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]

Before returning to my critiques of your view, we need to talk about objective and subjective.

Subjective is the position of individual consciousness - the observer. The position of the interacting. The living. The one experiencing.

Objective is the thing. The object. That which can be experienced.

So we are using these words in different ways. I agree that I cannot experience an object as that object. I experience it as myself. I don't experience the shape of the earth as the earth. But I do experience an objective truth about the earth that we both have access to.

Let's simplify things and say the earth is round. That is a concept we both have. It is objective in the sense of being true independent of people's (including one's own) opinion or experience of the matter. We form that concept within our subjective minds, but it's the same concept. It's not a subjective concept; it's an objective concept held by both of our individual minds.

I also think you bringing the notion of 'perfection' into your argument hasn't helped your argument because what you regard as 'perfect' someone else may regard as 'imperfect' and thus there is contingency for disunity to arise and prevail.
Do you think disunity is perfect or imperfect?

Without objective meanings to words everything is a disunity. It is the objectivity of meanings to words that provides the only possibility for unity. Disunity can still come about, but it's not because of the terms, it's because people are imperfect in their knowledge.

[William]

[Replying to post 255 by The Tanager]

So we are using these words in different ways.

Depending upon the object and subject, yes - this is part of the problem.

I agree that I cannot experience an object as that object.

No. The best anyone could do is attempt honest hypotheses and be ready to adjust accordingly if there is a better honest hypotheses.

I experience it as myself.

My opinion is that we don't even really experience our SELF truthfully, let alone the objective.

I don't experience the shape of the earth as the earth. But I do experience an objective truth about the earth that we both have access to.

Even so, we cannot experience it subjectively, so any objective information about it cannot be said to be 'truth' in that sense. It can only be believed as truth, or not.

Let's simplify things and say the earth is round. That is a concept we both have. It is objective in the sense of being true independent of people's (including one's own) opinion or experience of the matter. We form that concept within our subjective minds, but it's the same concept. It's not a subjective concept; it's an objective concept held by both of our individual minds.

Lets break that down.

If it is a concept we both have, how did we both come about it? Especially if it is independent opinion - ours or anyone else's? What process did we go through in order to have this concept-which-isn't-opinion in which we both say the earth is round?

You say we form it in our individual minds, but it is not subjective. How is that possible when the mind is subjective?

Without objective meanings to words everything is a disunity. It is the objectivity of meanings to words that provides the only possibility for unity. Disunity can still come about, but it's not because of the terms, it's because people are imperfect in their knowledge.

One can observe something as an object because of subjectivity. Consciousness always operates in the experience of subjectivity.

In relation to such ideas as 'the earth is round', these are not altogether important and agreeing to that is here nor there in relation to our particular discussion.

You and I can agree precisely as to what 'perfect' might mean, but this would not mean either of us were correct. It is - in reality - simply a human concept which probably came about due to circumstances which are experienced as 'less that perfect' because we are able to imagine and wish for better circumstances.

Even so, who can say what the perfect circumstance to experiencing life on this planet would be? Whatever one says about that, can only be subjective.

In the same way, one can imagine (or be told about) an idea of GOD which is accepted as 'perfect' but this will not be the case for all individuals.

One common example is the idea that a perfect GOD would not allow for the possibility of evil, either directly or indirectly. So the idea of perfection, like the idea of free-will, becomes problematic.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 256 by William]

As far as to how we can share the same objective concept, I really don't want to get into that kind of debate right now. My point is that we can use terms that have an objective meaning. Sure, we might be wrong about what truly meets the terms we are applying to certain things, but we can only talk from our own beliefs. If our understanding of terms is actually subjectively true, then any conversation is meaningless because we would not be discussing the same concepts. Therefore, a response to my critiques that says "perfection" or limited free will or whatever is subjective" is just going to be useless.

