For my Christians Friends

[I am...]

Quote from DerekD:

Problem with what you are thinking is that hell is not a punishment. Punishment implies the possibility of rehabilitation, i.e. something to be learned.

Jesus said it best. Hell is torment.

What's more, hell isn't forever. Inhabitants are said to get a reprieve for judgment day then are cast into the lake of fire forever. Out of the frying pan and into the fire type of scenario.

So your analogy about a parent in relation to a child fails to the core as you wouldn't burn you kid for being disobedient, forever and ever. In fact, you knowingly wouldn't harm your child past the point of teaching a lesson. Perhaps a spanking or harsh verbal condemnation. And you do this because you want your child to be a good citizen when they grow up. Moreover, because you love them.

Threat of hell is a poor carrot stick. A place no one has ever seen and come back to say, "don't go there!" is meaningless in so far as trying to demonstrate "God's love."

This world, this universe of consciousness, energy, form, mass, space and time...this is hell. It torments the Son of God and crucifies him over in a zillion different ways. It was "made" by the Son of God through question, judgement, belief, faith, perception, wishing, decision...all of which are not natural to the Kingdom where the Son is equal to his Father in everything except the Son did not create himself. Hell represents the Son's recreation of himself according to a thought system opposing the premises upon which the Kingdom is built, the laws upon which the Son was created.

Both hell and the Kingdom are in the mind of the Son, which is the source of all conflict because it divides the "house" of the mind against itself. The Kingdom does not attack hell, because God won't attack anything the Son believes in. But hell attacks the Kingdom...at least it believes it can. So the alt consciousness (ego) that makes this world has conjured up alien emotions such as guilt and fear for attack and expectation of retaliation. Hell builds itself on this premise, and maintains itself by same. It's denizens abide there voluntarily, confused and enticed by what it seems to offer. Our Father does not consider hellions to be guilty. This is a judgement the Son places unjustly upon himself, proceeding to exile himself to death and oblivion. It all seems very real indeed. But in fact, the only thing holding it together is belief in it's reality...belief in its possiblility.

Ultimately, hell is not possible, and not believable. But it takes a determined dedication to abandon hell forever. It takes understanding, willingness, and one last judgement in favor of Life. Because hell thrives on judgement, it dies upon the last judgement. So the "last judgement" is actually good news. Everyone who ever thought himself guilty will be declared innocent by all real parties concerned. This is the Atonement.

Frankly, the Father does not pay attention to hell. He did not make it, and condemns not. The Father does not know anything about hell because it is based on a thought system that is not understandable, therefore unable to be appreciated. Hell is a private fantasy in the mind of the Son which is done away with in cooperation with the Holy Spirit who was created to answer the Son's questions truthfully while hell seemed to confuse him and thereby trap him. Having the truth, the Son is set free when he is fully willing to accept it. The Holy Spirit is an equal because God only creates equals. It is the god-of-this-world which "creates" on the premise of inequality, differences, and "special" qualities. The Son is also a "Father" because he creates equals as he was created. It is only when the Son tries to be his own Father that hell emerges to show what that looks like.

In the Kingdom there are no more questions, no more judgements, no decisions, no choices, no differences, no sadness, no confusion, no wishing, no perception, no beliefs, no faith, no guilt, no fear.

Jesus

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from Yannis:



The theologian and the scientist have different "religious" beliefs: one trusts faith, intuition, scripture, spiritual understanding and feeling; the other one touts logic, objective evidence and the like. They are both "religious" in that they trust their point of view, but they also know that they cannot prove, or convince someone else of, their validity outside their own declaration of what is right and wrong.

Theologians of one faith use reason all of the time to debunk the claims made by other religions.

The dichotomy between faith and reason is a false one.

After all, if God created everything, then that includes reason. I don't get why people of faith disparage such a wonderful tool that has done so much to improve human suffering in the world.

Which event produced, in the long run, more good: the Reformation, or the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment, and it is not even close. No contest.

Of course, reason cannot solve every question, but it provides better, more reliable solutions than does faith.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from smilingsynic:

Theologians of one faith use reason all of the time to debunk the claims made by other religions.

The dichotomy between faith and reason is a false one.

After all, if God created everything, then that includes reason. I don't get why people of faith disparage such a wonderful tool that has done so much to improve human suffering in the world...

I said logic, not reason. Of course reason is common to both fields, but slow little logic, the "show me objectively [whatever that may mean] kind," is a limited tool that scientists use to go over everything in great detail. And, no-one is disparaging anything, not me. Every thinking faculty (faith, reason, logic, etc) are fine and ours to use in their own way.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from smilingsynic:

...Which event produced, in the long run, more good: the Reformation, or the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment, and it is not even close. No contest...

