Christ Centered Gamer

I think the real problem is akin to a remark I overheard during a religious discussion on a video game... "I don't want THAT to happen!"

Probelm is, hell is scary as... well... hell. It implies that yes, we are responsible for our actions in this life, to such an extent that we will be held eternally culpable. Kind of like a man in his earthly life can land a life sentence in prison, for say, butchering 12 or 13 people, just for kicks. The concept at work here is JUSTICE... the idea that our actions have consequences, because we are morally and actually responsible for what we do.

This concept is also scary as hell, because it means that if we're living a comfortable (here) life as a hypocrite, giving our faith lip service while living like the atheists do, then we're going to risk paying for it eternally. Even if we SPOKE all lovey-dovey towards the things of heaven. This means we can't just blow off actual and literal sainthood, and just say, "oh well, it doesn't matter anyway... I'll just get myself forgiven for living a sloppy, sinful life, at the very end." Which is not justice at all.

Which brings us to the second problem. The misunderstand of the concept of justice in and of itself. Too often, when we sinners think of "justice" we think of things like spoiled rotten, naughty children think of a parent whom they want to be a pushover. They can do whatever wrong they want... and then they make doggie eyes at their paretns, and the parent is supposed to just let it go, without ever actually, seriously, painfully punishing the child. That is not justice. That is a mockery of justice.

Justice means, that since we have the ability to do or not do any aciton (save breathing and existing), we are culpable for every human action, to whatever degree we had the choice to either do it, or not to do it. That is a totally and completely different thing than the naughty-child attitude, whereby people pretend or want to believe that they're not really responsible for any of their wrongs. That oh, it was hard to not do it, so they did it, but since it was hard not to, then it was just fine that they did. Which is... a word that I can't say here.

Justice is something that deals with those things that are someone's DUE. We are not OWED anything by God. In fact, we were not even OWED our existence. Which is one reason why we should be grateful for absolutely every good that we have, because if it comes down to it, we didn't deserve any of it, least of all after our first personal sin. We, on the other hand, owe EVERYTHING good, right and proper to God. Justice demands that if God is wronged, something be done about it.

Now, we can launch here into a whole thing about our salvation, but the fact of the matter is, it would not make any sense at all to propose that God gave us commandements, but ultimately didn't really care whether or not we happend to feel like keeping them. It would be equally stupid to think that men who go their whole lives hating, and fighitng directly against God, would be practically FORCED to enjoy eternal bliss, in spite of the literally infinite offense they committed in sinning against God in even the least thing, and not even being sorry for it.

People are too often so worried about their idea of "justice" ... which really comes down to the idea that God shouldn't really and truly and painfully allow anyone to be punished no matter WHAT they do to/toward HIM... that they have become largely blind to justice for GOD HIMSELF. Where is justice for God, in His infinite majesty, dignity, supremacy... and even in His love and mercy that are so grossly and willfully trampled underfoot by sinners that do hate him... if then there is no actual, real punishment involved for those people, ever, for their sins which, again, are INFINITELY heinous, because they're committed against an inifintely good God?

Zero justice there.

The reality is, while we may be spoiled children who don't want ourselves or anyone else ever to suffer anything for any reason... REAL justice does exist. REAL justice has got to be met out. Yes, mercy for those who repent and desire mercy, and who actually OBEY God (or try to, sincerely, and to the best of their ability)... but also real, true, genuine punishment for those who deliberately disobeyd His laws, hated him, and in some cases, spent their whole lives hating and willfully fighting against Him, and everything He stands for.

More than 50 million babies have been butchered in their mothers' wombs, I believe in the US alone. That is more dead than in all of the US wars combined. PEOPLE are doing the butchering. People who have a free will to kill or not to kill. Those people CHOOSE to kill. They CHOOSE to sin. They CHOOSE to rob Our Lord of the lives of those souls He made, to do good things upon this world. And many of those who are doing the killing, may go to their deaths fully proud of their murders, and fully hating Our Lord, on top of those crimes. And for that, REAL justice demands that there be a REAL consequence. Not just sitting in some darkness outside of heaven's gates, close enough to enjoy it's purfume. REAL punishment. Not becuase Our Lord could not have forgiven them, or didn't want them to go to heaven, but because those people CHOSE, of their own free will, to do evil, and did not even afterwards sincerely repent and stop doing it.

