purpose of eternal hell
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
nice reply, but you must remember that the entire bible is a contradiction. We can sit here for hours and hours and talk about how this statement conflicts with this, but i don't have the energy/time for that. Instead, I will leave you with a thought. Hell and Heaven are places that do exist, in an astral manner, in our minds. We go to these places of future thought for a purpose, pleasure. We are all in control of our surroundings and how we see the future. So if you enjoy the feeling of guilt, you will no doubt place your "condemmed" self in hell. This is how the masochists finds his pleasure. By joining this religion, knowing he is a sinner, he enjoys the feeling of guilt-redemtion. IM SAVED one day and then IM DAMNDED the next... so you see there is no real eternal suffering. Only suffereing upon the command of the religious and failthfull "jesus" worshipers. So this is truly the most masochistic religion out there. There is ALLWAYS a master inflicting pain.. his name is GOD. And there are even a church full of ppl who will vouch for him and how real the pain is that he can inflict. As longs as there is a beliver there will allways be a hell... thus creating an eternal hell for the suckers and sheep that fall for the scam. A huge mascorade. Just watch your kids around the priest, they are the most masochistic of the bunch, Destroying those around him to slowly destroy himself. I should know, my grandfather is a baptist minsiter..
My take on the concept of eternal/perpetual hell is that it is a tactic to keep less intelligent people in line. We can reason that an eternal hell doesn't exist or we can have faith that it does. Either way, the goal of religion is to surrender unto God. One who surrenders unto God accepts suffering as God's mercy and thus what would typically be considered as suffering becomes bliss. At the same time, this doesn't mean that a devotee of God should seek to suffer unnecessarily. Though I do see how Christianity is a more masochistic religion in that it focuses greatly on the so-called suffering of Christ. I say so-called suffering because what Christ went through was not suffering at all. Everything he experienced was due to his unalloyed love for God. That cannot and should not be equated to the suffering that conditioned souls like ourselves endure. Also, by considering oneself to be right on the verge of eternal hellfire it makes some people more passionate about their spirituality. On the other hand, some people are turned off by the whole thing.
By the way, have you ever read the "Bhagavad-Gita: As It Is"?
By the way, have you ever read the "Bhagavad-Gita: As It Is"?
Once again, if some of you are going to attack/condemn or comment on the purpose of hell from a biblical or christian perspective you should have some knowledge pertaining to it.
Let us take 916's recent post for example:
This is your take on the concept of eternal/perpetual hell. This is your OPINION. So how do you reconcile the fact that many religions that predate christianity have a concept of hell/place of torment/underworld? Are you implying all of these people implemented the same tactic to keep less intelligent people in line? How would people thousands of miles away from each other come up with this same idea and imlement its use for the same purpose (keeping less intelligent in line.)
If we can reason this why did you make the topic? The goal of some religions is to surrender to God, but some religions do not surrender to God and this fact.
I agree.
Your concept of christianity and the "suffering of christ" is very limited. In order for you to understand the concepts of a suffering christ you should seek to reconcile your lack of knowledge pertaining to the jewish messiahs (one suffering and one redeeming.) Without this your perspective on the subject will forever be limited to "physical" pain and torture.
Everything that was experienced was due to his love for God AND humanity, but you still need to pay attention to the previous statement I made.
See the above.
Some people were turned off by a man healing on a sabbath, but what is your point? Until God sets the record straight you will ALWAYS have doubters, scoffers, those who disagree and those who reject. Thus is the world of free will, humanity and opinion.
Your entire thread appears to be directed at christians (which I am not) and the biblical concept of hell. With that being said what DOES the bible say about hell and what it is used for?
Let us take 916's recent post for example:
This is your take on the concept of eternal/perpetual hell. This is your OPINION. So how do you reconcile the fact that many religions that predate christianity have a concept of hell/place of torment/underworld? Are you implying all of these people implemented the same tactic to keep less intelligent people in line? How would people thousands of miles away from each other come up with this same idea and imlement its use for the same purpose (keeping less intelligent in line.)
