Let's Talk About Hell (6)

[Soulgazer]

Not at all, and I never said you explicitly said that.

I am saying it is what results when one does away with a unique individual immortal soul for each us. Without that soul, people cannot be raised from the dead, because there is nothing, no soul to raise. No soul to be rejoined to a human body. Nothing. "Just dead". Those are all things you have explicityly said, no denying that.

Which means if we speak of resurrection at all, it can only mean something else. As the resurrected people in the Bible looked and passed for who they were before they died, the only logical conclusion is that a duplicate of the original was created. The fact God could do that and that such a duplicate could think they are indeed the original does not make it so.

Ah...the "last Thursday" theology. We were all created this morning, and only believe we have lived a life...or something like that.

If I were to pick which is more consistent with the idea of a God who is defined as "love", I would have to go with Tim. Not that you haven't made some excellent points. This does seem to be a moral dichotomy for a lot of Christians, just judging from the sheer amount of "Hell" threads and the dearth of "Heaven" threads.

I believe that "Heaven" has "many mansions". Which is to say, there is not one answer, but "many". Our Father does not have our limitations, so I don't have a dog in this fight----- I just want to compliment you both for carrying on a conversation that is mellow and in harmony with what the lord taught us. I have enjoyed reading it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not surprising. Most (not all) who have a problem with the idea of there being eternal suffering will admit it is based on notions about Love, Mercy and Justice.

 

[Timothew]

It isn't surprising that the bible agrees with us (or we agree with the bible) when we claim that God is good, loving, merciful and just. Yes, I have a problem with a doctrine that attempts to prove that God is not good, not loving, not merciful and unjust. But if the bible said that was true, I would have no choice but to believe it. But the bible agrees with our consciences that God is good and he doesn't torture people in hell forever.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It isn't surprising that the bible agrees with us (or we agree with the bible) when we claim that God is good, loving, merciful and just. Yes, I have a problem with a doctrine that attempts to prove that God is not good, not loving, not merciful and unjust. But if the bible said that was true, I would have no choice but to believe it. But the bible agrees with our consciences that God is good and he doesn't torture people in hell forever.

Fortunately for me, the orthodox view does not have God torturing anyone either.

The problem here is that in attempting to solve a problem one thinks God has with there being suffering, one creates others. Which is why I keep trying to turn the discussion to whether or not that problem is real. If it is not real, then there is no reason to search scriptures for a possible alternate understanding that circumvents an imaginary problem.

It is also difficult to speak of believing what the Bible says and maintaining a belief which clearly contradicts it. Jesus said some "should not perish" - the view being presented here says EVERYONE will perish at death and that duplicates of each us will be created and some of those will live forever.

 

[Timothew]

the view being presented here says EVERYONE will perish at death and that duplicates of each us will be created and some of those will live forever.

That is NOT the view that I am presenting. I don't think it is the view you are presenting. Who is presenting the view that our duplicates get eternal life and we do not? Who is presenting the view that there are duplicates at all? The bible doesn't say that if we are real good, God will make a replica of us and treat it nice in heaven.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The problem here is that if one maintains EVERYONE perishes at death and there is nothing called a soul which transcends death(also means immortal) and makes each of us unique then there is nothing left after death to "resurrect". Any talk of "resurrection" in that construct can ONLY mean a duplicate is made. Whether one explicitly says that or not is irrelevant.

The fact remains we have a construct of what happens when humans die (which happens to agree with many scientist and atheist) that affirms there is no afterlife for us. We are "just dead" and any talk of a "soul" simply means breath or living or both. At that point the "just dead" cannot be resurrected because they do not exist any more. They can ONLY be recreated but as there is no imortal soul to reunite with a new physical body (or the original one in Lazarus case) then what is recreated is a new creature, not the original and in no way connected to the original.

In fact such a new creature could co-exist with the original if, for whatever reason, God decided to do that before the original died. At the moment they were created we would be unable to tell them apart and each would think themself to be the true original. Going forward the two would live different lives so distinction would then be possible. The only difference between this hypothetical and the construct being presented here is that God does not create duplicates while the original still lives.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Objection will still be made to my representation, but no explanation given as to how what God is seen as "resurrecting" in this view is in ANY way connected to the original life. One could say that only God would know the difference, but that hardly seems satisfying.