I am not sure what exactly you are referring to, but Enlightenment (theosis) is the goal of every religious person, certainly every Christian, the purpose of our lives. That's what we do in this life: getting enlightened.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Yannis:

...The theologian and the scientist have different "religious" beliefs: one trusts faith, intuition, scripture, spiritual understanding and feeling; the other one touts logic, objective evidence and the like. They are both "religious" in that they trust their point of view...

Next time, you're gravely ill or have a serious accident, perhaps you ought to go to a faith healer who trusts "faith, intuition, scripture spiritual understanding and feeling."

If I am not mistaken, no one has yet explained specifically why they believe in their God and not all of the other ones that have been worshipped throughout the ages. Had they consulted the scriptures of those other, unrelated religions in order to make an informed determination? Why one over the other, and especially the one that believes that none of the rest are valid? What is the Element X that gives their brand of religion validity over and above any other figment of imagination that drew a crowd?

I would imagine that most creationists, when faced with a crisis that only modern science can alleviate, suddenly deign to stoop to its ungainly level. And when their issue has been resolved, they promptly return to dissing science as a cult unto itself. However, had it not been for the dedicated men and women who deal in facts and evidence, the creationist would remain in dire circumstances.

The progress of man's understanding in all matters has been through his use of reason and logic. To suggest that science step aside while "faith" deals with the broader issues of understanding is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Next time, you're gravely ill or have a serious accident, perhaps you ought to go to a faith healer who trusts "faith, intuition, scripture spiritual understanding and feeling."...

That would be stupid, like going to a dermatologist when your tooth hurts

 

[suedeuno]

Quote from smilingsynic:

Theologians of one faith use reason all of the time to debunk the claims made by other religions.

The dichotomy between faith and reason is a false one.

After all, if God created everything, then that includes reason. I don't get why people of faith disparage such a wonderful tool that has done so much to improve human suffering in the world.

Which event produced, in the long run, more good: the Reformation, or the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment, and it is not even close. No contest.

Of course, reason cannot solve every question, but it provides better, more reliable solutions than does faith.

So, in reason, you deny that it takes faith to believe in a secular or natural world view. All world views require faith. I'm amazed that this continually needs to be said. The idea of reason alone is circular and therefore the statement is worthless. Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Yannis:

That would be stupid, like going to a dermatologist when your tooth hurts

You intentionally miss my point. Science in all disciplines relies on a certain standard of evidence in order to advance understanding. The "evidence" offered by creationists is laughable by comparison. If science had succumbed to a theist's standard of evidence, then there would be no dermatologists, and your barber would be your dentist.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from Thunderdog:

...If I am not mistaken, no one has yet explained specifically why they believe in their God and not all of the other ones that have been worshipped throughout the ages...

I was born an Orthodox Christian (my father was actually a priest) and that's where I am. I never disparaged any other religions or denominations because I just don't know enough, and, I understand that, had I been born in that religion or church, that's where I would have stayed.

The big difference is not between those who believe in Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, but between those who believe in eternal life and in the simple fact that what we do down here on Earth during our lifetime makes a difference to how we will exist to eternity.

It's more like religious people vs atheists who do not even accept a moral code. Now, of course, I wonder what would have happened to me if I had been born to atheist parents. So, maybe what I called "the moral code" is more important - that we can all recognize and live even against whatever our parents teach us.

 

[I am...]

Quote from suedeuno:

So, in reason, you deny that it takes faith to believe in a secular or natural world view. All world views require faith. I'm amazed that this continually needs to be said. The idea of reason alone is circular and therefore the statement is worthless. Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

This world, called "natural", is built on faith. Thus, it is a wishful fantasy. Out of nothingness emerges "something" by faith. So the universe of time, space and form is evidence of an ancient wish long forgotten, long denied and repressed. It appears to have made its inhabitants. But this is a reverse of cause and effect. It's inhabitants made it, and may now unmake it by placing faith in truth, instead of in what is not there. Illusion is not "natural" because ultimately it is not there. Thus, man's experience is a delusion of consciousness in which he sees what he wants to see based on wish, faith, and the magic of perception. So seeing is believing because in this world, what is seen was first believed. Thus, to see the truth, blessed are they who do not yet see but believe. For they shall see as perception delivers the "evidence" to conform to what the believer now wants and asks for.

Jesus