[jlisenbe]

Remember this? "He didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals." Remember this? "How do you know Jesus said any of that?" Remember this? "How many times has the NT been translated, parts rewritten, words changed and added and deleted." Remember this? "Unfortunately, we don't have the complete original. And even then, you and I both know how unreliable notes and transcriptions and copies can be." And lastly, remember this? "From many, many sources, translations...."

Too late to go back now. You had many chances to explain your view, and all I got was what I posted above.

But if you want to change your mind, then by all means do so.

[Wondergirl]

What I said is true, but that doesn't delete the entire NT or make many parts of it "unreliable".

[jlisenbe]

So being the "invention" of mortals does not make the NT unreliable? I think that's a strange statement. But here's your chance. What is your view of the reliability of the NT?

[Wondergirl]

I said, "He [meaning Jesus] didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals."

Stop twisting. And as you know, I had specified certain statements.

[Athos]

Nope. You brought him up many months ago when we first discussed all of this.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...80#post3847480

I did not associate your R. Young with Young's Concordance. Since if that is the case, you should have made note of the prior reference. However, I will take one error off even though in the larger scheme of things, it is a minor point. By minor point I mean that an error is an error no matter how many agree or disagree with it.

Also, here's a nice point from that old post that bears repeating: Also, and importantly, the Greek word kolasis used in this verse means “corrective punishment” - not eternal punishment.

I was referring to this statement of yours. "Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind."

Yes, I know. I included that exact quote describing my point.

You claimed they had a bias because of their Christian faith and that, incredibly enough, would explain how many hundreds of translators would come to the same conclusion over several centuries.

All religious believers are inclined to believe the tenets of their faith. If you want to call that bias, you are free to do so.

I would instead suggest that honest people tend to come up with honest results.

There is no reason why an honest belief cannot be a mistaken belief. Look around you - it's everywhere.

You have a history. Nuff said.

No, not "nuff said". There's more to be said. For starters, when you revert to the argument called ad hominem, you are displaying an ignorance that prevents you arguing from facts or carefully constructed opinion.

I'm the only one who has. No English translation follows your idea other than Young

Again, you have missed the point. Look at it this way - what Christian publisher would ever publish a Bible which denied the existence of Hell? I will answer for you - none. Google again - this time with better key words.

Oh? So we should do as you have done on this critical comment? Follow your example?

I have never suggested anyone follow my example. I suggested YOU follow WG's example. You are turning words around again. That's a bad habit of yours. You should try to argue with facts and/or carefully thought out opinions. For example, your comment about Young was a valid comment because it was supported by facts which you presented.

It was a joke. (This refers to a comment about WG)

It didn't read like a joke. But you do seem to be apologizing for it now. Good.

I made that clear in my original post which was deleted by the watchful eye of whoever for who knows what reason. That has happened to several of my posts in the past few days.

I will now go off on a tangent that may be lengthy and possibly convoluted but will help to explain the mystery of your post disappearing - at least one of them.

I contacted the moderator Curlyben and asked - note ASKED - if a post of yours in reply to me was allowed under the rules. It was your post #20 in the category Current Events within the thread entitled "House Members Praise mass Shooting". Curlyben instructed me to select RIP (Report Inappropriate Post) and he would consider it "over a beer", he said.

I said I am not asking the thread to be closed. I only want to know how the rules apply to the post which I inquired about. Also, I advised him there was no RIP on the post location, only an RP (Report Post without the "inappropriate""). I emphasized this because I did not want your post deleted. I intended to make a full reply, and wanted only an explanation of the rules.

I was again instructed to make an RIP. I said the instructions at the link specifically stated that the RP was ONLY to be used for "advertising, wrong topic or hateful/obscene speech". I repeated that all I wanted was an explanation of the rules and with my request I was not claiming any of those things. This went back and forth until I complied with his instructions and asked for his supervisor's email address to escalate my question since Curlyben was not forthcoming with an answer. He replied as follows: "As to escalation, it's me". I then asked him if he were the owner of the site. He never replied and I'm still waiting.

So that's probably the reason you found a least one of your posts deleted. It's too bad because I had a good reply.

