Let's Talk About Hell (6)

[strangertoo]

And once again, FWIW I too believe God could perfectly duplicate each of us, I just would not call that a "resurrection" nor would I think of such a process as happening to me as "me" living again.

Was Jesus the same Jesus after resurrection?

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[strangertoo]

If one ceases to exist, a destroyed natural body (psychikos), and then much later a new spiritual body (pneumatikos) is created in a completely different context both internally and externally, what is the connection? [Greek from 1 Cor 15:44]
.

You are confusing two completely different 'processes':-

Jesus showed us that resurrection is from death to a living flesh-and-bones physical body :-

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

but translation to spirit is from a LIVING body that has perfected Love in life, [pleased God by obeying Him in His command to Love all, not abuse with sin]

DEATH [or destruction, 'apoleia'] , as with Jesus' destruction [apoleia] by crucifixion, ALWAYS results in resurrection [ thus all are freed from hell- Rev 20:13, men are denied death in the lake of fire, so are ALIVE there , perfecting Love in the final baptism of fire :-

Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

clearly then the end of the creation is not death or destruction, but translation... just as Jesus did not end in his destruction , nor did he die after his resurrection, but disappeared because he was translated... amazing really that folks don't seem to notice Jesus never died a second time... it is rather important if you think about it ...

here is the translation of Enoch who never even died once because his Love in life, obedience to God, pleased God :-

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

understand then that all dead saints are first resurrected at Jesus return, but SOME SAINTS are still alive at that time and never die ... all the saints are then translated to spirit ,free of death ... because saints are those who perfect Love in life, stop sinning because sin is abuse, and Love folks instead, showing their Love of God by obeying His command to Love all folks, even enemies...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So now you have your answer. They believe the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I believe.

And thanks for totally misrepresenting what I said.

As I said, not the opposite at all - the same thing just without God. They are perfectly happy saying if we had the ability to duplicate exactly the electronic workings of the individuals mind (they would say making/growing a new body would be easier) that they could do the same thing you claim God does when He "resurrects" us. So in their view and using your description of such a process, they would be "resurrecting" a person if they did that after the person died.

They would go further and say the body is not really necessary, that because the workings of the individuals mind are the only thing which makes each of us unique, that no matter how or inside what one duplicates that mind - that new creation is the "same" individual - at least at the moment it becomes "aware".

So the only difference between the process you describe as a "resurrection" by God and an "afterlife" for the "individual" and what these athesist and some scientist invision being able to do is this: you say God does what they say mankind should be able to do one day. So again the only difference between such a view and yours, is the cause of the "resurrection". They have science replacing what you say God does.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Was Jesus the same Jesus after resurrection?

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Well, yes of course.
In the orthodox view He would have to be both the same Man and the same God, because men have unique and individual souls and there is only One God.

My comment you quoted was in regards to what some here are claiming God does in "resurrecting" people, which they claim is done without humans having (or needing) a soul and so nothing connecting what God recreates after (they claim) each person perishes at death with the original person. Without such a connection I do not see how one could claim what is recreated is necessarily the "same" person, even if it is a perfect copy.

My statement was simply my acknowledgement that all things are possible with God and that would certainly include being able to perfectly copy each of us. In fact, He could do that before we die, which highlights perfectly the problem with this whole construct; that what God creates from "nothing" (because we perish when we die) is the "same" person.

You cannot have two people and say they are the same person, except in the cold world of the atheist/scientist who would say there is nothing to preclude it from being possible because one's entire life, everything one experiences is nothing but the inner electrical workings of the mind. In that view the mind is the individual and if we could build the circuits and duplicate the memories stored in the mind, then we have duplicated the "same" person.

If both those "same" persons existed at same time, these same people would have to acknowledge that going forward from that point, they would become unique because experiences would not be shared. As they would say the memories of those experience shape "who" we are as it is stored in our minds, their "copy" would divurge from the original and no longer be the "same" person.

 

[Timothew]

And thanks for totally misrepresenting what I said.

As I said, not the opposite at all - the same thing just without God. They are perfectly happy saying if we had the ability to duplicate exactly the electronic workings of the individuals mind (they would say making/growing a new body would be easier) that they could do the same thing you claim God does when He "resurrects" us. So in their view and using your description of such a process, they would be "resurrecting" a person if they did that after the person died.

