|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 5, 2014 17:10:17 GMT
Would an omnipotent God need to create a hell? Main Entry: 1 often capitalized : almighty 1 2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler> A loving God, with unlimited influence, at judgment time, would have no trouble influencing a soul to believe and repent. That would make the following quote true. 2 Peter 3:9 KJ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. If God is somehow not able to change the attitude or ideas of the soul, the reason for punishment, then to send it to eternal torture or death would serve no purpose and that would mean that punishment would be immoral and no moral God would ever do so. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZM3FXlLMugFor those who believe in everlasting punishment or death for souls, I would ask. What does an omnipotent God need with a hell? God would cure all afflicted and never lose what could only be perfect as everything has emanated from a perfect God. If the Christian God exists that is. Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: Regards DL |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Aug 25, 2014 6:39:14 GMT
Maybe you need to address the fact that neither the Old nor New Testament teach anything about this hell to which you object.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 26, 2014 0:28:47 GMT
Maybe you need to address the fact that neither the Old nor New Testament teach anything about this hell to which you object. I am quite aware that it is a lie created by the church.
The problem is that over 60% believe it to be real and ignore the damage that that belief causes for children and adults who have left religions to escape such vile manipulation from supposedly moral clergy.
If there are no literalists about for me to persuade by logic then so much better for this forum.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Aug 26, 2014 3:12:20 GMT
Maybe you need to address the fact that neither the Old nor New Testament teach anything about this hell to which you object. I am quite aware that it is a lie created by the church.
It is not a lie, it is the innocent result of a collision between the Greek philosophical idea of the natural immortality of the soul and the text of the New Testament. People think they read it in the NT because they have different assumptions from those the NT writers likely had. In any case what is taught by anyone I've met who believes in it is eternal separation from God rather than eternal torment. Peter. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 27, 2014 14:28:40 GMT
So to you, there are 2 heavens or places for us after death. One for God and his followers and another for those who dislike a genocidal son murdering tyrant. As they see God of course. Right?
Other than God being in the one place, the other will be identical. Right?
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Aug 27, 2014 16:02:21 GMT
So to you, there are 2 heavens or places for us after death. One for God and his followers and another for those who dislike a genocidal son murdering tyrant. As they see God of course. Right? I don't think you have understood me at all. I will try to explain more clearly. 1) The image of Gehenna in the New Testament was intended by Jesus and the NT writers to bring to mind the loss of innocent infants to the Molech sacrifice. It is an intensely sad image of destruction. 2) The NT writers probably had no idea that Gehenna would be read as a place of infinitely prolonged suffering. We have to make a special effort not to read this idea into the text. The great majority of Christian theologians and commentators throughout history have not known that the text was not meant to imply this. 3) The idea that the churches made up hell to scare people is false. The dominant tendency in the churches throughout history has been to try to soften a doctrine of hell that they believed they were stuck with because of the words of Jesus. One way they tried to soften it was to introduce a doctrine of purgatory to rescue all but the absolutely obstinate from hell. Another way they do this is to define hell in terms of separation from God rather than as torment. Peter. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 27, 2014 21:57:12 GMT
So to you, there are 2 heavens or places for us after death. One for God and his followers and another for those who dislike a genocidal son murdering tyrant. As they see God of course. Right? I don't think you have understood me at all. I will try to explain more clearly. 1) The image of Gehenna in the New Testament was intended by Jesus and the NT writers to bring to mind the loss of innocent infants to the Molech sacrifice. It is an intensely sad image of destruction. 2) The NT writers probably had no idea that Gehenna would be read as a place of infinitely prolonged suffering. We have to make a special effort not to read this idea into the text. The great majority of Christian theologians and commentators throughout history have not known that the text was not meant to imply this. 3) The idea that the churches made up hell to scare people is false. The dominant tendency in the churches throughout history has been to try to soften a doctrine of hell that they believed they were stuck with because of the words of Jesus. One way they tried to soften it was to introduce a doctrine of purgatory to rescue all but the absolutely obstinate from hell. Another way they do this is to define hell in terms of separation from God rather than as torment. Peter. Furthermore, the word Jesus used to describe what happened in "hell" was "destruction", and the word "eternal" doesn't mean "everlasting" but "in the age to come". Put all that together and it supports most of what Peter says. The best understanding of Jesus' words, taken in the context of first century Judaism, and recognising we only have translations out of Aramaic into Greek, is that we all get the gift of this life, but for some that is the end, but for others there is life in the age to come. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 28, 2014 14:30:22 GMT
I don't think you have understood me at all. I will try to explain more clearly. 1) The image of Gehenna in the New Testament was intended by Jesus and the NT writers to bring to mind the loss of innocent infants to the Molech sacrifice. It is an intensely sad image of destruction. 2) The NT writers probably had no idea that Gehenna would be read as a place of infinitely prolonged suffering. We have to make a special effort not to read this idea into the text. The great majority of Christian theologians and commentators throughout history have not known that the text was not meant to imply this. 3) The idea that the churches made up hell to scare people is false. The dominant tendency in the churches throughout history has been to try to soften a doctrine of hell that they believed they were stuck with because of the words of Jesus. One way they tried to soften it was to introduce a doctrine of purgatory to rescue all but the absolutely obstinate from hell. Another way they do this is to define hell in terms of separation from God rather than as torment. Peter. Speculative nonsense that we can never prove. How many places are there for departed souls. You indicated 2.RegardsDL |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 28, 2014 14:33:31 GMT
I don't think you have understood me at all. I will try to explain more clearly. 1) The image of Gehenna in the New Testament was intended by Jesus and the NT writers to bring to mind the loss of innocent infants to the Molech sacrifice. It is an intensely sad image of destruction. 2) The NT writers probably had no idea that Gehenna would be read as a place of infinitely prolonged suffering. We have to make a special effort not to read this idea into the text. The great majority of Christian theologians and commentators throughout history have not known that the text was not meant to imply this. 3) The idea that the churches made up hell to scare people is false. The dominant tendency in the churches throughout history has been to try to soften a doctrine of hell that they believed they were stuck with because of the words of Jesus. One way they tried to soften it was to introduce a doctrine of purgatory to rescue all but the absolutely obstinate from hell. Another way they do this is to define hell in terms of separation from God rather than as torment. Peter. Furthermore, the word Jesus used to describe what happened in "hell" was "destruction", and the word "eternal" doesn't mean "everlasting" but "in the age to come". Put all that together and it supports most of what Peter says. The best understanding of Jesus' words, taken in the context of first century Judaism, and recognising we only have translations out of Aramaic into Greek, is that we all get the gift of this life, but for some that is the end, but for others there is life in the age to come.
