A logical problem with "Hell": Part 2

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Do you have any evidence for such libeling?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Logic and common sense mostly, but you're welcome to what you believe as well.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


That's not evidence.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


If you want to go on believing Constantine was a saint then go right ahead, but I choose not to.

I remember you saying that it was all a business move at one point not too long ago. Have you changed your mind since then or are you being purposely obtuse? Where's your evidence that it was only a business move?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


What evidence do you have of your claims?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Okay, have fun with that. I was hoping to have an intelligent debate, but apparently you don't fit the bill, so good day!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You still have not provided evidence for your statements.

"That's what I think, so there!" is not a logical argument. Provide your case, complete with proof. Or you can disprove my assertion that Constantine was a pagan until just before his death, but used pieces of paganism to stuff the stocking of Christianity so as to preserve the old ways and prevent future wars based on spiritualism. His intentions were nothing but good.

Prove me wrong...if you can.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Oh, so now your speculation can be taken as fact but mine can't? Once you bring evidence that what you say is true then I'll do the same, sound fair?

When did Rome ever have good intentions? They kept on conquering and pillaging and murdering long after Constantine died. Shows what kind of "good intentions" he had doesn't it? Christianity has turned into one the of the most, if not THE most, divided religion in the world with over 40,000 denominations. A lot of good his plan for unifying did.

Also, if Constantine had good intentions then why did he murder thousands of people who refused to convert? Sounds kinda like what happened to Jesus and his true followers doesn't it? All for Christianity.

reply to post by Akragon


Akragon,

I've given a lot of thought to this issue and have decided that you are right. I don't think there is free will. We had no say in the creation of the universe that led to our existence. We certainly didn't decide to be born, much less decide to be born sinners bound for Hell. Years ago, I would have said that at least we have the free will to accept Christ, but even that is false. If someone holds a gun to your head and says, "obey me or die," that is not free will. It is a mockery of free will. But that is what we are doing with the concept of Hell.

So I should dispense with the term "free will." I don't think it's even in the Bible. it's a theological term, not a Scriptual one.

As to the existence of Hell, it does create many problems. How can an eternity of punishment be a fair judgement against 70-100 years of sin (or less in some cases?) Even if Hitler burned for a billion years for every death he caused, there would still come a point where he would have paid his dues.

The theory that I'm toying with lately is one I heard put forth by a nun who suggested that everyone goes to Heaven. But for truly evil people, being in the unfilitered presence of God would be punishment. It would be Hell. And that is why we need redemption.

The Scripture says in many places that "His mercy endures forever." which sounds to me as though there is no point of no return. We could, at some point, let go of our stubborn ways and rebellion and submit to Him and experience the joy of His presence rather than the awful terror of it.

reply to post by Snsoc

Years ago, I would have said that at least we have the free will to accept Christ, but even that is false. If someone holds a gun to your head and says, "obey me or die," that is not free will. It is a mockery of free will.

We do have free will...

IF someone holds a gun to your head, you have the free will to tempt him to pull the trigger... or obey...

The theory that I'm toying with lately is one I heard put forth by a nun who suggested that everyone goes to Heaven.

I agree with that... All will be saved In my humble opinion

It is shameful to go to hell.

Stay out and stay alive (in Jesus Christ)

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I'd have used instead of a computer voice, a Florida golf course owner whom happens to be an Alligator hissing between grabbing golf balls thinking they are misplaced eggs while simoultainiously rolling in the mud.

You mean, sounding something like a half broken hard drive, trying to give a dam, while transferring “VERY IMPORTANT” document files…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Do not duplicate the key whatever you do (ransom note forthcoming?) There was a time humans were godlike stripped of the phone line direct;

Well, actually the plan all along, was to go ex-directory, but to keep the “Bat Phone” (I know, what’s with all the batman analogies, right?) around for safe keeping. And although it was removed via this matrix system, the number can still be found by those who seek, and can be dialed by anyone, at anytime.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
why I reference the Lizards-they are our genetitists original and cannot help think they were partially responsible. I always liked the Cray did not reference. Hal? not so much even as an idea trustworthy not in space anyway.