They would go further and say the body is not really necessary, that because the workings of the individuals mind are the only thing which makes each of us unique, that no matter how or inside what one duplicates that mind - that new creation is the "same" individual - at least at the moment it becomes "aware".

So the only difference between the process you describe as a "resurrection" by God and an "afterlife" for the "individual" and what these athesist and some scientist invision being able to do is this: you say God does what they say mankind should be able to do one day. So again the only difference between such a view and yours, is the cause of the "resurrection". They have science replacing what you say God does.

And Thanks for misrepresenting what I said.


I believe that there is a HUGE difference between believing that there is a God and believing that there is NO God.

This might be a minor difference to you, but it is not to me.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And Thanks for misrepresenting what I said.


I believe that there is a HUGE difference between believing that there is a God and believing that there is NO God.

This might be a minor difference to you, but it is not to me.

That is a misdirect and not very good one at that. We were not speaking of a belief in God, but about a particular action you claim God performs. It is the action we are comparing with the atheist and some scientist view of human nature.

I VERY CLEARLY STATED FROM THE VERY FIRST COMPARISON THAT YOUR BELIEF IN GOD WAS THE ONLY difference. So attempt to discredit both my post and myself now by further misrepresenting what I stated is disingenuous at best.

We were not talking about your belief in God as compared to atheist or some scientist belief in no God. We were comparing your view of what happens to the "just dead" and your associated view of human nature to the one view of atheist and some scientist concerning human nature.

Here I will state it again. In those two views the ONLY difference between what you claim God does and what they believe may be possible one day is Whom is doing the "resurrection" which is not really a real resurrection at all, but a new creation of the "same" person, a copy.

And again, if one claims this is what occurs upon our "resurrection" then this is also something that both God and science (if ever true they were able) could do before we die. Which further demonstrates the fallacy of claiming this process describes a "resurrection" of the same person.

 

[Fascinated With God]

How do I prove that there is NOT a disembodied part of a person called a soul that continues to live when the person dies? All I can say is that the bible doesn't say that there is a soul that can live when the person is dead. I can't prove a negative. I can't pick up a soul and say "see, it doesn't exist." I've shown how the word "soul" is often used to mean "the person". I've shown that the Bible doesn't talk about a disembodied soul that survives death. So now, it's up to DrBubbaLove. He needs to prove that there IS a disembodied part of a person called a soul that continues to live when the person dies. If he can do that, then he will have a point that anyone who doesn't have this part can't be resurrected.

I asked you "what is the connection?" but you didn't even attempt to answer the question. Why bother to reply to someone if you are just going to talk about something else and completely ignore their question?

 

[Timothew]

That is a misdirect and not very good one at that. We were not speaking of a belief in God, but about a particular action you claim God performs. It is the action we are comparing with the atheist and some scientist view of human nature.

I VERY CLEARLY STATED FROM THE VERY FIRST COMPARISON THAT YOUR BELIEF IN GOD WAS THE ONLY difference. So attempt to discredit both my post and myself now by further misrepresenting what I stated is disingenuous at best.

We were not talking about your belief in God as compared to atheist or some scientist belief in no God. We were comparing your view of what happens to the "just dead" and your associated view of human nature to the one view of atheist and some scientist concerning human nature.

Here I will state it again. In those two views the ONLY difference between what you claim God does and what they believe may be possible one day is Whom is doing the "resurrection" which is not really a real resurrection at all, but a new creation of the "same" person, a copy.

And again, if one claims this is what occurs upon our "resurrection" then this is also something that both God and science (if ever true they were able) could do before we die. Which further demonstrates the fallacy of claiming this process describes a "resurrection" of the same person.

I want you to hear what I say this time. The person who is resurrected is the very same person who died. Period. It is not a copy of the person. It is not my belief that a copy o fthe person is resurrected. The very same person is resurrected. Now, do you understand that I believe the same person is resurrected as the person who died? Do you know that this is nothing at all like anything that atheists believe? Okay, The Same Person. NOT A COPY. A real resurrection of the body. Not a copy. The same person. Now you have NO EXCUSE for Claiming that I believe that a copy of the person is resurrected.

