purpose of eternal hell

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 13, 2006

eMDe said:

Most definitely. If I can sneak and hide in some space on my ship with a computer I can make the day go by real fast. So I know what you mean.

eMDe said:

I take it that when you say, "your memory", you are referring to others' memories of you and not your own memories. You are basically saying that we live on in the memories of others. Is my understanding correct?

I believe that there is actually a living entity behind the activities of the body that exists eternally. It does not exist eternally simply because it is remembered. Memory is faulty. If our existence were dependent on such a thing then there would be no logic in saying that it is eternal. The self (or soul, as it is called) is opposite in nature to the constantly changing body. Our own memory serves as an indirect proof of the existence of a non-changing self. I can understand that at one point I had the body of a child and I used to enjoy riding around in my little talking Knight Rider car, but now I have the body of a grown man and cannot seem to fit inside that toy car. The bodily changes are apparent, nevertheless, I am the same conscious entity. This observation constitutes knowledge of the soul, at least as far as we can understand it from empirical observation. Beyond that we have to accept the testimony of authorities. Religion promotes the idea of a transcendental soul and explains it's relationship with the absolute. If a so-called religion denies the existence of the soul then it is not following logically from the theistic premise. For if God is to exist, then our knowledge and acknowledgement of His existence is oblivious if our existence is a mere finite span of time. Therefore, for a religion to have value, it must admit the eternality of both God and the individual soul.

EDJ · Jan 13, 2006

gODAMN YAW IS gETTIN' AHEAD IN THIS CONVO.

51ST OF ALL,
N9NEWUNSIXX5150,
I'D APPRECIATED IF YOU NEVA-EVA SPEAK UP ON MINES AND LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS POSED TO ME, FOR YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE OR THINK.

XCONDLY,
THE VEDAS DON'T PREDATE SHIT AND YOUR PREDOMINANT HINDU BELIEFS JUST DO MORE TO CONFUSE MANKIND WITH YOUR BILLIONS OF BLUE gODS.

EMDE,
YOU STRESSED, "by ultimate truth, i meant the meaning of life.. or what happends after death."

I gOT'CHA. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKIN' BOUT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "There is no "one" answer."

THERE HAS TO BE. IT'S ONLY LOgICAL. THERE MIgHT BE DIFFERENT BELIEFS, BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH. ONE TRUTH AND THE REST ARE LIES.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "what you are saying is "MIGHT IS RIGHT" which i agree with.. "

NO, THAT WASN'T MY POINT. MY POINT WAS THAT IF SOMETHIN' OCCURRED, THAT IT CANNOT BE DENIED. IT'S FACT. ONE TRUTH. IT WAS TRUE IT HAPPENED. YOU CAN'T TWIST N-E OTHA KIND OF WAY.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The one with power wins in the end regaurdless of opinion.. "

NO, THE SHIT HAPPENED REgARDLESS OF OPINION. IT'S A FACT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "and i do not deny death of body or that if you cut me i will bleed, I am a realist..."

SO IF YOU A REALIST THEN FEEL ME ON THIS:

YOU MARRY A HINDU BITCH AND gET HER ASS PREgNANT. WHEN SHE HAS YOUR LIL BAD ASS CHILD, HE DIES MONTHS AFTER HIS BIRTH. WHERE IN THE FUK DOES YOUR CHILD gO? HER BELIEFS? YOUR BELIEFS? YOUR MAMMA'S BELIEFS? ONE WORLD, ONE TRUTH. NOW gO SEARCH MY REALIST..... .

HERESY · Jan 13, 2006

Ok so what is your point? The jewish version of hell lasts twelve months and other religions have versions of hell that last for eternity.

Is this not what your scriptures teach? Do your scriptures not teach multiple chances at life? IMHO this is a tactic used to keep people dumbfounded and forever in a state of procrastinationa nd false hope.

So in other words procrastinate in hopes of getting it right several lives from now...lives which may come around once every ten thousand years...

Who says the person will start jumping for Jesus? You? A person can start jumping for allah or some other diety. What you're implying (people will choose jesus) is not exclusive to the christian dogma.

When has everyone EVER been sold on this "tactic"? People choose to believe a certain thing or they don't, and to imply that everyone in the passed accepted it is without merit.

Yeshi also preached about hell more times than heaven. Hell fire and damnation were a major theme in his sermons. However what you have stated is useless information not relevent to anything I have asked you about. So far the majority of what I have replied to has NOTHING to do with your initial statements and the questions I asked based on those statements. I will once again quote you and please try to stick to the subject:

If your take on the concept of eternal/perpetual hell is that it is a tactic to keep less intelligent people in line, 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.)

I am sure you did.

First, do you believe in hell? If you do why are you asking these questions? If you do not what was the point of saying "God is omniscient and thus knew who was going to hell?"

To answer your questions I am not God, and I do not have complete understanding of HIS ways. However, sometimes people (good and bad) are placed into our life for whatever reason, so maybe the rejects are here to push us along and bring us closer to God. Are you implying God should not have made these people if he knew they were not going to choose him?

