Here is the "Daily Goodie" I received from Clyde Pilkington in my inbox today: "The 'lake of fire' is just a part of the transition from death to life."

Huh?

If Clyde is trying to say that God, through the eonian times, is transitioning from death to life, then Clyde should present us with some stupendous scene of resurrection. How could the lake of fire, which is defined by God as "the second death" (Revelation 20:14) be a part of the transition from death to life? Death is a part of the transition FROM death? If death is "a PART of the transition," then death would have to be INTRINSICALLY transitional, which it is not.

If God wanted to convince us that he was transitioning, during the eonian times, from death to life, then His Exhibit A would certainly not be the lake of fire, which is the second death: GOD: "To prove to you that I am transitioning from death to life, I present you with millions of dead people."

This is an absurdity. Not that Clyde is a stranger to absurdity. I just wonder if I am correctly understanding this PARTICULAR absurdity. Clyde COULD be saying (this seems more likely; though still to be filed in the "absurd" cabinet) that the second death is not literal, but rather some intermediate state between death and life. Is it the DEAD who are transitioning? But dead people cannot do anything, let alone transition. What the dead need is to be raised to life. Resurrection is not transition. It is an instantaneous miracle that makes dead people alive.  

Either way, Clyde is glorifying death. Either 1) death is some sort of perverted joke-proof that God is transitioning from death to life, 2) death is intrinsically transitional, or 3) the dead are not really dead, but transitioning their way to life.

Either way,  Mr. Pilkington has some explaining to do.