SAME PERSON. NOT A COPY.

 

[Timothew]

I asked you "what is the connection?" but you didn't even attempt to answer the question. Why bother to reply to someone if you are just going to talk about something else and completely ignore their question?

I answered your question, don't play games.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I want you to hear what I say this time. The person who is resurrected is the very same person who died. Period. It is not a copy of the person. It is not my belief that a copy o fthe person is resurrected. The very same person is resurrected. Now, do you understand that I believe the same person is resurrected as the person who died? Do you know that this is nothing at all like anything that atheists believe? Okay, The Same Person. NOT A COPY. A real resurrection of the body. Not a copy. The same person. Now you have NO EXCUSE for Claiming that I believe that a copy of the person is resurrected.

SAME PERSON. NOT A COPY.

I know you say it but that does not make it so.
How can it be the same person when you claim nothing of that person remains after death, the person perished?

There is no human soul in this construct to re-introduce with a resurrected body in a real resurrection. The only option left is for God to make something from nothing, which I do not doubt He can do.

But making something from nothing is an ability God has right now. He could make another me right now from nothing. And I agree that at the very instant He did so, that other me is the same, there would be two mes. Going forward is another matter, but this illustration demonstrates why saying this creation-out-of-nothing scenario is "resurrecting" the same person is a false.

I gave you an out. Some kind of time travel (transfer the "mind" that existed from point of death) and a simultaneous transformation (a new body or healed body) would fit into your construct without loosing the uniqueness of the individual. That would be the only wat I could see one could claim it is the same person being "resurrected" - even though it is time travel and not really a resurrection.

 

[Timothew]

I know you say it but that does not make it so.
How can it be the same person when you claim nothing of that person remains after death, the person perished?

There is no human soul in this construct to re-introduce with a resurrected body in a real resurrection. The only option left is for God to make something from nothing, which I do not doubt He can do.

But making something from nothing is an ability God has right now. He could make another me right now from nothing. And I agree that at the very instant He did so, that other me is the same, there would be two mes. Going forward is another matter, but this illustration demonstrates why saying this creation-out-of-nothing scenario is "resurrecting" the same person is a false.

I gave you an out. Some kind of time travel (transfer the "mind" that existed from point of death) and a simultaneous transformation (a new body or healed body) would fit into your construct without loosing the uniqueness of the individual. That would be the only wat I could see one could claim it is the same person being "resurrected" - even though it is time travel and not really a resurrection.

No "out" is necessary. The person who is resurrected is the same person who died. I don't need to resort to your time travel scheme.

Let me try to explain one more time. Let's say that Alfred A. Albright died on October 21st, 1953. So here is Alfred A. Albright lying dead in the grave. Afred A. Albright is dead, meaning "not alive" Now let's pick a resurrection day for illustration purposes. Let's assume Christ returns on January 12th, 2055. I know how you like to twist what I say, so I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not predicting a certain day for Christ's return. This is ONLY for purposes of illustration. So on January 12th, 2055 Alfred A. Albright becomes alive again. The very same Alfred A. Albright that died on October 21st, 1953. The same guy. Do you understand now? Alfred A. Albright. That same guy. Not a different guy.




The same guy. Alfred A. Albright. Not a copy of Alfred A. Albright, not a clone of Alfred A. Albright, but the same guy.

Are we okay now?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No "out" is necessary. The person who is resurrected is the same person who died. I don't need to resort to your time travel scheme.

Let me try to explain one more time. Let's say that Alfred A. Albright died on October 21st, 1953. So here is Alfred A. Albright lying dead in the grave. Afred A. Albright is dead, meaning "not alive" Now let's pick a resurrection day for illustration purposes. Let's assume Christ returns on January 12th, 2055. I know how you like to twist what I say, so I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not predicting a certain day for Christ's return. This is ONLY for purposes of illustration. So on January 12th, 2055 Alfred A. Albright becomes alive again. The very same Alfred A. Albright that died on October 21st, 1953. The same guy. Do you understand now? Alfred A. Albright. That same guy. Not a different guy.




