Which is one of the many problems with annihilation. Even If we are made to forget, or the people who are annihilated are made never to have existed (aside from all the problems THAT creates), what about Abba, who loves them? Is HE going to forget, or just get over it? There are plenty of scriptural reasons as well, but the philosophical and logical weight is, imo, on the side of EU.
totally agree, Cindy!
Christians have it a bit better in that getting over a death merely means you look forward to seeing them again (in heaven). to someone that lacks faith, they are expected to get over it the same way, but there is little to no hope on the other side.
it’d be even worse if there was DEFINITELY no hope…so you’re right. we wouldn’t “get over” it, but i was just trying to point out the logic of the situation.
imagine, if it’s bad for us, how bad it’d be for God…
(off topic, but after the recent discussion…i got a rosy boa lol! Bay of LA variety. named Bob 
)
Good for you! 
Post a picture . . .
Not in itself a problem for Calv theology, however, since God never loved those people (with ‘saving love’, or even at all, depending on how hardcore the Calvinist is). So He has nothing to ‘get over’. Actually annihilating them would be getting over them so far as an omniscient God could ‘get over them’: they no longer exist to affect His creation.
I agree the theological logic weighs on the side of EU, of course, but the solution in that regard comes from the characteristics of trinitarian theism: God’s own self-existence must be essentially an eternal action toward fulfilling fair-togetherness between persons. When we don’t do that we sin against the source of our own existence; we aren’t immediately annihilated as a result because God keeps us in existence anyway, which He does because that’s what a trinitarian (or even binitarian) self-existent God would always certainly do. If He annihilated us, or allowed us to annihilate ourselves (or allowed something or someone else to do so), He would be acting toward never fulfilling fair-togetherness between some persons. Which would similarly be a sin, this time by God, against the active ground of all reality: God would be acting against His own principles of self-existence. But there would be no one to save Him, and everything dependent on Him for existence (which is everything), from a result of annihilation.
Not acting to save every sinner from sin, violates that same principle of God’s own self-existence: whether ceasing to act toward saving every sinner (per Arminianism), or never acting at all to save some sinners (per Calvinism); whether the result is even one sinner hopelessly continuing to exist forever as a sinner (per Calv or Arm ECT), or even one sinner hopelessly ceasing to exist (per Calv or Arm anni).
Jason
Yes, I think that’s what I meant. 
You go into a lot more depth of course, and I believe I agree with you. I’ll have to think about it a little longer, though, until I’m sure I understand what you’ve said. It’s perhaps (as my grandpa used to say) a little too deep for me. But I like learning to swim in deeper waters, so that’s okay. Have downloaded your SttH and I’ve only to figure out how to put it on my kindle so I’ll actually read it, but I’m looking forward to learning more about the quantum physics thing we were discussing elsewhere (or maybe I was just reading along . . .)
Blessings, Cindy
Okay, I see now that this is where I’m tripping. Why do you say this? What are you basing it on?
Oh yes, and I clicked on your link to the election topic and it didn’t go anywhere?
If trinitarian theism is true, the one and only independent ground of all reality (what I call the Independent Fact in SttH) is a Person actively self-generating and a Person actively self-generated. (Also a Person being given by each Person to the other Person, but this 3rd Person while God fully God in the unity of monotheistic deity isn’t directly involved in God’s fundamental self-existence. In older analogical language we say one Person is God begetting God and the second Person is God begotten by God, thus analogically Father and Son, and the third Person is God proceeding from the action of the first two Persons. The Holy Spirit is the first gift of God to God; anything else generated by the Persons to give to one another would be not-God categorically.)
The Father doesn’t betray the Son or otherwise act toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness between the Persons, and the same goes for the Son, but rather the Persons act always toward fulfilling fair-togetherness between each other. (The same goes for the Holy Spirit, but this much would still be true if only binitarian theism is true: the difference would be that the two Persons do not give a distinct gift of God to one another but only give not-God entities to each other.)
I talk about this a lot in SttH, from Section Three onward. However, the salient connection comes in Section Four when I talk about ethical grounding (and why trinitarian or at least binitarian theism uniquely grounds ethics in a way no other theism can do), thus consequently what sin involves.
I can send a doc file instead of pdf if you like; the easiest way to read them on a Kindle is to email them to you Kindle account. Pdfs go over for free, but doc files are converted to Kindle format for a small Amazon fee. The Kindle format treats footnotes as endnotes and makes you work to read them; but reading a pdf can quickly get squinty. So there are pros and cons either way.
um… which link? I don’t know what you’re talking about. 
I looked back up through the thread and only found links to where I was discussing things with Chris Date, both of which I just confirmed work, but neither of which are about election per se. (Whether political or soteriological. )
Oops! That must have been in another thread I was reading in a separate window. 
You’re right. You split off a topic for someone who was discussing their church’s guidelines for voting. I clicked on the link you gave, but it went to a place that (according to the message I got) didn’t exist.
Also, thanks for your answer. I’m still not sure I’m following it, but I’ll read it again. And yes, I suppose I COULD e-mail it to my kindle address – only then I’d have to look it up 
and figure the whole thing out. I’m sure it’s simple; it’s just that I’ve never done it. I always hate doing electronic things I’ve never done because it so often takes half the day to do them. But I’ll give it a go. It’s probably, in practice, no big deal.
Yeah, okay – I see a glimmer . . . I think I get it.
Oh Cool! It actually worked – here it is on my kindle.
Oh, good! I fixed that. 
I have to say, I’m now kind-of addicted to sending doc and pdf files to my Kindle. Um, sorry. 
I promise I still read real books! 