If you agree that we are talking about objective concepts (yes, we can be wrong...precisely because there is an objective truth about the object being conversed about), then we can continue this discussion. If you don't, then we can't really have a discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 257 by The Tanager]

We can have a discussion, as we have been having a discussion. The terms pulled into the debate such as "all powerful, all knowing, perfect, free will, etc" were done so by you, and in that regard we have not being able to agree. My theology is not build upon these human concepts and associated human meanings, so it has become problematic when such terms are used to argue against my theology, as obviously your theology requires such concepts, which is also why I think these only help uphold less mature theologies, specifically to do with the thread OP subject.

I do think that the basic difference in our theologies is that you think my idea of GOD and GOD consciousness makes First Source directly responsible for evil existing, (which I have explained to you as to why I disagree) and your idea of GOD and separate consciousness makes that GOD indirectly responsible for evil existing.

I think both ideas make GOD indirectly responsible and that there is no need for these other attachments (perfection, free will) in relation to my theology but there obviously is in relation to the one you support.

It seems to me also, that there are three particular paths of Christian theology to do with GOD and afterlife.

1: That we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness and all are eventually saved and none are lost.

2: That we are separate from GOD consciousness, and some are saved while the rest are annihilated.

3: That we are separate from GOD consciousness, and some are saved while the rest are doomed to Eternal Conscious Torment.

In relation to perfect such paths are perfect for the individuals supporting them. Ideas of GOD are like that. 'Knowing them by their fruits' is the same as knowing them by the path they are on.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 258 by William]

Yes, I have pulled those terms in because I think they should play a role. You think they shouldn't. I think we should talk more directly about why they should or should not play a role. I know we have talked some about this and you have appeared frustrated at times in having to repeat yourself. I am sorry if the fault is my lack of comprehension, but then you are faced with a choice. To remind me of this every chance it comes up (which is quite annoying) or to be courteous and try to explain yourself in a different way or to just write me off and move on.

My first critique involved the idea of free will. So, we need to see if this term 'free will' plays any role in the rational analysis of our views. You think it questionable saying "will" should suffice. Why do you think that? Why should we just talk of a will instead of talking about whether that will is free or coerced?

[William]

[Replying to post 259 by The Tanager]

Yes, I have pulled those terms in because I think they should play a role. You think they shouldn't. I think we should talk more directly about why they should or should not play a role.

Okay - however, this might entail a separate thread specifically for this purpose.

I know we have talked some about this and you have appeared frustrated at times in having to repeat yourself.

Obviously my Members Notes are insufficient as a device to store data and to link that data for those who appear to be interested in understanding my position in relation to their own.

I am currently working on a post in my members notes in relation to this problem of comprehension in order to try and make it easier for others who appear interested to find the main points of my theology.

♦ Cross Reference - Clarifying My Theological Position

I am sorry if the fault is my lack of comprehension, but then you are faced with a choice. To remind me of this every chance it comes up (which is quite annoying) or to be courteous and try to explain yourself in a different way or to just write me off and move on.

It is not my intention to annoy you. It is my intention to provide the horse with water...but if the horse isn't wanting to drink, then it becomes problematic.

You appear to want to know, so I persevere because of this. You should note that throughout this interaction I have made efforts to explain my theology in other ways, and also provide diagrams which I think might help.

You appear to be someone with above average intelligence, so I am not thinking it is a case of your inability to comprehend.

An aspect of the problem is language and how it is used. My own understanding about this is something I learned many years ago through interacting with the Earth Entity and [her] insistence in my learning to understand [her] use of language, which was extremely frustrating at times, but within the perseverance I discovered exactly why it was necessary for me to have had to learn this, and how it ultimately benefited the connection between [her] and myself, by breaking down the barriers of my belief systems which had been cemented together by the ordinary use of language throughout my formative years.

I only mention this in passing as an example of the necessity of breaking down language barriers when 2 individual entities are attempting to get on the same page.

To further underline my position in relation to understanding how language is often used as a barrier against actually getting on the same page, I came across some data fairly soon after coming to a greater realization of this problem which the Earth Entity first made me aware of.

