Hell is theologically impossible if God is omnipotent.

Originally posted by filosophia
If God rescued everyone before they did anyyhing evil there would be no free will.

It is up to ourselves and ourselves alone to save us. I risk being called an anti christ for saying this but who cares it is the truth. To unlock the insight of our own mind is to turn the mind inward and behold the simplicity of that which sees but is unseen. Our consciousness is immaterial and that is our true spirit. Anything sqid of God in terms of language is a duality and can not describe Gods Unified existence.This is what should be taught.

Christians may call you names but you are biblically correct.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It is to each of us as the above shows. We are not to rely on a scapegoat Jesus.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

If Jesus visited Noah, Noah would have never built or finished the ark.

Jesus would have told him to do unto others. If one is doing with others in mind, he would never build something that would facilitate the genocide of man. Noah would have done the right thing and told God where to shove his genocidal fit and to do the right thing and cure instead of kill those he thought defective, exactly like a Jesus character would do.

Jesus would have been constrained and only allowed to do what the eternal spirit (whatever that is) permitted him to do, which was spiritual things, and not things in the physical realm where he could have prevented the flood. So Jesus would have been allowed to offer the people of the time an opportunity to repent of their sinfulness.

How exactly do you offer innocent children and babies an opportunity to repent of their sinfulness.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The life of Christ and his disciples and how they literally changed the world even before any of it was written is a testament to how very real and serious the matter is. Not only that but, as i've mentioned in other threads, nature itself tells us that live men don't die for dead men, that a live dog is better than a dead lion. Apart from written word, theirs lives and faith had an impact on the entire world.

Now as far as sacrifice goes, God Himself was the first to shed blood making clothes for to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve thus requiring by law the same acts from men for remission of sins which makes the idea Just, not Immoral. Then, instead of leaving us in such a way, He sacrificed His own son because He loves us so that no longer were we to live under righteousness through works, but under righteousness through faith.

Adam and Eve chose to sin; forcing God's hand. Of course we want to be like God. We're made in His image after all. Nevertheless, God knew this and had already made a way for us to return to the way He created us....eternal. Again, we choose, denying God yet He offers us redemption which hardly makes Him an immoral, genocidal, son-murdering, psychopath.

Your anger is blinding and shows an evident lack of personal study. What or who has hurt you so badly that you deny the Love of our Father?

Jesus said we would know his people by their works. In this case, he was right.

I like the way you think that man can force God to do things though.

Regards
DL

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Now as far as sacrifice goes, God Himself was the first to shed blood making clothes for to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve thus requiring by law the same acts from men for remission of sins which makes the idea Just, not Immoral.

I should quote the verse:
Genesis 3:21
The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

The word here translated, skin, comes from a word that means literally, skin, as in something being exposed, this is the root word which the actual word in the verse is derived from. So the word that is used means to cover that exposed thing, meaning the naked skin, so the practical meaning is a covering, where in normal usage it is referring to leather since this is the sort of material you would use in this application, (not having synthetic materials as we do now, or even rubber). So the word itself does not really mean an animal skin in its strictest definition but describes something which normally would have been made from an animal skin.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Now as far as sacrifice goes, God Himself was the first to shed blood making clothes for to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve thus requiring by law the same acts from men for remission of sins which makes the idea Just, not Immoral.

I should quote the verse:
Genesis 3:21
The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

The word here translated, skin, comes from a word that means literally, skin, as in something being exposed, this is the root word which the actual word in the verse is derived from. So the word that is used means to cover that exposed thing, meaning the naked skin, so the practical meaning is a covering, where in normal usage it is referring to leather since this is the sort of material you would use in this application, (not having synthetic materials as we do now, or even rubber). So the word itself does not really mean an animal skin in its strictest definition but describes something which normally would have been made from an animal skin.

edit on 13-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

This clearly shows that man's morals are superior to God's.

Man did not kill to clothe himself and found another way.
God killed and intoduced us to killing when there were other options.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by faceoff85
People dont have an immortal soul... when dead you're dead. God can bring you back into existence just like Jesus (through the power of his father) revived Lazarus. God revived Jesus from the dead as well...

Hell is purely a fabrication of the church. The word Hell cannot be found in the bible. The words used to create the concept of hell are Hades, Sjeool and Gehenna. all 3 are meant symbolically just like when you'd say you made someone bite the dust... SYMBOLICAL...

Sounds like you have half a theology instead of a complete one.

Let's talk Jesus for a moment.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Jesus said that He laid His life down on His own, and that no man took it from Him. Jesus was a volunteer, as His prayer in the Garden demonstrates. He was free to walk away from His ordeal, but it was His LOVE for His friends which impelled Him to His death. Had He walked, we would not be here today to discuss it.

reply to post by Greatest I am

God killed and intoduced us to killing when there were other options.

You either missed my point or chose to ignore it.
It does not say anything about killing and one way to translate the verse would be:

The Lord made from appropriate materials, coverings to clothe the people.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
[
Jesus said that He laid His life down on His own, and that no man took it from Him. Jesus was a volunteer, as His prayer in the Garden demonstrates. He was free to walk away from His ordeal, but it was His LOVE for His friends which impelled Him to His death. Had He walked, we would not be here today to discuss it.

He also said his father had sent him.

I see that you did not speak of the injustice of having the innocent murdered so that the guilty can walk.

Too tough to justify for you is it?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

God killed and intoduced us to killing when there were other options.

You either missed my point or chose to ignore it.
It does not say anything about killing and one way to translate the verse would be:

The Lord made from appropriate materials, coverings to clothe the people.

The original wording from Egypt or Sumer, where the Jews got the original story, might have a different meaning.

