Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

As of right now I would consider myself an Annihilationist in regards to my view of Hell. I'm not looking to try to push Annihilationism or get into a debate between the various views. I want to look more deeply into the issues around what Hell is with other minds and I would love to hear from those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, to the various reasons you believe it makes sense within Christianity. I'm looking to challenge my view and I was hoping you all could help me out.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 321 by William]

Please explain a GOD which is not conscious, has no consciousness.

I'm not sure why you are asking this of me. I don't think an unconscious God can exist.

Do you have any further reasons for me to consider in your belief that we can't have a definition of consciousness itself, but can only define consciousness in relation to a particular instantiation?

Do you have a clearer definition/description of what you mean by an 'enabler'? Especially in regard to what kinds of thing can enable (personal agents, impersonal forces, etc.)

Anything about the (lack of?) differentiation of God's consciousness and other abilities?

[William]

[Replying to post 324 by The Tanager]

In the exact same sense that my (and every other) theology does. The ideas of GOD that are different from your own are incorporated as being incorrect ideas.

Therein is one difference. It is not a matter of correct and incorrect so much as it is a matter of allowing for in terms of understanding.

This is why I can express along the lines that the biblical idea of GOD has identifiable human politics incorporated into it which act as additions which also skew the character of GOD as it suits the politics of humans.

When those additions are allowed to remain as if they were actually attributes of GOD, they act as devices of distortion, and thus false rendition is accomplished.

Because this happens, it is allowed for in terms of not being fully informed. A false rendition is in the same category as not being fully informed.

One might believe in those false renditions as true, but this in itself does not require the judgement of annihilation. This because there are far better, more mature ways in which to deal with that problem.

Also - as I have noted - there are things within the biblical idea of GOD which I can identify as non false renditions. These align with what I know of through relationship with the EE.

And your faith is believing we don't have to make the critical choice NOW, in this lifetime.

I see. But why would you regard this as faith, bearing in mind you are not trying to understand my theology through the lens of your own, having set aside your own in that regard.
I myself regard my understanding as being logic based.

Because I at least understand that you say my theology is wrong about GOD and yours is right.

I have said of your theology that it is immature. Thus you idea of GOD is immature. If you consider this then to mean that your idea of GOD is 'wrong', in what way does my own theology handle that?

You should know the answer to this question, for I have explained this in the course of our interactions here.

You absolutely think my view of us being separate consciousnesses from GOD-consciousness is wrong. Using another term doesn't hide that.

As I asked above,

"If you consider this then to mean that your idea of GOD is 'wrong', in what way does my own theology handle that?"

Your idea of GOD competes with various organized religion's views of ultimate reality. I don't understand why you think your view is exempt from this.

Okay. My understanding of competition is that there are winners and losers.
My theology in relation to views of 'ultimate reality' is that there are no losers. There is no thing to compete for. My theology does not compete with yours, or anyone else's.

For me at least, this discussion between us, isn't about competing.

One has to have a foundation in which to build upon, and that foundation for me, is the idea of First Source.

In understanding FS, one is more capable of seeing where likely human imagery has invaded the idea of GOD, putting that human spin on it. Mostly this can be seen to have everything to do with culture and politics and if one treats that as the chaff, one can remove it from the seed.

The seed is what is left over, as it were. One can then take what is left over from all the ideas of GOD religions espouse and find therein they fit together nicely within the idea of FS.

Of course if you start with one's view (First Source for you) and strip away from all religions all that is not one's view, then what will be left over is one's view. This is not a rational way to believe one's view is true.

Are you able to show me the falseness re First Source as the best foundation to build upon?
The Arbrahamic idea of GOD is different, how?

This is the same thing you fault organized religions for. They re-interpret the experience of others into their own pantheon of entities, which is exactly what you do. You don't have deceiving evil spirits, but you still have deception all the same. You think your view explains it correctly; their view does not and is false.

Bearing in mind that the central focus of our discussion has to do with the difference in our theologies to do with what happens in 'afterlife' (the next phase as I have been referring to it) is how EE deals with the problem of falseness.