The same guy. Alfred A. Albright. Not a copy of Alfred A. Albright, not a clone of Alfred A. Albright, but the same guy.

Are we okay now?

January 11th, 2055 scientist used the Gore Renewal process to upload the mind of Dr Alfred Albright to a blank (extra-uterine grown body) giving a fresh new look at mid 20th century science. Alfred was a trail blazing pioneer in the study of the human mind and brain wave research after the second World War. Dr Albright had recorded his brain waves and stored the patterns on analog tapes with which researchers were recently able to completely replicate his mind. Researches hope the new Doctor will be able to give the school insight into the early history of modern medicine. His first request upon awakening was for a Goody's Root beer float, nurses were able to use the hospital replicators to produce the concoction and the good Doctor seemed satisfied with the effort.

In a new resurgence of those crazy UTs at First Annihilationist Church of New Bedford, Pastor Williams once again protested what his Church is calling the resurrection of the dead Dr Albright as the work of Satan and that he should be terminated immediately as an abomination to humanity and affront to their God. They see the advances of science in both prolonging human life by uploads to new bodies and restoring the "life" of the "just dead" like Dr Albright as the "soul" (pun intended) purvue of their God. They are particularly sensitive to science creating new versions of those who have long been "just dead" as in their view it is not a new version but the same person being "resurrected".

Even though the Obama scandal and the resulting sactions against using the Gore Renewal upload process to create multiple versions of the same person have been in place for more than two decades, Pastor Williams followers still insist the product of this process is the same person, no matter how many times it is performed using the same original mind.

 

[Timothew]

January 11th, 2055 scientist used the Gore Renewal process to upload the mind of Dr Alfred Albright to a blank (extra-uterine grown body) giving a fresh new look at mid 20th century science. Alfred was a trail blazing pioneer in the study of the human mind and brain wave research after the second World War. Dr Albright had recorded his brain waves and stored the patterns on analog tapes with which researchers were recently able to completely replicate his mind. Researches hope the new Doctor will be able to give the school insight into the early history of modern medicine. His first request upon awakening was for a Goody's Root beer float, nurses were able to use the hospital replicators to produce the concoction and the good Doctor seemed satisfied with the effort.

In a new resurgence of those crazy UTs at First Annihilationist Church of New Bedford, Pastor Williams once again protested what his Church is calling the resurrection of the dead Dr Albright as the work of Satan and that he should be terminated immediately as an abomination to humanity and affront to their God. They see the advances of science in both prolonging human life by uploads to new bodies and restoring the "life" of the "just dead" like Dr Albright as the "soul" (pun intended) purvue of their God. They are particularly sensitive to science creating new versions of those who have long been "just dead" as in their view it is not a new version but the same person being "resurrected".

Even though the Obama scandal and the resulting sactions against using the Gore Renewal upload process to create multiple versions of the same person have been in place for more than two decades, Pastor Williams followers still insist the product of this process is the same person, no matter how many times it is performed using the same original mind.

Good story. I like science fiction. Do you ever read Phillip K Dick stories?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Yes, I believe I did as a kid, but we digress.

The point being that we both agree God could replicate any of us at any time. Where we disagree is whether such a replication constitues a resurrection or could be said to be the same person. One could simply state it is or must be, but that does not seem satisfying to me.

If we limit God to only being able to do this once and ONLY after we have died/perished and we are no more; I guess I could see how it really does not matter if we call what God recreates the same person or not as the only one who would know the difference is God Himself. I also agree in that case that the person recreated certainly would believe they are the same person who died and who had lived the life remembered.

The orthodox can point to the human soul as being the connection at resurrection between the former life and the newly resurrected person. The connection is ONLY possible because the same human soul that experienced that person's life is joined with the body of the newly resurrected SAME person. In fact it is the soul itself which makes it the same person.

In the opposing view the connection is only the memories because in a view that says we perish and are no more when we die, our memories would be the only thing God could give the newly recreated person to make such a connection.

 

[Timothew]

I was thinking about writing a story about a King whose law was that anyone who sinned would be put to death. When a certain man sinned, he asked to be put to death as the law required. The evil king refused to put the man to death as the law required. Instead, the man was put into a terrible dungeon and tortured day and night. Whenever he asked to be put to death according to the just law, the dungeon master just told him, "The king is just, and nobody should question his justice". The torture continued for years, and the man endured. Finally, he broke out of the dungeon and put the evil king to death. The man was crowned king in his place and ruled the kingdom with true justice ever after.