If we can reason this why did you make the topic? The goal of some religions is to surrender to God, but some religions do not surrender to God and this fact.
I agree.
Your concept of christianity and the "suffering of christ" is very limited. In order for you to understand the concepts of a suffering christ you should seek to reconcile your lack of knowledge pertaining to the jewish messiahs (one suffering and one redeeming.) Without this your perspective on the subject will forever be limited to "physical" pain and torture.
Everything that was experienced was due to his love for God AND humanity, but you still need to pay attention to the previous statement I made.
See the above.
Some people were turned off by a man healing on a sabbath, but what is your point? Until God sets the record straight you will ALWAYS have doubters, scoffers, those who disagree and those who reject. Thus is the world of free will, humanity and opinion.
Your entire thread appears to be directed at christians (which I am not) and the biblical concept of hell. With that being said what DOES the bible say about hell and what it is used for?
About my grandfather being a minister, i have had a few pms asking if that was true..And it is. He was a missionary in india for decades and a palo alto minister. It is a wonder how his children became witches and shamans, and I a laveyan satanist.. I must say he is the most confident person i ever knew. He is by no means a bad man or even a masochist. I learned alot from him, mainly that the religion is a myth... an ancient system of law.. But each person must investigate and find his/her own truth.. because that is the only truth that will matter on your death bed. What ever you belive in that nakes you stronger, more confident, and happier is the "right" religion. There can be no ultimate -truth, because even non-existance after death in athiesm contradicts the fundementals of modern science. Energy can only be modified.. not destroyed. I encourange all of you to enter a question into my "god is drunk" thread, it has become rather fun.
by ultimate truth, i meant the meaning of life.. or what happends after death. There is no "one" answer. what you are saying is "MIGHT IS RIGHT" which i agree with.. The one with power wins in the end regaurdless of opinion.. and i do not deny death of body or that if you cut me i will bleed, I am a realist...
after a bit of thought, I have come to realize that eternal hell is possible in my personal philosophy. When we die we are remembered. We exist through our memory.. so a man who lives an unfullfilling life without ever acconplishing any thing and is disatisfied upon the his death bed, is truly a damned soul. He will exist forever in agony green with envy of the memory of those who accomplished.
SO THE POINT OF ETERNAL HELL IS TO ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO WOULD BE DAMNED TO LIVE! STRIVE! REACH! TAKE! therfore you shall not be taken.
SO THE POINT OF ETERNAL HELL IS TO ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO WOULD BE DAMNED TO LIVE! STRIVE! REACH! TAKE! therfore you shall not be taken.
The Vedas (which predate Christianity) also describe a hell/place of torment/underworld. The difference is that this place of torment is not a permanent residence. You see, if you tell a less intelligent man that he'll eventually have another chance at human life then he will procrastinate. On the other hand, if you tell him that this human life is his only chance and if he wastes it he will suffer perpetually with no second chance to rectify his position, then he'll start jumping for Jesus. Not everyone nowadays is sold by this tactic. The people Jesus was preaching to were degenerates and not very spiritually advanced. Jesus also told his followers that there were things he could tell them but they were not ready to hear.
I started the topic to ignite discussion and consideration. As well, I desired to hear what reasoning there could be for an eternal hell. God is omniscient and thus knew who was going to hell. Therefore, why did God create those He knew were rejects? God does not perform science experiments. He has no need. Think about what it means for God to create a living entity so that he/she can just suffer perpetually. What does that say about God and His mercy? I know the Bible speaks about God's mercy. So since you demand that we stay in reference with the Bible, why don't you tell me about His mercy according to the Bible?
