Why would God need a hell?

[Arthur Brain]

You are behaving like someone that is not very bright. Read the rules before you make too many more posts, and don't drop any more links to idiot theology book sites. This is a right wing Christian board. Universalism does not qualify--sorry.

There's one thing your should know about TOL--we call it like it is. Universalism is crap. Be ready to take a lot of flak.

Then let him take the 'flak'. Many people - including Christian's find the notion of eternal conscious torment to be not only crap but execrable as well as blinkered and ignorantly dogmatic.

 

[Sherman]

A lot of people are going to call your posts dimwitted because they are. Cherry picking is dim. You have to have a thick skin to survive on TOL. I got called a host of names when I was newbie on here. I would encourage you to read through several of the threads on here. There is a lot of banter. It is the nature of this forum. It is not for the thin skinned.

 

[Sherman]

Hi Sherman,

I addressed the issue honestly and seriously about proper moderating and the freedom of speech and allowances on this site. Also on what constitutes 'blasphemy', the criteria involved. If you'd like to read and address my actual post, you have that opportunity.

Also, I've brought up to Knight about posting links that are appropriate and related to the subject of any discussion, and such are allowed as long as they are not linking to another discussion group/forum or are pornographic or inappropriate. I've been sharing pertinent resource links for years here. I don't see a problem with it, as long as its not too excessive and properly on the subject-matter, since these extra resources may enhance, inform and enlighten the discussion. I recommend a change or redefining of this rule in the TOL rules list, since resource links have their place.

A large link is not appropriate. I read the link. Not the kind of thing we want to be sending members to. The rules are not going to change there.

 

[Mickiel]

Hi Sherman,

I addressed the issue honestly and seriously about proper moderating and the freedom of speech and allowances on this site. Also on what constitutes 'blasphemy', the criteria involved. If you'd like to read and address my actual post, you have that opportunity.

Also, I've brought up to Knight about posting links that are appropriate and related to the subject of any discussion, and such are allowed as long as they are not linking to another discussion group/forum or are pornographic or inappropriate. I've been sharing pertinent resource links for years here. I don't see a problem with it, as long as its not too excessive and properly on the subject-matter, since these extra resources may enhance, inform and enlighten the discussion. I recommend a change or redefining of this rule in the TOL rules list, since resource links have their place.

Freelight, I don't know how to respond to your emails to me here, I have not figured it out yet, I am not ignoring them. Listen, I have pressed hard on Christianity here, naturally they will press back. If they choose to do so with threats and name calling, its nothing we can do about that. I have seen Christians do this for years, its their way, some of them, not all of them.

Don't let it bother you, what we believe is itself blasphemy to them.

 

[Lon]

Ah, 'blasphemy' can apparently be subjectively assumed or defined beyond some some general assumption of it. How is it blasphemous?
Can referring to God as an "It" be blasphemous?

Yes! and I explained why Impersonal, disrespectful, He is never referred to as such in scripture. "Father" denotes "He." The rest you are thinking of are simile, and metaphor. Just because "He" shelters under the shadow of His wing, does not mean He is then a "She" either. To me, that blasphemy too, but up to Knight and the mods for that ruling.

While it seems to be de-personalizing 'God',....it may not be blasphemous in the context implied by the poster. There are aspects of 'God' that transcend 'personality', as 'God' is an infinite omnipresent 'being' or 'reality',...in this sense the poster is referring to aspects of God's nature that elude our ability to conceive or understand. In this sense,..."IT" or God as some great cosmic 'Is-ness' (a timeless, infinite energy, or spirit-presence, sustainer of all that is) is not necessarily 'blasphemous'.

Only in your borg infested universe. "It" should get you booted for a sabbatical from TOL. Think rather "Scripture." "It" is never used and is blasphemy.

Note that JosephR referred to 'God' as 'He/She/It', and I have done so in other places in the past, such referring to 'Deity' as that which includes all gender as well as transcending any human concept of 'gender' or 'personality'.

He was capitulating an ignorant reprimand. Sad that. Sadder that you came to the other's defense.

'God' surely includes all these facets, but transcends any definition we can give to Deity. On a more personal level I sometimes refer to 'God' as 'Father-Mother-God'...this is a more personal intimate title of course. But there are non-personal aspects to Deity as well, IMO.

:think: Put a "V" in that last sentence, because such shows lack of respect, love, devotion, worship, and attribution to God and is wrong. Whatever our 'thoughts' they should be carefully weighed before tossing them out there in offense. We address Him as Father, God, Abba. When you address Him as an "IT" it is indeed ban-worthy.

As far as contesting 'eternal hellfire' or ECT, I've done that elsewhere, because this is an open discussion forum, we are allowed to debate the points and propositions presented in a theological context, or philosophically as is my usual custom. Note my blog-post on ECT here, includes a post to you on ECT (see last comment), do I get banned for that? Did you read that?