The question of hell is one of real justice, real culpability for our own actions, and real punishments. And yes, the idea of an eternity of hell is terrifying... especially given the accounts of those saints who were given visions of it. And in those visions, hell was certainly not empty. One said they saw souls falling into hell like snowflakes. Another beheld a number of souls falling into hell "that was impossible to calculate." And no wonder men don't want to believe it. One (I forget if it was a saint, or the Mother of God), said, "more souls go to hell for sins against purity than for (almost?) any other sin." Of course the vice of impurity is one of the worst and strongest vices a soul can enslave themselves to. To think that you've GOT to stop, is not fun. But it IS necessary, and with the help of grace, it is possible. (Just like alcoholics really CAN quit.)

This is the price for choosing with our own free wills, to do evil, to not regret it, and to go on doing it. And that price must come to those who persevere in sin willfully, just as for the saints, there will be the highest heights of heaven, and all the good and glory therein. That is PERFECT justice.

Sadly, what we have here, is a world full of people who cannot bear the idea or concept of any real and possibly costly accountability for the wrongs they do of their own free will. Their idea is that Our Lord should never see any justice for Himself, literally no matter how much evil men do. Thus, they cannot stomach the notion that there might be a hell, where those infinite, unrepented offences are punished infinitely, because they were committed against an infinitely good God.

Nobody wants to think there will ever be punishment that's going to hurt, for anybody. But they've got no problem with the idea of men doing whatever they want toward God, and getting away with it, even if they were never sorry for the evils they did. They think nothing about His honor or rights, or the injustice of sin toward Him, or any of that. But if that's how they feel about God, then where is their real love of Him? Or is it just their own pleasure that they really love?

I love God, and I believe in His mercy. But I also believe in His justice... the justice that will be meted out to the unrepentent, who refused, mocked, hated and scorned their Savior and His sacrifice, even to the last moment of their lives, without repenting. And because I love God, the idea of His getting justice for Himself and His infinite goodness, does not go against my idea of His goodness at all. The souls He created all have a choice in this life, what things they want to do, or not do. Justice simply means they are actually responsible for those things they choose.

And then there's this. The fact that once we're face to face with our Eternal Judge, there will be no lawyers, no lies, no innocent acts, and no excuses. "Sorry" was supposed to be in THIS life. In that moment, we are going to know exactly how heinous even the least of our sins against that infinitely good God really were. (Hopefully we were sorry, and therefore were forgiven for those offenses, but we will know just how bad they were, without being decieved by ourselves or the devil.) We're going to know the truth. And when those who hated Our Lord see Him face to face, one of their greatest torments (if not the greatest torment) for all eternity, will be that even in hell, they cannot escape His sight. That for all eternity, they will know fully and completely what they did, and that it really was their choice to do those things, and to not repent of them and even try to obey God seriously, afterwards. That they had a choice to repent and be saved, but they refused it. But Our Lord will not have to "drive" them into hell. The souls of those that are worthy of it, would flee from God's face in terror, of their own will, even into eternal flames.

God offers us His infinite mercy, it is true. He wants EVERY soul to be saved. But He also gave us a free will, a choice whether or not we were willing to do what it takes to get to heaven. He even is willing to aid us with His grace and repeated forgiveness, as often as we fall, if we are sincere, knowing that being weak, we fall often. But there is no man that God is going to save against that man's will, and in spite of them not being sorry at all. We have to actually make the choice to go to Him, and that means obeying His laws, loving Him sincerely, and genuinely being sorry for our wrongs. If you don't want to do that, that's your choice... but the alternative for those who refuse to enter in at the gate of His mercy, is to be judged at the gate of His justice.

I just want to emphasize... never despair of God's mercy, grave as sin is! God is infinitely merciful. We are never so far gone, in this life, that we cannot RIGHT THEN AND THERE choose to be sorry. Nor does our contrition have to be full of ooey-gooey feelings (emotions.) We can decide, yes, I'm sorry for my sins. That is our free will choice. And though we might fall often in this world, the important thing is our sincerity in both sorrow for our sins, and in trying to be obedient to God's laws.

We must remember that while there is a hell, God wants all souls to go to heaven instead. All souls have the choice to follow Him sincerely, no matter how far wrong we've gone in the past. So the dogma of hell should not weaken our faith, or drive us to despair. We should remember God's mercy and desire for our salvation, and instead of despairing (the work of the enemies of our souls) we should instead turn to God's merciful and fatherly heart, and go ever toward Him, ignoring all temptations to give up or despair because maybe we hadn't done so well until now.

If you seek Him honestly, and pray for Him to guide you, and follow Him where you must... if you persevere, you can find Him, escape your sins, and arrive at the seat of His mercy! And that is true of every soul yet in this world.