Cray vs Hal, would have been an interesting match up, but it’s a well known axiom, that a space advantage, is only temporary.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Something tells me you need to make your ribald remarks more "RIBALD" or containing obvious irony, chiding (little bit) sardonisism, but NEVER EVER sarcasm or ridicule as these are personal truths (feelings) you are stomping all over. As for me personally; bring it on! as that is my arena of non-linear abstract thought playtime fun

I’m really starting to like you lol


- JC

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
You realize I have to ask you this; would you like to, since you brought it up initially, duke it out with your knowelege of the Nag Hammadi Texts against my understanding of them? For me, it described what I was I learned nothing else other than OH that imperfectly describes me as very close. Better a Gnostic than a white sheeted tree hugger; and I do dislike having to couch words. You are interesting.

First of all, I’m not here to “duke it out”, as you put it. For me, it’s not about winning or losing, but is instead about finding Truth and understanding, through comparing other people’s perspectives, with my own.

It’s the same with my discussion here with Akragon above, and although we are in disagreement, over the God in Genesis, I still have a lot of respect for him as an ATS poster, and we probably agree on just about 90 odd % of various as other spiritual matters.

I’m glad you find me interesting, although I’m not entirely sure what you mean by…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
“Better a Gnostic than a white sheeted tree hugger;”???

I don’t even want to try and attempt at deciphering that one, in case I start a riot… lol

I’ve read a few of your posts elsewhere, and I find them, and you, very interesting as well. And I would love to hear your own personal Gnostic perspective. But it would probably be best suited on another thread, rather than on a thread about Hell.

Although, in light of my difficulties deciphering quite a few of your other posts, it may be best that for future discussions, that you de-activate your wordsmith mode. Just a thought.




- JC

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
This is true, but since I am neither "gnostic" or Christian I have no need to adhear to specific beliefs in either religion.
Gnostic beliefs are quite similar to the Christians in that they believe people are tortured in the afterlife... I hold no such belief because as I've stated many times on our forum, a loving creator would not torture his children.

Yes, I completely agree with you and share your opinion, in that God is not torturing people in Hell for all eternity. I know that’s not how the Father God operates.

Originally posted by Akragon
I've found my own truth, which may not be yours... You should take a look over the passages Jesus quotes from the OT... they are very vague, and in all of what is written about him he rarely uses the OT... but when he does I believe this is because OT and the like were the only scripture available at the time... Being brought up in Judaism and taught their scripture from a child... HE uses it only to relate to what they knew of...

It goes much further IMO than just using it to relate to their scriptures etc

John 8:37
I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word.

And…

Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

First Jesus is stating He knows who they are, and then He states that Abraham is rejoicing at his coming. i.e. Jesus the Messiah. And we know Abraham believed in the God of the Old Testament, so right there, there is a clear connection.

There are soo many other passages I could use, where Jesus quotes verses from certain prophets, like Isaiah and Ezekiel etc, who he believes were speaking on Gods behalf, and Jesus quotes them from the perspective that he believes there speaking of God.

AND

Matthew 9:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Its looks pretty obvious too me that Jesus is referring to Genesis, and then He reiterates the point, by stating that, this is from God. Jesus is also mentioning the flesh, which he believes God created, which goes completely against this “Yaltabaoth”, mentioned in the “Apocryphon of John”

Originally posted by Akragon
For example, I can quote Christian, Gnostic, hindu, or buddhist scripture with ease... but its pointless quoting Gnostic, hindu, or Buddhist texts when im talking to a Christian.

Oh I see…so you adapted for me…nice…

Respecto Mondo…

Originally posted by Akragon
I agree, but the same goes for biblical scripture as we both know...

Yes, I know, but Biblical scriptures were originally individual books, so one can quote from one, and still leave interpretation for another. But when you’re quoting from the “Apocryphon of John” for example, then you have to consider everything within its contents, as a whole.

