christ is described and they are to rule with Christ for a thousand years. In the battle against Satan himself, it does not specifically state that immortal, resurrected, Old Testament followers of God, and New Testament Christians actually participate in fighting against Satanic forces and unregenerate persons, but fire comes down from heaven and devours those that surround the camp of the saints. This fire from heaven ends the battle, but it is interesting to ponder whether any fighting takes place before this occurring. God being infinite and omnipotent could easily take care of matters himself, but it would be fascinating if certain members of the Kingdom of God with immortal, resurrected bodies were actually allowed, and perhaps encouraged to physically battle the powers of darkness. I can imagine that some Christians would be fascinated by this possibility! I know that I would be. I am not stating that this is likely God’s will in this case, but perhaps in a sense, it would allow those in Christ to physically and spiritually fight against the evil that plagued them throughout their original earthly lives. I would reason it more likely that God simply wins the battle against Satan and his forces on his own, but if before the final battle with Satan, the millennium is an actual amount of time, including perhaps a literal thousand years, I ponder on whether or not resurrected saints would be involved in policing the planet. Those outside of Christ are not judged until after the millennium and so this means that there is a possibility that persons that are not resurrected could share the planet with resurrected saints for a thousand years. Mounce writes that the resurrected saints in the millennium are thought by some to only be former martyrs, but this would mean that most followers of the Biblical God are raised with the unregenerate and from looking at Revelation I do not see this as clearly explained. Mounce (1990: 360). Revelation 20:6 notes that blessed and holy are those that participate in the first resurrection over which the second death has no power and this would seem to describe all Old Testament and New Testament followers of God through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Blackberry photos of the neighbourhood:
From Facebook...once again I am no Bob Ross.
In my studying the other day in preparation to ask the Jehovah's Witnesses some questions when they next come to my door (after they gave me a copy of "Awake!" magazine and pointed out an article on Hell that explains how the Bible [supposedly] teaches that there is no eternal Hell, and they said they would be back to discuss it), I found it interesting that, in their New World Translation, they translate the "beast" as the "wild beast."
ReplyDeleteAmong the questions I have prepared to ask the JWs, focusing on the fact that they believe in annihilation instead of an eternal Hell, is this:
Rev. 20:10 (NWT) says, "And the Devil...the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." This event will occur after the 1,000 year reign of Christ (Rev. 20:7). Where will the devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be "tormented day and night forever and ever?" (i.e., if there is no eternal Hell.)
Similarly, Rev. 14:9-11 (NWT) says, "...if anyone worship the wild beast...he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur...and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever..." Again, where could "anyone" be "tormented...forever and ever?"
It should be interesting to see what their answer is. But my main purpose, with this and the other questions I plan to ask them, is not to 'win an argument' [because they will likely come up with some excuse as a rebuttal; also, winning arguments does not save souls], but rather to make them think about their beliefs. And, most importantly, I need to pray beforehand.
Nobel Prize for Obama Backfires
ReplyDeleteSaturday, October 10, 2009 8:55 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
If the Norwegian Nobel Committee thought it was bolstering President Barack Obama’s prestige in the world by awarding him the 2009 Peace Prize, it was wrong.
From the liberal Huffington Post and Daily Kos to the Washington Post and the Times of London, opinion makers have denounced the decision as a joke, spotlighting the fact that to date Obama has only hot air to show for his efforts at world peace.
"Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent,” the Times of London said. “It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush administration. The prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronizing in its intentions, and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun the period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”
Mark Halperin of Time magazine wrote, “Barack Obama’s critics have long accused him of being a man of ‘just words,’ rather than concrete actions and accomplishments. The stunning decision to award him the Nobel Peace Prize for, basically, his rhetoric, will almost certainly infuriate his detractors in America more than it will delight his supporters.”
“Whatever happened to awarding for deeds actually done?” wrote Michael Russnow, who campaigned for Obama, on the Huffington Post.
The Washington Post editorialized, “It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree. In blessing President Obama, the Nobel Committee intended to boost what it called his ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.’ A more suitable time for the prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit.”
As suggested by the Times of London, the award to Obama was an obvious slap in the face of President Bush. “This is an award for not being George W. Bush,” Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal. And what did Bush do to deserve the enmity of the Nobel Committee? He toppled a man who had killed 300,000 people and liberated 50 million people.
Because of Bush, Saddam’s regime no longer inflicts torture on Iraqis by having electric prods attached to their genitals or by giving them acid baths. It no longer drills holes in their ankles and skulls. It no longer leaves them naked in refrigerators for days. It no longer cuts out their tongues and cuts off their ears. Nor does it force Iraqi men to watch gang rapes of their wives and sisters.
Because of Bush, Afghan women can now attend school. They are free to go out in public without being accompanied by a man. They are allowed to hold jobs.
Moreover, because of the $15 billion Bush sent to combat AIDS, deaths in Africa are down dramatically. For that reason, despite claims that America’s moral standing in the world has eroded, Bush’s approval rating in African countries has stood at 80 percent or higher.
Those are real accomplishments worthy of a Nobel Prize. In giving the award to Obama, the Nobel Committee’s effort at burnishing the president’s image backfired by highlighting the fact that he has accomplished nothing beyond delivering oratory.