To go further, you'll probably need to get specific on what you mean about everyone's prayers being answered. I was trying to approach the general point, but I'm sure we would disagree on some of the specifics that lead you to your general conclusion.

For now, this has less to do with the focus. I mentioned it to underline the adherents of the competing religions still receiving what they consider to being verification that their idea of GOD is the true one.

You were talking about theologies seeing their God as the true idea of God and other ideas of God as false. You believe the exact same thing. I don't think this kind of belief necessarily leads to being guarded and hostile. You were seemingly saying it does. If it does, then since you hold the same kind of belief, your theology would also be guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD.

I speak to how adherents of competing religions generally treat one another. My theology does not allow for that apparent 'need' to treat other theologies as threats to my own.
They see their ideas of GOD as distinctly different entities, whereas I see these as aspects of the EE, who does so to encourage humans to - at the very least - not dump the notions of GOD altogether, and in that - give opportunity for those adherents to examine their own theologies in terms of sorting chaff from wheat.

Self inflicted being the key here yes? It is not that those who believe in immature ideas of GOD are incapable of making the choice to investigate the idea of GOD my theology speaks of.

It is not as if those who believe the wrong idea of God are incapable of making the choice to investigate the idea of God my theology speaks of.

Why would I resort to a less mature theology? That is illogical.

I'm not sure why you said this. I said your view of reality involves deceiving views of GOD existing, just like these other theologies. I didn't say you believe in a hell.

Yes but you do appear to be ignoring the differences in my and your own theology on this. Yours gives a penalty in the form of annihilation, and mine does not. That is a significant difference, don't you agree?

It is not as if anything can threaten my idea of GOD or cause me to create political or cultural barriers because of perceived threats.

I would say the same thing about Christianity.

It is historically demonstrable that this statement is incorrect. If I were to accept your assertion I would be accepting chaff.

Some Christians have created those barriers.

Most Christians have. It is simple part of the theology they support.

But someone with your view could also do it.

How so? You don't say. You just make the claim.

The difference is those with your view have not had political or cultural power.

This would be because someone with my view would not be permitted to have political or cultural power unless my idea of GOD was able to be corrupted by such things. It isn't. Thus, this speaks volumes as to the nature of my theology in that regard.

Culture and politics are traditionally purveyors of disunity. My theology is not about disunity.

Nothing in my theology has GOD punishing (or annihilating) those who cling to immature ideas of GOD. What my theology does incorporate is that such choices inevitably lead to those making them being required to see them out, in the next phase, but not without the anomaly assisting them in eventually escaping that consequence of choice.

That has nothing to do with whether your theology is true or not, though.

All that individuals are able to do in relation to 'whether any theology is true or not' is in comparing them to one another and seeing which are more likely truer.
Logically, the more mature, the truer it is likely to be.

1. You don't embrace all theologies. You think they are false and need to be changed or shedded as immature. To say you embrace them all, as they are, is a "false sense of embracing." You seem to think your addition of eternity to get things right changes this, but it doesn't. The principle of correct vs. incorrect is still there.

Perhaps then the word 'embrace' is not the one to use then. I would have thought in my further explaining my use of this word you could have got the gist, but it doesn't matter as far as I can tell.
I think it is more semantics for that. If you think otherwise, you can continue to along that line of argument but for now I cannot see the relevance.

2. These other theologies don't prevent people from examining info from other sources. Your theology and mine both sees the information from other views as wrong/immature.

One would suppose then that the more mature is the better one to support.

3. You have doctrine, clearly. You believe it is true that we are not separate from GOD-consciousness. That is a doctrine.

Well I am open to changing that 'doctrine', if good reason to do so presents itself. Can you say the same re your theology?

4. So, if doctrine does prevent people from examining info from other sources, and since you have doctrine, then your view would prevent other theologies from examining info.

Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the doctrine itself? Are you saying that there is no doctrine which exists in Christianity which is not open to preventing people from examining data from other sources and where appropriate, including that in its overall theology?
In line with that, do you think there is doctrine which exists in Christianity which can be removed from being part of doctrine altogether based on the premise that it is most likely incorrect?

