A logical problem with "Hell": Part 2

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Is Jesus saying that people are literally sheep here, wool and all, or is he using a metaphor to get his point across? If you believe it is a metaphor then why would you think everlasting fire is not? Such a place literally is ridiculous, so you have to start thinking of alternative meanings that it could have.

Then you agree that the whole fire and brimstone deal isn't real?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Of course, isn't that obvious? A place like that cannot exist within logic, it is completely Illogical within itself.

What does make sense (to me) is that we are in the metaphorical "lake of fire", where the evil run the world (like Satan ruling hell) and where lies are seen as fact and facts seen as lies. Where people suffer everyday and where war is constantly taking place and where the media lies to the people to make them support the wars.

If this is not hell, what else could it be? It certainly isn't heaven.

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

So if we use logic and say none of the supernatural stuff occurred what exactly are you left with? Using logic that would be what you would do correct? So do we just have a story about a guy who had a bit of a god complex?

Here is my issue with that.

The Bible is a supernatural book. By rejecting the supernatural stuff in it then you reject it in it's entirely. Remember that the Bible, according to those who claim it, is the inspired word of God. In many places it even contains quotes taken from the spoken word of God himself.

Remember that Jesus lived in occupied Judea and the Jewish leaders, who were his enemies, had a vested interest in eliminating him, his movement, and any record of him ever existing. These same leaders experienced and acknowledged the supernatural acts that Jesus did in direct opposition to their own agenda. What is so important about the life of Jesus, and which is glossed over by popular culture, is that the witnesses to these super natural events were often those who were either actively opposed to him, or occupying their country. Not only that, but the sheer number of witnesses involved is compelling.

He was not performing for the choir so to speak.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Actually yeah I think that would be a great reason to say the whole thing is bunk. Unless we had writings that stated otherwise you can only make assumptions as to what was in the originals. Yes I am aware of some verses that have been proven to be inserted but that doesn't stand true for the majority of the text. Once you start omitting things that defy logic like the miracles and resurrection the entire things becomes suspect since you cannot in all honesty say that any of it is true. That also is true of your interpretations of the texts. While one might be inclined to agree with your stance, if this jesus was who he claimed to be then trying to apply logic to many aspects of what your reading is no longer relevant. Making the assumption that there isn't a hell or it isn't internal because it falls outside of what you consider logical doesn't make it impossible or does is make your argument any more valid than someone else. When considering a supernatural event or place you either have to dismiss is with your logic or put a hold on your logic to give it some acceptance.

reply to post by UnderGetty


Or could it be that instead of erasing his story from history, they turned around and stole and manipulated it for their own agendas? Funny how the ones in power have let the "truth" perpetuate for the past 2,500 years yet they can't seem to tell the truth about anything else. Why would they truly let us have the real "truth" for so long?

Probably because the whole faith-based thing and the miracles and resurrection are not truth at all, but myths spun by those in power in order to make Jesus look more than just a normal human so that people would worship him as a god.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Or could it be that instead of erasing his story from history, they turned around and stole and manipulated it for their own agendas? Funny how the ones in power have let the "truth" perpetuate for the past 2,500 years yet they can't seem to tell the truth about anything else. Why would they truly let us have the real "truth" for so long?

Probably because the whole faith-based thing and the miracles and resurrection are not truth at all, but myths spun by those in power in order to make Jesus look more than just a normal human so that people would worship him as a god.

It's a lot more complicated than that.

reply to post by drivers1492


I can understand where you're coming from here, though I disagree to a point. If you remove all the miracles then you are left with a man who had extensive knowledge on life who went around preaching that knowledge. When the authorities learned of his preaching they captured then killed him.

Remove the miracles and resurrection and you still have a coherent story. Just because you decide not to actually study it doesn't mean there's no truth to it. If you truly did study and read it you would see that all of it is not a lie and that it does have truth in it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Care to elaborate?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I will reply in just a bit my cows are behind the house singing to me to bring them hay I have to take care of my future steaks.

Here is a classic argument...

If someone was going to start a religion based on their claim to be God (which is such a fantastic claim that it got Jesus killed), why would anyone with the intention of continuing the establishment of this want any of these miracles recorded?

You are right. Surely these claims are too fantastic to be real. The can't possibly have occurred if the logical mind is to prevail. Their very presence in the Bible works directly against those who wish to claim the Bible is authentic and real because it discredits the content.

This is a supernatural book of a super natural God. Or it is a totally fictitious and misleading literary work apart from the old testament historical accounts?

There can not be an in between here. Either it is or it isn't. You must decide for yourself.

Everything hinges on Christ's resurrection. The Jewish leaders where not stupid. The Roman overlord was not stupid either. Why do you think the Romans were careful to remain neutral in this matter?