Heres a link that attemtps to answer your questions:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html

It says God loves the righteous so much that he will destroy those who are not righteous. That is MERCY. Psalm 143:12, Psalm 69:23-28, Psalm 59:5, and Psalm 92:5-7.

I am going to ask you one time to refrain from making false statements about me or accusing me of things I have not said/implied. I have made no such claim that we should stay in reference to the bible. All the questions I have asked pertaining to the Bible and Christianity are derived from statements YOU have made about the bible and christianity. Take a look at your second post:

If anyone has demanded or implied that we stay in reference to the bible it is YOU and the questions you pose to those who believe in the bible. Why would you address christians if you do not want them to give you a perspective from their beliefs and scriptures?

Read the scriptures provided.

Everything I just quoted is your OPINION. We both agree that all roads do NOT lead to God and evidence of your belief may be found in you stating religions not coming to the point of God should be rejected. With that being said which is the right religion? Chrsitianity, Islam and Judaism all promote surrendering to God yet each of them promote three DISTINCT methods of doing so. Some of these methods CONTRADICT the other methods found in the other religions so how do you recitfy the problem? Should one embrace syncretism, universalism or a combination of both?

You do NOT understand the nature of of Christ's so-called suffering, for if you did you would have no need to apologize or clarify. I will once again encourage you to learn more about the subject by broadening your knowledge of the jewish messiah(s)

Some would actually disagree with this, but that is another topic for another time.

God is not accepted by all people. What is your point?

Please refer to the link I gave you as it will answer questions you have asked. 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?

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 13, 2006

EDJ said:

Yet, I am correct in saying that you don't believe "might is right". No need to be in awe. I don't have psychic abilities. I was just forming a conclusion from the knowledge that you do believe in God. My statement was, "I don't think EDJ is trying to say that might is right." I am not answering for you, but you're welcome anyway.

EDJ said:

No. We actually have archaeological evidence that the Vedas (especially Vaishnavism) predate Christianity. I am sure you can reject such evidence on strength of your faith though.

By the way, I am sorry you are confused. Do you speak for mankind?

eMDe · Jan 13, 2006

HAPPY FRIDAY YA'll IM OFF TO HELL FOR THIS FULL MOON friday the 13th ITS FINNA BE CRACKIN IN HELL TONIGHT! W00T w00t!

a thought i leav you all with.. when you die you are reborn into the moment of your birth.. thus keeping the process going forver. There is your god, the planner of it all (yourself) and there is your heavan (all your good memories that are written into the universes history forever) and your hell (the bad times.)

MAKE GOOD TIMES and MAKE BAD TIMES, I'LL SEE ALL OF YOU IN THE WRINKLE OF TIME!!

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 13, 2006

HERESY said:

Eternal suffering is what is in question. Not whether a religion has a concept of hell or not. My point was to show that even the Vedic religion has a "hell". Your point that religions from different places in the world all have a concept of hell does nothing for your argument if it is your intent to promote the existence of an eternal place of torment. If you aren't arguing to promote an eternal place of torment then you are obviously not arguing with me since I am no such strawman.

HERESY said:

Well, maybe there are "your" people and then maybe there are "my" people. I have no interest in quarrelling with you on this. If you are content in what you believe, great. I made this thread looking for reason. Whether you consider these points or not, your position lies solely in your faith. And I have no problem with that. The point of religion isn't that we should all believe in hell, eternal or otherwise. The point of religion is that we should approach God in devotion.

HERESY said:

Those who procrastinate fall into the "less intelligent" category. And it may be ten-thousand years or it may be ten-billion years. Who is to say?

HERESY said:

I know. I was just using that as an example.

HERESY said:

I never implied that. At most, you have made that assumption. I never said that everyone in the past accepted an eternal hell.

HERESY said:

No. I am on subject. The topic is eternal hell, and I have already given the on-topic response to your inquiry.

HERESY said:

Since I am not debating the existence of a place of torment, your implication of hell existing in other cultures is irrelevant to this thread.

HERESY said:

Another question for your strawman. I never said promoting a place of torment is merely a tactic meant to keep less intelligent people in line. The keyword in eternal hell is 'eternal'.

HERESY said:

More importantly, why would some of these people later promote that this hell is eternal?

HERESY said:

I don't believe in a hell where one dwells eternally. I do believe in a place(s) of torment.

Why would an omniscient God create that which is to endlessly suffer? Assuming, of course, that God is loving and does not want to see anyone suffer.

HERESY said:

Yes. I am implying that God should not have made rejects. Even if we are to speculate that the rejects are here for everyone else's purpose, why is it necessary to create living beings in order to do this? Why does Jim Bob have to suffer eternal damnation in order for Susie to have eternal life?