The excerpt below comes from something called 'WingMakers Philosophy'.

[center]Chamber 2
The Shifting Models of Existence[/center]

The consciousness of the Sovereign Integral is the destination that beckons the human instrument inward into the reality of First Source. In all the wanderings of the human consciousness from Source Reality, it has eliminated the compelling features of Source Reality through the application of the logical mind and the persistent belief in the language of limitation that flows from the external controls of the hierarchy.

Source Reality, hidden behind language, has gradually become “illuminated� by the prophets of your world, and has thus taken on the image of language rather than the expression of its compelling features. Language is the purveyor of limitation. It is the pawn of tyranny and entrapment. Virtually all entities within the time-space universe desire to preserve a dependence upon a hierarchy that stretches between the individual and the compelling features of Source Reality. It is the hierarchy that utilizes language as a form of structural limitation, though in relative terms, it can appear to be liberating and empowering.

Source Reality is the dwelling place of First Source, and it dances outside of the constructs of any language. It is complete within itself, and has a singular purpose of demonstrating the collective potential of all species within the Universe of Wholeness. It is the archetype of perfection. It is the standard bearer of each entity’s innate design and ultimate destiny. ITS essence is so far beyond conception that the human instrument’s tendency is to resort to the language of externals—and ultimately the hierarchy—to define Source Reality.

Now I don't expect you to understand everything in the above quote, but I think you are intelligent enough to get the gist of what is being conveyed regarding language, and what I am attempting to show you in relation to my position, theologically speaking.

My first critique involved the idea of free will. So, we need to see if this term 'free will' plays any role in the rational analysis of our views. You think it questionable saying "will" should suffice. Why do you think that? Why should we just talk of a will instead of talking about whether that will is free or coerced?

I am presently involved in examining this question in a thread I created for that purpose. I think it best that I answer your question in that thread.

So here is the link to my answer to you question.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 260 by William]

"The consciousness of the Sovereign Integral is the destination that beckons the human instrument inward into the reality of First Source."

Here the author is abusing the use of language by indulging in the production of "Word Salad". I wonder if the following site was used to generate some of the passage: http://wisdomofchopra.com/

Now I don't expect you to understand everything in the above quote, but I think you are intelligent enough to get the gist of what is being conveyed regarding language,...

Implying that a failure to understand correlates with some lack of intelligence. The statement, as well as the rest of the quoted passage, is nothing more than waffle. One shouldn't feel inferior for failing to understand it because it really doesn't say anything. In reality, the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

[William]

[Replying to post 261 by brunumb]

"Word Salad"

Anyone who has to resort to use of such expression as above, is saying that they do not care for the 'salad' - which is quite alright of itself but does not constitute evidence that what is being said is 'unable to be understood' because it 'doesn't say anything'.

What is 'waffle' to some is deep and meaningful to others, and your compulsion to have to be derogatory could do with an antidote of honest self reflection.

If the 'salad' of philosophical ideas are not your cup of tea, you would be better off rolling around the playground with your peers - May I suggest this site as a possible contender.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 262 by William]

You have indulged in a common tactic. First of all flatter your audience by telling them that they are intelligent. Then flood them with a load of jargon that is supposed to be deep and meaningful without offering any explanation. Finally, shift the burden onto them to understand with the implication that if they cannot, they are at fault.

The onus is actually on you to ensure that your quoted passage is understood. Saying "but I think you are intelligent enough to get the gist of what is being conveyed" is really not good enough.

I read the WingMakers Philosophy (https://tinyurl.com/y8deqra5). It contains all the elements of classic woo. I'll leave you to it.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 262 by William]

I have to ask, William, is your theology a movement or of your own creation? Did the Earth Entity tell you this? Or is it your discernation? The reason I ask is honest. I believe that God's breath resides with us all till it is recalled. So that part , I get. It really doesn't matter to me if your own or not, I have talked to God also. I just want your input .