It isn't because Knight agrees with you, that you haven't received infractions. It is rather because you 'try' not to break them, though you are an affront to Christianity. You also are not trolling the forum with only one issue on your mind. That doesn't mean some of your posts don't draw fairly close to rule infractions, often.

As to this portion of Mickiel's post,...is this blasphemous? We've been challenging the traditional concept of 'hell' thr-out the entire thread, which is its purpose, and elsewhere. What is being contested is the various conceptions and 'beliefs' about 'hell', and ECT (eternal conscious torment). On moral, philosophical grounds alone, as to the principles of justice and mercy....this concept of 'eternal punishment' can be questioned, hence our various points about it. I think its well within the scope of the thread to discuss or question concepts about 'hell'.

Well, I think you like advocating for New-Age mysticism and would be happy if your own forums generated 1/20th the traffic.

By what criteria or standards do you rule anything 'blasphemous' since any honest questioning of traditional beliefs or definitions seems to come near that 'fine line' of controversy, where one ventures into some zone of potential blasphemy, so how can we properly discuss a subject without going into the 'pro's and 'cons' of it? This micro-managing and over-lording of moderating maybe stifling and limiting discussion, rather than enhancing constructive criticisms and expanding of consciousness which is advantageous to all.

You missed "single-issue preaching." And "Link dropping." but the blasphemy charge is against "it."
He hasn't even but a verbal warning at this point.

 

[Mickiel]

A lot of people are going to call your posts dimwitted because they are. Cherry picking is dim. You have to have a thick skin to survive on TOL. I got called a host of names when I was newbie on here. I would encourage you to read through several of the threads on here. There is a lot of banter. It is the nature of this forum. It is not for the thin skinned.

Oh I can take the abuse, no problem with that, I just don't like being threatened with infantile things that are not blasphemy. Now you call me dimwitted, and imply that I am thin skinned because I don't " Like" your insults. You can't make wrong, into being right, just because you are doing it with impunity.

 

[Mickiel]

Then let him take the 'flak'. Many people - including Christian's find the notion of eternal conscious torment to be not only crap but execrable as well as blinkered and ignorantly dogmatic.

I certainly consider it crap. I think eternal conscious torment for humans is evil, ungodly and unnecessary. It would be like God holding an eternal grudge. I can take the flak, but I just like to show them their ways while I am taking it.

 

[Mickiel]

Hi Sherman,

I addressed the issue honestly and seriously about proper moderating and the freedom of speech and allowances on this site. Also on what constitutes 'blasphemy', the criteria involved. If you'd like to read and address my actual post, you have that opportunity.

Also, I've brought up to Knight about posting links that are appropriate and related to the subject of any discussion, and such are allowed as long as they are not linking to another discussion group/forum or are pornographic or inappropriate. I've been sharing pertinent resource links for years here. I don't see a problem with it, as long as its not too excessive and properly on the subject-matter, since these extra resources may enhance, inform and enlighten the discussion. I recommend a change or redefining of this rule in the TOL rules list, since resource links have their place.

After reading this, I find it interesting that they want to stop me from posting links on this subject. Limit me from doing it. Or take away one of my weapons. So interesting; I think I ruffled the feathers a bit more than I thought.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I certainly consider it crap. I think eternal conscious torment for humans is evil, ungodly and unnecessary. It would be like God holding an eternal grudge. I can take the flak, but I just like to show them their ways while I am taking it.

We see it differently

We think you are making God to be in cahoots with the devil, winking His eye at sin

 

[freelight]

points for your reflection..........

points for your reflection..........

Yes! and I explained why Impersonal, disrespectful, He is never referred to as such in scripture. "Father" denotes "He." The rest you are thinking of are simile, and metaphor. Just because "He" shelters under the shadow of His wing, does not mean He is then a "She" either. To me, that blasphemy too, but up to Knight and the mods for that ruling.

'God' can be many 'personalities' or 'things' to different people. I see nothing wrong with a person referring to God as 'He/She/It', since such a term is a more broad way of including both 'personal' and 'non-personal' aspects to 'Deity'. One can also dispense with such as well, if non-personalizing God is offensive,...nothing wrong with flexing a bit.

Only in your borg infested universe. "It" should get you booted for a sabbatical from TOL. Think rather "Scripture." "It" is never used and is blasphemy.

Your 'ad homenim' above is noted. I've held my ground here for many years, mind you. Don't forget, 'God' is infinite, that means your conceptualized beliefs or assumptons of 'God' do not/cannot comprise the totality of 'God'....ever. You don't have a monopoly on 'God'.

He was capitulating an ignorant reprimand. Sad that. Sadder that you came to the other's defense.

I stand on valid grounds, not your concept of 'sadness', which is subjective.