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 13, 2006

HERESY said:

Taken from that site:

This does not in any way refute the argument that God creates entities who are destined (or predestined) to suffer endlessly. To make some distinction between “destined” and “predestined” is mere word-jugglery. God KNEW that these entities were destined for eternal hell before He created them. Otherwise God is not omniscient. Our free will is only relative. It is not absolute in any sense. Only God is absolutely free. God is aware of our choices before we make them. Does that mean that God is forcing us to make these choices (in sinning, for example)? No. Does it mean that God creates sinful beings? No. The very problem is the assumption that God creates the living entities at all. What is created is only as sinful as those who desired its creation. Those eternal souls who desire to be independent of God are responsible for sinful creation. It is not that at some point in eternity, God whimsically decided to create a universe and living entities who would be inimical toward His existence. Nor is the answer that God is making some sort of experiment by creating all of this. God does not need to make experiments because He already has perfect knowledge. God does not make mistakes. To say that God creates a living entity and has perfect knowledge that he/she is destined for eternal hell is to either say that God makes mistakes or that God has some dark fantasy for seeing living beings suffer endlessly. These are your options so long as you subscribe to the eternal torment concept.

HERESY said:

Something similar is also said in Vedic texts. God appears on earth for two reasons: mainly to please His devotees (the righteous) and (as a consequent) to destroy the demons (the unrighteous). Nevertheless, this destruction does not mean that the living entity ceases to exist. Nor does it mean that the living entity is put into endless suffering. God doesn’t need to prove His endless love for His devotees by saying, “Look. I love you so much that I put those people into endless suffering”. God kills those inimical to His devotees to make peace for them on earth. It is not necessary for Him to put those entities into endless suffering. God’s devotees do not require Him to take such drastic action. If the reasoning is that God kills to please those close to Him, then you have to accept my reasoning. Otherwise you have to come up with a better reason.

HERESY said:

Although this thread asks a question in regard to a Biblical concept, it is not exempt from logical reason. I am open to hear if there is reconciliation for an eternal hell in the Bible. Your telling me to read what the Bible says isn’t what I had in mind. I created this thread to speak with others, like yourself, who are knowledgeable in these fields. If you keep insisting on this then why is it unreasonable for me to insist that you reconcile the implications an eternal hell have on God’s perfection or His mercy/love? And since this is a Biblical question, and you appear to be defending it, why don’t you explain to me how the Bible reconciles these problems? I am not going outside of the Bible. I am just applying logic. It should therefore be just as permissible for me to accuse you of demanding Biblical evidence as it is for you to imply that I am not. In any case, we remain left with the same problems. Does or does not the Bible reconcile them? If so, please do tell.

HERESY said:

No. It isn’t.

HERESY said:

There is no problem. But if you think that there is then present some distinct methods that contradict each other and we will discuss them.

HERESY said:

Because I clarified what I meant when referring to Christianity, that means that I don’t understand Christ’s so-called suffering? Will you show that conclusion from logical sequence or should I take you at your word?

HERESY said:

If you really want to encourage me then you’ll back up your argument with points. How does knowledge of the jewish messiah(s) prove my understanding faulty?

HERESY said:

Some is another thing. You and I are having this discourse. So if you have a problem with it then present your argument.

HERESY said:

God is the point. Religion does not mean accepting the existence of hell, eternal or otherwise. Religion means understanding and acting in one’s relationship with God. God is not a tactic for a higher end because there is no higher end. Whether the existence of an eternal hell is accepted or not is meaningless if one does not come to accepting God. The goal is to come to God, not to come to accept hell. So there is no comparison between people not accepting eternal hell to people not accepting God.

Let me put it this way. If someone does not accept God then there is a problem. If someone does not accept eternal hell, there is no problem.

HERESY said:

Eternal hell is a tactic. There can be no other sane conclusion. If hell is eternal then it is used for nothing, save the fact that God enjoys the endless suffering of others. This logic stands. Now, you can reject it simply on faith. I really have no problem with that because the ultimate goal is to understand God. Nevertheless, I ask these questions because some of us are dissatisfied with certain so-called answers and would rather consider other ways of looking at this.

bigball44 · Jan 13, 2006

JUST THINK OF IT LIKE DIS

HERE ON EARTH IS JUS A BIG DOCTOR'S APPT. IT DECLARES IN HEBREWS THAT A MAN/WOMAN IS IS TO DIE ONCE AND THEN FACE JUDGEMENT SO IT DOSENT MATTA WHAT U THINK EVERYONE WILL FACE JUDGEMENT AND HAVE TO ANSWER TO THA LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST AND IT IS A DECISTION BASED ON URSELF . WHETHER U WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE UR ACTING ATTORNEY AT JUDGEMENT OR NOT. THAT IS UP TO YOU. BUT LIKE I SAID U ARE ON DA WAITIN LIST NOW FOR UR APPT. WITH THE LORD IT IS UR JOB WHAT U DO TO GET YOSELF RIGHT BEFORE DEN.

THE BIBLE SAYS THAT JESUS SAYS THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE AND FO ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD,, AND DAVID MADE IT CLEAR WHEN HE SAID FOR WHEN I CAME OUT OF MY MOTHA'S WOMB I WAS CONCEIVED INTO SIN.