Back to the issue at hand.

That's a fair criticism. I did not read your response carefully enough.

Ok.

It is, however, not a fair summary of WG's views on the subject.

You will have to take that up with WG.

I'll also add this. You posted a number of months ago that you had an ability to tell which of the statements of Jesus were authentic. You claimed you had developed this ability over years of reading the NT. Correct?

No, not correct. At least the slant you have put on what I may have said. You're making me sound like some sort of magician. I'm sure I would never say something in the manner you describe. It would help if you cited the location as you did earlier in this thread.

Summary. 1 error and no contradictions.

You get partial credit for the R. Young comment. Of the original 9 errors and two contradictions, your new summary is 8 errors and two contradictions. Hell, you didn't even address several of the errors. No credit is given for non-addressment. (Yeah, I know, I made up that word).

You have presented no support for your contention about the meaning of aionios other than Robert Young.

You insist on support for every contention of mine. By support, you mean others who can confirm my claims. It doesn't always work that way. In fact, it rarely works that way. You were given the Greek, several facts, how to satisfy yourself by googling with proper research tools, and the logical consistency of any argument. You are free to disagree but you are not free to deny simply because you say so.

(Your claim that I insist on my point simply because I say so has been debunked. See above.)

But even at that, it still leaves hell a very real place of punishment for a very long period of time.

Only in the mind of believers like yourself.

I think your criticism of NT scholars is more a reaction about your own biased view of aionios than it is a valid observation.

You are free to think whatever you want. But you give no evidence of any bias on my part. My view is based on the facts as presented and the opinions I have shared with you, which together make for valid observation.

[dwashbur]

I thought this was supposed to be a thread about hell, not a personal pot-shot-fest. That's all I'm seeing right now.

Athos, I'm afraid you're pulling a fast one with two different meanings of aionios in Matt 25:40. Those lines are basic Jewish parallelism. It was a common thing in their writing and speaking. In a parallelism like this, the word is going to have the same meaning in both.

JL, you just can't resist getting personal and working yourself into a lather.

Here's the short version on that word beginning with Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, the authoritative lexicon of the Greek New Testament.*
1. Without beginning 2 Tim 1:9
2. Without beginning or end Rom 16:26
3. Without end Lk 16:9; Heb 13:20

They list several others, of course. Of greater interest are the non-theological uses. This is from Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the New Testament. This is THE book for seeing how the secular world used the language. It's illustrated from the papyri and other sources that we have discovered. The Oxyrhynchus papyri are especially important in this regard.

"In classical Greek...it never loses the sense of perpetuus." It was often attributed to the emperor. Tiberius had an "eternal house" for example. "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be it at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Caesar's life."

In Matt 25:40 we know it doesn't mean "without beginning" because there's a definite beginning to the people's dwelling wherever they end up. Hence it can't mean without beginning or end, either, for the same reason. I think M-M (that's how we abbreviate it because "Moulton-Milligan" takes too long to type) has it correct: it means beyond the temporal horizon. How far beyond? I leave that for the theologians to take up. I'm just a language nerd.

*second edition. I never bought the next edition because the print was smaller and the typefaces are weird.

[jlisenbe]

In Matt 25:40 we know it doesn't mean "without beginning" because there's a definite beginning to the people's dwelling wherever they end up. Hence it can't mean without beginning or end, either, for the same reason. I think M-M (that's how we abbreviate it because "Moulton-Milligan" takes too long to type) has it correct: it means beyond the temporal horizon. How far beyond? I leave that for the theologians to take up. I'm just a language nerd.

That seems fair enough, other than to note that no translator is willing to go there other than RY. Still, as long as the word is applied equally to heaven/hell, it is at least consistent.

JL, you just can't resist getting personal and working yourself into a lather.

I can see how I would come across that way. This is a passion for me and no game. Believe it or not, I do try to keep from letting it get personal, but the line there is sometimes blurry. I would only contend that it is very much a two-way street.

WG

Not true. A God of Love is going to threaten hellfire to make humans love each other?

