All Atheist's End up In Hell

[stu]

I don't really understand what you mean, I'm lost here....

Any random, spontaneous or accidental event will be one of

So let me ask, why will a spontaneous or accidental event be a one off ?
There's no rule to say that must be so.
I don't see why an engineer such as yourself would presume such a thing.

Decay of a nucleus can reasonably be considered at least in general terms as random spontaneous events. This decay happens all the time for no reason.

These are random, spontaneous, uncaused causes, 'accidental' (not intelligent) events.

eg a monkey may create by accident a hammer, but monkey can't build a motorcar complete with service garages, roads, fuel bowsers, motor mechanics, paint shop, window glaziers, and water for the radiator. A synonym for life.

...but countless spontaneously occurring simple chemical reactions and interactions, sensitive to their environment and temperature, pressures and concentrations, couldn't "by accident" go from simple to complex by more simple steps accumulating to eventually produce and create biological living forms -when it's nothing but chemical processes which are observed as the one single thread responsible in every living form that enables it to exist. Really?

Should the universe and life in it need intelligence to create them because they're complex, then intelligence would by necessity have to be more complex than the universe itself, right?

Otherwise it might be suggesting that monkey could possibly build that motor car.

The 'design by intelligence' approach would always require more complex first cause intelligence to create a prior intelligence to eventually create a universe and life within.

It follows that to create first cause intelligence would still need even more complex intelligence.

If intelligence were what was needed to create a complex universe, there could be no first intelligence, no first cause, universe or life.

Spontaneous, random, accidental chaotic events, occur throughout the unverse. Personally I don't regard wondorous things like random, accidental, spontaneous as inferior explanations.
Just more likely than anything else

 

[Good1]

Let me ask you one question, Good1. Do you confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

Maybe you have an opinion about these five things?

Who is Jesus.

What is Christ.

What is flesh.

Came where.

From where.

If so, what is your opinion?

 

[themickey]

Spontaneous, random, accidental chaotic events, occur throughout the unverse. Personally I don't regard wondorous things like random, accidental, spontaneous as inferior explanations.
Just more likely than anything else

Scientists with superior inquisitiveness and tools may wish to ponder this, it's well beyond my scope. I don't rule out anything. If there is no God I win because I don't waste my time these days worshipping one. If there is a God I also win again because I don't see the need for a creature to prostrate themselves before a creator, I'm looked after.
All I concern myself with is self improvement via being a responsible human.
The ET christians, what I suspect, many are young people who are gullible and naive.
My experience as I grow older, as life becomes more competitive, there is a bigger divide between the haves and have nots.
Christianity is a large gathering of sheep, when anything gets large, popular, a fad, a fashion, usually its driven by emotions with a lack of reason. Think tulip mania, crypto mania, housing mania, Robinhood media mania..... etc. And it gets exploited by those at the top of the food chain.
Christianity mania is just another; bs faith, bs bible from God, bs healing, bs praying in tongues, bs prophesies, bs miracles, bs evangelicals, bs churches and denominations, bs rituals, ie baptism, communion, bs cultism.

So, we have what I believe are young people on ET going down this religion track, and I'm an old guy who has been down this bs religion track, so I attempt to show these one track minded bods, think outside your group think.
Christians are exploited.

There are big (hidden from public view) Jewish and christian lobby groups, christians are manipulated pawns in politics.

 

[Good1]

So let me ask, why will a spontaneous or accidental event be a one off ?
There's no rule to say that must be so.
I don't see why an engineer such as yourself would presume such a thing.

Decay of a nucleus can reasonably be considered at least in general terms as random spontaneous events. This decay happens all the time for no reason.

These are random, spontaneous, uncaused causes, 'accidental' (not intelligent) events.



...but countless spontaneously occurring simple chemical reactions and interactions, sensitive to their environment and temperature, pressures and concentrations, couldn't "by accident" go from simple to complex by more simple steps accumulating to eventually produce and create biological living forms -when it's nothing but chemical processes which are observed as the one single thread responsible in every living form that enables it to exist. Really?

Should the universe and life in it need intelligence to create them because they're complex, then intelligence would by necessity have to be more complex than the universe itself, right?

