Replies

Wait a minute, here! Your whole argument (and position, if I understand even half of it) is that God couldn't possibly be so cruel as to sentence (and again, that's a flawed way to put things) humans to an eternity of burning in hell... which leads you to the hypothesis that hell is temporary, and the damned will eventually be erased from existence altogether--which you somehow equate with "death".

Now... given this version of God, how does that square with "sentencing" angels to an eternity of burning in hell? Are angels less worthy of God's love or mercy? Is God's love and mercy incomplete, partial, or selective?

Read your own quote again:

"And the turn or burn message, to a human mind, not only makes no sense but is abhorrently barbaric. It also does not fit with the personality of God as displayed from the first word of Genesis to the last word of Revelation. Those humans not in his favor are not tortured. They are killed and removed from the playing field."

And yet, you turn right around, without blinking an eye, acknowledge the fact (which is plainly in Scripture--Revelation 20:10 is [forgive the pun] excruciatingly clear, which is why we cite it again and again; since you have a penchant for trying to interpret away what disagrees with your thesis, we're forced to keep pointing you back to a verse which explicitly contradicts your position). You acknowledge it, and then you shrug and say, "I have no opinion of how he treats his angels other than I’m sure that he does the right thing." That's generous, to be sure... but how is that substantially different from anyone else looking at human souls in eternal torment (in hell) and saying "I have no opinion of how he treats his human creatures other than I’m sure that he does the right thing"?

They are not humans. I don’t know what they know or understand about Him. Being a man, I know the heart of man, but I am not an angel.

What possible difference does that make to this case? We're examining (what you take to be) the nature of GOD, not the nature of angels! You don't need to know the mind or heart of an angel to know that he's capable of being tormented for all eternity! The question should be, "Why are you giving God a free pass on (what you see as) the eternal torture of angels, while you absolutely refuse to entertain the possibility that God could allow humans to suffer eternally in that way?" If God were (and again, I think this is a mistaken way to view the situation) capable of torturing angels forever, wouldn't that say something about His Heart? Would you trust a father who just finished torturing your older sister to death, on the basis that there's no record of him ever torturing males--and since no male can fully know the mind and heart of a female (I dare you to refute that! :) ), so your father must've had his good reasons... reasons which couldn't possibly transfer to you, since you're male?

Forgive me, FRiend... but this reply of yours reads very much like a fingers-in-ears, "Lalalalalala-I'mnotlisteningI'mnotlistening-lalalalalaGodistoomercifultoalloweternalhellforhumans!" You seem (ironically, given your paean about logic/reason in your last post) to be rejecting the "God allows eternal hell" thesis purely because you find it emotionally abhorrent! That's not logical, my FRiend.

...Now... given this version of God, how does that square with “sentencing” angels to an eternity of burning in hell? Are angels less worthy of God’s love or mercy? Is God’s love and mercy incomplete, partial, or selective?...

He deals with man differently than he deals with dogs. He deals with angels differently than he deals with man. I am not an angel so I can’t speak for their perspective. I do know that the bible tells me they know things I don’t, among other differences.

i.e. They may be held accountable in ways we are not, just as se are held accountable in ways a dog is not.