Well, Obama also has the "prestige" of sharing an award with the likes of such peaceful luminaries as Yassir Arafat and Henry Kissinger...
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteAs noted by email:
Paradise
Luke 23
2 Cor 12
Rev 2: 7
Phil 1
Walter Martin on JWS
Robert Bowman blog on JWS
hell
hell
hell
soul/spirit
soul/spirit
'From the liberal Huffington Post and Daily Kos to the Washington Post and the Times of London, opinion makers have denounced the decision as a joke, spotlighting the fact that to date Obama has only hot air to show for his efforts at world peace.'
ReplyDeleteObama has no major peace agreement.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee disliked President Bush.
The award was a politicized one.
Cheers, Jeff.
'Well, Obama also has the "prestige" of sharing an award with the likes of such peaceful luminaries as Yassir Arafat and Henry Kissinger...'
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed Friday night, Chuck.
Many of the European liberal elite strongly dislike political conservatism.
Many of the European liberal elite strongly dislike theological conservatism.
Many of the European liberal elite view their philosophy as vastly superior to North American philosophy.
There is an intellectual blindness as a result.
Blog World Expo 2009 in Las Vegas, NV
ReplyDeleteOctober 15-17
Yes bull
ReplyDeleteWise men with bulls
Those videos are a lot of bull, but they are really funny; especially the first one. However, I just cannot understand the intellect of people willing to endanger themselves in such a manner. I can see the thrill in skydiving or mountain climbing, but getting knocked around and thrown around by a bull just doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteA man took his wife to the rodeo and one of the first exhibits they stopped at was the breeding bulls.
ReplyDeleteThey went up to the first pen and there was a sign attached that said, "This bull mated 50 times last year."
The wife playfully nudged her husband in the ribs and said, "He mated 50 times last year."
They walked to the second pen which had a sign attached that said, "This bull mated 120 times last year."
The wife gave her husband a healthy jab and said, "That's more than twice a week! You could learn a lot from him."
They walked to the third pen and it had a sign attached that said, in capital letters, "This bull mated 365 times last year."
The wife, so excited that her elbow nearly broke her husband's ribs, said, "That's once a day. You could REALLY learn something from this one."
The husband looked at her and said, "Go over and ask him if it was with the same old cow?"
--------------
*NOTE: The husband's condition has been upgraded from critical to stable and he should eventually make a full recovery.
Sorry for edits, but this is complex material. Practice makes better and it is not as if I have weeks to work on this comment.:)
ReplyDelete'Those videos are a lot of bull, but they are really funny; especially the first one.'
Agreed.
Good joke.
Thoughts on annihilationism
As noted in the linked post in earlier comment and previous posts, I still lean toward a traditional view on everlasting conscious punishment.
However, when dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses and such, it is good to have an understanding of how annihilation would work if Biblical.
I noted:
With annihilation, the sins of the unregenerate are not atoned for by Christ and these people remain unrighteous (Romans 1, 4, 5). These people, although likely resurrected, are not fully sanctified with these resurrection bodies as are believers (1 Corinthians 15) and they are not suffering/punished for their sins in everlasting punishment. Is this just? In the name of divine justice, can some type of unlimited and universal atonement of Christ be applied to them for sin as they then face annihilation?
This seems problematic.
My argument now altered with a conclusion supporting annihilation:
God is perfectly holy.
Erickson writes that God is totally separate from his creation. Erickson (1994: 284).
Erickson lists Exodus 15: 11, 1 Samuel 2: 2 and Isaiah 57: 15.
God is absolutely pure and good; God is not evil. Erickson (1994: 285).
Erickson lists Job 34: 12, Habakkuk 1: 13 and James 1: 13
Human beings are sinful.
Jeremiah 17: 9, Romans Chapter 1-3, Romans 3: 23, Romans 6: 23.
Sin must be atoned.
God is the administrator of justice and cannot justly simply forgive sins. Erickson (1994: 816). God is equally the God of love and justice. Justice is therefore not ignored for the sake of love, as a holy God must be just.
Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement.
As God, Christ’s death has infinite worth. Erickson (1994: 804). As God he can atone for all finite human sin.
Christ as a perfect man was sacrificed for imperfect persons in the atonement.
As a human, Christ could redeem other humans. Erickson (1994: 804). Christ redeemed all of human nature through the atonement. Erickson (1994: 804).
Conclusion
Christ's atoning work must be unlimited/universal covering all human sin, in order that any unregenerate person can justly be annihilated.
I do not reason any amount of finite human penalty can fully cover sin.
Original and traditional conclusion
Conclusion
Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned. Biblically, all persons exist port-mortem (Revelation, Chapter 20). It could be reasoned that everlasting punishment exists as finite unregenerate persons continue to attempt to atone for their sins in hell, but can never fully cover their sins without Christ. Therefore they cannot justly be annihilated. Earthly sins are not covered, and post-mortem sins (rejecting God and related) in disembodied and resurrection states also remain uncovered.
Good points on annihilationism, Russ.
ReplyDelete"For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY " And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:30)
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
If annihilation is true, then God is lying in these verses.
Rifqa Bary goes back to Ohio, it was decided today. She may possibly face martyrdom. Or, she may face severe physical and emotional abuse, especially if her family forces her to go back to Sri Lanka and puts her in an insane asylum. This is also a sign that Islam is gaining influence in the U.S.