I don't disagree with you Ika_Chan. Justice makes us uncomfortable in the postmodern world. That is until we see ideology heap up a pile of dead bodies and are forced to label it as evil ideology. Of course we can't see a pile of dead embryos since they are microscopic piles. So be it, if we can't see it, it can't be evil right?

I do believe in the pressing urgency to repent and seek forgiveness to live life pleasing to God who will judge us in perfect righteousness. However, with the moral capacity that God has given me, I cannot assent to eternal conscious torment. I think hell is more likely to be euthanasia. Whoever rejects the Creator to who belongs all life and love itself cannot persist any longer, not even to be tormented.

I find annihilationism do be inherently false. For one, when it talks about the second death, it says "And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name." Now, I don't want you to be ignorant of the fact that the same word used in here as "for ever and ever" in Greek is the same as used in "the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever" which is "eis aion" which means, exactly what "forever and ever" and "eternity" means. So, now that we know that, why would we say that God will reign forever and ever without end, but when it speaks of someones torment as forever and ever, no rest day and night, we take it to mean something else? Does it mean that their torment will be everlasting? or does it mean that one day God will cease to live or reign, as you know, he is the everlasting God. I'm going towards the former. We will have eternal life in Christ, but apart from Christ we have eternal death, that is, the second death.

@Djents

Thanks for your comment. I have a Greek interlinear.

The fact that there are verses which mention eternal fire do not necessarily suggest eternal torment, rather that the possibility of the material reassembling into life, a process also known as resurrection, in the new creation are zilch. Put in other words, the material which makes the condemned people will be in a state in which it cannot resurrect. This is the best overall interpretation I can see. Do you have any arguments that traditionalism should be favored over this?

brandon1984 wrote:@Djents

Thanks for your comment. I have a Greek interlinear.

The fact that there are verses which mention eternal fire do not necessarily suggest eternal torment, rather that the possibility of the material reassembling into life, a process also known as resurrection, in the new creation are zilch. Put in other words, the material which makes the condemned people will be in a state in which it cannot resurrect. This is the best overall interpretation I can see. Do you have any arguments that traditionalism should be favored over this?

It would seem that "and the smoke of their torment rises forever" would imply torment, and fire, since we see "smoke". Now, when we have the Great White Throne judgement, the dead are resurrected, and are judged according to their deeds. Before they were in Hades, or Sheol in Hebrew, which translates "pit of corruption" I believe. Then they are thrown into Hell, the lake of fire, in which they are tormented with fire. We read about the false prophet and the beast and Satan are at

Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

This is the same "lake of fire" that the unsaved will be thrown into. It makes no sense that they would be tormented, but no one else would be, because the false prophet and also the beast were humans.

Djents,
My friend, you seem well-informed about scripture, but I think you would agree that we must be careful about interpretation and not let a single verse interpret the remainder of scripture on the subject especially when it comes straight out of the intense and strange apocalyptic imagery of Revelation. Death and Hades will also be thrown into the lake of fire. Will Death suffer for eternity? That does not make any sense.

The reason I am an annihilationist is:
(1) Because I find that the majority of scripture to be in support of annihilation: be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul (Matt 10:28), Gehenna (a place to lose forever your garbage, literally a trash dump outside Jerusalem)
(2) Because I do not see Paul mention hell and he wrote the majority of the New Testament, to Paul the hope was being saved by the creative power of God in resurrection, which implies the alternative is merely not being saved, to be left to physical dissolution for eternity just like an eternal fire keeps matter eternally dissolved in smoke unable to be used for life
(3) Because some of the metaphors do not work together, fire and darkness taken literally are contradictory
(4) Because my God-given conscience testifies that eternal torment is not appropriate justice for finite crimes

-Brandon

brandon1984 wrote:Djents,
My friend, you seem well-informed about scripture, but I think you would agree that we must be careful about interpretation and not let a single verse interpret the remainder of scripture on the subject especially when it comes straight out of the intense and strange apocalyptic imagery of Revelation. Death and Hades will also be thrown into the lake of fire. Will Death suffer for eternity? That does not make any sense.