As for some religions not coming to the point of surrendering to God. Then those so-called religions are to be rejected. Religion is only a distinguishing characteristic of human intelligence if it constitutes knowledge of the self/soul and it's relationship with the Supreme. Anything else is simply polished animal life. Something like Scientology (for example) can juggle words and promote "peace" and "happiness" but at the end of the day if it does not inquire into the nature of the absolute and our relationship with such, it cannot possibly know what is real peace or real happiness.
My apologies. I should have clarified what I was referring to. I didn't mean Christianity as what is put forth in the Bible. I was referring to the religion of Christianity as how most people take it these days. I already understand the nature of Christ's so-called suffering. Though I don't think many so-called Christians do.
Love for God includes love for all living entities. That includes humanity.
My point is that the tactic of promoting an eternal hell is not accepted by all people.
Either what the Bible says about hell shows that God created certain living beings simply to suffer forever, or it somehow shows that hell is not a place one goes eternally. Which one is it? I have been under the impression that it was the first one. Though maybe you can refer me to verses that show otherwise, if such verses exist of course.
I started the topic to ignite discussion and consideration. As well, I desired to hear what reasoning there could be for an eternal hell. God is omniscient and thus knew who was going to hell. Therefore, why did God create those He knew were rejects? God does not perform science experiments. He has no need. Think about what it means for God to create a living entity so that he/she can just suffer perpetually. What does that say about God and His mercy? I know the Bible speaks about God's mercy. So since you demand that we stay in reference with the Bible, why don't you tell me about His mercy according to the Bible?
As for some religions not coming to the point of surrendering to God. Then those so-called religions are to be rejected. Religion is only a distinguishing characteristic of human intelligence if it constitutes knowledge of the self/soul and it's relationship with the Supreme. Anything else is simply polished animal life. Something like Scientology (for example) can juggle words and promote "peace" and "happiness" but at the end of the day if it does not inquire into the nature of the absolute and our relationship with such, it cannot possibly know what is real peace or real happiness.
My apologies. I should have clarified what I was referring to. I didn't mean Christianity as what is put forth in the Bible. I was referring to the religion of Christianity as how most people take it these days. I already understand the nature of Christ's so-called suffering. Though I don't think many so-called Christians do.
Love for God includes love for all living entities. That includes humanity.
My point is that the tactic of promoting an eternal hell is not accepted by all people.
Either what the Bible says about hell shows that God created certain living beings simply to suffer forever, or it somehow shows that hell is not a place one goes eternally. Which one is it? I have been under the impression that it was the first one. Though maybe you can refer me to verses that show otherwise, if such verses exist of course.
Atheists/materialists simply assert that the self is an illusion produced by firing neurons in the brain. Therefore they can easily reason from this basis that the self need not continue to exist since it was never a form of energy to begin with. Theists, on the other hand, assert that the self is an entity independent of material arrangement. It is a separate, transcendental form of energy with which material science has no jurisdiction.
How any of this confirms or denies the existence of an ultimate truth, I don't know. I am not sure of your reasoning.
I always tend to go back to the statement that if no absolute existence exists then we cannot be absolutely sure that it doesn't.
How any of this confirms or denies the existence of an ultimate truth, I don't know. I am not sure of your reasoning.
I always tend to go back to the statement that if no absolute existence exists then we cannot be absolutely sure that it doesn't.
I don't think EDJ is trying to say that might is right. Knowing that EDJ does believe in God I am sure that he does not mean to imply this. Theists believe that morals aren't merely a human concoction. We believe that God sets what is right and wrong for us. Therefore "right is might" is what we would say. We do not become right simply because we have got might. If you disagree with me and then have me killed, that doesn't make you right. That is an animalistic way of thinking. It reminds me of that "Simpsons Hit and Run" game. There is a part where Homer has to break some things in his nuclear factory and when you break them he says, "If you're so smart how come I broke you?"