ReplyDelete'Good points on annihilationism, Russ.'
ReplyDeleteThanks, it took some work but should suffice in an experimental sense.
'"For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY " And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:30)
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
If annihilation is true, then God is lying in these verses.'
It seems doubtful human beings in Hades or the lake of fire are able to significantly cover their sins prior to being annihilated.
It seems doubtful (although theologically possible) there is a universal/unlimited atonement, which would be needed to cover all sins for the sake of divine justice, while clearly only some are regenerated and elected (John 3, Ephesians 1, Romans 8, Revelation 20).
I reason everlasting punishment is more likely the Biblical case.
'Rifqa Bary goes back to Ohio, it was decided today. She may possibly face martyrdom.'
Thanks for the updates, Jeff. I pray in Jesus' name for her safety and a great blessing from this situation.
A friend once gave me this quote that "the theme of The Book of Revelation is both plain and simple: God plans, Satan rebels, and God wins." I have to agree with you that this book is very complex. Being the only book in the Bible with literature that is Apocalyptic, I find it to very literal and abstract. I enjoy this blog entry. You're a very deep and gifted writer!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Daij. Your words are kind and appreciated.
ReplyDeleteWhile at seminary in the late 1990s, my mentor told me that very few scholars on eschatology/Revelation existed.
I reason that many of the speculative claims made by some writers on eschatology/Revelation are not well researched.
Eschatology and Revelation should be approached with caution.
Good to see your face.:)
Russ
havent read the whole text yet but wow im amazed your mom helps you with editing, am i right? you really have a beautiful neighborhood ^__^
ReplyDeleteYes, Mom has helped with all my academic degrees with proofreading and does look through my blog posts from time to time.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to live where I am...for now.
Thanks, Miel.:)
You live in such a beautiful place and you have a lovely mom
ReplyDeleteThanks, I will pass that on.:)
ReplyDeleteThanks to all for the very nice comments re 'Mom'-- I have been blessed to be able to be the first to read your work Russ, and it has been a very positive experience for me. There have been many struggles for you, but your have a real determination to succeed, and that degree will soon be on the wall! May God be with you in all the days ahead!
ReplyDeleteHow did I miss this post? :-)
ReplyDelete"If annihilation is true, then God is lying in these verses."
It is a dangerous hermenuetical method to say that my interpretation must be correct or God is lying in His Word.
Fundamental dispensationlism falls into this logical fallacy all the time when they proclaim that the promises of God in the OT must pertain to ethnic Israel or God is a liar. They don't even consider the possiblilty that maybe they are misinterpreting the Scripture (not all "Israel is Israel", etc.). They can't be wrong or their entire system crumbles so either they are correct in their interpretation or God is lying--there is no alternative. If we don't believe them, then we don't believe God. That's pretty alarming and very haughty of them, don't you think?
When it comes to non-essential docrines, I would hestitate to be so bold to proclaim that my interpretation of Scripture must be correct or God is a liar.
GGM
Thanks, Mom.
ReplyDeleteLove, Russ:)
Thanks, GGM.
ReplyDeleteI will let you discuss Jeff's comment with Jeff.
As you know, I have taken a cautious approach. I have explained what I view could be a Biblical approach if annihilation is true.
Russ:)
When it comes to non-essential docrines, I would hestitate to be so bold to proclaim that my interpretation of Scripture must be correct or God is a liar.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But I don't believe the eternality of Hell is a non-essential doctrine.
More questions that I plan to ask the Jehovah's Witnesses:
If Hell does not exist, but is simply a complete annihilation of the person in which there is no conscious awareness, then why does Jesus say in Mark 14:21 and Matt. 26:24 that it would be better for Judas if he had never been born? Jesus' words make no sense if Judas was only going to be annihilated.
If Hell does not exist and there is only annihilation, then what is the everlasting fire (Matt. 18:8, Matt. 25:41, Jude 7) that people can be thrown into?
If fire is a symbol of annihilation, then what is the scriptural evidence to support this?
Jesus talks about the fiery furnace and says (NWT) "There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be (Matt. 13:42, 13:50). If Hell does not exist, then where is the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of [their] teeth? If the fiery furnace is just symbolic of total annihilation in which a person will completely go out of existence (meaning that the soul is not eternal) and have no conscious awareness, then how could they weep and gnash their teeth?
Matthew 5:22 (NWT) speaks of "the fiery Gehenna." 'Gehenna' is a Hebrew word that means the place where evil people go in the afterlife. The name is derived from a geographical site in Jerusalem known as the 'Valley of Hinnom,' one of the two main valleys surrounding the Old City. Initially, it was the site where idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to the god Molech (2 Chron. 28:3, 33:6, Jer. 7:31, 19:2-6). The valley later became the common wasteyard for all the garbage and rubbage of Jerusalem. It's where the dead bodies of animals *AND CRIMINALS* and garbage were cast, and burned by a constant fire. It was a garbage dump that was like an incinerator. In time, it became the image of the place of everlasting destruction in Jewish tradition. However, Jewish tradition suggests the valley had a 'gate' which led down to a molten lake of fire.
ReplyDeleteIf annihilation is true, then what would be left of a person after they were annihilated that could be thrown into Gehenna, in Luke 12:4-5? Also, why should annihilation be feared?