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 13, 2006

EDJ said:

The child's beliefs. It was the individual's state of consciousness that determined the present body, why would it be any different for the next?

You are responsible for your predicament. God did not make you a poor man and the next one rich. You made you. And now both the poor and rich are suffering. Why is this? It is because we have forgotten God. We accept these external bodies that are subject to birth, disease, old age and death because we think we are independent of God. This is how your consciousness caused your suffering. Otherwise you have to blame God and consequently prove His position less than perfect. All religious quarrels aside, you have to understand theism from the premise that constitutes what it means to be a theist. If at some point in your understanding you contradict that premise and cannot bear that burden then you must reconsider and revise your understanding. If you can bear the burden then that is all in your faith. As long as you develop your devotion to God, there is no problem.

HERESY · Jan 14, 2006

My point that religions from different places in the world all have a concept of hell is a result of you stating:

If this is what you believe you should have no problem explaining why different cultures who have never intermingled have the similar concepts of hell. Not only that, but you should have no problem explaining why these different cultures used the teaching to achieve the same result. Everything I am typing is a result of what YOU have previously typed. Keep that in mind.

Some would argue that the point of religion is to control the idiots and keep people dumb founded. You have heard it before, and you will hear it until you depart from this world. Personally I define "TRUE" religion the same way the bible describes it. Everything else is tradition and stipulations.

Yet the God of old and new testament scriptures state man will die and be judged for the things he has done in this life. Yeshi spoke of procrastination in his parable about the ten virgins.

ok...

When you make a statement such as "Not everyone nowadays is sold by this tactic." what am I left to assume? If you are not implying a time existed when everyone believed or accepted this why would you word it in such fashion?

You have strayed from the topic. If the people Yeshi preached to is of importance WHAT he actually preached should be of MORE importance. Hell/punishment was preached more time than heaven. FACT.

It is relevant to this thread because you stated:

If the concept of eternal/perpetual hell is a tactic to keep less intelligent people in line it is your duty to now explain why people who have never met each other came up with the same concept (s) in hopes of keeping less intelligent people in line. It is also your duty to explain why these people need to be kept in line.

This is what you said:

No strawman argument here, for I am simply asking you questions based on statements you have made. Regardless of your word play with the word eternal you said your "take on the concept of eternal/perpetual hell is that it is a tactic to keep less intelligent people in line", and if this is your beliefe you should be able to elaborate and give account when it comes under scrutiny.

Can you asnwer the question asked of you?

Why would an omniscient God create a place of torment? The problem lies with your inability to grasp the concept of Gods righteousness and your quest to fit God in a box. God does NOT want to see anyone suffer or perish and this is stated in the bible, BUT that does not mean God will not allow you to suffer. You must remember God is righteous and Holy and His ways are different from ours. You may think it is 100% wrong for people to go to hell, but why should rejecters be with God if they choose to not be with him?

Who are you to question God and his motives? Why is it NOT necessary to create living beings for thsi purpose? Why is it necessary to create living beings period? You are once again trying to fit God in a box and it will never work. Why does susie have to suffer here while Jim Bob is eating off the fat of the land? Jim Bob suffers eternal damnation because Jim Bob has made the choice to accept eternal damnation.

HERESY · Jan 14, 2006

I'll adress this in my next post.

This is what is listed in the Vedic texts and is what you believe in, however it is different from the biblical perspective which implies God does not appear to please devotees, but to TEACH/LEAD them and those who reject God are subject to etenal torment.

These are your opinions based on the scriptures you believe in. If God wants to elimante waste by throwing the waste in a fire to be burned forever I have no problem with it. If God is Holy and requires PUNISHMENT for sin (as it is constantly stated in the jewish and christian scriptures) hell is such punishment. Yeshi said if you deny him he will deny you.

I don't have to accept anything you say nor do I have to come up with a better reason. You are the one constantly saying things but showing your inability to give an account. What you are typing is from your perspective based on the text you believe, but the text I gave you show the contrary to what you just stated.

No one has implied that this thread is exempt from logical reason. YOU asked the question and set the framework for what is and is not relevent. Even if it is reconciliation is applicable you still have the choice to accept it as valid or invalid.

The BEST advice I can EVER give you is to tell you to read it for yourself. What matters is YOUR relationship with God and what YOU have come to learn. What matters even more is if God knows YOU. What I have to say does not matter which is why I prefer you read for yourself, ask God to teach you and reveal his truth. Constant debating or explaining is useless and tiresome.

I see nothing wrong with an eternal hell and answered your question pertaining to Gods mercy/love in previous posts. If you do not accept their validity that is your right, but I am not going to constantly expolain something to a person who can't answer simple questions that have constantly been asked of him. What it leads me to believe is that you want to argue or go around, and around, and around forever and ever. The FACT that you have made false statements pertaining to my position caste more doubt on your motives.

It is a biblical question that you asked.

I did.