Yes, but that is what I mean. There is no historical/textual reason to doubt that Jesus said those words. There is only the idea that you don't think they fit, and that's just not sufficient to convince others. It just strikes me as a very weak argument. Besides, I don't think that's what Jesus was doing at all. He is not using a threat to motivate, and He is not referring to works as much as He is referencing the fruit of genuine faith vs. a lack of fruit. In other words, those who genuinely trust him will do his will, while those who don't will follow their selfish instincts. It is a very serious warning, but not really a threat.

Think of it this way. When I was a teacher I would tell my students, "Those who pay attention and study make good grades while those who neglect their studies do poorly and possibly fail." Is that a threat or a warning?

[dwashbur]

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of certain original Hebrew and Greek words: sheol, hades, tartarus, gehenna, owlam, aion and aionios, which first occurred when Jerome translated Scripture into the Catholic Latin Vulgate in the early fifth century.

The truth of the matter is that there is not one single word in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that means hell.

Got a bit of circular reasoning here.

No words mean hell. How do you know?
Because these words don't mean hell. How do you know?
Because no words mean hell.

Hell is a man-invented, pagan, unchristian, heretical belief that was first embraced and christianised by Catholicism and incorporated into the Bible by Jerome through his Latin Vulgate in the early history of Christianity. Also, Jesus Christ never spoke about ‘everlasting’ fire and punishment, as erroneously translated in verses such as Matthew 18:8, 25:41 and 25:46 in popular versions of the Bible that support the doctrine of hell.

The War Scroll from Qumran suggests otherwise. At least some Jewish sects had a fairly defined concept of an afterlife of torment, regardless of what one calls it.

God’s love and the doctrine of hell are irreconcilable.

Hardly. For one thing, God has many attributes and love is only one of them. I love my family, but if one of them commits a crime, I'm turning them in because there's also justice, which you decry below. What do you suggest God do with people who simply refuse to be reconciled with shim?

It is only twisted Augustinian theology that tries to reconcile God’s love with endless punishment in hell. Hell believing preachers use absurd reasoning to say that eternal torture in hell, for the vast majority of mankind who die as unbelievers, is an act of God’s love demonstrating His perfect justice. This is totally twisted reasoning, beyond all comprehension.

Having once been one of those preachers, you're mistaken. Letting someone go their own way even if it means eternal separation is an act of love, releasing the person to their own will rather than forcing something on them. Again, we have to balance all of God's attributes.

Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine. What type of justice would it be for an all-knowing, all-loving God, who knows the end from the beginning and who foreknew that man would sin, then proceed to create multiple billions of people, in His own image, to have them end up being punished by Him eternally for their sins committed in the few years of their temporary existence in this life?

Please define "justice".

Falling back on foreknowledge betrays the weakness of your argument. I know what will happen if my bipolar daughter ever goes off her medication. If she ever does, she'll have to suffer the consequences and I won't intervene. Does that make a mockery of my love for her? Try to imply that and I'll show you what nasty things I can do with a wet noodle. I'm giving her her head, letting her run her own life and make her own mistakes. God willing she'll never go off her medications, she's properly terrified of the idea. But you get the idea.

The Bible clearly says that God’s will is to save all men. However, hell makes Satan and man’s fallen free will out to be more powerful than God’s Sovereign will for the salvation of all people.

I assume you're talking about 1 Tim 2:4. God θέλει (thelei) all men to be saved. Wishes, desires, would like to have it so. Not a statement about God's sovereign will, an expression of wish, not necessarily fulfilled. And the context says, pray for these people that they will be saved, then get out there and tell them how. Paul knew not everyone would receive the gospel, such people were the reason he was in prison. He would have loved to see everyone know the truth, but it wasn't to be. People have freedom. This is not a theological statement. It's an expression of wish.

It depicts God as a weak and powerless God who is unable to fulfil His will to save all.

See above on "will".

The truth of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive the sins of the whole world, as the Bible clearly tells us. This is indeed the true Gospel. So, how can Jesus Christ be the Saviour of all men, yet fail to save all men? This simply does not make sense. The doctrine of hell completely negates the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A gift isn't yours until you take it. If you refuse to take it, the giver can do one of two things: force it on you, or respect your wishes. God chooses to do the latter.