The reason I am an annihilationist is:
(1) Because I find that the majority of scripture to be in support of annihilation: be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul (Matt 10:28), Gehenna (a place to lose forever your garbage, literally a trash dump outside Jerusalem)
(2) Because I do not see Paul mention hell and he wrote the majority of the New Testament, to Paul the hope was being saved by the creative power of God in resurrection, which implies the alternative is merely not being saved, to be left to physical dissolution for eternity just like an eternal fire keeps matter eternally dissolved in smoke unable to be used for life
(3) Because some of the metaphors do not work together, fire and darkness taken literally are contradictory
(4) Because my God-given conscience testifies that eternal torment is not appropriate justice for finite crimes

-Brandon

To say that "Paul made no mention of hell" is an argument from silence, the same argument people use to justify Homosexuality, since Jesus doesn't address it. An argument from silence is a logical fallacy. Now, when Jesus spoke about the "outer darkness" He says "where there will be a gnashing of teeth and wailing" so obviously they are in torment, being punished. Second, this "darkness" is not literal, the only time in the NT that darkness is literal, is when Christ died on the cross. "It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon," Everywhere else, this darkness is a spiritual darkness, where there is no light from God, we see this in 1 John "light has shined into darkness, and the darkness could not overcome it" now we cannot take this to be a literal darkness. The darkness mentioned by Jesus and Jude is a spiritual darkness, where God is not there, full of despair, hopelessness, sorrow and regret. They have no hope to see the light of God. I understand that you cannot , with your God-given conscience handle the thought of someone being eternally damned to torment. But this is human reasoning, which leads to logical conclusions that aren't consistent. You say that A contradicts B so therefore A must be false. But if that is your conclusion, you need to examine everything. Jesus says "and they are burned with an unquenchable fire" Such imagery is not necessary if they are soon destroyed, what use would the fire be after hand? In Hebrews, we see about those who are apostate to which "nothing is left for them except a fearful expectation of judgement and fiery indignation that devours the adversaries" If you think about God's justice in sight of his Holiness, and then come to a conclusion that He would not be right in doing that, you seem to have human reasoning involved. Again we read in Hebrews,

Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”e 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hey Djents

Djents wrote:To say that "Paul made no mention of hell" is an argument from silence. . . and is a logical fallacy.

This is not true, arguments from silence can be valid or invalid. We use them all the time in medicine and forensic science for example. The only question is, if hell were a literal place of torment and important to Christian afterlife belief, then should Paul have used it in his letters? I simply cannot think of any reason why not. Paul was involved with the Jerusalem disciples and even met early disciples of Jesus like Apollos. Paul frequently speaks of the hope of resurrection, it forms the basis for his entire theology, yet no mention of hell.

Now, I will admit that this argument from silence, though I believe it is validated, is not terrifically strong. It merely adds to the cumulative case for annihilation.

Regarding gay sex (the gay community prefers this terminology), just for comparison, there does not seem to be any reason for Jesus to address gay sex since he was engaging a Jewish culture and people. Therefore, an argument from silence to think Jesus would be OK with gay sex is invalid, whereas Paul was working deep within the Pagan Roman Empire, where pederastry and committed gay relations were occurring. It makes sense that he would need to address the issue.

Djents wrote:Second, this "darkness" is not literal. . .

You have not given any reason to connect John's darkness and light with Jesus statement of outer darkness. You could be wildly taking these out of context. Maybe not though. If you think they are related, you should formulate an argument in support of it.

Djents wrote:But this is human reasoning, which leads to logical conclusions that aren't consistent. You say that A contradicts B so therefore A must be false.

C'mon Djents! There is no escaping our limits of knowledge and reason. Those who recorded scripture were also human, and when we read their words, we necessarily are interpreting every single word and phrase, it all goes through our human brain, through human perception, human understanding, and is analyzed by human reasoning. There is no magical way to escape this.

Secondly, scripture values the conscience (i.e., Acts 24:15, Romans 2:15, 1 Peter 3:16). So, I take my conscience seriously as something that God gave me. I cannot disregard it under the guise of "well this is just human reasoning".

Djents wrote:Jesus says "and they are burned with an unquenchable fire" Such imagery is not necessary if they are soon destroyed, what use would the fire be after hand?

The point of an eternal fire as opposed to one time destructive fire is that it suggests that the matter that composed the condemned has zero chance of reassembling to life again. It will be eternally dissolved in smoke and diluted into nothing. This idea especially goes well with Matt 10:28 and Gehenna. This is precisely the kind of thing that happened at Gehenna, the chaff and trash and garbage was not suffering, it was burned and destroyed once and for all. Chemically converted to smoke, never to be salvaged or reassembled into anything useful.

Djents wrote:Again we read in Hebrews. . .