I am not demanding biblical evidence from you. I have yet to ask you to use the bible to support your claim. What I have said is if you are going to use the bible have a grasp of it. I have NOT told you to stay in reference to the bible, but logic tells you if you are going to ask the question based on biblical and christian beliefs the reference point has been established. The ONLY thing I have ASKED you are questions based on your statements, and you have not answered the majority of them.

Yes the bible reconciles them, I have explained this already and will cease answering the questions pertaining to it until I feel you are honest in your motives. You set these rules of engagement when you falsly accuse me and dance around the same questions multiple times.

Yes. It is.

Christianity: Love God with all your heart and love your others as yourself.

Islam: Practice the Five Pillars.

Judaism: Observe the Laws.

All three of these are DISTINCT, have LITTLE in common and contradict each other (and other religions.) With that being said I pose the previous question again:

Should one embrace syncretism, universalism or a combination of both?

You do not understand the christian (or any) perspective of Christs so-called suffering because you have a false concept of Christ and do not endorse the Christ of the bible.

Read this link and do NOT ask me any questions about it. After You read it take a look at my statement again. If you still do not have an idea of what I am telling you or do not see how you do NOT have an idea of what you claim to have an idea of (lol) you should consider taking your studies a bit deeper.

http://www.menorah.org/tsmbj13.html

I'll pass.

It is 3:20 am and I am falling asleep at my pc. I will address the rest tommorow.

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 14, 2006

HERESY said:

First of all, I do believe in place(s) of torment. I do not and cannot reasonably accept that one goes to this place with no chance to rectify oneself. The fact that other cultures have a hell concept is because a hell does exist. What I am debating is the neccesity for this hell to be a perpetual residence. I could have sworn I made it clear that I do accept the existence of a place of torment. I even stated that the Vedas speak of such a place. The debate concerns whether this place is eternal or not. The fact that other cultures have a similar concept does nothing for your argument.

HERESY said:

Why do you find it necessary to address what some would argue? Is this your position? It isn't mine. So why do we need to entertain it?

HERESY said:

You define true religion as I am defining it. You just think this definition is fulfilled in only the Bible.

HERESY said:

I have no problem with this. Man is being judged in every action and thus suffers the results. Why would there be an exception at death?

HERESY said:

Forgive my sarcasm.

HERESY said:

Only in so much that I am arguing your off-topic points.

HERESY said:

Thank you for this. A perfect example suggesting my very point. That eternal hell is promoted to keep people in line. If it wasn't Jesus' intention to scare people straight then why did he preach hell more than heaven? Since the people he preached to are of importance, what he preached is especially relevant to them.

HERESY said:

I believe different cultures have a concept of hell because such a place(s) exists. WHAT I AM DEBATING IS WHETHER THIS PLACE IS AN ETERNAL DWELLING PLACE. Even if you are to show a few cultures who I also believed hell to be an eternal dwelling place, it can be reasoned that they all have some concept of hell because it was once revealed that a place does exist. What I want to know is why it is explained as a place where souls go forever.

Why do people need to be kept in line? Because it is for their own good. If one cannot be convinced by positive understanding then they will be scared into acting right. Vaishnavas don't focus on hell so much because we accept whatever position God gives us. The only thing we ask is that we can remember God and continue to serve Him. The fact the Christianity promotes hell more than heaven is sufficient evidence suggesting that it was a necessary tactic for the people being dealt with.

HERESY said:

No. You aren't asking questions based on statements that I made. Either you need to clarify your question or you need to realize that I am not concerned with other cultures having a hell concept. The debate pertains to hell being eternal. I believe hell exists. I don't believe that one dwells there forever. Different cultures can have the hell concept, that implies nothing for your argument.

HERESY said:

I already did. To top it off, I even showed why it makes no difference.

HERESY said:

I am not debating against God creating a place of torment! I am debating against this place being an eternal dwelling place for certain souls.

HERESY said:

Susie may be suffering here while Jim Bob is enjoying. The difference is that Susie is not suffering eternally. So there is NO comparison. Obviously you have faith in the existence of a hell where one resides forever. It seems that no amount of reason I give will be put into consideration. No one chooses to suffer forever and ever. People make choices that constitute suffering but to extend that for all time henceforth is amazingly unnecessary. It serves no purpose. At least if God completely eliminated their existence then He wouldn't appear as someone who enjoys the eternal suffering of others. Still, the problem of God creating a reject would remain. In my understanding of God, one goes to a place of torment for a duration of time and is eventually given the chance to advance again. This is how God is merciful. You are the one trying to put God in a box by forcing Him to either be imperfect or to have a fetish for the eternal suffering of others. You have no basis to accuse me of trying to put God in a box.

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 14, 2006

HERESY said:

Are God's devotees not pleased when He comes to teach/lead them?

HERESY said:

There is a contradiction here. Either God wants to eliminate waste or He wants to burn waste forever. I agree that God requires us to be punished for our sins but eternal torment is not punishment. Think about it. Why does a parent punish his/her child? The answer is so that the child will learn and rectify oneself.