The doctrine of Hell is also a source of anti-semitism, but that's a story for another time.

Well, don't just sit there. TELL!

[Athos]

DW - thanks for your reply. I am not going to reply point-by-point because it's all been done before and, in my opinion, debunks every point you made. A small "complaint" about you - had you been here on a regular basis, you would have been apprised of those points. I understand that other matters intervened preventing you from being here more often, but I hope YOU understand we can't rehash all the previous material to satisfy you. If you're really interested, you can always research backwards in this category.

However, having said that, I'll make an exception for what I believe to be the most important point about this discussion on eternal Hell. But first, a minor point easily dismissed.

I love my family, but if one of them commits a crime, I'm turning them in because there's also justice, which you decry below. What do you suggest God do with people who simply refuse to be reconciled with shim?

I decry nothing, especially justice which you claim I decry without a bit of evidence quoting where I made that statement. Please don't start putting words in my mouth like Jl has been prone to do for the longest time. He never learns - best not to use him as a role model.


Responding as promised:

1. Do you sentence your child to an eternity of painful cruel torture for committing that crime?
2. For people who refuse to be reconciled with him, I suggest he treat them with understanding and kindness (you asked for my suggestion). That does not include an eternity of torture as noted in #1.

I further suggest he treat all those who never heard of him or believe in a different God to be treated exactly the same way. We've been over this ground before, but bringing your child into it makes it more personal.


The most important point:

Falling back on foreknowledge betrays the weakness of your argument.

By omitting the creation aspect of God, YOUR argument betrays a weakness that is unforgivable. Sorry if that is pot-shotting, but the strongest word possible is required. The rest of your argument using your bipolar daughter as a proof of your position is irrelevant when referencing foreknowledge as it applies in the present discussion. I don't know what the wet noodle thing is supposed to mean.

In the plainest language I can muster, God's foreknowledge of a person is combined with his creating that person. You can't have one without the other. Therefore, God knows (foreknowledge) what that person will do, and yet God creates that person fully knowing what that person will do resulting in his being sent to hell. God, by his act of creation, knows that person will go to hell, yet God creates him anyway. Excuse the repetition - sometimes it helps to get the point across. IN EFFECT, GOD HAS ENSURED THAT THE PERSON WILL GO TO HELL BY CREATING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

There is not a single Bible verse in the world that can refute that.

[dwashbur]

2. For people who refuse to be reconciled with him, I suggest he treat them with understanding and kindness (you asked for my suggestion). That does not include an eternity of torture as noted in #1.

This doesn't answer the question. They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?

The most important point:

Falling back on foreknowledge betrays the weakness of your argument.
By omitting the creation aspect of God, YOUR argument betrays a weakness that is unforgivable.

Foreknowledge does not imply causation, contrary to your unspoken connection. You say God is sending them to hell just by creating them. But those people are free and responsible to behave according to God's principles. You're describing robots, not people. People make choices. God may not like those choices, but he makes people free to make them or not make them. Yes, he knows how it'll turn out. But he gives them the chance and the responsibility out of love. How do these things reconcile? I don't know, and if God explained it to us our heads would probably explode.
The best image I ever saw came from my favorite Bible college teacher. He drew a railroad track vanishing over the horizon. One rail was labeled Sovereignty and the other was labeled Free Will. He said, somewhere beyond the vanishing point, these things reconcile. I don't know how or where, and it's probably just as well.

As for justice:

Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine.

Yet, that appears to be the kind of justice the Bible presents. I asked you to define "justice". Still waiting.

[jlisenbe]

The best image I ever saw came from my favorite Bible college teacher. He drew a railroad track vanishing over the horizon. One rail was labeled Sovereignty and the other was labeled Free Will.

I've seen that as well. It is a difficult area, and quite possibly one where God's thoughts are so much higher and more elegant/sophisticated than ours that we can never understand them.

They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?

Perhaps it is more basic than just that. Justice requires law. What does God do with lawbreakers?

[Athos]

This doesn't answer the question. They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?

Of course, I answered the question - treat them with understanding and kindness if they don't want to be in his presence. Surely, "...people who refuse to be reconciled with him" covers those who "... don't want to be in his presence."