This passage regards something that "deserves punishment". Do you not think that nonexistence is not a punishment? Is capital punishment not a punishment? And, is God not just and merciful?

-Brandon

I still don't understand your logic, i'll get back to you later, but I still don't know how "forever and ever" is not "forever and ever'" If their smoke goes up forever and ever, and they are annihilated, what is the smoke coming from afterwards? and specifically "the smoke of their torment". And, while indirectly, I think this ties in what what I said about the darkness, "All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you." And if it be "everlasting destruction" and this "destruction" means that they are annihilated, how is it that it's "everlasting"? The righteous and unrighteous dead are resurrected, and while the people in the second death suffer death forever, those who are righteous have eternal life. And if it also be "eternal punishment" and they cease to exist, their punishment ends, for what is left to be punished? And how can there be "no rest for them day and night" if they cease to be? How do they experience everlasting contempt? ""Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt" Which is referring to the final judgement.

Djents, you seem to be asking from my POV why did Paul say "eternal destruction" as opposed to simply "final destruction" or "destruction". This is how I think about it. I think God's creative power is so magnificent that he could destroy someone then raise them up in the twinkle of an eye. The point of "eternal destruction" is to stress that this the finality of the destruction or death. This is why our lives must be taken seriously and lived with urgency. There is no time to say, "Well, I will have time to repent later, maybe even in the afterlife." Uhhhh, no this is serious, how we treat others and the creation is serious.

Does that make sense?

Djents wrote:The righteous and unrighteous dead are resurrected, and while the people in the second death suffer death forever, those who are righteous have eternal life.

The author of Luke-Acts has Paul say that the righteous and wicked will rise (Acts 24:15) and there are other references to support this in Daniel and Matthew and John. It's possible that everyone will rise and literally be judged, that the condemned will be weeping and angry (gnashing of teeth) before their destruction.

But, what's fascinating is that Paul seems to think that only the righteous will be given a resurrection body. So it is also possible that simply resurrecting shows that Christ has already judged you righteous. I just don't know what will happen.

This whole afterlife discussion is complicated for someone like me who is both not a dualist and affirms annihilationism. But, I must stress I do not know what will happen. I am merely trying to render my best interpretation.

Djents wrote:And if it also be "eternal punishment" and they cease to exist, their punishment ends, for what is left to be punished? And how can there be "no rest for them day and night" if they cease to be? How do they experience everlasting contempt?

Regarding "no rest for them day and night" and "everlasting contempt", these are both found within apocalyptic texts, abounding with imagery and symbolism. So, we need to be careful to interpret them in relation to future realities. My thinking is that the imagery points to the fact that not being able to resurrect into God's new creation is so undesirable that it is like suffering and torment. And, so this precisely is the punishment, the future wrath of God. They will live a futile earthly life for rejecting God's grace. Is that not a just punishment? Again, I'll stress here that I am merely rendering the best interpretation I can with the data and with my God-given conscience.

-Brandon

Interesting discussion,

I have a somewhat different take on the matter. I don't view Hell as God throwing us to fiery demons as part of His righteous wrath so to speak. I am also not an annihilationist either. I'll start with the latter first.

Consider for a moment that Satan and his demons try to undo, invert, and destroy what God does. This includes us as well. I have a hard time believing that a loving God who has come to redeem, save, and make the world anew would allow any part of His creation to be erased from existence. It would kind of be a victory for them if God did what the Devil would want Him to do wouldn't it? God loves us too much to simply let us be completely destroyed from all of existence. He does not wish to undo us completely. Sure, He could if He wanted to, but is that really something you would imagine a loving God doing?

As far as torment is concerned, the source of the torment I believe comes from ourselves, our separation from God, and unwillingness to accept His love. We will all be resurrected in the last day and brought before God in His full glory. Those who have prepared to receive Him will embrace it as a warm flame that will refine what good is already there and draw people forever closer to Him. Those who do not want to accept Him will experience God's glory differently. They, like the demons, will experience it as hellfire, but this will be spiritual in nature, beyond any kind of fire we can imagine. This is the nature of the final judgment as I understand it. Our goal in this life is to accept God into our life now and prepare ourselves in this life for the next one with His help.

In reality, Heaven and Hell are in a sense a state of being rather than two distinct locations. We were not made for this as such a fate is not meant for us, but for the demons. In the end however, He wouldn't force someone to love Him.

The way I look at it, Hell is not the worst thing that can happen, as strange as it may sound. True non-existence and destruction is even worse, and it makes no sense to me how God would overcome death for all mankind, only to have mankind annihilated later. What would the point of the death and resurrection of Christ to begin with?