Otherwise it might be suggesting that monkey could possibly build that motor car.

The 'design by intelligence' approach would always require more complex first cause intelligence to create a prior intelligence to eventually create a universe and life within.

It follows that to create first cause intelligence would still need even more complex intelligence.

If intelligence were what was needed to create a complex universe, there could be no first intelligence, no first cause, universe or life.

Spontaneous, random, accidental chaotic events, occur throughout the unverse. Personally I don't regard wondorous things like random, accidental, spontaneous as inferior explanations.
Just more likely than anything else

This reminds me of a saying in the gospel of Thomas:

29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

Extrapolating further, if a body comes into being because of spontaneous accidents, that would be a marvel, of a marvel, of a marvel of marvels.

The saying suggests that the body is indeed a complex mechanism requiring some serious design. Logically, as you have said, whatever designs the body must be much more complex. So you are not going to find a spirit that is designed by a body, and likewise, you are not going to find a body that is designed by random accidents.

The human body is much more complex than a Tesla. It is a complex system. Anything at all goes wrong, we have to run to doctors. The whole system has to run simultaneous to stay "alive" so-to-speak. There is no random accident that is going to put together so many moving parts at the same time.

And it's more than just chemical. It's code, which tells complex chemicals what to do, when, how much, for how long, and where.

So it's not surprising that many a man concludes there must be a maker.

What they think about man's maker is where i disagree with them.

As impressive as the body is, it is child's play for a complex spiritual being, and to be frank, not very good work. It can only be considered perfect work in that it accomplishes exactly what it's design asks of it, to display contradictory conditions almost nearly simultaneously, and for each one to somehow qualify as unique and/or special if not plain different from anything else. In this regard, the body offers more than can be, or ever would be offered to any genuine Spirit (angels in a hierarchy are not genuine).

The most impressive work is the creation of one spiritual being by another, of equal status, ability, scope, intelligence, and power...something that bigots don't much think/care about, being so wrapped up in marveling about their bodies, trying to hold on to them as long as possible.

I'm not sure why you think this is an impossibility.

 

[Good1]

Let me ask you one question, Good1. Do you confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

Let me ask you a question. Do you confess that the Holy Spirit has come in the flesh?

Oh yah, have you answered the prior questions yet? Especially the one about: what, is, flesh?

Crickets...crickets...

The reason for the crickets is first of all, flesh is not what motivates you to ask questions like this. What motivates this question is the deep desire for personal validation as an existing being. Those of us who experience en-flesh-ment (incarnation) tend to use it as a yardstick to measure reality. Sort of a, if you can't see it, it must not be real, kind of attitude. Nor is this question motivated by any kind of caring for god, truth, Jesus, or Christ. The idea is that if you can claim that the Truth has become flesh, then you can make flesh become the truth. The crickets are because it's uncomfortable for our motives to be so obviously exposed. We only care about our human identities, our bodies, and how they might be saved. Strange, because we still don't know what flesh actually is. If our flesh is the truth, then we are in direct competition with Christ, which is the actual Truth. That's embarrassing unless you can think of some reason the Truth would want to become flesh.

For your information, i have been promoting what i call a 100% reciprocity relationship with Jesus. Meaning, whatever is true about Jesus, is also the truth about me and/or us. Conversely, whatever is false about Jesus, is also false about me/us. And this is primarily because of the underlying oneness that precedes the appearance of flesh, as well the oneness that post-cedes the appearance of flesh, all of which will eventually disappear.

Reciprocity is what allows for statements like, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do to me", and, "Love your neighbor as your self". This goes both ways. Jesus considered us his self, and expected to seen as such in reciprocity. Reciprocity is what motivates statements like, "I go now to my father, and your father". Here, he is literally saying we have the same father. If there is only one son, then we all must be that son.

So, if Jesus was born of a woman, so were we. Conversely, if he was not born of a woman, neither were we. If Adam was his father, then Adam is also our father. But, if Adam is not the father of Jesus, then Adam is also not our father. If Jesus descended from heaven, so-to-speak, then so did we. If he did not descend from heaven, the neither did we.

The emphasis here is sameness, equality, and/or oneness.