:think: Put a "V" in that last sentence, because such shows lack of respect, love, devotion, worship, and attribution to God and is wrong. Whatever our 'thoughts' they should be carefully weighed before tossing them out there in offense. We address Him as Father, God, Abba. When you address Him as an "IT" it is indeed ban-worthy.

'God' is both Father and Mother, in an intimate loving sense, and more. There are also aspects of 'God' that transcend any concept of personality, at least humany possible to comprehend. This is amply discussed in the UB's presentation on God the Father and 'personality' here. The UB's view of God the Father and that God is a divine personality is wonderful, plus it expounds on the non-personal aspects of God and creation as well. Did you forget that 'God' was infinite?

Well, I think you like advocating for New-Age mysticism and would be happy if your own forums generated 1/20th the traffic.

We'll overlook that slur.

You missed "single-issue preaching." And "Link dropping." but the blasphemy charge is against "it."
He hasn't even but a verbal warning at this point.

I discussed this in my address to Sherman earlier. There are aspects to 'God' or more properly 'Deity' that transcend knowledge, concept or definition, since Deity is truly INFINITE. - this means Deity is beyond conception, even 'personality'. 'Father' is great to call 'God' since we are his sons,...but some see 'God' as also a loving Mother (don't forget the divine femine), God is not limited to 'gender', but includes all genders. I would not generally call God 'It', but if there is a reference to God as the great infinite "IT" as an impersonal omnipresent spirit-energy-consciousness (which some schools and traditions hold),..I have no problem with that if understood in the proper context. There comes a point where you have to get over yourself (and its box of dogmatic assumptions or interpretations of something that is ultimately beyond defining).

The fact is, if 'God' is truly infinite, you cannot know 'God' in his fullness or totality, ever...unless you (your 'being' and 'consciousness') is one and the same as that infinite 'being' and 'consciousness', but this is another subject altogether, which we can explore on the subject of 'non-duality'.

 

[Mickiel]

We see it differently

We think you are making God to be in cahoots with the devil, winking His eye at sin

Listen, it is part of God's way to wink at sin, Acts 17:30, " At the times of this ignorance God winked at it." The bible just calls it forgiveness. In 2 Corinth. 5:19 God is in Christ, reconciling the whole world to himself, not counting their sins against them. I see it differently too. I see a God and a Christ who has removed the sins of humanity and that negates this Christian hell.

And its biblical. You know I am not making this up.

 

[Apple7]

After reading this, I find it interesting that they want to stop me from posting links on this subject. Limit me from doing it. Or take away one of my weapons. So interesting; I think I ruffled the feathers a bit more than I thought.

We deal with deniers like you all the time.

The only reason that people like you are allowed here in the first place is for educational purposes....so that we can observe the earmarks of false faiths...

 

[Mickiel]

We deal with deniers like you all the time.

The only reason that people like you are allowed here in the first place is for educational purposes....so that we can observe the earmarks of false faiths...

You have made an error in judgment, I have no faith. I am not in a church or religion, I do not hold to any particular doctrine, my personal faith is weak, and I only have a two year college education. And I have never, ever denied God or Christ, your true gripe with me is my denial of Christianity , that is what gets your goat. See because you hold Christianity so high, you think its wrong not to.

So when someone views your understanding as faulty, your pride is offended. And I understand that. The pride in Christianity is large.

 

[Lon]

'Your 'ad homenim' above is noted. I've held my ground here for many years, mind you. Don't forget, 'God' is infinite, that means your conceptualized beliefs or assumptons of 'God' do not/cannot comprise the totality of 'God'....ever. You don't have a monopoly on 'God'.

That was ad hominem??? The Borg are fictional beings that assimilate other cultures. You assimilate "all paths lead to God." It is fairly Baha'i, New Age, and Eastern Mysticism with Buddhism mixed in. I think it an apt descriptor. You can give me better handles than Borg. Someone gave you that moniker and it stuck in my head as appropriate.

We'll overlook that slur.

:Z You are against "New Age" as well?

I stand on valid grounds, not your concept of 'sadness', which is subjective.

Well, you think I used ad hominem and don't think you are the one subjective, so that would go with the territory I'd think. Joseph was being wrongfully-shamed into using "It." That's ban worthy, so I'm not lauding your validity of grounds, even despising it after a fashion as wrong-headed and/or wrong-hearted.

'God' can be many 'personalities' or 'things' to different people. I see nothing wrong with a person referring to God as 'He/She/It', since such a term is a more broad way of including both 'personal' and 'non-personal' aspects to 'Deity'. One can also dispense with such as well, if non-personalizing God is offensive,...nothing wrong with flexing a bit.

Well, in perspective, if you called my brother an "It," you might quickly realize respect wasn't granted in your comment, by your next state of condition. It is considered bad form and offensive.