Look, some scientist say we are nothing more than a bunch of meat and bones with electronic pulses in our heads creating an illision of "existing", If true then we cease to exist after death because all those electrical impluses stop. If that were true, then there really is no difference between our "existing" now and then God making us "exist" again by perfectly recreating that some pile of meat, bones and electrical impulses. But even in that line of thinking what exists later is no longer what existed before, it is a new existence.

 

[Timothew]

If I no longer reply to your posts, please don't take that as agreement with your posts.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

An inability to explain something is never understood as agreement with an opposing view. Simply saying one cannot explain but believe it anyway is not agreeing with another view.

But I could see how it would be frustrating and troubling not being able to explain how one's view is any different from something that might not be particularly agreeable to oneself or others.

 

[strangertoo]

Who is "good"? Nobody that I know of....yet there must be something about us that God wishes to keep. Yet the "not good" obviously has no place in a perfect realm. We do what we can to purge the "not good" from ourselves, yet the only proof of that perfection would lay in us no longer being human, so nobody has reached it that I know of.

It's essentially the wrong question [because it is God who judges who is good enough and who is not, not us]... as with all questions and answers men create that bind themselves in denial ...

1 John 3:7-10 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous...

... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God

simply examine the DENIAL of ALL scripture that says this and lines like it... one cannot face one's shame and repent by not facing one's DENIAL of any Truth of God....

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

 

[strangertoo]

, some scientists say we are nothing more than a bunch of meat and bones with electronic pulses in our heads creating an illision of "existing", If true then we cease to exist after death because all those electrical impluses stop. If that were true, then there really is no difference between our "existing" now and then God making us "exist" again by perfectly recreating that some pile of meat, bones and electrical impulses. But even in that line of thinking what exists later is no longer what existed before, it is a new existence.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

science simply refuses to study the spirit , which is not a very 'scientific' approach ... straightforward denial without examining the evidence, refusing even to examine it ... absurd , really absurd , totally against the spirit of science ... as dogmatic and blinded as religion of sinners....

 

[Soulgazer]

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

science simply refuses to study the spirit , which is not a very 'scientific' approach ... straightforward denial without examining the evidence, refusing even to examine it ... absurd , really absurd , totally against the spirit of science ... as dogmatic and blinded as religion of sinners....

I don't think you understand science. It's not that we are refusing to study the spirit. There is just nothing empirical; efforts have been made, such as weighing a person at the point of death and after. There is just nothing to put under the microscope.
Paranormal investigators have made some inroads, but even they will tell you that it is nearly impossible to replicate results, which is what science is based on. If you do "A" then "B" will happen.
Scientist might not all agree, but science as a whole are NOT saying that our existence is just physical--- they are saying that we only HAVE evidence of the physical. There is a huge difference.

 

[Soulgazer]

It's essentially the wrong question

My friend, I will have to pick a point here. There is no such thing as a dumb question. Only dumb answers. "We can't understand because God is higher than us" is a dumb answer. A better answer is that the guy who wrote it didn't know what he was talking about.

We might not understand the plan of the man, but if He is Love, then His plan will be based in love. Love, while we might all fall short in accomplishing it, is something that we either know or can learn. Anything attributed to God inconsistent with Love is either a fabrication, or the statement that "God is Love" is a fabrication. It's one or the other. There is no such thing as being "slightly evil", and still being "Love".

The problem I see developing is that entirely too much credence is given to what is written, and then excused with "when God does it isn't evil". I'm sorry, but I am not that dull of sensibility or spirit. Something is either right or wrong of it's own accord, and entirely independent of whom is committing the action.

 

[strangertoo]

My friend, I will have to pick a point here. There is no such thing as a dumb question. Only dumb answers. "We can't understand because God is higher than us" is a dumb answer. A better answer is that the guy who wrote it didn't know what he was talking about.