HERESY said:

As long as we are using reason, it is reasonable that you either accept what I have put forth else present something more reasonable. But yet, you don't really have to do anything. You don't have to continue this discussion if you don't want either.
I am not stopping at any particular text. Yes, I am giving my understand from the texts that I aspire to follow. This does not mean that I become unreasonable. I take to these particular texts because they are more reasonable. I am still open and eager to hear something more reasonable.

HERESY said:

Yes, I do have the choice. Though I think it is safe to say that there is no reconciliation for the problems arising from the existence of an eternal hell. You accept it on faith. What more can be said?

HERESY said:

And I can have a relationship regardless of my acceptance or nonacceptance of an eternal hell. I was just curious to see if there is a better answer for this question. Apparently there isn't.

HERESY said:

I have answered your questions. We do seem to be going around because you haven't given me reconciliation. Your reasons don't satisfy my questions. I have faith in the understanding of God and His creation as per the Vedas because I see it following logically from the premise that constitutes theism. All religion promotes a supreme being but not all religion understands this truth on the same level. I think that you think that I am one to place all religions on an equal level. I am not at all proposing that.

HERESY said:

Yes. And you are attempting to answer it. It is not that I am trying to mix an understanding of hell from one text with one from another. I will present my understanding of hell, which is based on my text and explain why I find it reasonable. I require reason to understand. That is actually what it means to understand.

HERESY said:

I guess thats all then.

HERESY said:

I think I've answered them by now. If I missed something, let me know.

HERESY said:

If the Bible reconciles them then I have yet to see that reconciliation. All quarrel aside, the same problems remain. If God is omniscient then He knows that an entity He creates will suffer eternally. Therefore either God enjoys this or God makes mistakes. Once again, not all religions understand God on the same level. For further education one has to retire the eternal hell concept and move on.

HERESY said:

Fact: As for some religions not coming to the point of surrendering to God. Then those so-called religions are to be rejected.

Fact: Religion is only a distinguishing characteristic of human intelligence if it constitutes knowledge of the self/soul and it's relationship with the Supreme.

Fact: Anything else is simply polished animal life.

Fact: 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.

You, as a Christian, should not disagree with any of these statements. Yet for some odd reason you do. I am convinced that either you fail to understand them or you are just stubborn in the idea that you must disagree with me, whatever the cost.

HERESY said:

First of all, I am even less knowledgeable about Islam than I am about Judaism and Christianity. Though I can say, as I am sure you know, that Jesus claimed that he didn't come to abolish the law. So Judaism may be distinct from Christianity, but they do not contradict each other. Certain things are applicable to time, place and circumstance. Christianity, which uses Judaism as a basis, is perfect example of this fact. Yet you fail to see how this applies with other religions. You can call it whatever you want, syncretism, universalism, this-ism, that-ism. It doesn't matter.

HERESY said:

How have you come to this conclusion? We are only discussing eternal hell and you have somehow deduced that I do not know the Christ of the Bible?

HERESY said:

Ok.

HERESY · Jan 15, 2006

RECAP ON WHAT I MISSED

You are basically saying the same thing as the author of the link.

God creates beings that have the potential to sin.

I agree with the majority of this.

see the above.

These are not the only options. Lets say God has a set of universal laws and one of those laws is to not sin. Lets say God REQUIRES a payment for the sin. Lets say God gives you a way to repay your sin if you choose to follow a certain criteria. If these are the laws HE has set in motion how is that making a mistake or having a dark fantasy?

Again this is your opinion. To a pagan (paganism is a "religion") the relationship between self and god does not exist. I see religion and spirituality as two distinct processes and ideas.

Again God is NOT accepted by all people, so I do not see why you were telling me hell is not accepted by all people.

see the above.

I disagree.

See the above.

This contradicts the bible.

No.

Or you can accept it simply on faith.

Again I ask the question I have constantly asked:

HERESY · Jan 15, 2006

Why would a loving God create a place of torment?

This contradicts the bible and the teachings of Yeshi, but you are entitled to believe what you will.

Matt. 25:46. I am not arguing other cultures having a version of hell. You said eternal hell is a tactic, and I am asking you to explain the origin of this tactic and to explain how people who have NEVER been in contact with each other were able to formulate the "tactic" and use it for the SAME purpose. I am also asking you WHY it is used for that purpose. On page 5 you gave me something that has NOTHING to do with what you are being asked. If your entire stance is against hell being an eternal place of torment you should have no problem answering my questions pertaining to different cultural perspectives of hell and the development of an eternal hell concept.

1. To offer a different perspective on the subject.

2. Because you're implying that eternal hell is a scare tactic.

I do not define true religion as you define it. Instead of assuming how I define it you should have asked me to define it. True religion could be found written on a leaf and it would still be true religion if the person practiced it. True relligion is found in the bible, but it has NOTHING to do with being fulfilled in the bible only. True religion is a very SIMPLE concept, but requires LOVE to achieve. With that being said I will terminate further convo with you pertaining to this subject after I address your points. I asked you to not resort to the underhanded tactics you are doing and since you failed to honor my request I'll simply leave the convo alone after I address your points.