'God' is both Father and Mother, in an intimate loving sense, and more. There are also aspects of 'God' that transcend any concept of personality, at least humany possible to comprehend. This is amply discussed in the UB's presentation on God the Father and 'personality' here. The UB's view of God the Father and that God is a divine personality is wonderful, plus it expounds on the non-personal aspects of God and creation as well. Did you forget that 'God' was infinite?

:nono: There is no scripture that says so. Before all the subject paraphrases, you'd have had a ban here for that too. It is blasphemy.

I discussed this in my address to Sherman earlier. There are aspects to 'God' or more properly 'Deity' that transcend knowledge, concept or definition, since Deity is truly INFINITE. - this means Deity is beyond conception, even 'personality'. 'Father' is great to call 'God' since we are his sons,...but some see 'God' as also a loving Mother (don't forget the divine femine), God is not limited to 'gender', but includes all genders. I would not generally call God 'It', but if there is a reference to God as the great infinite "IT" as an impersonal omnipresent spirit-energy-consciousness (which some schools and traditions hold),..I have no problem with that if understood in the proper context. There comes a point where you have to get over yourself (and its box of dogmatic assumptions or interpretations of something that is ultimately beyond defining).

God IS transcendent but never "It." lain:

The fact is, if 'God' is truly infinite, you cannot know 'God' in his fullness or totality, ever...unless you (your 'being' and 'consciousness') is one and the same as that infinite 'being' and 'consciousness', but this is another subject altogether, which we can explore on the subject of 'non-duality'.

All the more reason to avoid offense on finite proportions. He should dictate Himself to us, and not we dictate terms to Him. You reject a good deal of Scriptures, so it is pointless to argue over the matter, just that it crosses the "TOL" line.

 

[Apple7]

You have made an error in judgment, I have no faith. I am not in a church or religion, I do not hold to any particular doctrine, my personal faith is weak, and I only have a two year college education.

That would explain why you voted for Obama, twice.

And I have never, ever denied God or Christ, your true gripe with me is my denial of Christianity , that is what gets your goat. See because you hold Christianity so high, you think its wrong not to.

So when someone views your understanding as faulty, your pride is offended. And I understand that. The pride in Christianity is large.

You keep contradicting yourself.

You bash the Holy Bible...say you don't believe in it...that you have no faith...and yet you quote from the Holy Bible....and then you say that you don't deny God?

 

[Mickiel]

That would explain why you voted for Obama, twice.




You keep contradicting yourself.

You bash the Holy Bible...say you don't believe in it...that you have no faith...and yet you quote from the Holy Bible....and then you say that you don't deny God?

Again you resort to false accusations, show me anywhere in this thread that I said I don't believe in the bible , or that I have bashed the bible; show that. I already know that you cannot, its just your way to falsely accuse; you need to do it to strengthen your argument. And I don't even think you know this about yourself, because you do it with impunity. Like you have a license to do it.

 

[Lon]

Listen, it is part of God's way to wink at sin, Acts 17:30, " At the times of this ignorance God winked at it." The bible just calls it forgiveness. In 2 Corinth. 5:19 God is in Christ, reconciling the whole world to himself, not counting their sins against them. I see it differently too. I see a God and a Christ who has removed the sins of humanity and that negates this Christian hell.

And its biblical. You know I am not making this up.

You probably don't know the definition of what you are saying to know how bad this is (Blasphemy against God, again). "Winking" means to look the other way in approval as well as signifies 'flirtation.' God indeed is able to forgive, but that isn't 'winking' at sin.

 

[Apple7]

Again you resort to false accusations, show me anywhere in this thread that I said I don't believe in the bible , or that I have bashed the bible; show that. I already know that you cannot, its just your way to falsely accuse; you need to do it to strengthen your argument. And I don't even think you know this about yourself, because you do it with impunity. Like you have a license to do it.

Ignoring it won't make it any less true...

 

[Mickiel]

Ignoring it won't make it any less true...

See now your trying to push that I don't believe in the bible and that I bash it, it sounded good coming out of your mouth at the time, but you don't realize its false. I have used closing in on 200 scriptures in this thread ; and you stunningly accuse me of such rabble. Now others may let you get away with it, but your way does not work on me, its transparent and I see through it.

 

[Mickiel]

You probably don't know the definition of what you are saying to know how bad this is (Blasphemy against God, again). "Winking" means to look the other way in approval as well as signifies 'flirtation.' God indeed is able to forgive, but that isn't 'winking' at sin.

I know you have a need to accuse me of blasphemy , and that you will accuse me every chance you get, because you are intimidated, and I understand that. The bible clearly states that God winks at sin, it means he is not counting it against the sinner , he thus does not see it. He never approves of sin, you just threw that term" Approval" in there to help with your slander.

I gave the scripture that shows he winks at sin, and its nothing you can do about that, but try your slander.