Figure it's about time I put in my two cents.

About two years ago, I underwent some exceptionally radical changes in doctrine, living in constant fear of my potential damnation. Somewhere along the line, a striking logical contradiction became apparent:

A truly loving God would not design man knowing fully that he will obtain the capacity to sin against him and consequently have the majority of humanity suffer eternally for it. That would either revoke the possibility of an all-knowing God or a God of love. Being that both are claimed to be true, there's a contradiction in here somewhere. As to what this entails for changes in the system, it's hard to say. However, Jesus is still an absolute, if nothing else.

Hey RoosterOnAStick,
I once held a view similar to yours, although my rationale was not God’s love. I've had long discussions with people who emphasize God's love but conclude that hell will eventually be empty, that universalism is true. But, what about God's justice and respect for our autonomy? Philosophically, one thing to think about is that if a creature is suffering greatly and would choose to reject existence in order to forgo suffering, it might be more loving to respect the being's will and not permit its further existence. What if God knew that all beings in “hell” would choose this? Why not just annihilate them since they have rejected life? Secondly, scripturally, it seems that annihilationism has more support than a self-induced torture model of hell.

Also, I don't understand how Christ's death and resurrection lose any power or meaning with annihilationism. Ultimately, any influence on a truly free decision is coercion, so Christ's death and resurrection, although an expression of omnipotent creative power, cannot infringe on the freedom of creatures to hate God and to hate life.


Hey ScotchRobbins,
My friend, I think you're at a good place. There's no reason to conclude with any certainty anything other than the afterlife is a total mystery and the power of God is Christ.

Hello Brandon,

Hey RoosterOnAStick,
I once held a view similar to yours, although my rationale was not God’s love. I've had long discussions with people who emphasize God's love but conclude that hell will eventually be empty, that universalism is true.

I see where your coming from, but I should mention that not a universalist. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

But, what about God's justice and respect for our autonomy?

As I mentioned earlier, God gives us the choice to accept Him or not. Accepting or rejecting Him and deciding how we want to live our lives, will determine how prepared we will be during the Second Coming and Final Judgment. It is clear in Scripture that the heavens and earth are going to be remade and God will show us the fullness of His love and glory. Our resurrected bodies will be able to perceive it (though I admit this is getting into speculative territory).

Philosophically, one thing to think about is that if a creature is suffering greatly and would choose to reject existence in order to forgo suffering, it might be more loving to respect the being's will and not permit its further existence. What if God knew that all beings in “hell” would choose this? Why not just annihilate them since they have rejected life?

Well, as I said before, the reason is because they wish to cut themselves off from God's love. This is the cause of their suffering. Also, I don't think it would be more loving to destroy someone even if they wanted it. Part of that goes hand in hand with the resurrection's purpose as I explain below.

Secondly, if someone wants something that is not healthy or even more destructive than their current state, how would it be loving to allow them that? Suicide is a good example of this. Shall we allow people to end their suffering by killing themselves or should we try to intervene? Would that be loving? I know this is a bit of an extreme case but I think this analogy gets the point across.

Secondly, scripturally, it seems that annihilationism has more support than a self-induced torture model of hell.

Perhaps I need to reread the article but I wasn't convinced of this. In addition, historically this hasn't been Church doctrine either. I don't think Scripture alone will decide this one either way, so we can take a more in depth look at the history.

Also, I don't understand how Christ's death and resurrection lose any power or meaning with annihilationism. Ultimately, any influence on a truly free decision is coercion, so Christ's death and resurrection, although an expression of omnipotent creative power, cannot infringe on the freedom of creatures to hate God and to hate life.

Well, the source of this is from my understanding of my church's (Eastern Orthodox) teachings on what Christ's death and resurrection mean. See, mankind was not made to die, either spiritually or physically. All things came into being from nothing. God did not make things from any pre-existent matter. The issue is with sin. Due to sin, we cut ourselves off from God, the source of all life. Without that, we begin to die and fade away both spiritually and physically. Death holds that kind of power over us, the power to destroy our existence completely.

Christ came to overcome sin and destroy death its power over us. That is why all mankind will have resurrected bodies, not just those who accept Him. It isn't just a display of power, it is an ultimate sacrifice done out of love for His own creation.

With the understanding that part of what Christ came to do was to prevent us from dying and losing our existence completely, why would He then destroy people's existence completely? God would be turning His back on His own creation and undoing everything He did for us.