Signs that this is hell: "There will be gnashing of teeth"

[fordewind]

Now you are getting into the mechanics of hell...what goes on behind the curtains.

But all this feeling out is still hell.

Hell is just the same picture as heaven.No real substance behind each of the two(them just pictures).But the real you is pure and absolute.Those pictures are for Good1 only, not for you(real you).

But i agree they seem real. And you have no choice what to watch, btw.All you can do for Good1 good is to stop bothering.

 

[Good1]

Hell is just the same picture as heaven.No real substance behind each of the two(them just pictures).But the real you is pure and absolute.Those pictures are for Good1 only, not for you(real you).

But i agree they seem real. And you have no choice what to watch, btw.All you can do for Good1 good is to stop bothering.

Let's hope that your analysis is closer to the truth, because the consequence of straying from the truth is a prolonged stay in hell, "where the dead never die" (not sure who said that). Stay long enough in hell, and it becomes a lake of fire.

 

[Slartibartfast]

An interesting thing about Christians.. ask them what the Jews believe happen when they die and you get from 99.9%, a total blank. You would think that understanding what Jesus was offering after death would involve some context of what they (or many, Judaism had factions) already believed at the time. Why was it an attractive upgrade.

When you understand the commonalities with Hinduism/Buddhism "where the dead never die" etc. has a proper context.

Of course it is all made up nonsense but it is an important part of anthropology.

 

[Good1]

An interesting thing about Christians.. ask them what the Jews believe happen when they die and you get from 99.9%, a total blank. You would think that understanding what Jesus was offering after death would involve some context of what they (or many, Judaism had factions) already believed at the time. Why was it an attractive upgrade.

When you understand the commonalities with Hinduism/Buddhism "where the dead never die" etc. has a proper context.

Of course it is all made up nonsense but it is an important part of anthropology.

"Where the dead never die", or "the living dead" does start to make sense in the context of reincarnation, a concept that was once a part of the Christian lexicon, but was abandoned in favor of a sect of Jews called the Pharisees, as (the "apostle") Paul, a died-in-the-wool Pharisee, influenced the doctrine of "The Way", and became the de-facto leader of an evolution of doctrine called "Christianity".

Now, without reincarnation, and with a Judeo-Pharisee doctrinal heritage, Christians, believing they are now "alive", await but one death, one "resurrection", a rewarding of the righteous, and a punishing of the wicked (in hell).

Had they understood Jesus' parables, they would realize they are currently considered "dead", even as they walk around, and constitute the oxymoronic "living dead" population of hell. As such, the status quo is what happens "after you die". But that all depends on who "you" are, as alluded to by fordewind above.

As i suggested in another thread, the status quo is what a "dead Christ" looks like.

A dead Christ looks like stars, planets, seas, trees, bees, and - drumroll please - people.

Deep thinkers are catching on to the idea that these circumstances are about as real as a movie that's been cast and "canned" (mounted on a reel). Even Christians admit that in this system of circumstances, the future is "already written", so-to-speak. Its the reason anyone is able to prophesy anything at all.

A "dead Christ" incarnates...and incarnates again...and is born again...and is reincarnated again...and...ad infinitum. In this context, "the dead never dies", so-to-speak.

All the while, the dead Christ is fragmenting, like a bomb that blows up, destroying itself.
As such, the galaxies, stars, planets and people are basically the shrapnel of a Christ destroyed by a "big bang".

What Christians call "the eucharist", or "the Lord's supper", is actually a parable of what i just described:
​

Take one loaf of bread,
break it up into pieces (destroy it),
and give it to all the people for their "life".
​

As such, people "live" because of a "dead Christ".

This is the status quo that i call hell.

Not understanding the parable, Christians continue to wish Christ dead, that they may live.

This seals their fate, and insures they will be "born again"...and again...and again.

Admittedly, Christians want to be reincarnated, according to the predominant Pharisee inspired theme, but only once, and forever.

 

[Good1]

More signs this is hell.

Hot war has been nearly ubiquitous throughout history. Though battle locations change, the hot war has been nearly continuous. While there may be a cold war between major nations, there are still hot war skirmishes between minor nations, or factions within nations.


Even more ubiquitous has been taxes. The relationship between war and taxes is revealed by the fact that certain taxes, in recent history, only came into being to pay for hot war. This includes the U.S. income tax.

Started to pay for hot wars, taxes have continued through cold wars, fragile detente, and relative "peace time". It could be argued that all tax is because of war, and the need to pay a central agency (a government) for the protection of an organized military from national aggressors. Similarly, on a more local level, taxes pay for "police" protection from local aggressors. Taxes continue, just in case there is another aggressor, another battle, another war.