Our ideas of 'run-of-the-mill' Christians are obviously different.

Perhaps once you show for certain that your theology is not generically the same as most Christian beliefs, we can agree to what is and isn't 'run-of-the-mill' - otherwise I am happy to take your word for it, since it was you who complained that I was assuming your theology supported what most people think of as run-of-the-mill 'Christianity'. Else we can drop this.

I don't think God is a physical being, if you mean 'see' in that way.

Yes, that is what I mean. Our theologies agree in that regard.

Q: What do you expect your surroundings/environment to be like?

Q: What process do you expect to occur regarding those who are annihilated? Will there be any visible entities involved in the determining of that?

Your interpretation is completely foreign to any form of Christianity, if that was your question there.

Okay, so in that light - by your account anyway, my interpretation of the prodigal son story is a foreign one as far as every christian is concerned.

Is it so foreign to you that you cannot see the points I made?

What is your interpretation of the story? Perhaps by telling me that, it might help me understand your theology and why you believe in annihilation.

I never said you weren't free to interpret things however you wanted. My specific point here was that you had said you tried to use Biblical stories to help me understand your view because I was a Christian. My response back was that since your view of the Biblical stories completely reinterprets those stories in a non-Christian way, that this is not helpful in the way you seemed to think it was. It would be just as 'foreign' as using a Hindu story. That doesn't mean it can't be helpful, anyway.

Well was it helpful or not? Do you believe that interpretation of the bible can only be done - lets say 'properly' - if one is a Christian? Do all Christians interpret biblical stories the same way? Does something being 'foreign' to your way of thinking mean that it is therefore wrong? What tools are available to you in your theology in order to help you to understand the foreign?

Indeed, the idea of GOD consciousness imbuing all things is more Buddhist, but how is that a problem? How is something foreign a problem for Christians, or for you in particular?

If it is a problem at least we can possibly agree that no amount of effort on my part will enable you to understand my theology. You would literally have to place your own theology aside in order to allow for mine the chance of not being foreign to you.

My theology can embrace such as it has no conditions on others abilities or lack thereof.
If someone finds your theology foreign to them, and thus they live their lives unable to accept your theology, will they be annihilated?

My theology carries no such judgement with it as it understands that there is ample 'time' available to each individual to learn to understand the 'foreign'.

The father has hope that the future will see a change in that relationship, bringing the son back to truth.

As I have said often enough, there is no place anyone can be which is separate from GODs awareness, because GOD-consciousness is involved.
The parable uses a human father to relate in parable the idea of how humans are separate from GOD and return to GOD. This does not mean that GOD is reduced in awareness to that of a human, because the focus is on the reunion.

I do not think GOD has 'hope' - at least not in the way humans do. GOD believes in Itself and that all things initiated are done so with in mind that the result is as anticipated and in the case of my theology, that is win/win for all involved.

But anyway, I am able to accept that - as you say - it is 'foreign' to you and as such, I have no more ideas on how I can convey to you what it means by GOD consciousness being that which is divested into all of creation.

I'm having a relationship with my idea of GOD (i.e., it's in my mind, not something in reality).

Okay...you are saying that your idea of GOD is real in your mind, not in reality?

Or if you are saying that I still have a relationship with GOD, it's not the relationshihp I think I'm having, because I'm under an illusion in your view. So, you aren't embracing my theology. You are reinterpreting it to fit your view. And there's nothing wrong with that, unless we tell ourselves that we aren't doing that.

I did not say those things. I said that any relationship anyone has with their idea of GOD is better than no relationship whatsoever.

Please read what I said again;

If I am right, you are having a relationship with your idea of GOD and this will extend into the next phase and you will receive everything you expect, (whatever these might be) plus the anomalies. Bearing in mind that my theology makes the observation that any individual - regardless of their chosen religious belief - who are sincere and with good intention are encourage by the EE to at least continue along in some kind of relationship, even if that relationship is reduced to the believer accepting stories attributed to GOD which are untrue. That will be sorted later...
It is far more important some type of relationship between the individual and GOD is maintained here and now, than no relationship whatsoever.