We might not understand the plan of the man, but if He is Love, then His plan will be based in love. Love, while we might all fall short in accomplishing it, is something that we either know or can learn. Anything attributed to God inconsistent with Love is either a fabrication, or the statement that "God is Love" is a fabrication. It's one or the other. There is no such thing as being "slightly evil", and still being "Love".

The problem I see developing is that entirely too much credence is given to what is written, and then excused with "when God does it isn't evil". I'm sorry, but I am not that dull of sensibility or spirit. Something is either right or wrong of it's own accord, and entirely independent of whom is committing the action.

Well my dear friend, I agree with you, so am at a loss as to what point you are picking ... ?

I think that I explained why it is the wrong question, but I do not think it is 'dumb' ...rather it is only part of the way to the right question , perhaps I should better have said it is 'insufficient' ?

my point is that some tens of thousands in THIS earth ARE 'good enough' for God to be pleased enough with their Love to not only teach them everything about the spirit and the worlds, the past and the future , reveal all about all folks, [baptism of the spirit], but also to tell them all their sins they don't admit even to themselves so that they can perfect Love in life in trial against Satan himself master of subtle lies and temptations to abuse , so that perfect as Christ, sons of God , with all PAST sins forgiven by the new covenant , they are fit to enter the completely pure Lovingness of the kingdom come which Jesus will guard by death of any who sins there... so that countless many are saved after billions are released from hell [Rev 20:13] to be saved by works there , inspired by the Love of the firstborn of the spirit who rule and minster under Jesus there by Love that is untainted because they have no desire whatsoever to go back to abusing anyone with sin... and so God's Loving masses [Rev 7:9-10] deprive Satan of all his easy prey ... life for evil men becomes more than uncomfortable as the evil make life a misery for the evil... the 'tipping point between Love and evil is reached, Satan's committed sinners abandon him because sin no longer is a benefit , but a misery... eventually Satan is left alone , a piteous broken man ,who once rules this whole earth [bar a couple of thousand saints]

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms

 

[Soulgazer]

Well my dear friend, I agree with you, so am at a loss as to what point you are picking ... ?

I think that I explained why it is the wrong question, but I do not think it is 'dumb' ...rather it is only part of the way to the right question , perhaps I should better have said it is 'insufficient' ?

m

Point taken, and my apologies. I am not the judge of anyone, yet even I know when somebody is being Loving or the opposite- "what do I care?". To which I say, be right, be wrong, but care.

 

[strangertoo]

Point taken, and my apologies. I am not the judge of anyone, yet even I know when somebody is being Loving or the opposite- "what do I care?". To which I say, be right, be wrong, but care.

Well again I cannot help but agree, as does the scripture ... but my reason may be a little different than yours... simply that Love itself [which is all we really know of God before spirit baptism] 'PROVES' God must continue to persevere with all men until they see He is right , Love is the best way for everyone and requires everyone to participate in it for sake of happiness in the end for everyone ... one could say no-one in the third heaven even could be happy if anyone were left outside through simply not realising the Truth that Love can make them happy whereas without it they are inevitably unhappy...
so as Solomon wisely puts it there is time for this universal happiness, just as there is time in this earth for almost universal misery at consequences of sin, destruction of billions and the earth itself ...indeed the heavens too because God has no further use for them...
it is just a matter of when one is saved then, not if... one can drag it out for three lifetimes , or indeed a few never even need to die at all... it is very much a personal thing what one believes in , in particular whether sin appeals because of Satan's brilliant propaganda that deceives billions [even the whole of mass religion -Rev 13:3-4] or Love appeals because it makes one whole from inside , happy from inside even in this life one can hardly avoid hating because of the misery it brings everyone eventually... [that is even the saints are sorely tried in baptism of fire, because mankind can and thus does lie, even to himself]...

But there is my argument with God [and yes, I do know how pointless it is , but it's my strange way of learning , one never minds being proven wrong by God! ... and He never minds being proven right! LOL?]... I have this insane idea that men will listen to reason about Love LOLOL or even that folks who say they believe this or that scripture will actually change their actions as if they believed it , that e.g. those who say God is Love would actually be Loving and stop abusing with sin...