Litigation is another form of warfare. If done right, it might help prevent hot wars. Theoretically, it protects against aggressors in commerce and social intercourse, wherever people must interact. It too is nearly ubiquitous, and taxes pay for a squadron of judges for each community. Here, the "gnashing of teeth" is most evident.

The common theme are aggressors. While aggressors are everywhere, war is everywhere, and taxes are everywhere, at all times.

Hell is a dangerous place.

 

[tomorton]

I never respond to anyone arrogant enough to issue a statement and then say "Discuss".

Your head's up your own arse.

 

[Good1]

I never respond to anyone arrogant enough to issue a statement and then say "Discuss".

Your head's up your own arse.

I issued a statement, not an insult.

There are only two modes of speech: statements, and questions.

For example, when Jim Ocosta asks a "question" at the White House in front of cameras, it's not a question, it's really a statement. Insults fall within the statement category. So whenever he can, Ocosta will frame an insult as a question.

There are two modes of statements:

1.) Those that come from knowledge
2.) Those that come from ignorance

There are two modes of questions:

A.) Those that come from ignorance
B.) Those that come from knowledge

If A. above, it's a true question. Unless it was a statement/insult framed as a question. If B. above, it could be the kind of question that a teacher asks (rhetorical question), or a prosecutor asks (a leading question).

My guess is that your insult is coming from ignorance. By saying so, i've made a statement, but i've tempered the statement with "my guess" so as not to mislead about what level of knowledge i have about it...and also to be polite, in order to have a discussion.

It's also possible you are coming from a Christian background, which generally takes a stance against knowledge, that is, the kind of knowledge described in the story of the genesis of the material worlds: the knowledge of god.

In their genesis story, there is a tree "of the knowledge of good and evil". It went on to condemn the knowledge of god (knowing what god knows) as the greatest sin mankind can make.

The alternative to knowing what god knows is faith.

The problem with faith is it abides squarely within the domain of ignorance. You either know, or you don't. It's binary that way.

Christians champion faith, as the be all, end all of their achievements, and expect to be paid (rewarded) for it. But faith does not function as currency in the domain of knowledge. There are no rewards for ignorance.

Faith is potentially the most arrogant form of ignorance, whenever it frames ignorance as knowledge.

For example, your insult, framed as a statement of knowledge, could easily have been a statement of faith based on ignorance.

The odiousness of religion comes from this phenomenon of making statements of faith (based on ignorance) framed as knowledge, yeah, the knowledge of god (knowing what god knows). This is also where the odiousness of CNN comes from.

There is a special place in hell for anyone this arrogant.

However, having arrived in hell, there's nothing keeping a mind from remaining ignorant, except a persistent arrogance.

Having humbled myself, i have arrived at a workable comprehension of hell: what its all about. A workable comprehension is as close to knowledge as a mind can come to the knowledge of hell.

To know hell, however, hell would have to exist and be understandable.

I am not saying it exists, nor am i saying it is understandable.

In hell, you can only "know" as much as is needed to ESCAPE.

So i am offering statements, coming from a place of knowledge, that can work toward escape.

I don't have any questions about hell, so if i ask any, they will be rhetorical questions, as a teacher would ask.

 

[tomorton]

I issued a statement, not an insult.

There are only two modes of speech: statements, and questions.

For example, when Jim Ocosta asks a "question" at the White House in front of cameras, it's not a question, it's really a statement. Insults fall within the statement category. So whenever he can, Ocosta will frame an insult as a question.

There are two modes of statements:

1.) Those that come from knowledge
2.) Those that come from ignorance

There are two modes of questions:

A.) Those that come from ignorance
B.) Those that come from knowledge

If A. above, it's a true question. Unless it was a statement/insult framed as a question. If B. above, it could be the kind of question that a teacher asks (rhetorical question), or a prosecutor asks (a leading question).

My guess is that your insult is coming from ignorance. By saying so, i've made a statement, but i've tempered the statement with "my guess" so as not to mislead about what level of knowledge i have about it...and also to be polite, in order to have a discussion.

It's also possible you are coming from a Christian background, which generally takes a stance against knowledge, that is, the kind of knowledge described in the story of the genesis of the material worlds: the knowledge of god.

In their genesis story, there is a tree "of the knowledge of good and evil". It went on to condemn the knowledge of god (knowing what god knows) as the greatest sin mankind can make.

The alternative to knowing what god knows is faith.

The problem with faith is it abides squarely within the domain of ignorance. You either know, or you don't. It's binary that way.

Christians champion faith, as the be all, end all of their achievements, and expect to be paid (rewarded) for it. But faith does not function as currency in the domain of knowledge. There are no rewards for ignorance.

Faith is potentially the most arrogant form of ignorance, whenever it frames ignorance as knowledge.

For example, your insult, framed as a statement of knowledge, could easily have been a statement of faith based on ignorance.