What God does with them case-by-case (is that what you're asking?) is God's business. How about just ignoring them and respect their free will which is what you say sinks my next point. Or you can pick anything for God to do that suits you - except, of course, eternal hell.

Foreknowledge does not imply causation

It certainly does when the foreknow-er also creates the foreseen-ee.

contrary to your unspoken connection.

There was nothing "unspoken" about it. I spoke loudly. You either didn't see it, or didn't understand it.

You say God is sending them to hell just by creating them.

No, that is NOT what I'm saying (now I think the problem is your not reading (seeing) what I wrote). It's NOT "just by creating them" - it is by creating them (omnipotence) and KNOWING (omniscience) they will go to hell. God's knowledge is PERFECT. If God is wrong because their free will prevents their going to hell, then God's knowledge is not perfect. God was wrong. But that cannot be - if God is wrong, he is not God.

But those people are free and responsible to behave according to God's principles.

In that case, God did not foresee what would happen to them. God's foreknowledge was in error. I hope by now you are seeing that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time under your example. If what you say is true, then God is not God.

You're describing robots, not people.

No not robots. Simply people who cannot thwart God's will because God is all-powerful (omnipotent) and cannot err. If people change what god has foreseen (omniscient) via free will, then God is not all-knowing and his omniscience was in error. God cannot be in error, else God is not God.

Sorry for so much repeating, but it seems to be necessary to clarify as much as possible.

People make choices.

Yes, and God has foreseen those choices because he is omniscient (all-knowing).

God may not like those choices, but he makes people free to make them or not make them.

Yes, they are free to make or not make those choices, but (here's the key). God knows beforehand (omniscience) what those choices will be because he is God and is all-knowing (omniscient).

Yes, he knows how it'll turn out.

YES, YES, YES, YES.

But he gives them the chance and the responsibility out of love.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

How do these things reconcile?

They do not and cannot reconcile. Surely, you must see that.

I don't know

Finally, you are admitting you don't know. If you had said that in the beginning instead of saying what you did, we could have ended this at the beginning. By now, it must be glaringly obvious to you that they CANNOT reconcile.

and if God explained it to us our heads would probably explode.

By assuming that God could "explain it to us", you are limiting God to your understanding or, more accurately, to your lack of understanding. It's like saying God can make a square circle because he's God. But God cannot violate his own rules that he (as Creator) has put in motion.

The best image I ever saw came from my favorite Bible college teacher. He drew a railroad track vanishing over the horizon. One rail was labeled Sovereignty and the other was labeled Free Will. He said, somewhere beyond the vanishing point, these things reconcile.

He was wrong. I hope you see that now.

My comment:

Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine.

Your reply:

Yet, that appears to be the kind of justice the Bible presents.

That is another topic - the reliability of the Bible considering its many translations and editions and languages, etc., etc. That has been discussed at length elsewhere on these pages.

I asked you to define "justice". Still waiting.

Justice is the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. That's from Merriam-Webster.

The part related to this discussion is "...the assignment of merited rewards or punishments". In what universe could anyone possibly believe that not believing in God (for any of dozens of reasons) or refusing to believe in God (for any of dozens of reasons) merits being locked in a torture chamber and being horribly burned in a never-consuming fire for all eternity? Or in some other Hell where punishment goes on for eternity?

I have answered in every possible way to ensure that I covered every one of your points. I am sorry if it's been tedious, but I saw no other way to reply fully. I beg you to read carefully all that I've written, and not to read carelessly or merely scan over what I wrote - or worse, skip what I wrote. Thank you.

[dwashbur]

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
This doesn't answer the question. They don't want to be in his presence. What does he do with them?
Of course, I answered the question - treat them with understanding and kindness if they don't want to be in his presence. Surely, "...people who refuse to be reconciled with him" covers those who "... don't want to be in his presence."

What God does with them case-by-case (is that what you're asking?) is God's business. How about just ignoring them and respect their free will which is what you say sinks my next point. Or you can pick anything for God to do that suits you - except, of course, eternal hell.