ReplyDelete"I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!"
The word 'Gehenna' is used (the garbage dump with a continuous burning of trash) in Mark 9:43 and following, and Matthew 10:28, as the place of punishment of unquenchable fire.
ReplyDeleteLuke 16:23 says, (NWT) "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he EXISTING IN TORMENTS, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in the bosom [position] with him." Why does this say he was "existing in torments?" Obviously, he was consciously being tormented in Hades. Even if you take this verse to be a parable (which I believe is not a parable), then why would Jesus mislead us, rather than saying that he was merely annihilated?
I have more, but these should plainly show that Hell is a place of eternal torment.
Personally, I think compromising God's Word is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteA most interesting agora in which to discuss these fascinating and important topics with passion and scholarship. Jolly Good
ReplyDeleteAloha Friend!
Comfort Spiral
'When it comes to non-essential docrines, I would hestitate to be so bold to proclaim that my interpretation of Scripture must be correct or God is a liar.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But I don't believe the eternality of Hell is a non-essential doctrine.'
Minimally everlasting hell/punishment of the unregenerate (Revelation 20) is an essential doctrine.
Due to the figurative literal and apocalyptic nature of much of Revelation there is a debate on interpretation.
A cautious doctrinal approach is wise.
'Personally, I think compromising God's Word is dangerous.
Jason agrees of course, having read him for a long period. Jason has read, for example, Hughes, that suggests annihilation as a possibility. Jason shares this knowledge with us.
I do believe there are Christians that hold to annihilation, but I am not convinced that the use of figurative literal language in Revelation supports an idea of annihilation over a concept of everlasting punishment.
My argumentation for both sides demonstrates my open mind, even while I hold to essential Biblical doctrines.
'Luke 16:23 says, (NWT) "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he EXISTING IN TORMENTS, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in the bosom [position] with him." Why does this say he was "existing in torments?" Obviously, he was consciously being tormented in Hades. Even if you take this verse to be a parable (which I believe is not a parable), then why would Jesus mislead us, rather than saying that he was merely annihilated?'
It may be a parable.
It may be an actual historical event.
Hades can still actually exist either way.
Explanation of Hades:
Hades would be hell1 (unregenerate spirits awaiting the resurrection of Revelation 20), and Revelation demonstrates that hell1 is thrown into hell2, the lake of fire (Revelation 20: 14).
Death as well is thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20: 14).
This is a figurative literal banishment of two evils.
Note for readers, as Dr.Radmacher, my theology professor and new Facebook friend taught, figurative literal does not equal myth. An actual event is being described but not in absolutely plain literal language.
Thanks for the information, Jeff.
'Cloudia said...
ReplyDeleteA most interesting agora in which to discuss these fascinating and important topics with passion and scholarship. Jolly Good
Aloha Friend!'
Thanks very much.:)
While I'm not an annihilationist, I would never say to those who are my brothers in Christ (true brothers in Christ, not JW's of course) who hold to annihilationism that they are calling God a liar. /to say that my interpretation must be right or God is lying is the epitime of arrogance. Maybe they are wrong in their understanding of this "non-essential" doctrine, or maybe you and I are. But to say that God is lying if our interpretation of this doctrine is not correct is simply not logical.
ReplyDeleteBy "non-essential" I'm referring to doctrines that don't disqualify a person from redemption in Christ. If you're saying that a person must hold to the doctrine of a literal hell in order to be "saved", then I would have to disagree with you and I think the Scripture does as well. From reading your blog for awhile, I realize that you have strong beliefs about certain things (most of which I would agree with), but you don't strike me as a person who would believe this.
I'm just saying that I don't think it's wise to be so dogmatic in one's interpretation when dealing with a subject that can be open for debate amongst Christians. Whether or not JW's believe in a literal hell, this is not a hill to die on. Now the deity of Christ is! The incarnation of Christ as the fully divine, fully human God-man is an essential doctrine worth fighting over.
But as for me, I'll leave open the possibility that my Christian brothers who believe in annhilationism may be correct without calling God a liar. Maybe...just maybe I'm the one who's wrong on this issue.
GGM
"I have more, but these should plainly show that Hell is a place of eternal torment."
ReplyDeleteI guess Biblical Christian scholars such as Stott and Hughes (true, Bible-believing, Christ worshipping Christians like you and me) are not so bright after all since they can't see what's plain to you.
This is the same kind of fallacious kind of argument that causes sincere dispensational Christians to say that if David isn't resurrected to literally sit on the throne of Israel for a literal 1,000 years, then God is lying. Or that the Temple has to be rebuilt and the sacrafices reinstitued or God is lying.
Proof-texting proves nothing because it proves anything.
I don't doubt that a literal and everlasting hell is "plain" to you. But your claim indirectly suggests that those who don't see this issue as "plain" are inferior in their biblical exegesis. I may believe in a literal, everlasting hell, but I would hope that I wouldn't use language that suggests I'm more intelligent than such learned scholars as these men because I see "plainly" what they don't.
I would not have thought that you would so easily make such claims.
GGM
"Minimally everlasting hell/punishment of the unregenerate (Revelation 20) is an essential doctrine."