This oneness allows for us to predict our future, if we can predict his future. It allows us to understand our past, if we can understand his past. Most importantly, we can forecast our destiny, if we can forecast his.

Therefore, if he has risen from the dead, so have we, or, so will we. This is simply due to the 100% reciprocity principle. This principle helps clarify nebulous statements like, "If we have died with him, we shall also rise with him". What this comes down to is identity, and with whom/what you identify with. If you are fully identified with the truth about Jesus, then you are ready to experience the positive benefits that Jesus experienced.

Up till now, not one so-called Christian has identified with Jesus, having always treated him as other. Having him born of a virgin, for example, is to make him other...not the same as us. The motive for this treatment is simply to validate their own otherness, which translates to special status. Not one so-called Christian wants to be the same as anybody else, not even Jesus. "Like Jesus" is just virtue signaling. It is not an acceptance of a oneness relationship.

In giving Jesus special status, people give themselves special status, and by so doing, completely sabotage Jesus efforts to save them from themselves. Special status saves the status quo, that is, the current experience of hell. Here, in hell, we are all special. Indeed, hell is the only place we can have this experience. Special status is why we are tempted to stay, and not follow Jesus out of here.

Reciprocity is what allows Jesus to say things like, "The things i have done, you shall do also, and even greater things." So far, nobody has done greater things because no one has yet fully accepted the oneness relationship he has offered. I'm exaggerating a little for effect. His efforts have not been wasted. Some of us have indeed risen to his level of understanding, and even to his level of mastery over material conditions. But not all have sought any attention.

And still, crickets on what is flesh!

Well i've already explained what it is, which is what the warlock wrote to the Hebrews:

Flesh is the substance of faith. Or, if you like, faith is the substance of flesh. If that is true, then flesh is based on basically nothing but imagination. Flesh as such, is something that has been hoped for, wished for, and subsequently manifested into an appearance. In this way, flesh emerges from the same basic building blocks as everything else in a material world. If is brought out form the "unseen" into the "seen" (appearance) through the manifestation magic of faith.

But what is a material world? That is what i've been trying to explain. The simplest simplistic explanation is that it is hell. I call it this because i am not trying to glorify it like those who are trying to glorify the flesh, by insisting that flesh has been validated by the highest of the high gods.

All material is a mental aberration. Material, or the assembly of atoms and quarks into an orderly appearance, is an abnormal expression of the powers of mind. Material is an abuse of how mind is normally used to in conjunction with spirit. What was mind/spirit becomes mind-body-spirit through mental illness. The attempt to "balance" mind-body-spirit is an impossible task that is perpetuated by the cognitive dissonance of the mental illness.

As a product of faith, flesh is the manifestation of imagination, and only "appears" to that which believes in it. If you want to believe in it, fine. But you cannot believe in both flesh, and Christ, and stay sane. You have to choose one or the other, flesh or spirit, material or mind.

The main reason you want to choose is because one exists, and the other doesn't. Seeing things that don't exist threatens your sanity. As a rule of thumb, if you can see flesh, you can't see Christ, and visa versa: if you can see Christ, you cannot see flesh.

This effort to combine Christ and flesh is ancient, and primordial. It's not new under the sun.

Getting back to Jesus, he appeared in hell the same way we all appear in hell: we descend a psychic ladder leading down and away from Christ, which is Reality/Truth itSelf. If that is true for Jesus, then it is also true for us, we have followed some ideas and concepts to their logical, but fallacious conclusions. That is how we arrive "here", in the "flesh".

As such, Jesus would have been born of a woman, like us all. Indeed, he would have been born of several woman, over several incarnations, like us all.

Jesus is technically the first among us to be saved by the Holy Spirit, which represents Christ. Jesus responded positively to the messages of reciprocity and oneness, and eventually came to accept that his actual identity was Christ. His acceptance was so thorough that he became very influential and rather contagious. This contagiousness has been spreading ever since, but mainly underground. It has never been embraced by the mainstream, broad path people, to this date.

Gnosticism, the art of knowing, has been driven underground, and buried, by those clamoring majorities trodding off the narrow path.