 

[Soulgazer]

I considered writing a story about an evangelist preacher who railed against reincarnation. Then he fell down and banged his head and remembered who he was five hundred years ago.

Some things we just can't know. Me, from the Gnostic or "knowing" side of the aisle

 

[Timothew]

I considered writing a story about an evangelist preacher who railed against reincarnation. Then he fell down and banged his head and remembered who he was five hundred years ago.

Some things we just can't know. Me, from the Gnostic or "knowing" side of the aisle

What do you think of the "justice" of eternal torture?

 

[Soulgazer]

What do you think of the "justice" of eternal torture?

There isn't any there. Torture says more about the torturer than the victim. Jesus said actions always say more about the one committing the action than the one receiving, good or bad(I was thirsty and you gave me water). No one can really believe God is perfect and believe in eternal torture. It's an oxymoron. Like having sex for virginity.

I believe in the symbolism of hell; There is a consequence for every action, plant the wind, harvest the whirlwind and all that stuff. There are a lot of people going through hell right here because of ill conceived actions.

I heard a long long time ago, that children demand justice, adults dispense mercy. Hopefully the human race will grow up some day, and be like their Father.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I was thinking about writing a story about a King whose law was that anyone who sinned would be put to death. When a certain man sinned, he asked to be put to death as the law required. The evil king refused to put the man to death as the law required. Instead, the man was put into a terrible dungeon and tortured day and night. Whenever he asked to be put to death according to the just law, the dungeon master just told him, "The king is just, and nobody should question his justice". The torture continued for years, and the man endured. Finally, he broke out of the dungeon and put the evil king to death. The man was crowned king in his place and ruled the kingdom with true justice ever after.

Nice story. Back to reality.

We have punishments now that separate people from the rest of society permanently. Those same punishments can be seen in the OT as commanded by God. So it cannot be true that all punishment is meant to be rehabilitating. In fact it demonstrates that punishment can have an element of benefit for the people the punished are being separated from.
We also have suffering in this life, even suffering from the aspect of the person experiencing it that is endless right up to death. We certainly and often do not always see why, but are told all things are for Good and God’s Glory. If we say God is Good and all things for His Glory, then it cannot follow that suffering creates a problem for God also being Love and Mercy.
Yes but what about suffering without end? What about it? If people can live their entire life here in horrible suffering and we maintain God is still Good, Love, and Mercy, then why does making the suffering of the damned last longer suddenly create a problem for God?

Consider God could have wiped out the entire human race and started over. No more humans and we would not be doing this today. Had He done that would it have created a problem for God being Love, Good and Mercy?

Are we really prepared to say that slaying x number of humans is ok for God, but if God did just a handful more then suddenly He has a problem being Good, Love and Mercy?

And if God mandates a permanent separation of a person committing certain acts in what conceivable construct can we blame God for that person being permanently separated when they commit those acts? How does what a person freely chooses to do create a problem for God?
How could God making sure people are reconciled to Him for the life they led here create a problem for His being Good, Mercy and Love.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There isn't any there. Torture says more about the torturer than the victim. Jesus said actions always say more about the one committing the action than the one receiving, good or bad(I was thirsty and you gave me water). No one can really believe God is perfect and believe in eternal torture. It's an oxymoron. Like having sex for virginity.

I believe in the symbolism of hell; There is a consequence for every action, plant the wind, harvest the whirlwind and all that stuff. There are a lot of people going through hell right here because of ill conceived actions.

I heard a long long time ago, that children demand justice, adults dispense mercy. Hopefully the human race will grow up some day, and be like their Father.

Except Justice is a two edge sword. If the same Judgement for this life can reconcile people to God into bliss, then it cannot follow that the opposite reconciliation is only Just if it does not last as long as the bliss does. It is A or B and both equal Just (and Love and Mercy for that matter). If one fate is eternal and that be a Just reconciliation for this life, then making the opposite fate eternal could not possibly be unjust, or unloving or unmerciful.