ReplyDeleteMinimally essential? :-)
GGM
'"Minimally everlasting hell/punishment of the unregenerate (Revelation 20) is an essential doctrine."
ReplyDeleteMinimally essential? :-)
GGM'
Hmm, you should have stopped with two comments...LOL.;)
No, I will have to correct you on that one my friend, clearly in context I am stating that minimally the doctrine is essential.
I did not use the term 'minimally essential' for good reason.
'While I'm not an annihilationist, I would never say to those who are my brothers in Christ (true brothers in Christ, not JW's of course) who hold to annihilationism that they are calling God a liar.'
They have a different interpretation.
'By "non-essential" I'm referring to doctrines that don't disqualify a person from redemption in Christ.'
One can hold that everlasting punishment is an essential doctrine.
One can hold that everlasting punishment is a lack of existence forever.
One can still trust in the Biblical Christ.
To further comment, to hold to some type of universalism or everlasting existence that would deny punishment for the unregenerate would be to misunderstand the New Testament message, and therefore a person's salvation would be doubtful.
Cheers, Jason.
Further thoughts on essential Christian doctrine:
ReplyDeleteThe thief on the cross simply trusted in Christ as the Messiah of God I reason and perhaps (I do not know) was not even aware of Christ's deity. Doubtful he would be aware of the trinity! Yet he was told he would be in paradise that day (Luke 23: 39-43). Now this was of course prior to the completed work of Christ.
But, that is not a typical example of a citizen of the Kingdom of God that will hold to core New Testament teachings (or was a Hebrew Bible era believer) which explain the nature of Christ and God.
"in context I am stating that minimally the doctrine is essential."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm not familiar with all the nuances of "essential". :-)
I don't believe the Bible condemns a person to everlasting hell if that person is an annihilationist. Therefore, I don't believe that the doctrine of a literal, everlasting hell is an "essential" doctrine that a person must believe in order to be saved.
"One can hold that everlasting punishment is an essential doctrine."
Sure, and one can hold that "everlansting punishment" is a non-essential doctrine...depending on what one means by "everlasting punishment".
There is some argument that the idea of "punishment" (as we tend to understand the term) is not even a biblical concept. There are various ways to understand God's dealings with the unregenerate that may or may not have anything to do with our conception of "punishment".
But be that as it may, there is no inherent heresy in understanding "everlasting punishment" as pertaining to an unregenerate person suffering the guilt of his sin and then being "everlastingly punished" by being annihilated. I don't think the Bible forces us to attach our preconcevied understanding of what "punishment" means upon the text of Scripture.
I don't think annihilationism as an eschatological belief necessarily denies the concept of "punishment" altogether.
By all means, "further comment" at your discretion O Magnificent Kingpin! :-)
GGM
p.s. I'm not making dogmatic claims that my "openness" to the idea of annihilationism means that ever person should be open to the idea. I just don't think it should be condemned as heresy and that those who hold to it call God a liar. I'm absolutely positive that I and every other professing Christian hold some doctrinal position that we firmly believe is true but that may turn out to be wrong. But we should be clear about what we call "essential" doctrine and what we believe can be debated in Christian circles.
Your latest comment on "essential doctrine" is worth dwelling on. We've been given much more revelation and access to know much more about who Christ is and what He came to do than did the theif on the cross, so in a sense there is much more that we should believe about Jesus and His work.
ReplyDeleteBut there's also a sense in which our faith in Christ is the same as the thief's faith (and that of Abraham)--the faith that proclaims Him and Him alone as our Mediator and Advocate before the Father based on His personal testimony to who He is (as Abraham looked forward to Him and as we and the thief look directly to Him.
I'm not sure if that statement is cogent to anyone else but me at the moment! :-)
So we definitly need to be cautious when declaring the "essentiality" of one doctrine or another.
Oops! Back to work!
GGM
'"in context I am stating that minimally the doctrine is essential."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm not familiar with all the nuances of "essential". :-)'
I think we are working through the concept. I am trying to be open-minded.
I think the context of what I meant was fairly clear and there was good reason I did not use the term minimally essential. I was avoiding contradiction.
'I don't believe the Bible condemns a person to everlasting hell if that person is an annihilationist.'
I agree with your idea.
'Therefore, I don't believe that the doctrine of a literal, everlasting hell is an "essential" doctrine that a person must believe in order to be saved.'
It can be held to in a figurative literal sense. I do reason that Biblically in light of death and the temporary nature of this realm, with the exclusivity of Christ for salvation the natural opposite would be to hold that those outside will face everlasting punishment of some type. This is logically essential doctrine.
'"One can hold that everlasting punishment is an essential doctrine."'
Sure, and one can hold that "everlansting punishment" is a non-essential doctrine...depending on what one means by "everlasting punishment".'
As noted, to not see the unregenerate as facing some type of everlasting punishment is to crucially misunderstand the gospel. Such a person's salvation is doubtful.
'There is some argument that the idea of "punishment" (as we tend to understand the term) is not even a biblical concept. There are various ways to understand God's dealings with the unregenerate that may or may not have anything to do with our conception of "punishment".
But be that as it may, there is no inherent heresy in understanding "everlasting punishment" as pertaining to an unregenerate person suffering the guilt of his sin and then being "everlastingly punished" by being annihilated. I don't think the Bible forces us to attach our preconcevied understanding of what "punishment" means upon the text of Scripture.'