This brings us back to Illini Trader's question to me. The question, emerging out of the gospel of John, is somewhat of a litmus test to find out who is supporting gnostic interpretations of Jesus, versus who is perpetuating flesh-centric, and thus, faith-centric interpretations of Jesus' messages. As the most potent threat to the faith-centric, flesh-centric interpreters, gnostic oriented interpreters were condemned quickly as heretics, early, and hard, and driven to near extinction.

To get more history on this, i might suggest this link to read, from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of Docetae.

Having read the whole thing, i agree that those interpreters who were labeled Docetae, did borrow from the earlier Gnostic interpreters. Here, i must clarify that i don't think either the Gnostics, nor the Docetae interpreters were absolutely clean in the narratives they proposed. As sketchy as they were, they remain better interpretations than the flesh-faith centric purveyors. So you can't say my narratives are the same as theirs. For one thing, i don't quibble about details like whether Jesus was born of a woman or not. Im just saying that lost in their emphasis on Jesus "appearance", is the fact that all flesh is an "appearance" that is not real, because it is based on faith.

You only "see" flesh because you believe in it.

If that is true, then the logical next question is, why do you believe in it?

 

[Illini Trader]

Let me ask you a question. Do you confess that the Holy Spirit has come in the flesh?

Oh yah, have you answered the prior questions yet? Especially the one about: what, is, flesh?

Crickets...crickets...

The reason for the crickets is first of all, flesh is not what motivates you to ask questions like this. What motivates this question is the deep desire for personal validation as an existing being. Those of us who experience en-flesh-ment (incarnation) tend to use it as a yardstick to measure reality. Sort of a, if you can't see it, it must not be real, kind of attitude. Nor is this question motivated by any kind of caring for god, truth, Jesus, or Christ. The idea is that if you can claim that the Truth has become flesh, then you can make flesh become the truth. The crickets are because it's uncomfortable for our motives to be so obviously exposed. We only care about our human identities, our bodies, and how they might be saved. Strange, because we still don't know what flesh actually is. If our flesh is the truth, then we are in direct competition with Christ, which is the actual Truth. That's embarrassing unless you can think of some reason the Truth would want to become flesh.

For your information, i have been promoting what i call a 100% reciprocity relationship with Jesus. Meaning, whatever is true about Jesus, is also the truth about me and/or us. Conversely, whatever is false about Jesus, is also false about me/us. And this is primarily because of the underlying oneness that precedes the appearance of flesh, as well the oneness that post-cedes the appearance of flesh, all of which will eventually disappear.

Reciprocity is what allows for statements like, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do to me", and, "Love your neighbor as your self". This goes both ways. Jesus considered us his self, and expected to seen as such in reciprocity. Reciprocity is what motivates statements like, "I go now to my father, and your father". Here, he is literally saying we have the same father. If there is only one son, then we all must be that son.

So, if Jesus was born of a woman, so were we. Conversely, if he was not born of a woman, neither were we. If Adam was his father, then Adam is also our father. But, if Adam is not the father of Jesus, then Adam is also not our father. If Jesus descended from heaven, so-to-speak, then so did we. If he did not descend from heaven, the neither did we.

The emphasis here is sameness, equality, and/or oneness.

This oneness allows for us to predict our future, if we can predict his future. It allows us to understand our past, if we can understand his past. Most importantly, we can forecast our destiny, if we can forecast his.

Therefore, if he has risen from the dead, so have we, or, so will we. This is simply due to the 100% reciprocity principle. This principle helps clarify nebulous statements like, "If we have died with him, we shall also rise with him". What this comes down to is identity, and with whom/what you identify with. If you are fully identified with the truth about Jesus, then you are ready to experience the positive benefits that Jesus experienced.

Up till now, not one so-called Christian has identified with Jesus, having always treated him as other. Having him born of a virgin, for example, is to make him other...not the same as us. The motive for this treatment is simply to validate their own otherness, which translates to special status. Not one so-called Christian wants to be the same as anybody else, not even Jesus. "Like Jesus" is just virtue signaling. It is not an acceptance of a oneness relationship.

In giving Jesus special status, people give themselves special status, and by so doing, completely sabotage Jesus efforts to save them from themselves. Special status saves the status quo, that is, the current experience of hell. Here, in hell, we are all special. Indeed, hell is the only place we can have this experience. Special status is why we are tempted to stay, and not follow Jesus out of here.