You are having a relationship with your idea of GOD, that is, your own mind.

I am not sure what you are saying here. You mention that you are having a relationship with your idea of GOD 'in your mind'. You then say I am doing the same. In this, are you saying that everyone having a relationship with GOD does so 'in their mind'?
I can agree that this has something to do with relationship between GOD and the individual, but it is not all internal. The external is also involve in the relationship.

Or perhaps an entity that is deceiving you.

Ah yes. I mentioned that this was something which many organised religious incorporate into their theologies. In this way they can defend their own theologies from the perceived 'threat' of any other and thus create barriers.
Do you mention this in relation to my theology because it is part of your own?

Can you tell me who or what this entity is which is 'perhaps' deceiving me, and also why you might suppose this as being the case?

I think everyone will have enough information to see their false views are wrong and that those who choose the false will end up being annihilated.

Is this based upon your theology? Are you saying that everyone will - in their lifetime - have enough information to see their false views are wrong in relation to your own theology? In other words, are you saying that your theology is right and everyone should be able to see that?

What if the information is foreign to them and in that, there is no way for them to understand false views from true views?

Since my theology is foreign to you, how can you determine if it is true or false? You cannot.

Since my question was;

Also, would my being wrong about this amount to having to be exterminated?

and your answer was;

I think everyone will have enough information to see their false views are wrong and that those who choose the false will end up being annihilated.

...and one can assume that you are speaking from the position of your theology, if your theology was foreign to me and others, how can it be said that everyone will have enough information to see their false views are wrong and that those who choose the false will end up being annihilated?

That whole idea is most certainly foreign to me especially as my own theology requires no such beliefs, as to me, such theology is immature and illogical.

Can you explain wherein this aspect of your theology, is a true view, based upon this supposed information you and everyone else has access to? What makes your theology so obviously true that everyone should be able to see it that way?

In my theology, God allows the individual as much time as necessary. So, there's no advantage one way or the other here.

But you said that the necessary time is only one human lifetime on this planet. What about those who find your theology foreign? Or never heard about your theology? Or only heard about their theology? Does your GOD allow for more time and information extended in the next phase for them to understand what currently is foreign?

What tyrant allows for the individual to do what they will, all along knowing that the individual will eventually reintegrate, largely of their own accord? What tyrant offers nudges in the form of anomalies in which to encourage (or what you refer to as coerce) the individual to make more mature choices etc?

I obviously disagree with your assessment of your own view here...

So you feel free to say that my idea of GOD is tyrannical, even if I myself claim otherwise, because YOU disagree with my assessment of my OWN view!

and I won't revisit our talk on wills being free/of-their-own-accord or coerced.

You don't want to talk about how your theology which gives everyone only their lifetime to make the choice to accept or reject it and that this is not in any way a form of coercion, but my theology which allows for as much time as each individual requires to reintegrate and yet you claim that MY theology is coercion whereas yours is not?

Why are you unable to see the logical fault of such reasoning? Remember - it was YOU who brought the subject of coercion into this discussion by claiming my theology uses this as a method which works against the individuals will.

I have shown that this was an incorrect analysis of my theology. No force is involved with the anomaly against the individual. Reason, information, time, opportunity to reflect etc - these things are not devices of coercion.

Whereas, saying 'this life you are now living - this is your one opportunity to make the choice to accept this theology through faith in the belief that it is true, and be saved from annihilation... that IS indeed a form of coercion, plain and simple!

I don't look at 100% proof as the standard; I asked proof of you because you talk about being fully informed and fault things based on 'faith.'

Specifically...You claim your theology is not generic Christianity. I accepted that on your word but argued re the faith aspect and now also the coercion the faith employs.
Being fully informed lessens any requirement for faith. The more informed, the less faith is needed.
More mature theologies require less faith through the attainment of more information.

Any theology which requires 'deceptive entities' in order to question the legitimacy of information yet refrains from even looking at other data contrary to their own doctrine, is immature.