So you are saying being animilistic is wrong? Certainly it is improper to acknowledge the fact that we are nothing more than narssassistic monkeys with super egos... but you cannot deny the fact that we are animals by nature. You can think your ideas are right to your death, but if you die and are the sole beliver in something... how can you possibly be "right"
To kill someone because they disagree is hardly what the statement might is right is about. Surely it can apply, but such a drastic example need not be used. How about the christian VS the satanist. Both are sure they are correct, each stubborn with the "right" answer in their mind. Now if that satanist were to convert the entire church but the one person who origionally argued.. the satanist IS "right", since he has won over the minds of the others. the number 666 is the determining factor in any might VS right situation. 666 being the abbriviation for 2/3 meaning the one who holds the majority wins. 2 votes vs 1 = person with 2 votes is "right"
To kill someone because they disagree is hardly what the statement might is right is about. Surely it can apply, but such a drastic example need not be used. How about the christian VS the satanist. Both are sure they are correct, each stubborn with the "right" answer in their mind. Now if that satanist were to convert the entire church but the one person who origionally argued.. the satanist IS "right", since he has won over the minds of the others. the number 666 is the determining factor in any might VS right situation. 666 being the abbriviation for 2/3 meaning the one who holds the majority wins. 2 votes vs 1 = person with 2 votes is "right"
I understand. What I have said still stands though. If the conscious self is not an energy in itself then there is no need for it to continue existing in any form. Materialists say that the consciousness is an illusion produced from firing neurons. Therefore the only thing that must continue to exist is the energy that makes up these neurons. Now, since the energy that makes up those neurons eventually changes to some other form, it no longer sustains the illusion of a conscious entity. Thus making there no necessity for this conscious entity to fall subject to the "energy is neither created nor destroyed" axiom. This is the materialists' view anyway. As I have already explained, theists/transcendentalists take the self to be entirely different from the material constituents.
These are the arguing points for theists and athiests. I appretiate you including several points of view on the subject, it is making my day at work zip by!! AlthoughI have heard them before, they definetely make the mind tick.
I suppose my reply to your statement is somewhat of a supporting statement.
LIFE AFTER DEATH IS POSSIBLE THOUGH FULLFILLMENT OF EGO! Since your memory will exist, you can altar your life in accordance with your will, thus making your afterlife (memory) a perfect heavan or hell. So in this sense existance of the illusion/concious mind is not needed to continue an afterlife existance. Just because you cannot touch someone, and because that someone dosn't breath eat and walk.. that does not mean that he/she does not exist. This is the point jesus made thatwas misinterpeted for a heavenly realm in the sky. He was a jew, afterall.. and the jewish philospophy of after life is at the core.. nothing. Non existance, except for your memory. At least this is the modern jewish interpitation i belive. I am far from a jew, far from a christian, not exactly a satanist, but thats the religion i choose for ritual and identity. Thats why you see much of laVey's philosophy in my replies, not necessarily because they are my ultimate truths, just what fits with my current identity. Hope i havent gone on too much. lol.
I suppose my reply to your statement is somewhat of a supporting statement.
LIFE AFTER DEATH IS POSSIBLE THOUGH FULLFILLMENT OF EGO! Since your memory will exist, you can altar your life in accordance with your will, thus making your afterlife (memory) a perfect heavan or hell. So in this sense existance of the illusion/concious mind is not needed to continue an afterlife existance. Just because you cannot touch someone, and because that someone dosn't breath eat and walk.. that does not mean that he/she does not exist. This is the point jesus made thatwas misinterpeted for a heavenly realm in the sky. He was a jew, afterall.. and the jewish philospophy of after life is at the core.. nothing. Non existance, except for your memory. At least this is the modern jewish interpitation i belive. I am far from a jew, far from a christian, not exactly a satanist, but thats the religion i choose for ritual and identity. Thats why you see much of laVey's philosophy in my replies, not necessarily because they are my ultimate truths, just what fits with my current identity. Hope i havent gone on too much. lol.