Originally posted by Akragon
Gladly

John

This is Jesus speaking of Yaltabaoth
”And having created [...] everything, he organized according to the model of the first aeons which had come into being, so that he might create them like the indestructible ones. Not because he had seen the indestructible ones, but the power in him, which he had taken from his mother, produced in him the likeness of the cosmos. And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous? “

Yes, but your using theology from the “Apocryphon of John”, to negate the God in Genesis, and the reason you reject that, is because you in turn reject the standard notion of Hell.

Problem is, the same book your quoting from, promotes Hell, in it’s theology, which is something your against completely, in any form!, although admittedly the Hell depicted there, is far different than burning for all eternity. Its kind of like reading Alice in wonder land and believing in the Rabbit Hole, but not accepting that the White Rabbit part is real.

Anyway, I will take a look at your thread and respond to you there, on the topic of God in Genesis, rather than here on your Hell thread. Because I think we are pretty much agreed, on the Hell aspect of things.

- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

First Jesus is stating He knows who they are,

Abraham was a key figure in the religion he was taught...

and then He states that Abraham is rejoicing at his coming. i.e. Jesus the Messiah. And we know Abraham believed in the God of the Old Testament, so right there, there is a clear connection.

Do you recall what Abrahams "God" asked him to do to prove his belief?

There are soo many other passages I could use, where Jesus quotes verses from certain prophets, like Isaiah and Ezekiel etc, who he believes were speaking on Gods behalf, and Jesus quotes them from the perspective that he believes there speaking of God.

There are "mild" hints of the true God in the OT... mainly in the Psalms/Proverbs... But I maintain the "God" of Abraham/moses is not the Father of Jesus...

Its looks pretty obvious too me that Jesus is referring to Genesis, and then He reiterates the point, by stating that, this is from God.

Again, a small reference to "love"...

Jesus is also mentioning the flesh, which he believes God created, which goes completely against this “Yaltabaoth”, mentioned in the “Apocryphon of John”

Technically he said "the creator"... then an entirely different statement... " Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Did Jesus say God created the flesh?

hmmmm....

Anyways... The Genesis account falls in line completely with Apocryphon of John on this aspect...

And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven (Father) 'The Man exists and the son of Man.' ( refering to Jesus)

And the chief archon, Yaltabaoth, heard (it) and thought that the voice had come from his mother. And he did not know from where it came. And HE taught them, the holy and perfect Mother-Father, the complete foreknowledge, the image of the invisible one who is the Father of the all (and) through whom everything came into being, the first Man. For he revealed his likeness in a human form.

And the whole aeon of the chief archon trembled, and the foundations of the abyss shook. And of the waters which are above matter, the underside was illuminated by the appearance of his image which had been revealed. And when all the authorities and the chief archon looked, they saw the whole region of the underside which was illuminated. And through the light they saw the form of the image in the water.

"And he said to the authorities which attend him, 'Come, let us create a man according to the image of God and according to Our likeness, that his image may become a light for us.' And they created by means of their respective powers in correspondence with the characteristics which were given. And each authority supplied a characteristic in the form of the image which he had seen in its natural (form). He created a being according to the likeness of the first, perfect Man. And they said, 'Let us call him Adam, that his name may become a power of light for us.'

Yes, I know, but Biblical scriptures were originally individual books, so one can quote from one, and still leave interpretation for another. But when you’re quoting from the “Apocryphon of John” for example, then you have to consider everything within its contents, as a whole.

Does that mean All or Nothing?

Yes, but your using theology from the “Apocryphon of John”, to negate the God in Genesis, and the reason you reject that, is because you in turn reject the standard notion of Hell.

No that's not why I reject the OT God... Jesus spoke of Hell, there was something behind it... I just don't buy the "Christian" version of it... its a fairytale used to insight fear...

Problem is, the same book your quoting from, promotes Hell, in it’s theology, which is something your against completely, in any form!, although admittedly the Hell depicted there, is far different than burning for all eternity. Its kind of like reading Alice in wonder land and believing in the Rabbit Hole, but not accepting that the White Rabbit part is real.

I wouldn't say "any form"... Do you Create your own Hell?

You must have missed this thread...

Are you afraid of Hell yet?