Why? ... because it is piteous that only tens of thousands become saints in this life and many billions [somewhere between ten and twenty billion] are just destroyed having never known what Love is, what God is, what Jesus is ... it just makes me sad even though I know why ...LOL?

 

[Soulgazer]

Well again I cannot help but agree, as does the scripture ... but my reason may be a little different than yours... simply that Love itself [which is all we really know of God before spirit baptism] 'PROVES' God must continue to persevere with all men until they see He is right , Love is the best way for everyone and requires everyone to participate in it for sake of happiness in the end for everyone ... one could say no-one in the third heaven even could be happy if anyone were left outside through simply not realising the Truth that Love can make them happy whereas without it they are inevitably unhappy...
so as Solomon wisely puts it there is time for this universal happiness, just as there is time in this earth for almost universal misery at consequences of sin, destruction of billions and the earth itself ...indeed the heavens too because God has no further use for them...
it is just a matter of when one is saved then, not if... one can drag it out for three lifetimes , or indeed a few never even need to die at all... it is very much a personal thing what one believes in , in particular whether sin appeals because of Satan's brilliant propaganda that deceives billions [even the whole of mass religion -Rev 13:3-4] or Love appeals because it makes one whole from inside , happy from inside even in this life one can hardly avoid hating because of the misery it brings everyone eventually... [that is even the saints are sorely tried in baptism of fire, because mankind can and thus does lie, even to himself]...

But there is my argument with God [and yes, I do know how pointless it is , but it's my strange way of learning , one never minds being proven wrong by God! ... and He never minds being proven right! LOL?]... I have this insane idea that men will listen to reason about Love LOLOL or even that folks who say they believe this or that scripture will actually change their actions as if they believed it , that e.g. those who say God is Love would actually be Loving and stop abusing with sin...

Why? ... because it is piteous that only tens of thousands become saints in this life and many billions [somewhere between ten and twenty billion] are just destroyed having never known what Love is, what God is, what Jesus is ... it just makes me sad even though I know why ...LOL?

I don't think I would qualify as a saint, or even sure if I would know one if I met one. I do know right from wrong, and Love from not-love. Some people have called me wise, but wisdom comes at the cost of bitter experience. I like to think of myself, not as wise, but spiritually honest. If I know something, I know something, and if I don't I don't.

What I do know is that a being cannot be Love and perform an unloving act....any more than a gal could be "slightly" pregnant. When speaking of an absolute such as perfection, it is either perfect or it is not;there are no shades of perfection. Some people have said that God is unfathomable---I say it depends. IF it is true that we were created in the image of God, then that image must still reside deep down in each one of us. If you want to find God, then find that image. Whatever upsets our highest sensibilities, must surely be part of that image. I.E. The torture or abuse of a child will set a good man's ire to rise.

I've known men who fought in WWI and WWII---who cried about what they had to do sixty years later. Why would that happen if deep inside there were not that image of perfection which they knew they had not lived up to?

So I look to my highest aspirations for myself and the world, and I look to find that they come from that image.

 

[Timothew]

An inability to explain something is never understood as agreement with an opposing view. Simply saying one cannot explain but believe it anyway is not agreeing with another view.

But I could see how it would be frustrating and troubling not being able to explain how one's view is any different from something that might not be particularly agreeable to oneself or others.

Just being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge the truth when it is presented is not a valid argument for your side. I can explain my position, and I have explained it over and over. You are relying on the "noitsnot" defense.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Actually NO ONE has explained how there can be an afterlife when EVERYONE perishes at death. NO ONE has explained how in such a construct, the new creature God is said to "resurrect" for Judgment is in ANYWAY connected to the original. That was and always has been the question and it has NEVER been answered.

 

[Timothew]

Actually NO ONE has explained how there can be an afterlife when EVERYONE perishes at death. NO ONE has explained how in such a construct, the new creature God is said to "resurrect" for Judgment is in ANYWAY connected to the original. That was and always has been the question and it has NEVER been answered.

I don't know how you can claim that it never has been answered. After a person dies, they are resurrected to life again on the last day. Then they are judged. It isn't a different person, it is the same person.