Dealt with, yes. I have discussed propitiation previously.
'I don't think annihilationism as an eschatological belief necessarily denies the concept of "punishment" altogether.'
Agreed.
'By all means, "further comment" at your discretion O Magnificent Kingpin! :-)'
Hmm, well, I am the Biblical and open-minded kingpin anyway.
'p.s. I'm not making dogmatic claims that my "openness" to the idea of annihilationism means that ever person should be open to the idea. I just don't think it should be condemned as heresy and that those who hold to it call God a liar.'
Yes, I provided my perspective.
'Your latest comment on "essential doctrine" is worth dwelling on. We've been given much more revelation and access to know much more about who Christ is and what He came to do than did the theif on the cross, so in a sense there is much more that we should believe about Jesus and His work.'
Yes.
'But there's also a sense in which our faith in Christ is the same as the thief's faith (and that of Abraham)--the faith that proclaims Him and Him alone as our Mediator and Advocate before the Father based on His personal testimony to who He is (as Abraham looked forward to Him and as we and the thief look directly to Him.
I'm not sure if that statement is cogent to anyone else but me at the moment! :-)'
One is regenerated and has faith through grace.
Thanks, pastor.
Yes, we had some excitement over in these parts today--more comment at my place.
ReplyDeleteThanks Russ,
GGM
Thanks, GGM.
ReplyDeleteThis is my Facebook status message:
Battle royale? Along the lines of WWE or will someone be annihilated?
ah i am not sure you know this or not, but the book of revelation is essentially about the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad.
ReplyDeleteHello Russ,
ReplyDeleteRevelation is very deep and there is so much there, but you did a great job on this post pointing out some specifics.
In the end God is victorious and satan is defeated :)
BTW russ i no longer have a blog (long story) but i am going to still get around to reading some of my favs. on occasion like yours.
God bless you
'ah i am not sure you know this or not, but the book of revelation is essentially about the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad.'
ReplyDeleteThank you, I am aware that much of Revelation concerns that issue. It is documented in scholarship.
Happy Weekend.
Thanks, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you will still be participating!
Russ:)
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteCertainly has a few people talking that's for sure. Interesting. Would like to read in depth but very busy right now.
More to follow.
Russell.
Thanks, Russell.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you.
Wales internal examiner thinks my final work is acceptable. I need to make minor changes, email PhD to Wales, and pay for resubmission with regular mail. The internal and external examiners then officially check to see I did revisions wanted, which I did.
Re: GGM
ReplyDeleteBut to say that God is lying if our interpretation of this doctrine is not correct is simply not logical.
Point taken.
If you're saying that a person must hold to the doctrine of a literal hell in order to be "saved", then I would have to disagree with you and I think the Scripture does as well.
No, I would call that a foundational doctrine, not an essential doctrine.
I'm just saying that I don't think it's wise to be so dogmatic in one's interpretation when dealing with a subject that can be open for debate amongst Christians.
I just have a problem with Christians who are wishy-washy in their beliefs, or those who make compromises because of the world. The Bible tells us that we need to be sure of what we believe. I have met too many Christians who have been influenced by the world, and therefore do not believe that the Bible is authoritative. Political correctness, for example, has influenced too many Christians, and too many Christians are afraid to stand up for what the Bible says.
I will admit that my words "then God is lying in these verses" was more of an emotional reaction. Over the years, the authority of the Bible has seemed to be chipped away at more and more by modern society, and this just ticks me off.
And I do need to understand when a Christian is merely saying that they are not sure what the exact truth is on a certain issue.
I do suspect that there is some emotionalism on both our parts.
Whether or not JW's believe in a literal hell, this is not a hill to die on.
Yet, all cults, and most world religions (except Islam) deny an eternal Hell.
But as for me, I'll leave open the possibility that my Christian brothers who believe in annhilationism may be correct without calling God a liar.
I just cannot see how God could be a just God if annihilation is true. I think it is an attack on the character of God to say that annihilation is true. Annihilation is hardly punishment for evil, but is rather 'letting them off easy.' If Hitler is merely going to be annihilated, for example (or already was), then what does he really have to fear? Might as well be as evil as you can! God has placed within us a sense of what justice is, so we know that inherently. I mean, come on, if a man was a child molester, who raped children and slowly tortured them, then mutilated their tiny bodies and decapitated them, and his only payment for such horrible, detestable deeds was that he was going to be zapped out of existence, does that seem fair? And could God's idea of fairness and justice really be less than our own?
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteI guess Biblical Christian scholars such as Stott and Hughes (true, Bible-believing, Christ worshipping Christians like you and me) are not so bright after all since they can't see what's plain to you.
This is basically a straw-man argument, because I have never directly addressed any comment regarding Stott or Hughes. Nevertheless, as a general comment, let me just mention that I have known Christians who have said that they lost their faith because of relying solely on commentaries. They have warned against relying too much on commentaries, and have even said that to do so can be dangerous. Whether you are doing that or not, I do not know.
Proof-texting proves nothing because it proves anything.