Reciprocity is what allows Jesus to say things like, "The things i have done, you shall do also, and even greater things." So far, nobody has done greater things because no one has yet fully accepted the oneness relationship he has offered. I'm exaggerating a little for effect. His efforts have not been wasted. Some of us have indeed risen to his level of understanding, and even to his level of mastery over material conditions. But not all have sought any attention.

And still, crickets on what is flesh!

Well i've already explained what it is, which is what the warlock wrote to the Hebrews:

Flesh is the substance of faith. Or, if you like, faith is the substance of flesh. If that is true, then flesh is based on basically nothing but imagination. Flesh as such, is something that has been hoped for, wished for, and subsequently manifested into an appearance. In this way, flesh emerges from the same basic building blocks as everything else in a material world. If is brought out form the "unseen" into the "seen" (appearance) through the manifestation magic of faith.

But what is a material world? That is what i've been trying to explain. The simplest simplistic explanation is that it is hell. I call it this because i am not trying to glorify it like those who are trying to glorify the flesh, by insisting that flesh has been validated by the highest of the high gods.

All material is a mental aberration. Material, or the assembly of atoms and quarks into an orderly appearance, is an abnormal expression of the powers of mind. Material is an abuse of how mind is normally used to in conjunction with spirit. What was mind/spirit becomes mind-body-spirit through mental illness. The attempt to "balance" mind-body-spirit is an impossible task that is perpetuated by the cognitive dissonance of the mental illness.

As a product of faith, flesh is the manifestation of imagination, and only "appears" to that which believes in it. If you want to believe in it, fine. But you cannot believe in both flesh, and Christ, and stay sane. You have to choose one or the other, flesh or spirit, material or mind.

The main reason you want to choose is because one exists, and the other doesn't. Seeing things that don't exist threatens your sanity. As a rule of thumb, if you can see flesh, you can't see Christ, and visa versa: if you can see Christ, you cannot see flesh.

This effort to combine Christ and flesh is ancient, and primordial. It's not new under the sun.

Getting back to Jesus, he appeared in hell the same way we all appear in hell: we descend a psychic ladder leading down and away from Christ, which is Reality/Truth itSelf. If that is true for Jesus, then it is also true for us, we have followed some ideas and concepts to their logical, but fallacious conclusions. That is how we arrive "here", in the "flesh".

As such, Jesus would have been born of a woman, like us all. Indeed, he would have been born of several woman, over several incarnations, like us all.

Jesus is technically the first among us to be saved by the Holy Spirit, which represents Christ. Jesus responded positively to the messages of reciprocity and oneness, and eventually came to accept that his actual identity was Christ. His acceptance was so thorough that he became very influential and rather contagious. This contagiousness has been spreading ever since, but mainly underground. It has never been embraced by the mainstream, broad path people, to this date.

Gnosticism, the art of knowing, has been driven underground, and buried, by those clamoring majorities trodding off the narrow path.

This brings us back to Illini Trader's question to me. The question, emerging out of the gospel of John, is somewhat of a litmus test to find out who is supporting gnostic interpretations of Jesus, versus who is perpetuating flesh-centric, and thus, faith-centric interpretations of Jesus' messages. As the most potent threat to the faith-centric, flesh-centric interpreters, gnostic oriented interpreters were condemned quickly as heretics, early, and hard, and driven to near extinction.

To get more history on this, i might suggest this link to read, from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of Docetae.

Having read the whole thing, i agree that those interpreters who were labeled Docetae, did borrow from the earlier Gnostic interpreters. Here, i must clarify that i don't think either the Gnostics, nor the Docetae interpreters were absolutely clean in the narratives they proposed. As sketchy as they were, they remain better interpretations than the flesh-faith centric purveyors. So you can't say my narratives are the same as theirs. For one thing, i don't quibble about details like whether Jesus was born of a woman or not. Im just saying that lost in their emphasis on Jesus "appearance", is the fact that all flesh is an "appearance" that is not real, because it is based on faith.

You only "see" flesh because you believe in it.

If that is true, then the logical next question is, why do you believe in it?