I do not care. The point is that God, by withholding the tree of life, introduced mankind to death. As far as the myth says in any case.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


It was what HeFrippedMeOff brought up, where he is one of these people who are into the blood, which is where they imagine there is a blood-for-sin payment Jesus had to make so they grasp at straws to find biblical support for the theory.
The tree of life is a symbol for man choosing the natural over the supernatural, where they took it upon themselves to rebuild the temple without the help God was to provide, after the exodus from Babylonian captivity, which is how I see it until I find out otherwise which is going to take some more money to buy more books.
This is what I think, that this Genesis story was written in or edited to reflect a conflict that can be summarized by Samaria, which was where the descendants of the norther Israelites built a temple on another mountain.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

It was what HeFrippedMeOff brought up, where he is one of these people who are into the blood, which is where they imagine there is a blood-for-sin payment Jesus had to make so they grasp at straws to find biblical support for the theory.
The tree of life is a symbol for man choosing the natural over the supernatural, where they took it upon themselves to rebuild the temple without the help God was to provide, after the exodus from Babylonian captivity, which is how I see it until I find out otherwise which is going to take some more money to buy more books.
This is what I think, that this Genesis story was written in or edited to reflect a conflict that can be summarized by Samaria, which was where the descendants of the norther Israelites built a temple on another mountain.

edit on 23-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I just see it as our elevation the way Jews did. A right of passage from child to adult.
Somrthing like this.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

I just see it as our elevation the way Jews did. A right of passage from child to adult.

I have yet to see you produce any evidence that this is so, that the Jews took it that way. It could be that some take it that way now but I don't see that as having relevance to understanding the original intent of the author or more likely authors of the Eden story. What I see generally is an explanation for the existence of evil and splitting the cause so that the blame for it existing is on us, while the power to have it so is on the Deity figure in order for the Deity to maintain its status of having authority.

If you accept the doctrine of reincarnation and karma, and also of life after death, hell makes more sense.
If you would like to take the time to research these, and then decide wether or not they hold any truth, read

www.yogebooks.com... -reincarnation and the law of karma
www.yogebooks.com... -Life beyond death

Links go straight to ebooks which are free since the books are about 100 years old and the copyright has worn off.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

The tree of life is a symbol for man choosing the natural over the supernatural, where they took it upon themselves to rebuild the temple without the help God was to provide, after the exodus from Babylonian captivity, which is how I see it until I find out otherwise which is going to take some more money to buy more books.

There are masses of free e-books at this site - I think you may find things here that interest you and help you in your studies.

www.4shared.com...

Credit, as always, to Lisa 2012 for first posting this site on ATS.

reply to post by berenike

I think you may find things here that interest you and help you in your studies.

Thanks, that helps and I already downloaded a few PDF files. I'm thinking about buying a tablet to read these types of books with, since I get tired of sitting in front of my computer so much.

People need to research Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, Abyss, Gehenna
Many people think these are all different descriptions of "Hell" but they are not.
Hell is a very generic all encompassing English word.
If you really want to understand this topic study of the Hebrew & Greek languages at least in those words is required.
When you do, you come to understand the truth about Hell.

I agree with the OP.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I just see it as our elevation the way Jews did. A right of passage from child to adult.

I have yet to see you produce any evidence that this is so, that the Jews took it that way. It could be that some take it that way now but I don't see that as having relevance to understanding the original intent of the author or more likely authors of the Eden story. What I see generally is an explanation for the existence of evil and splitting the cause so that the blame for it existing is on us, while the power to have it so is on the Deity figure in order for the Deity to maintain its status of having authority.

edit on 25-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The only evidence is from my speaking to a good number of Jews who, to begin with, do not take their literature literally or historically and other sources like this.

www.mrrena.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
People need to research Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, Abyss, Gehenna
Many people think these are all different descriptions of "Hell" but they are not.
Hell is a very generic all encompassing English word.
If you really want to understand this topic study of the Hebrew & Greek languages at least in those words is required.
When you do, you come to understand the truth about Hell.

I agree with the OP.

You see 20 20 then.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
[
Jesus said that He laid His life down on His own, and that no man took it from Him. Jesus was a volunteer, as His prayer in the Garden demonstrates. He was free to walk away from His ordeal, but it was His LOVE for His friends which impelled Him to His death. Had He walked, we would not be here today to discuss it.

He also said his father had sent him.

I see that you did not speak of the injustice of having the innocent murdered so that the guilty can walk.

Too tough to justify for you is it?

Regards
DL

I don't need to justify it - it just is. Surely the Father and the Son determined the only possible solution, given God's eternal Law, and that the Son volunteered Himself to save fallen mankind. The Father did send Him, but He could have walked at any time. It is you who can not get around His own statement that He laid His life down on His own, and that no man could take it from Him. That is how He avoided being stoned at the temple, etc. It makes sense. You do not.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
[
Jesus said that He laid His life down on His own, and that no man took it from Him. Jesus was a volunteer, as His prayer in the Garden demonstrates. He was free to walk away from His ordeal, but it was His LOVE for His friends which impelled Him to His death. Had He walked, we would not be here today to discuss it.

He also said his father had sent him.

I see that you did not speak of the injustice of having the innocent murdered so that the guilty can walk.

Too tough to justify for you is it?

Regards
DL

I don't need to justify it - it just is.

True to you.

You do not have to justify believing in a completely immoral doctrine. You do not care if your heavenly security blanket is moral or not. You will follow a Satanic system as long as you get your eternal reward in heave and get to watch the dreaded others who are not of your ilk burn and be tortured forever for your pleasure. Enjoy.

Regards
DL