Everyone knew the potential of raising a martyr. Everyone knew the potential problems around his body to the point where they made sure it would stay put. At the time, Jesus had a handful of men and a few hundred followers. the size of his following was roughly the same a Jim Jones and his ideas equally as radical, probably more so.

If someone can offer a reasonable reason why anyone intending to extend or consolidate their power and control, would associate themselves with such an individual (who was also known to hang out with drug addicts and whores) then please share because from where I stand, I can see no reason why anyone of the day would touch this with a ten foot pole.

Seriously, it's like claiming that the remnant of Jim Jones' followers stole his guarded body (requiring heavy machinery to do so), claimed he came back from the dead, ascended to heaven, and based on these claims, started a church that became the dominant faith of the world.

reply to post by UnderGetty


Is the power they gained by promoting the resurrection not proof enough of why they would promote it? The miracles never happened, the ones who promote them are the same ones who invented them. Not that hard to understand really.

By saying that it is either true or false without any wiggle room is exactly the way they want people to think. If people believe it is completely true then they get the corrupted version, if they believe it is completely false then they miss the point completely. That's a win win for them in their books.

If you meet in the middle then you have done exactly what they don't want you to do. They WANT you to write it off as complete fantasy just as they WANT others to believe it is 100% true. The middle-ground between the two does exist and just because you say it doesn't doesn't mean you are right.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


It's a very long story to explain. The long and short of it is, Christianity was used as a vehicle to preserve and carry forward old spiritualism while at the same time catering to a new movement in religion. It was a business maneuver.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I agree, which is what I was saying with the manipulation of the story. They took Jesus' story, added in pagan (Roman) themes like the miracles and resurrection then told people that if they didn't believe in the miracles or resurrection that they would die and be sent to a place to burn for eternity.

If you are submissive to god then you will be submissive to the church because they are his "mouthpiece". It was most definitely a business maneuver, and it was put in place for the sole purposes of making money off of their followers insecurities and to feed their want for power.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I have studied it quite a bit over the years. I learned a great deal more when I left the church than I ever did when I went. You can get good messages from alot of stories and the message they try and convey may be beneficial, but they are still just stories. Removing miracles makes the central figure just a man. He had a cool outlook on life but I can't say the messages are anything enlightened. I suppose a different viewpoint that makes others say oh yeah thats how its all suppose to be gives them the enlightened title I don't honestly know since I feel the same way about buddha or gahndi or any religous enlightened figure.

reply to post by drivers1492


Jesus was just a man, no different than us, but that doesn't mean he wasn't god.

What if I told you that Jesus came to spread the message that we all share the same Father, the same one that the church teaches is only his, and that we all have eternal life? What you do in this life affects where you end up next. If you love unconditionally then you are reincarnated onto a planet where corruption is not a part of society and if you do bad, you end up on planets like Earth where corruption is rife throughout society. We are all god because we are all One.

What if I told you that is the message that the church tried to suppress and succeeded in doing so by replacing it with their faith-based doctrine? You don't think they're enlightened words because you don't understand them and if you don't understand them then you haven't studied them extensively.

Why would you extensively study something you believe is completely false?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I would simply ask where you got your info and I want to read it. Unless of course it came from some sort of revelation. Then we would be back at square one since logic dictates that isn't going to happen. At least logic for most.

So jesus was just like us doesn't mean he wasn't god? I fail to see the logic in that statement unless of course you ready to bust out with a we are all gods statement.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why would you extensively study something you believe is completely false?

It encompassed 20 years of my life so of course I would find myself interested in it even after I left the church and lost my faith. My entire family are church folk, I am surrounded by it.

reply to post by drivers1492


That's exactly what I'm saying actually. You still cling to the churches version of god, the false version. If you disagree with it then why do you continue to perpetuate it? Are you saying the churches version of god is the only possible version?

I got the information from the bible and a bit of insight from myself. When Moses and Jesus talked of god, they talked of everyone, they talked about consciousness.

Exodus 3

14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."

John 8

58 "I tell you the truth", Jesus answered, "Before Abraham was born, I am!"

We are the "I AM", including Jesus. Consciousness gives rise to self-awareness and self-awareness gives rise to "I am". Those in power have purposefully misinterpreted it in order to make it seem as though god is separate from us.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I simply discuss what information I have available to me. I don't believe in god. Not the biblical one or an implied idea that we are all god. I do find the subject fun to discuss though.

So outside of what you have stated with the interpretation of I AM. What leads you to believe that your right and the bible is so tainted. I have heard your opinion that it is but are you simply making a decision to harbor that belief more than just accepting that its kosher for the most part. Or is there something more.

reply to post by drivers1492

Romans 1

20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

The invisible qualities of god are you and they have been understood by what has been made. Consciousness is the light of the world because without it there would be nothing. With consciousness you can "clearly see" the qualities of god. Clearly seeing his qualities is having consciousness, the ability to observe the world around you. The world around you (kingdom of god) are his qualities that are clearly seen by you.