No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go? If God is omnipresent and they don't want to be in his presence, there's no alternative but to make a place for them to go where he's not. Where is it and what is it like? You've ruled out the only alternative Jesus ever talked about, so we need to hear yours.

We're never going to get anywhere with this because we can't come together on the foreknowledge question, so I'm bowing out of this. When I was in high school I ran track one year. I couldn't get past the fact that I ran a mile or so and wound up back in the same place. That's what we're doing here, and I don't want to do it any more.

[Athos]

No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go?

I DID answer. I said God can put them anywhere he wants. They go where God sends them.

If God is omnipresent and they don't want to be in his presence, there's no alternative but to make a place for them to go where he's not.

How about if God just sends them out of existence? If God brought them into existence, surely God can send them out of existence. That solves your omnipresent problem which really is a semantic problem, else we're dealing with pantheism which we don't want to do.

You've ruled out the only alternative Jesus ever talked about, so we need to hear yours.

Do you mean Hell being the only alternative Jesus ever talked about? I don't believe Jesus ever said that, but let's not get bogged down in that topic, what Jesus did or did not say - plenty of room for that in another thread.

Anyway, I answered your question in my reply above - out of existence.

We're never going to get anywhere with this because we can't come together on the foreknowledge question

The reason for that is your refusal to accept the obvious. Sorry if that's harsh, but there's no other answer to the dilemma you expressed. I explained foreknowledge so that anyone can understand it. So, when someone (you) says he disagrees with the explanation, I have to look elsewhere for his reasoning.

That also is plain to see. You feel it undermines your faith/understanding of God. Whenever that happens, you, as a man of God, reject whatever is doing the undermining. This is common and well understood.

Many fervently held beliefs have been challenged, for example, as science reveals the natural world to be the cause of what had previously been held as divine handiwork. Most people, sooner or later, come to accept the new paradigm without losing their strong faith. The essential core of the nature of God can never be eliminated by science because science cannot examine/analyze at that deep level. But science can and does eliminate much of the literal understanding surrounding religious myths and allegories.

Some people grasp this sooner than others. Some never grasp it.

so I'm bowing out of this....That's what we're doing here (running in circles), and I don't want to do it any more.

Perfectly understood. But I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't note some home truths about your occasional participation here. Offered as help, not criticism.

Bowing out is never the answer. Facing difficulties is far better. Your tendency to bow out (three or four times now) when your faith is shaken or you cannot come up with an answer (as here) will not serve you in the long run. I'm certain your FB page says something very similar at times.

If you confront challenges to your faith, you will find that you can work through them and find yourself with a deeper and stronger faith for having done that. That's a nice thing about religious faith - it is always revealing itself in new and deeper ways.

[dwashbur]

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go?
I DID answer. I said God can put them anywhere he wants. They go where God sends them.

That's the question, isn't it? Where exactly does he send them?

[Athos]

That's the question, isn't it? Where exactly does he send them?

My answer is quoted right there in your question:

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
No, it doesn't answer the question. Where does he put them? Where do they go?
I DID answer. I said God can put them anywhere he wants. They go where God sends them.

Are you suggesting YOU know where God sends them? If so, where? God doesn't tell me what he does.

[waltero]

I'm asking what YOUR belief is, what one believes God would do.

I can't speak for God. One thing I do know; God became a Man...question; What would man do? Look, we all live within a kingdom of this World. If we are of this World then we will be judged according to the functions of this World...the Judges of this World do not acquit the guilty...all are guilty.

If you so choose not to live according to this world and enter into the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, you will choose the only Judge, that is able to acquit the guilty...being nonexistent according to this (physical) world. In fact, we are in a cell, right now, waiting for Judgement.

Where exactly does he send them?

Should never think of it as "them," It only pertains to you.

[jlisenbe]

Welcome back, Walter.

[waltero]

Thank you JL. No need to welcome me back, I am always here.

Once I see the discussion going off into la, la, land I am forced to step away.

[Wondergirl]

Thank you JL. No need to welcome me back, I am always here.

Once I see the discussion going off into la, la, land I am forced to step away.

Then please suggest ways for us to restrain JL so threads don't unravel.