Please Give Thought To The Light Bulb Analogy
Please Give Thought To The Light Bulb Analogy
Hi cirisme,
Say, I am thankful for the cordiality of our more recent exchange. I needed to step back and be reminded that our differences ought not be any cause for either of us being a stumbling block or for any harsh feeling. Christ loves you so much that He died for you. Ought I not have the same mind?
OK…
There's a big difference between what you said and what I said. You say consciousness, I say soul. I beleive
that when you die, you go unconscious until the great white throne judgment. Do you believe in the soul?
Yes, I do, cirisme. However, there is a fundamental difference in how we view the nature of man so I will explain with a rough analogy.
Consider a light bulb. It is made up of hardware. If it is given electricity, it has certain qualities such as illumination and heat.
I believe man is much like the light bulb. I believe illumination and heat can represent aspects of man’s consciousness, the thinking and feeling part of man. His personality.
Here is the main reason I use the light bulb analogy.
Light and heat do not survive the destruction of the bulb itself, i.e. the physical part of the bulb, the hardware.
The main bone of contention I have with the common understanding of the nature of man, is that it believes man can be split up into its separate components. Like you could cut man up and have the spirit over here, the physical part over there, and the soul in some other place.
I don’t think it works that way. I see man as a unit that has a few wondrous qualities. He feels, he loves, he has powers of intellect, but they don’t survive the destruction of the brain, for example.
Cirisme, that really is the crux of our seeing things differently. You believe aspects of man can be completely severed from other aspects – and they can live.
Using the light bulb as an analogy, I believe if one were to put a sledgehammer to the hardware, light and heat would not survive as independent attributes.
You should, or your arguement is futile. The soul is the part of us that communes with God. If that commune is destroyed, the soul is destroyed, leaving only the spirit(which is us). So, I suppose we can agree that hell will destroy the soul, while leaving the spirit.(which is what the quoted indicates)
The following is what I think the quote illustrates. People have gone to the grave with faith intact. They died, but in their last dying breath, there was a reassurance of the resurrection. When dead, all of him was dead.
The fire of God’s love will have the following effect on a lost person. The fire will reveal his immoral state as in a moment. NO VEIL. Such a person will be consumed with guilt. He will respond to that burden with an intractable despair. This will be the final IDENTITY of his person.
His “soul” is destroyed “in the fires of hell.”
I don’t even think it’s really talking about whether or not consciousness is destroyed because of fire. I don’t think it’s really a treatise on the nature of man – in terms of clearly laying out that when man dies in the physical sense, man is indeed dead – all of him. I think it is simply saying the following…
Don’t be so concerned about that which can destroy your physical body. Rather be more concerned with that which can destroy your very identity (your soul).
Now you mentioned the fire that cannot be quenched and the verse referring to the worm that does not die.
Speaking of the unquenchable fire…
Song of Solomon 8:6-7
. 6 The Shulamite to Her Beloved Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; F13 Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement F14 flame. 7 Many waters cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly despised.
Now, one might think this verse is not applicable to “unquenchable fire.” However, as we are instructed to “compare spiritual with spiritual” and “line upon line, here a little, there a little,” this verse is common to both FIRE and UNQUENCHABLE.
An unquenchable fire need not mean that something burns forever (like a chair). It does need to mean that the fire never stops.
And that is true of God’s love. For all eternity, “God is love” and that reality will never be quenched (put out).
Regarding “worm,” that verse is pretty cryptic. Personally, I don’t see it as forcing a whole lot of doctrine. “Worm does not die,” what does that mean? I read of an explanation that seems possible. The context is a picture of vast DEATH. One of the most striking portrayels of massive death is war, as an example. WWI is a good example, with all the trench warfare. After the conclusion of a battle, one could see thousands upon thousands of dead bodies, lying in the ground and decomposing. One would also see worms.
It is not a metaphor used to indicate any kind of life at all. I don’t think the point is that there will be worms “in hell.” The point is, the Bible is simply taking highly peculiar imagery that is powerful in terms of what it conveys. And that is an appalling scene of massive death.
To summarize, cirisme, I don’t see that the passages you cited need point to the ideas you hold.
And I think the lamp bulb analogy I posed strikes at a jugular with respect to where some of the most fundamental differences lie.
God Bless,
Tony
.