We also have the same requirements for material sustenance as the animals, namely, eating, sleeping, mating and defending. What separates humans from animals is that we have the intellectual capacity to inquire into the nature of the absolute truth. Your "drunken God" thread is a good example of the human capacity for knowledge. If we use all our knowledge only to increase our ability to eat, sleep, mate and defend then we are simply polishing animal life, which is a bad thing because it is a waste of a good facility. If I die and I am the sole believer in something it doesn't mean that it is right, or wrong. If I die and have millions of believers it does not mean that I am right or wrong either. Epistemologically we can ultimately only induce some basic premise upon which we deductively reason consequent points. Coming to factual knowledge does require some presumed faith. However we approach this topic, real knowledge means accepting an authority. Srila Prabhupada, the founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), gives the example of how we accept the testimony of our mother when she says, "here is your father". We accept her authority on this matter. Similarly, we are told to accept the authority of Scriptures in order to understand the nature of the absolute and our relationship to it. Otherwise we masturbate endlessly in mental speculation. I think the problem that arises is that there are these different religious sects that disagree on so many details. Many people have rejected religion all together but I propose that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Religion has something to tell us. We should first look at the basic principles of religion from a philosophical point of view. It is explained in the Bhagavad-Gita (among other Vedic texts) that the first stage of transcendental realization is that given to the philosophical speculator. By philosophical consideration we can come to a very general and impersonal understanding of the Supreme Absolute Truth commonly known as God. This is how those of us seeking knowledge can begin to understand the unity of all religions. At the same time, I am not saying that all religions dwell on equal levels. Religion is revealed to people according to time, place and circumstance. We have to take that into account. The point of using an eternal hell as a tactic to keep a certain class of people in line is a good example of this. However we take the details of a religion, real religion means to surrender to God. People should just take these issues step by step instead of rejecting them immediately out of confusion. On the other hand, this is the age of Kali. Quarrel and hypocrisy are the defining characteristics of this age.
If a satanist converted the entire church then one could just use that as an example of how mankind is degrading. This will flow right into the belief that we are nearing the end times. I can already hear it now. So this example would not make might right. Facts are not dependent on some democratic voting system. We are dealing with a similar concoction in ISKCON. Ever since the guru Srila Prabhupada disappeared from this earth we have had many new "gurus" voted in by the Governing Body Commission (GBC) set up by Srila Prabhupada. This is not how these things are done. A bonafide guru is not made by vote. He is given the title of guru by his guru. That is the disciple succession (parampara). If might were right then the GBC would be free and clear, but this isn't the case. Similarly, Jesus was not right because he made followers. He was right because he was the transparent medium for God. Because he was right he had the might to make so many followers. That is the proper understanding. The "might is right" understanding goes in line with the idea that survival defines what is considered "right". If you all agree to burn me at the stake, I must be wrong. The example of killing/destroying may seem extreme to you, but it is a legitimate example nonetheless. And it is a good example because it shows the absurdity of the "might is right" axiom, especially when it is quoted by Homer Simpson.
If a satanist converted the entire church then one could just use that as an example of how mankind is degrading. This will flow right into the belief that we are nearing the end times. I can already hear it now. So this example would not make might right. Facts are not dependent on some democratic voting system. We are dealing with a similar concoction in ISKCON. Ever since the guru Srila Prabhupada disappeared from this earth we have had many new "gurus" voted in by the Governing Body Commission (GBC) set up by Srila Prabhupada. This is not how these things are done. A bonafide guru is not made by vote. He is given the title of guru by his guru. That is the disciple succession (parampara). If might were right then the GBC would be free and clear, but this isn't the case. Similarly, Jesus was not right because he made followers. He was right because he was the transparent medium for God. Because he was right he had the might to make so many followers. That is the proper understanding. The "might is right" understanding goes in line with the idea that survival defines what is considered "right". If you all agree to burn me at the stake, I must be wrong. The example of killing/destroying may seem extreme to you, but it is a legitimate example nonetheless. And it is a good example because it shows the absurdity of the "might is right" axiom, especially when it is quoted by Homer Simpson.