The odiousness of religion comes from this phenomenon of making statements of faith (based on ignorance) framed as knowledge, yeah, the knowledge of god (knowing what god knows). This is also where the odiousness of CNN comes from.

There is a special place in hell for anyone this arrogant.

However, having arrived in hell, there's nothing keeping a mind from remaining ignorant, except a persistent arrogance.

Having humbled myself, i have arrived at a workable comprehension of hell: what its all about. A workable comprehension is as close to knowledge as a mind can come to the knowledge of hell.

To know hell, however, hell would have to exist and be understandable.

I am not saying it exists, nor am i saying it is understandable.

In hell, you can only "know" as much as is needed to ESCAPE.

So i am offering statements, coming from a place of knowledge, that can work toward escape.

I don't have any questions about hell, so if i ask any, they will be rhetorical questions, as a teacher would ask.

I stand by what I said.

 

[Good1]

I stand by what I said.

My understanding is you offered an insult in response to an opening statement, extending an invitation to discuss.

I'll stand by my estimation that you are a Christian.

I have no questions for you.

 

[Good1]

Getting back to philosophy, the love of wisdom, i'll continue to explain what hell is, how the material world(s) came to be, and why the big bang was a symptom of the consciousness behind the concepts of hell.

We have already heard that a single consciousness is behind the advent of all material appearances. I agree with this, but i don't put a lot of faith in the legitimacy of this particular consciousness. I don't consider that consciousness to be bone fide, or representative of reality, or of a real mind.

This puts me in conflict with Christians, as we have seen already, one of which was quick to strike back with venom. And yet, i have a lot of respect for the work of Jesus, whose parables (the one's he actually offered, not made up by others) not one Christian understands. I will be explaining, gradually, exactly what motivates Christians to reject the leading example of Jesus, as well as reject a righteous interpretation of his parables.

This puts me more in alignment with Gnostics, whose very name derives from the concept of KNOWLEDGE as opposed to FAITH. The enmity between the seed of knowledge, and the seed of faith goes way back, before the formation of anything called "the earth", before anything called the "big bang" or a material "world".

These diametrically opposed concepts, knowledge and faith, and the conflict between them, precedes a kind of explosion (big bang) that would, if it could, destroy what came before it, namely, REALITY.

There is evidence that the resulting fragments of the explosion are still hot on the inside, just as you'd expect from shards of metal that fragment off of a bomb. The inside of the earth, for example, could be called a "lake of fire", with molten rock at its core, occasionally expressing itself through volcanoes. This makes man's domain dangerous, even without the addition of billions more men.

The consciousness behind the big bang is fragmenting (has fragmented) as it develops it's novel concepts (new world order). It's concepts, all of which oppose the reality that came before, drive the separations to their limits, in every way it can think of. So yes, i will admit it is thinking, and i will call it's results "intelligent design".

But what are it's designs? What designs does it have on you?

I'm here to suggest these designs are not exactly benevolent toward reality.

This would be a good time to re-iterate a maxim i put together a while ago:

Hell is where unlimited freedom meets unlimited ignorance.

I'm suggesting that the single consciousness that manifests material worlds, is expressing ignorance toward reality (ignoring reality), with unmitigated freedom.

People are the results of it's thoughts, made out of it's imagination, according to it's conceived notions about reality.

This consciousness comprises the entire domain of faith. It believes. Mankind, as it's children, also believe. By it's faith, it put the mountains in place, and by their faith, man climbs mountains, and sometimes moves them with bulldozers. The "substance" of the material worlds does not change: they are entirely held up by faith.

I find it helpful to expose the nefariousness of faith, and to discuss it's mechanics, in an effort to embrace it's opposite: knowledge.

Faith would destroy knowledge, and knowledge would destroy faith. In the domain of faith, there is no room (no quarter given) for knowledge. The consciousness in control of faith does not cross over to knowledge, as knowledge is really an all or nothing proposition. You either know all, or you know nothing.

The domain of faith has produced it's own, counterfeit version of knowledge. What passes for knowledge is the observation of persistent phenomenon. But it's chicken and egg, because the persistent phenomenon is produced by faith. Therefore, all so-called knowledge within the domain of faith, defaults back to faith. At best, one can "believe in" the persistent phenomenon, but no mind can ever really know it, or understand it. Indeed, the material worlds compel faith in it's apparent existence. If ever there was a "force" behind the material worlds, it is this compelling force to abide by faith.

So compelling is this force, that in the most popular story of the genesis of materials worlds (for those who believe in intelligent design), knowledge is anathematized, and mankind is psychologically constrained to abide within the limits of faith.

The limits of faith, as mentioned in the maxim above, is, for all practicable purposes, unlimited. Faith reaches as far as the imagination can stretch. The problem is, it is not driven by knowledge, rather, but by what it wishes were true. Wishes are driven by the ignorance of reality.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is hell.