Then why use the Bible as a reference for anything? It seems that you are falling to the same basic type of "fallacy" that you accuse me of, as your sentence here is quite dogmatic. Yes, Satan used verses from Scripture to tempt Jesus, for example; but Jesus also used verses from Scripture to fight Satan with, as well. And yes, cults can take verses out of context; but we also use Scripture verses to lead a person to salvation. So, to say that it "proves nothing" is indeed extreme and dogmatic. In fact, where does Christian doctrine come from? Does it not come from Scripture? And is it not proved by using proof texts? Therefore, there is most certainly value in using proof texts. Can they be misused? Of course? But are they completely without value? Certainly not.
I don't believe the Bible condemns a person to everlasting hell if that person is an annihilationist.
Neither do I; and again, I am distinguishing between an 'essential' doctrine and a 'foundational' doctrine. I am defining 'foundational' as a doctrine which is foundational for salvation. But 'essential' as merely one that is very important, though not necessarily one that determines salvation. This has to do with how one personally defines these words.
I think we basically agree, but it seems you just don't like my being so dogmatic and using phrases like "then God is lying," and I am bothered by those who don't take a firm stand on Scripture, because I have seen too many Christians reject Scriptural authority just because the world challenges it. But again, I guess I need to recognize when one is honestly admitting doubt about which doctrinal interpretation is the correct one.
Thanks, Sir Jeff.:)
ReplyDeletemore bull
more bulls
Let's do a comparison here, regarding retribution.
ReplyDeleteWord of God
"...Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction..." (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
"And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:45)
Christian Science
"Hell is "Mortal belief, error, lust, remorse, hatred, revenge, sin, sickness, death...that which worketh abomination or maketh a lie" (SH, 588:1-4)
"If man should not progress after death, but should remain in error, he would be inevitably self-annihilated." (Misc. Writings, p. 2).
Spiritualism
"Hell does not exist and never will."
"When you believe in spiritual manifestations, you will feel far happier than you do now. You will not fear the threats of damnation and hell...such doctrine is wrong" (Doyle, The New Revelation, 1918, p.68).
Jehovah's Witnesses
"The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally after death cannot be true" (LG, p.99).
Armstrongism
"Everlasting" means "age-ending." The translation "everlasting" is misleading, since the fire itself will not burn forever."
"The concept of "hell" is part and parcel of the folklore and mythology of the whole world...as a place of punishment and torture of the wicked" (TW, pp. 14, 18).
Mormonism
"Endless punishment" is "God's punishment" and may endure for "one hour, one week, or one year, or an age" (Morgan, The Plan of Salvation).
Eastern Mysticism
Heaven and hell are not accepted concepts.
Interesting...well done.
ReplyDeleteHome Sweet Home,
ReplyDeleteGreat pics of your home and surrounding area. Thanks for the warm personal touch you have added to your blog, and by the way, interesting article and great discussion via comments too!
-Picture Perfect-
Thanks, P.P.
ReplyDeleteThe bull video was funny. I loved the bull going after the Dog and falling off the stairs into the water. The guy getting a ride on the horns was funny also. People are so stupid.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteI posted two additional videos with those Portugese bulls as well, so four in total in comments.
They are posted as:
More bull
More bulls
Thanks Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYes, you and I agree on much and even...the doctrine of hell! :-)
It's just that coming from a fundamentalist background, I am leery of dogmatic language over what I consider non-essential doctrinal beliefs. As for your distinguishing between essential and foundational, well, I can understand the way you are using it and have no real problem with it. Though even here, foundational can give the impression of necessary (though I don't think that's the way you're using it).
And again, the fact that the Bible has a doctrine of "hell" is not in question (at least not with the annihilationists that I've read). The question is what does the Bible mean when referring to hell. You (and I) have a certain understanding of what the Bible means and the A's have another. And in my opinion the arguments from the A's (the arguments, that is, that are biblical, as opposed to emotional) fall within the pale of orthodoxy.
I don't hold anything against you for believing dogmatically in a literal eternal hell. I just feel the language you used to deny the A's the possibility (however remote you may think it is) that they may actually be correct.
We are essentially of the same mind, though not of the same degree. :-)
"This is basically a straw-man argument, because I have never directly addressed any comment regarding Stott or Hughes."
You didn't need to reference anyone in particular; your statement stands against all.
"They have warned against relying too much on commentaries, and have even said that to do so can be dangerous."
I agree. My only point was that godly, bible-believing Christians such asStott and Hughes can hold a biblically based position that there is a reality that is called hell and that a person can be annihilated after experiencing it. And this does not mean that God is lying in His Word.
"Then why use the Bible as a reference for anything? "
This is a non sequitur. I don't think there is "no value" to proof-texting. Sometimes that's all the time we have. But proof-texting is a danger because it doesn't always consider the larger context. My point is that the use of "proof-texting" to make a point is not always the best way to go about it because, as you know, anyone can take certain "proof-texts" to prove any number of heretical and/or non-Christian ideas.
And no, I don't believe doctrine is "proved" from "proof-texting". Doctrine evolves as we grow in our understanding of the Scripture--in full. It also evolves through controversy, as seen in the history of the Church. Proof-texting is the main source for error in the church. Just look at the cults. Proof-texting can have a place; but I don't think it's place is to "prove" doctrine but only as a quick support of doctrine (which is how I think you're using it). This is why when "push comes to shove", there must be more than simply "proof-texting".