If one was to hand-wave away the idea that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness as being 'data from deceptive entities' simply as a means of defending their own theology (which apparently is not 'data from deceptive entities') then how is such behavior anything BUT immature?

If 'data from deceptive entities' is a real concern, then one must examine in great detail and find supporting evidence that this is indeed most likely the case, when one is exploring the details of theology - or indeed anything to do with human beliefs - political, social et al.

One must also of course take care to examine their own theologies for signs of possible 'data from deceptive entities', as par for the course.

Faith of course, can be used to prevent theists from examining their own theologies for signs of such things.

I think there are better reasons to believe God exists than there are that God does not exist. The same for God's eternity and justice.

So do I and I even said as much. Let me say it again, highlighting the applicable;

What proof is there that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just?

Rather it is this very notion [that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just] which carries over into the philosophical, allowing for the understanding my theology explores. It is a matter of finding more mature ideas related to the idea that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just which permit this ability to evolve in our understanding from the less mature to the more, in order to align the notions in a fashion which is unarguable. Watertight. Presents no contradictions etc.

So far I have encountered no one who has been able to point out contradictions, claim my theology is immature and point to these, or argue against my theology with logic.

You yourself have been unable to do so. I assume this is because it is too foreign for you to understand in any way in which you can do so. If you cannot understand something, how can you logically argue against it?

In all fairness and truth the reader can at least acknowledge that I have made every effort to share my theology and this is demonstrable in regard to my Members Notes, and so, undeniable.

Some will get it and some won't but there is no penalty involved in not getting it. Likewise there is no penalty involved in my theology at all, other than self inflicted penalty which a persons beliefs might engage them in, re the next phase, and even so, the penalty as it were, is not everlasting and assistance is available and given freely.

Obviously generic Christianity does not have the same on offer, nor does your own theology have such an offer. What makes your theology more fair-minded and just than mine? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

That this idea ['there is no particular hurry'] helps the rest of one's theology look more rational is not a good reason to believe the idea is true or more 'mature'. Whether your theology is watertight is still very much up in the air.

By all means, show the reader in your own words where this supposed 'appearance of being more rational' exists in my theology. Show where my theology is false and is less mature than your own.
Show where the holes in my theology are.

Unlike the prodigal son, who - despite dropping to a 'sub-human' state - eventually reintegrated.

Yes! Even then the son did not understand himself and self identified as someone LESS than he actually was. Less than the father saw him to be!

This aligns with my theology exactly...

The reintegration happens by the father's grace and mercy and the son accepting that undeserved gift that brings the son back to true humanity. This is done through Jesus' life, death and resurrection, according to Christianity. So, I don't see how this contradicts what I was saying (i.e., why you said "unlike...")

Not reintegration back to true humanity. Reintegration back into the understanding that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness. Such a state would be beneficial to humanity, but that would be a byproduct of the process and something which is not likely due to the large numbers of individuals who resist such a concept. Theists and atheists alike.

The odds are against that happening here on this planet which is specifically why my theology incorporates the continuation of the process into the next phase. It allows for theists and atheists alike to reintegrate and align themselves with that knowledge, each in their own time.

Which do you honestly prefer, as far as ideas of GOD go? One which allows for as much 'time' as necessary and provides the occasional anomaly in order to quietly nudge each individual towards reintegration, or one that places conditions of time limits and only allows for certain questionable human institutions to have the authority of medium within the context of that one human life in the physical universe time limit and then annihilates the failures?

The first.

Okay so you honestly prefer, as far as ideas of GOD go, the one which allows for as much 'time' as necessary and provides the occasional anomaly in order to quietly nudge each individual towards reintegration.

But I think that describes Christianity.

If that were true, you would not have a problem with my theology. Our interaction over the weeks tells me otherwise.

God gives everyone as much time as they need.

But wait.
Surely you understood my question was related to my theology as I explained it - that the time extends into the next phase?

God gives everyone as much time as they need.

When you state this, do you understand that this time also extends into the next phase? If not then we do not agree as our theologies do not align.

God continually tries to get our attention, nudging us.