2Jo 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh .......

 

[Good1]

2Jo 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh .......

I've said, Jesus came in the flesh the same way we all come in the flesh.

Then i've revealed that flesh is based on faith, and only "appears" to those who believe in it.

Then i've revealed that if you believe in flesh, you can't see Christ, and visa versa.

Jesus believed in Christ. You haven't seen him since.

Finally, not many of us are revealing this.

But there are many who are equating flesh with the truth.

 

[Illini Trader]

I've said, Jesus came in the flesh the same way we all come in the flesh.

Then i've revealed that flesh is based on faith, and only "appears" to those who believe in it.

Then i've revealed that if you believe in flesh, you can't see Christ, and visa versa.

Jesus believed in Christ. You haven't seen him since.

Finally, not many of us are revealing this.

But there are many who are equating flesh with the truth.

You fail the test.

 

[Good1]

You fail the test.

I knew you wouldn't dare answer the same questions.

And i knew, from my wasted days in Rhema Bible Fellowship, what kind of test you make of it, and why. And it is used as a conversation stopper when you are overwhelmed.

You have no answers.

The question is vague. Darkness needs that to thrive.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Well, we can stop right there. Neither an engineer, nor anyone else, expects to create anything specific in an "unguided" process. If life arose spontaneously on Earth over 9 billion years it would not have been by an unguided process. The process would of course be constrained, i.e.,guided, by the natural laws so only certain outcomes are possible. Thus for example the formation of the chemical elements in the solar plasma is "guided" by the natural laws, only certain combinations are allowed by these laws, otherwise there could arise an infinite number of different elements. We know by observation this is not the case.

“only certain combinations are allowed by these laws, otherwise there could arise an infinite number of different elements”....true, but this has NOTHING to do with an information system.

The simplest information system would be like a computer which has both software and hardware. The hardware is useless without the software. The software is useless without the hardware. BOTH are extremely complex. One of the most complex parts of a cell is called ribosome. It has thousands of components put together in extremely complex arrangements. A ribosome is needed to convert genetic information into proteins.

Computer hardware has all kinds of different parts that do different things. When you put all of them together new properties emerge that cannot exist until all the required components are there.

The minimum cellular hardware to read genetic information has many parts which are extremely difficult to make and have to work together perfectly for the proper reading memory to emerge. The genetic information will define many different tasks which all need to be present in working form for a cell to emerge which is capable of copying itself.

Both cellular hardware and computer hardware must work at a useful level BEFORE the information can be used and tested. The level of complexity is EXTREMELY high. You can’t get that in small, random, increments. Having information in our DNA is useless without ALSO having the cellular hardware to use it.

The next problem is that the information has to define how to make all of the hardware parts, otherwise you can’t copy anything.

The information has to be complete enough to define how to make the hardware to read the information. All the cellular hardware is made by a cell, using the information. Until a completely functioning living cell exists, there is no way to make copies of required components.

How can natural selection choose which is potentially the best solution to a problem when ALL the alternatives fail?

The bottom line is that step by step evolutionary processes are not adequate to form living cells.

Thus for example the formation of the chemical elements in the solar plasma is "guided" by the natural laws, only certain combinations are allowed by these laws, otherwise there could arise an infinite number of different elements. We know by observation this is not the case. Absolutely no "creator" is required for the elements to form spontaneously in cooling solar plasma. And we find exactly the same elements wherever we look in our universe!. An unguided process would naturally produce different elements everywhere.

We can do this experiment or ourselves. We only find elements from the periodic table when we cool a plasma; none others. Why? Because the formation of these elements is guided by the natural laws.

You are seeing something because you already believe it. This is profoundly unscientific! You'll do better if you wait until you see something to believe it.

You are assuming the existence of solar and plasma without explaining that existence, as well as assuming that laws exist without explaining their existence.

The idea that such a large amount of energy existed in the universe as to cause the Big Bang breaks apart because this much energy in such a small space contradicts the scientific laws we have today. You are also making the assumption that God was not in the picture.


“Even if things go against science, as long as it supports my theory, it’s OK.”


"God doesn’t exist and evidence means nothing"….seems to be what you are saying.

Thanks for the discussion!