We are both of the opinion that the Bible in total teaches a literal, everlasting hell where the unregenerate will spend eternity. But likewise, the A's (those with biblical arguments) believe that the overall Scriptural context teaches or allows for the concept of annihilation. Just providing "proof-texts" is an argument in futility.
I realize that this is a "blog", so it's difficult to provide a complete redemptive-historical approach on the subject. And I know that you try to provide the necessary material to strengthen your position--and that's great! But when we simply list a bunch of unrelated verses to prove a doctrine, then we fall into the trap of proof-texting. It's like the Calvinists and the Arminians trotting out their favorite verses that show either man is unable to believe the gospel on his own or that man is more than capable of believing on his own. My verses say the sky is blue, but my opponent's verses say the sky is green. So which is it? Is the sky blue or is the sky green? See what I'm saying?
con't...
...con't
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that you always do this. It just seems like in this instance you provide verses (not always related) that "prove" your point such that to believe in A is to miss something that is so clear that anyone should be able to see it. I'm sure that Stott and Hughes (among others) are very familiar with these verses and still hold to A. In fact, Stott became an A after many, many years to the contrary.
"I just cannot see how God could be a just God if annihilation is true. I think it is an attack on the character of God to say that annihilation is true. Annihilation is hardly punishment for evil, but is rather 'letting them off easy."
I don't think the men I mentioned above share your understanding. Annihilation does not mean "no punishment". It just means that at a certain point an unregenerate person will cease to exist. Why must this call into question the justice of God? Does God give us all knowledge about Himself and His ways? And even if He did, are we so transformed by the Spirit that we could grasp the fulness of His thoughts or ways? Just because we conceive of "punishment" a certain way, does that mean that it must be God's way as well?
"...and I am bothered by those who don't take a firm stand on Scripture, because I have seen too many Christians reject Scriptural authority just because the world challenges it"
I share your concern. But is this what you think I'm doing? Or is that what you think the A's are doing? I believe Stott and Hughes take a very firm stand on Scripture. They are not influenced toward A because of the world but because they believe the Bible teaches A (or at least suggests it).
I'm not sure if I've tracked all your points here, but I think you get my gist. We are essentially in agreement. I was just bothered by your use of language and your dismissal of A's as those who must obviously misunderstand the Scripture. In my mind this issue is not so obvious.
I appreciate the dialogue. I think I've said about all I can say on the subject, so I'll give you the last word if you want it. I appreciate the fact that we can disagree about certain things in the spirit of love and charity. I think this is the mark of the transforming power of the Spirit and is a positive testimony of our Lord and Savior.
Your brother (and not an "A"...yet!), :-)
GGM
p.s.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to write in a hurry (I'm cooking dinner--grilling out here in Denver...very nice!), so I hope my communication was clear.
Well...as clear as my usual muddled conversation! :-)
GGM
Thanks, Jason.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of cooking and bulls, how about some steak...hmm.
"My MPhil was 40, 000 words and my PhD under final review is 125, 000 including footnotes."
ReplyDeleteUaaauuu!! 125000 is a lot of words.
Great interview! Congratulations for your amazing job.
Thanks, Aline!
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeletedid you come up with an answer to your pondering?
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI will keep it in the back of my mind, but at this time I need to:
-Finish up PhD
-Continue to help Mom with web-based business
-Take Mom to Arizona, and go to California myself as well
-Celebrate Christmas within a context of a break
Thanks my friend.
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteI just discovered this evening that one of the local fellow Examiners is cheating the system.
She will post article "A". Get recognized by the "Recently posted" list with a bigger picture than all the others in the list because she is most recent. Then, she will watch to see if someone post behind her, now knocking article "A" to the second position. She will delete article "A" and resubmit it.
She is probably going to be in some real trouble. Not only is she victimizing everyone who attempts to gain some face time at the top of the "recently posted" page. She is also gaining up to double the viewings because every time she resubmits the same article, she alerts all of her subscribers again, with the same article. So, she has effectively gained twice the income and has knocked me out of the number one Richmond Examiner for the month. I do not do this for the money. However, this could turn into a national position. I may even use it on a resume for a job in journalism. And, she is messing with my stats as well as all of the other Examiners.
See if she disappears by next week. It could take a while for my Channel Manager to catch up with email. She is the Richmond Christian Living - Examiner.
I'm not going to post a link to her page because I don't want everyone who reads this to click on it and give her ratings. Instead, go to Examiner.com and look up Richmond. Then, "Religion and Spirituality". You will see my picture and title "Richmond Evangelical-Examiner". When you get there look at the "Recent post" list.
If your readers are interested in finding a link, I will let you determine if you want to give it to them. I'm not trying to take advantage of my messaging you.
I just wanted to respond to your reply to my question concerning Examiner.com
Latest news on Rifqa Bary:
ReplyDeleteFriday, October 23, 2009 - Judge Orders Rifqa Bary back to Ohio Despite Islamic Threat UPDATE: Rifqa is on her way back to Ohio NOW (also includes a list of other honor killings)
GGM,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. Though we disagree on some points, as you said, we are mostly in agreement, so to cover the same ground over and over would be pointless, I think. We've already both stated our thoughts. There are too many people dying and going to Hell every day to spend all our time arguing over details.
Different type of site. Offbeat.
ReplyDelete