Check This Link

The Destruction of the Wicked
Seriously, it talks about what I'm talking about.

To add clarity to this discussion, check this out...

10And the devil that
deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the
beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night
for ever and ever.

 11And
I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the
earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 12And
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were
opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works.

 13And
the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered
up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works.

 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Now, here's the question: is the "second death" everlasting for the unsaved, or is it the simply the end to their existence?

I need your help, I'm looking up verses with the "Second Death" and "Lake of Fire" using Bible gateway, but so far, I've only found where the devil and his minions burn forever in it, not the unsaved.  So I was wondering: will the unsaved burn forever in the lake of fire?  I'm trying to address a question put forth by Karissa.

(Note: I'm using the KJV exclusively for now.)

Imagine, you're in Heaven in the beginning as an angel.  Heaven is a glorious place and God has just unveiled a new plan, Creation.  In charge of you, besides God, is Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer, all of which are great.  But Lucifer, despite his greatness and beauty, has a problem.  He has become corrupt and jealous of God.  He is poisoned by selfishness and desires to overthrow God.  So, he begins to gather an army of angels, creatures once friends with God deceived by Lucifer's lies and hatred for God.  God sees all of this and is saddened, for He loves all His angels.  But then, enough is enough; Lucifer attacks with those he has deceived to claim the throne of God, but fails.  Bitter from his failure, Lucifer sulks before an Almighty God, and God asks him, "What do you think I should do with you?"  Lucifer, in his hatred for God, responds, "I never want to see you, hear you, or feel you ever again!"  So God gives it to Him.  He gives him his own place, to Lucifer's surprise, but God is sad the entire time.  Then finally, once Satan and his posse are used to this, God says, "Goodbye," to which Satan replies, "Good riddens."  But then, something strange happens.  Satan begins to realize that light is dimming ever so slightly, making him curse God even more.  He feels that existence is slowly being stripped away from him: he feels nothing but darkness.  His mind races around for thoughts other than his failures.  He can not live, and he can not die.  He's burning, from the inside.  It's everything he's ever wanted, but worse.  The darkness is like a parasite, a fire.  He is separated from God's love.  Life has no meaning; death has no meaning.  This is an abyss, a chasm where nothing good ever happens.  It's like dying without an end: to exist without life (which only the Almighty can create) is to burn in a thousand fires.  He is on fire, but not by a temperature: it's a fire that endlessly whittles down his atoms.  It's like being entombed: his paranoia dilutes what his personality once was.  He knows nothing more than what he knew.  There is no perception, simply some meagre form of existence off of which to feed, a pain that lasts forever.  Hell, in my opinion, is giving the fallen exactly what they think they want: no God.  You have a choice: to be with God, or to be without.  But if He sustains life, I'd be careful about my choice.

Then why don't we kill all the poor?  Or all the incompetent?  Or all those who might suffer?  Instead of donating money to third-world countries, why don't we get them out of the way of progress?  Don't you see what you're saying?  You couldn't possibly because you're fixated on being thought of as "progressive" or "modern".  We don't know what people in poor situations will do because they've done great things and terrible things.  Just as many people who are rich, like celebrities, do bad things, like kill, steal, and destroy--such is the nature of man, I'm afraid.  If we arbitrarily decide who is good enough and who's not before they're even born, what is the limit?  I say that limit is to let the individual decide whether he or she (themselves) wants to live, not someone else.

Let me give you an example: let's say I went back in time, say around 1925.  If I were to tell all the Jews in Austria that they were going to suffer immensely at the hands of a cruel dictator, what would they say?  That may not be.  They wouldn't all go kill themselves!

You keep stating that abortion is a bad solution but that prohibiting abortion is no better because of the problems it would cause.  In essence, you cite that abortion is a solution to a lack of responsibility, but I contend that that irresponsibility was exacerbated by the same "logic" that created abortion in the first place.  Do you claim that the world before abortion was a messy place where children only saw suffering?  I don't see that, and quite frankly, I don't think most reasonable people see that either, except to justify their argument.  Children will be abused regardless of
abortion: any decrease of which I doubt the existence does not justify our destroying life.  But back to my example, that's like saying to
the Jews before the Holocaust, "Well, you're gonna suffer anyway, so how about we shoot you now and get it over with?"  Would the Jews agree with such a demand?  No! 

If we arbitrarily decide who can and cannot live, then we set ourselves up for society run on some idea of perfection, by a fallible creature, mankind.  Everyone, when created, should have the right to experience life before someone else decides for them, even if that someone else decided that they live, because by nature all man is created by someone or something else, depending on what you believe.  If I can
arbitrarily decide what lives and dies while in the womb, why not outside the womb?  Why can I not kill someone I don't believe deserves to live, even if they are a "parasite" to society?  That's because each of us depends on that society, so that destroying life would only serve to condemn ourselves.

I don't believe in abortion, and I don't believe in the death penalty, because things change.  Life is not static suffering, unless we let it become just that.  Many of those children in third-world countries have far better outlooks on life than children in the United States.  We have gotten too familiar with some sort of "bed of roses" mentality, where the statistics dictate who will do what and when, and anyone not in the certian margins will have terrible lives exclusively.