What a game for your God to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering or death.
Then create beings whom he loves dearly and watches over.
And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss.
Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Aug 28, 2014 17:52:20 GMT
Speculative nonsense that we can never prove. How many places are there for departed souls. You indicated 2.RegardsDL You still don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. Figuring out what Jesus and the NT authors meant by Gehenna is a fairly straightforward problem of scholarship. One looks at the range of things that Jews of the time appeared to have taught about Gehenna and the Second Death and one looks carefully at the words of the NT. Jesus is not presented as teaching something new in this case. We know that theologians from the 2nd century onwards read the text through a lens of Greek philosophy, chiefly Platonism. We also know that this offends against the text - if you look at the way NT authors use psyche and pnuma you should notice that they do not use the words in a way compatible with Greek philosophical conceptions. Someone reading the text with the preconceived idea of the natural immortality of the soul will find it very difficult to avoid reading a doctrine of hell into the NT. The churches did not invent hell, they mixed their Christianity with Platonism and the doctrine seemed to appear in the text (and primarily in the words of Jesus) even if neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever put it there. Your claim that hell is "a lie created by the church" is demonstrably false. It is also demonstrably the case that the dominant tendency in Christian teaching about hell over the centuries has been to try to soften a doctrine that they believed that they are stuck with. I do not pretend to know any precise details about the "what happens after you die" question. My belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour, and even as God in the sense actually meant by orthodox trinitarianism, is not affected by the possibility that he may have been mistaken about some things. So I don't hold it an article of faith that King David wrote Psalm 110, even though Jesus plainly thought so and used the supposed fact in an argument. I do hold it as an article of faith that the true answer to the "what happens when you die" question will be better than any answer I can come up with. Peter. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 28, 2014 22:49:22 GMT
What a game for your God to play! Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then create beings whom he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible. There's always more than one way to look at things. You could look at it that way if you wished. Or you could look at it this way..... God creates a universe in which human beings live. They have the wonderful gift of life - with intelligence (allegedly!), ethics, beauty, love. There is evil and suffering as well, but statistics show that most people are overall happy. He even pays his creation the respect of allowing us to choose our destiny. Then he offers those who wish to respond the opportunity for life in the age to come. Those who don't want this get what they want and expect - this life and then .... nothing. (I've heard many atheists say they are quite happy with this.) So we all get a gift of life and choice, and God respects that. You can look at it your way, and I will look at it my way - which, as much as I can know, is the way of Jesus. You could even change your mind about it if you choose! |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Aug 29, 2014 0:59:28 GMT
Speculative nonsense that we can never prove. How many places are there for departed souls. You indicated 2.RegardsDL There are no places for departed souls; souls do not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 29, 2014 19:30:52 GMT
What a game for your God to play! Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then create beings whom he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible. There's always more than one way to look at things. You could look at it that way if you wished. Or you could look at it this way..... God creates a universe in which human beings live. They have the wonderful gift of life - with intelligence (allegedly!), ethics, beauty, love. There is evil and suffering as well, but statistics show that most people are overall happy. He even pays his creation the respect of allowing us to choose our destiny. Then he offers those who wish to respond the opportunity for life in the age to come. Those who don't want this get what they want and expect - this life and then .... nothing. (I've heard many atheists say they are quite happy with this.) So we all get a gift of life and choice, and God respects that. You can look at it your way, and I will look at it my way - which, as much as I can know, is the way of Jesus. You could even change your mind about it if you choose!
Strange that your God would create the atheists nature that cause then not to believe and when they are true to their God given natures, instead or reward, your God gives death.
And you want me to adore such an obvious prick. No thanks. I am not near that immoral. But you go ahead and adore that satanic God.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Aug 29, 2014 19:36:00 GMT
Speculative nonsense that we can never prove. How many places are there for departed souls. You indicated 2.RegardsDL There are no places for departed souls; souls do not exist. Not as spoken of in scriptures but my apotheosis makes it impossible for me to agree.
If you can have a small degree of belief in the findings of this researcher about a possible cosmic consciousness being a part or apart from us, then we can chat but if you cannot then there is no point.
Have a look and see if it is a possibility in your way of thinking. If so, good. If not, then have a good day.
vimeo.com/26318064
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Aug 29, 2014 22:38:51 GMT
There are no places for departed souls; souls do not exist. Not as spoken of in scriptures
You are still misunderstanding. "Soul" in english translations of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament means something like "living body", and living bodies most certainly exist. We are not well served by translations in this case. If every use of the word psuche in the New Testament were rendered as "soul" then the text would read rather strangely but it would help to show that the word soul in the Bible does not mean what you think it does. Peter. |
|