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
Do you recall what Abrahams "God" asked him to do to prove his belief?

Yes, but God never intended on killing his Child, and IMO it’s connected to Jesus, Gods son, giving his life, for others, further down the line.

Originally posted by Akragon
There are "mild" hints of the true God in the OT... mainly in the Psalms/Proverbs... But I maintain the "God" of Abraham/moses is not the Father of Jesus...

IF the God of Abraham and Moses is in no way connected to Jesus, then why is Jesus saying in John 8:56, that Abraham rejoiced, at the thought of seeing His (Jesus) day???

Originally posted by Joecroft
Jesus is also mentioning the flesh, which he believes God created, which goes completely against this “Yaltabaoth”, mentioned in the “Apocryphon of John”

Originally posted by Akragon
Technically he said "the creator"... then an entirely different statement... " Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Did Jesus say God created the flesh?

hmmmm....

Yes, but I think it can be inferred that the word “Creator”, and “God”, are both one and the same, in that passage.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Yes, I know, but Biblical scriptures were originally individual books, so one can quote from one, and still leave interpretation for another. But when you’re quoting from the “Apocryphon of John” for example, then you have to consider everything within its contents, as a whole.

Originally posted by Akragon
Does that mean All or Nothing?

I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to point out.

We know that the Bible is made up of individual books, maybe some of them shouldn’t be in there, and maybe some extra ones, shouldn’t have been removed etc. And we know that Hell isn’t mentioned in The OT, because the correct translation is Sheol meaning grave.

But when it comes to a complete book, i.e. the book of “Pslams” or the “Book of John” etc, then we need to take the whole book on its own, as a whole.

For example, (And I know it doesn’t mention Hell) but if, “The Gospel of Thomas”, contained passages that promoted Hell, in the “torturing form variety”, and I was against that etc, then I would not be quoting other parts of it, too help refute something else!

So yes, where individual books are concerned, it’s ALL or nothing IMO.

Originally posted by Akragon
Problem is, the same book your quoting from, promotes Hell, in it’s theology, which is something your against completely, in any form!, although admittedly the Hell depicted there, is far different than burning for all eternity. Its kind of like reading Alice in wonder land and believing in the Rabbit Hole, but not accepting that the White Rabbit part is real.

Originally posted by Akragon
I wouldn't say "any form"... Do you Create your own Hell?

Man…how many Hell threads have you got out there lol

Yes, not any form, but your definitely ruling out the torturous and eternal punishment variety, which is a “form” clearly mentioned in the “Apocryphon of John”

Originally posted by Akragon

You must have missed this thread...

Are you afraid of Hell yet?

Oh no…Not another one…:bnghd:


Put in for a vacation or something…


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

Yes, but God never intended on killing his Child

I think the book says otherwise... IF he hadn't intended on Abraham killing his own son, why would an angel come to stop him instead of this "God" speaking up for himself?

IF said angel did not intervene Abrahams son would have died at that moment...

IF the God of Abraham and Moses is in no way connected to Jesus, then why is Jesus saying in John 8:56, that Abraham rejoiced, at the thought of seeing His (Jesus) day???

Abraham had long passed and returned home by that time...

Yes, but I think it can be inferred that the word “Creator”, and “God”, are both one and the same, in that passage.

I suppose it could be... but the latter is completely logical as well...

depends on ones point of view...

I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to point out.

We know that the Bible is made up of individual books, maybe some of them shouldn’t be in there, and maybe some extra ones, shouldn’t have been removed etc. And we know that Hell isn’t mentioned in The OT, because the correct translation is Sheol meaning grave.

Technically "hell" is mentioned in the OT in Joshua... and a few other places in later books.

But when it comes to a complete book, i.e. the book of “Pslams” or the “Book of John” etc, then we need to take the whole book on its own, as a whole.

I disagree...

For example, (And I know it doesn’t mention Hell) but if, “The Gospel of Thomas”, contained passages that promoted Hell, in the “torturing form variety”, and I was against that etc, then I would not be quoting other parts of it, too help refute something else!

So yes, where individual books are concerned, it’s ALL or nothing IMO.