You do have a problem with this because you adhere to the belief that man has multiple chances to get it right. This concept is in direct confliction with man dying once and being judged (as stated in the bible.)

Whatever...

No off-topic points have been made by me. If you believe eternal hell is a tactic you should also explain the tactic, who used it, how people who have never met each other formulated it; etc.

Yeshi preached an eternal hell. If what he preached was simply done to scare people in belief that would mean:

1. He LIED.

2. God wants his followers to believe lies.

Yeshi preached eternal hell not to keep people in line to be controlled, but to lead them to God with the truth. So yes eternal hell that Yeshi preached is relevent. THE LAW IS FOR THE LAWLESS and THE LAW was given to those who did NOT understand what they SHOULD have understood.

So what you're telling me is you believe eternal hell is a tactic, but you have no evidence/logic to back your belief... :dead:

It is not a FACT that christianity promotes hell more than heaven. The only FACTS that we have are that:

1. Yeshi preached an ETERNAL place for the wicked.

2. Yeshia preached about this place MORE than he preached about heaven.

Yes, I am asking you questions based on your statements. I do not need to clarify them because no further clarification can be made. If are making the claim that eternal hell is a tactic and you don't believe in it, why is it hard for you to give an account of how different cultures and people were able to come up with a different version and use it for the same purpose?

It makes a lot of difference. You are stating you believe X but can't explain the origins of X or why a different version of X exists.

What difference does it make if it is eternal or for one second? Why would you believce a loving God would not make an eternal hell but believe the same god would make hell to torment for a little while?

Matt. 25: 41 - 46. Those are the words of Yeshi not Heresy.

HERESY · Jan 15, 2006

Some are some are NOT. Some succumb to apostasy. I have not implied the devotees would not be pleased. What I AM implying is the purpose is not to please them, but to return them to God. Being pleased is a result of the purpose.

I have supplied you with verses concerning Yeshi and his take on an eternal hell.

I adhere to what Yeshi preached about hell. He said it is ENTERNAL and that is what I believe.

I understand this, but why are you telling me?

It is your opinion that the text are more reasonable. The text appear more reasonable for you, but for someone else they are comic books and gibberish.

I accept it because Yeshi said it. What more can be said?

Indeed you are correct in stating you can have a relationship regardless of your acceptance or nonacceptance of an eternal hell. However because of the way I perceived your questions and tactics I see no point in providing you with answers that will quench your thirst.

No.

I am saying the same thing about you.

All religions do NOT promote a supreme being. Concerning all religions and equal levels you have previously stated this si not the case with you and your beliefs.

Actually I am attempting to get you to search the answer for yourself. BTW if I did answer the question the way you DESIRE to be answered you will STILL reject it and believe what you want.

You should have done this from the start instead of launching an attack against christians. Your constant use of sarcasm prevents me from taking you serious from here on out.

All you are deserving of, yes.

No need. BTW NONE of the questions I asked in the last two posts require an answer. Trust me when I tell you I won't be reading this thread again. However feel free to have the last word, someone may find your words amusing.

Please refer to previous statements.

FACT: ALL OPINION BASED ON YOUR BELIEF IN THE VEDAS.

I am not a christian. Case closed as to why I don't believe what you say I should.

Christianity and Judaism CONTRADICT each other. THE LAW that you speak of is NOT judaism. Christianity does not use judaism as a basis. They are two DIFFERENT religions which promote two different concepts. Again, your sarcasm has no place in our discussion and does nothing but further my belief that you're simply looking to argue.

I come to the conclusion by reading your posts (past and present.)

Have a blessed one.

:HGK:

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 16, 2006

HERESY said:

Except that the author of the link is ignoring the fact that God knows the destination of the entity before He creates them. He tries to throw it out by using the word "predestined". He has not defeated the argument whatsoever.

HERESY said:

God knows, "this being will sin and go to hell for eternity". Anything less is contrary to omniscience. There are no maybes with God. There is only certainty. According to Christianity, God creates living beings who are destined for eternal damnation. God either makes mistakes or desires the eternal suffering of others. Yes, those are the only two options.

HERESY said:

1. God doesn't know that entity X will end up in hell, which means that He is not omniscient and thus makes mistakes.
2. God does know entity X is destined for hell and thus it is His intent on creating beings for the ultimate purpose of eternal suffering.

Saying that God requires payment for sin from an entity He already knows will remain in sin for the duration of his physical life is like someone telling you they require payment for your being a black man. Just as God knows that this entity will die in sin, this person knows that you will remain a black man.

HERESY said:

Why do you waste time with this? To a pagan? Are you a pagan? What is your purpose for bringing up other people's positions? "To a narcoleptic midget with a peg leg and betty davis eyes..." I don't care. What I am defining as religion is that which separates man from animal. I use this definition in the most optimistic way because I recognize the major "religions", i.e. Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, and how they all promote surrendering unto God and developing a relationship with Him.