Would GOD need to do this if one was already understanding the reintegration process and accepted it?

God doesn't just rely on the church, but does use it.

For many individuals the church is foreign and confusing and demonstrably unreliable as a trustworthy medium between GOD and the individual.

Some people misrepresent this body of Jesus, the church.

One could write books about that. Such as is the case, all the more reason why the next phase also has to justly include time for individuals to learn the truth. 2000 years - and counting - of misrepresentation does not bode well with ANY doctrine coming forth in the name of this 'body of Jesus, the church'. Sorting wheat from chaff is helpful in that regard. Necessary, in fact.
I could argue that Jesus says I am an aspect of GOD consciousness because his teaching also included such things as the parable of prodigal son, or the idea that we are 'sons of GOD' or the idea that religion has misrepresented GOD in that we are taught that we are separate consciousnesses from GOD consciousness, and you can (as you have) argue in return that this is foreign to Christian teaching.

I could then say that my theology is 'foreign to Christian teaching' because Christian teaching is has largely evolved from 2000 years of 'some people misrepresenting this body of Jesus, the church.' and to such a degree that demonstrably the Christian church is suspect to the degree that it is completely untrustworthy as any truthful ambassador to the truth of GOD.

Why would any true GOD thus annihilate me on account of my reasoning above?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is - 'No true GOD would." Plain and simple.

People have everything they need to make their choice. You have the will to make one choice or the other and you get what you want.

I don't know about the 'one way or another' option, and assume it has something to do with your theology? I have already chosen a much more mature and understanding idea of GOD who knows of the human complications and is wise and just regarding that.

My particular choice goes with me into the next phase. So does yours, and everyone else's.

[Soar]

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

I see hell as a big lie started buy mythology and grew though the dark ages of fear and ignorance. The word hell is a mistranslation of three Greek words and one Hebrew word. Why would God need to torture billions of loss people God created for eternity. Man is not an eternal being but has a beginning and the definition of eternal means without beginning or end.

God caused the fall of all mankind so if God caused it God is going to fix it.

[JJ50]

Only a psychopathic god would want to punish people, however bad they are, for all eternity. The idea of anyone going to hell for mere unbelief is crazy, especially as there is no evidence any god actually exists.

[Soar]

Only a psychopathic god would want to punish people, however bad they are, for all eternity. The idea of anyone going to hell for mere unbelief is crazy, especially as there is no evidence any god actually exists.

There is plenty of evidence God exist be it spiritually in the Bible or literally. But I like debating scripture because this is where it matters to the religious Christians. The word punish in the Greek the language the Bible was written means prune/chastised which surely shows its a correction not a torture.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 329 by Soar]

There is no evidence god exists, the Bible isn't evidence that is for sure.

[Soar]

[Replying to JJ50]

You are right the Bible is full of errors. But the Word of God which is in the Bible is amazing.

[JJ50]

[Replying to JJ50]

You are right the Bible is full of errors. But the Word of God which is in the Bible is amazing.

There is no evidence any god had an input where the writing of the documents, which make up that book, are concerned. It seems like a very human production, the god character is very unpleasant, probably a case of my god is bigger and more powerful than yours.

[Soar]

[Replying to JJ50]

You are right the Bible is full of errors. But the Word of God which is in the Bible is amazing.

There is no evidence any god had an input where the writing of the documents, which make up that book, are concerned. It seems like a very human production, the god character is very unpleasant, probably a case of my god is bigger and more powerful than yours.

To each there own. You are surely not the one who knows the Spiritual God of the Word of God. I BELIEVE most the following verse is addressing most Christian believes and it seems you are not even a believe.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

[marco]

I BELIEVE most the following verse is addressing most Christian believers and it seems you are not even a believer.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

So much for Paul's ideas. Many people who have rejected religion end up being very religious; others who demonstrated deep spirituality, become agnostic. Paul makes pronouncements from the top of his head, it would seem.


If there exist people who are, as Paul puts it, "incapable of knowing" then punishment for them would be absurd. Welcome to the forum! Best wishes.