Again I disagree... for example

In John 1 it says...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is something that came from john... Not anything that Jesus taught...

Jesus IS the word of God... but he was NOT God in the flesh.

Man…how many Hell threads have you got out there lol

Yes, not any form, but your definitely ruling out the torturous and eternal punishment variety, which is a “form” clearly mentioned in the “Apocryphon of John”

I have a few of them...

And as I've previously stated... I don't agree with everything the gnostics believed, same as I don't agree with everything Christianity teaches... or any religion for that matter. I believe all religions have some things correct... but there is no religion that has everything correct.

Of course this means "correct according to myself" and how I feel about what I read... I make no claims that my beliefs are exactly what is... my beliefs change according to what truths are presented to me....

but they haven't changed in many years

By the way... I am Honoured that you've decided to share my Avatar theme...

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I'd have used instead of a computer voice, a Florida golf course owner whom happens to be an Alligator hissing between grabbing golf balls thinking they are misplaced eggs while simoultainiously rolling in the mud.

You mean, sounding something like a half broken hard drive, trying to give a dam, while transferring “VERY IMPORTANT” document files…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Do not duplicate the key whatever you do (ransom note forthcoming?) There was a time humans were godlike stripped of the phone line direct;

Well, actually the plan all along, was to go ex-directory, but to keep the “Bat Phone” (I know, what’s with all the batman analogies, right?) around for safe keeping. And although it was removed via this matrix system, the number can still be found by those who seek, and can be dialed by anyone, at anytime.
- JC

So I am still on the hook for several million billion dollars; the least you can do is hide the number somewhere in a golfball in a water hazard. Preferably somewhere else on spaceship Earth maybe Australia; in a Crocodile's mouth clamped shut.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

I honestly believe that no emperor of Rome had ever believed in any of the religions that they Instituted because they are the ones that started them. They only evolve their religions as best they can to fit their needs for power.

Constantine was in the guise of a pagan who saw a more efficient way to control the people so he legalized Christianity. Once he legalized it he started persecuting and murdering the pagans who refused to convert. Constantine was not religious at all in my opinion, only power hungry.

Is this not the bane of most rulers? See which way the political wind blows (how not to be conquered, murdered displaced) and outsmart the entropy that will and always follows? Generally; ruin because that is the nature of civilizations to CEASE TO BE in order to bring in other ones and not necessarily better ones. Chaos/strife to bring on even unnecessary change. Why- that is the nature of 'things' to experience change. Unfortunately the human is either the cause of it or the victim of it. Its cyclic/circular and always has been.

We currently are speaking within a forum that is going to become so unwieldy it will implode upon itself and there is no thing that can be done about it unless a separation happens between forums, or human usage. The thing will become so smart/a sentient being unto itself (I always think of the smart cars rebelling) lets see what happens when I decide to excellerate to 90mph? (no reason at all just for fun)

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

First of all, I’m not here to “duke it out”, as you put it. For me, it’s not about winning or losing, but is instead about finding Truth and understanding, through comparing other people’s perspectives, with my own.

It’s the same with my discussion here with Akragon above, and although we are in disagreement, over the God in Genesis, I still have a lot of respect for him as an ATS poster, and we probably agree on just about 90 odd % of various as other spiritual matters.

I’m glad you find me interesting, although I’m not entirely sure what you mean by…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
“Better a Gnostic than a white sheeted tree hugger;”???

I don’t even want to try and attempt at deciphering that one, in case I start a riot… lol
Although, in light of my difficulties deciphering quite a few of your other posts, it may be best that for future discussions, that you de-activate your wordsmith mode. Just a thought.

The white sheeted refers to me all garbed up and carving Gnostic text into treetrunks for the future children of Earth to devine (hopefully not killing the host Oak in process). The wordsmithery. It takes one wordsmith to decifer/recognise another; its one of those secret bat code things.

This is a game; it is an intelligent sparing seeking information exchanging-it should never be damaging to the human psyche/spirit but an elaborate exchange of fun ecstacy and illumination. I never take myself too seriously.