As I said, life is not suffering, unless you're Buddhist, in which case, whatever; but it's not.  Take it from someone who has had everything from birth handed to him yet wanted to kill himself.  You can't predict what struggles people will have, and claiming that you have some sort of system to predict either way what will happen is, quite frankly, blowing hot air into your argument.

You actually surprised me with your first remark in this debate, and for that, I thank you.  I need a surprise every now and then.  But as for this debate, this post is the last in this argument for my side.  If I cannot convince you that an absolute standard of upholding life no matter what might happen, I don't feel I've lost because I've made a declaration as to where I stand.  Ask the Jensens.  Ask them if they thought, had their mother known she would have cancer twice and experience tremendous suffering, that she would take her own life.  I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have.  I'm sure her family alone was enough to compel to keep on living.

Life will never be ideal, but that doesn't mean we should avoid it.

Who decides who must suffer and when they definitely will?  There are many parents who, though at first did not want children, found incredible joy in that new life, while other parents who wanted children and had them abused them.  So then, is the government to condone the destroying of life based on suffering?  No!  Each one has the right to determine whether they want life or not: that's called freedom.  Even then, the suicidal are often locked up into institutions to be convinced not to destroy themselves.  Society, even from a purely evolutionary perspective, needs to uphold the value of life, for if it doesn't, anarchy ensues.  It is no more moral to kill a child based on convenience, even if that child was created mostly by a woman who deems it inconvenient.  For us to presume that its existence would merely be suffering therefore is foolish.  We don't know, and a society held up to a standard of responsibility--the sanctity of life--would very well change its promiscuous ways with that responsibility in mind.  If it didn't change, then what's the point of sexual education to begin with!  Why should we inform someone of any form of sexual responsibility if there is no one will change their mind anyway?  Destroying the child is by no means a solution to this either, only a degradation into ungratefulness and worthlessness.  Life is a gift to be cherished.

Check this link Parental Notification

Weird...Check this...Bug Chasers

Also Fraudulent Abortion?

And China Attacks!

Seriously, check all of these...

October 6, Norma Jean, Between the Buried and Me, Fear Before the March of Flames, Misery Signals play at Rocketown.

Read this first...State-Funded Sex Change

All of you need to read this...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514170

I offer money for an assassination...

Check this link...http://newsbusters.org/node/7577

Sitting around wishing things weren't as they are isn't going to help anyone or anybody.

Well, I bet you hadn't seen me on the way,
Dealing with my own decisions,
Yet I didn't realize that you would stray
Quite as far as I might have.
Yes, the "You don't where I've been"
Has come to mind at least a thousand times,
But I don't know how else to reach you.
I'm never the best example,
Reaching into my magic bag to pull out
Another imbroglio of a conversation,
More awkward than the last.
These demons perpetuate such foolish ideas,
And how desire can hardly be fought!
There are two who can save you,
But one must be saved again from his own pride.

You look to keep me on the backburner,
As you peruse the available options.
Sulking in a depression of sorts,
A loneliness of others, I'm comforted
By the rags in this muck,
While you give a verisimilitude
Of interest, or sway.
This is a difficult train to rob,
And a quick bullet to bite
Through a broken heart.

Why is life the great struggle?
And why can no headway be made?
Against the tide of emotions, I struggle,
But when I see the mirror,
Just dark potches and scraggly facial hair appear!
Why is life arcane, or is it just devoid
Of substance of any kind?
Are we made of china to be used formally,
But broken again and again?
Is antipathy festering in technology,
To beat the curve and curb?
Not even so many incompetent
Can manufacture such a fiasco as this!

What is it to reconcile and submit to my aegis, my Ebed-Melech?

For those of you who don't receive the Tennessean on a daily basis, yesterday (Sunday), they included an article that dared to say that most Democratic candidates for congressional elections oppose a timetable or specific time to withdraw troops from Iraq.  Why?  Let me tell you why.  Democrats have been playing the blame game i.e. "Bush is bad, blah blah...Karl Rove is bad, blah, blah..." with only one objective in mind--to discredit the Republicans and win back power.  Problem is that they don't know what to do when they get it.  They're just bullshitting until they can think of a better way to do things.  I think this was evident in the fact Kerry didn't win.  He wasn't for total withdrawal: he was for a multilateral approach, whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.  Libertarians were for immediate withdrawal.  Now whether that's a good idea is up for discussion; I'm just sick and tired of Democrats giving us the 411 on why we should hate Republicans when, honestly, they couldn't do a better job at the present moment.  Many people agree that we wouldn't have gone into war (at least so quickly) if we could turn back time, but we can't.  Democrats can't.  So reminding all of the world that America is wrong and that its troops are just cruel bastards to helpless terrorist inmates without a decent solution to all of those problems besides "holding Bush accountable" doesn't aid the current situation.  No, I don't agree with the war, but Saddam was close to Hitler in lack of morality...ask any Kurd what happened to their friends and relatives that stayed in Iraq.  But these things are beside the point.  Looking backward is foolish without a clear plan for the future, which neither party seems to have.  They just seem to be playing power struggle.

Protect the Jimpire