HERESY said:

And hell could not be accepted by ANYONE and that would be just fine. Hell is not the goal. If hell does not have a purpose beyond itself then it has NO VALUE. Christianity says that God creates souls who will go to hell and suffer in order so that they may... remain in hell and suffer. Their is no order, there is no purpose, therefore there is no value. We can only deduce that God values the eternal suffering of others. This is why no sane person can accept eternal hell.

HERESY said:

Accept what on faith? Accept that eternal hell is a tactic? What other option do you have? Either eternal hell is a fact and thus we are faced with the problems I have mentioned many times now, or eternal hell is a tactic in order to get procrastinators off their asses.

HERESY said:

I already know what the Bible says now. The problems remain. Obviously the Bible isn't meant for people like myself to take as all-in-all. I thank God for giving me knowledge outside of what is revealed in the Bible.

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 16, 2006

HERESY said:

Why would someone splash you on the face with water while you were asleep? Reasonable answer: to wake you up.

Now, why would that person's intent on splashing you in the face be, not to wake you up, but just for fuck's sake?

HERESY said:

I know.

HERESY said:

Why is it necessary to explain the origin of this tactic or account for how cultures who never met came up with a similar idea when you have two options? Either eternal hell is real and God either makes mistakes or enjoys others' suffering, or eternal hell is not real but is a tactic to keep people from wasting their human life. Those are you standing options. If there is anything else then you have yet to present it. I don't have to give you the history of this tactic because it is the only sane option for a theist. I am assuming you are a theist. Maybe I shouldn't make that assumption because then you'll get offended by me stating your position. I wouldn't be surprised.

HERESY said:

1. A different perspective is off subject.

2. A different perspective is off subject.

HERESY said:

If it is your opinion that true religion is not fulfilled exclusively in the Bible then why do you not accept logic concerning the subject of this thread!? You won't address this point because you can't.

HERESY said:

Of course the Bible says this. Eternal hell and reincarnation are incompatible. If the Bible were to promote eternal hell only to turn around and say that a soul may take another body and receive another chance at salvation, then there would be contradiction and this would be detrimental to the tactic involved.

HERESY said:

And if I don't explain these things then that must mean that ETERNAL HELL EXISTS AND GOD CREATES SOULS WHO ARE DESTINED TO SUFFER ETERNALLY, WHICH IN TURN MEANS THAT EITHER GOD MAKES MISTAKES OR ENJOYS THE ETERNAL SUFFERING OF OTHERS.

So as you see, my not explaining these details doesn't hurt my case. But your not accepting my point hurts yours.

HERESY said:

God wants His followers to believe and trust in HIM. The end justifies the means and GOD IS ALWAYS JUST.

HERESY said:

God is the truth. All else is circumstantial and meaningless.

HERESY said:

So what you're telling me is that eternal hell is real and God either makes mistakes or enjoys the eternal suffering of others.

HERESY said:

Uh, so your discrepancy is with who preached. Christianity doesn't promote hell more than heaven but Yeshi does. Okay, next point...

HERESY said:

This is logic. I don't have to explain who believes or who came up with the fact that 2+2=4.

Similarly, I don't have to explain who came up with this tactic or who promoted it and how it spread because if it isn't a tactic then God is contradicted. If you accept that God is contradicted then I apologize for assuming you to be a theist.

HERESY said:

I have proven irrefutably why it doesn't make a difference.

HERESY said:

One constitutes a purpose, an end. That end being the rectification of fallen souls. The other conception has no purpose, no end. It is God's hypocrisy and as a sane theist I cannot accept it. I refuse to prove God as a hypocrite. Therefore it is a tactic. Plain and simple. God loves us so much that He splashes us with water in order to wake us up to His Glory. Some of us may need more splashing then others but thats how it goes. God doesn't create us for the purpose of splashing us forever and ever.

n9newunsixx5150 · Jan 16, 2006

HERESY said:

The result is the purpose!

*splashes water on Heresy*

Wake up!

There really isn't anything worth addressing (again) in the rest of this post. You claim that all those facts are opinions based on my beliefs in the Vedas but those "opinions" are irrefutable.

You explain to me:

1. the purpose of a so-called religion that does not promote surrendering unto God

2. how knowledge of God and one's relationship with God are understood and practiced by animals and plants, and/or what else possibly sets man apart.

3. how anything beside developing a relationship with God leads to something beyond eating, sleeping, mating and defending.

4. how one can NOT come to the absolute truth and receive absolute peace and happiness.

These are facts. It has nothing to do with my religious preference.

HERESY · Jan 17, 2006

BRIEFLY GLANCING OVER YOUR POSTS....

Have a blessed one.

purpose of eternal hell

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Anti-feminist

THE HIDDEN HAND...

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

THE HIDDEN HAND...

THE HIDDEN HAND...

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

THE HIDDEN HAND...