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 303 by William]

I thought we had agreed to leave the word 'free', tagged onto the front of 'will', out of the argument.

My theology does not exclude personal individual will from being able to be expressed.

In being aspects of GOD-consciousness, we are not devoid of having that ability.

I did lapse into the traditional language. Sorry for that. I think this is ultimately tied to the relationship you see between GOD and aspects of GOD that still seems incoherent to me. I'm trying to get at that through your definition of consciousness.

What you are asking for then, is simply something which has been argued about for eons, with no conclusive answer forthcoming.

Generally there are two major thoughts on this. One is that consciousness derives from the brain and amounts to chemical interactions.

The other is that it is quintessential - not a 'thing' but specifically GOD. It is that which creates form and experiences form.

My theology (see my Members Notes) goes into this idea in far more detail, but suffice to say I have mentioned this a great deal in discussion with you in this thread, as the reader can observe.

I'm not asking about the source of consciousness. I'm asking for a definition of the term. What are its principal features? Usually people mean some sense of a unified internal subject of their sensations, emotions, thought, volitions, actions. And beings that are aware that they are aware are said to be self-conscious.

You have talked about what you think the source of consciousness is (GOD) and what consciousness does (creates and experiences form) and what follows if that is true, but you have not clearly defined the term.

I would propose the definition above. Consciousness is a sense of being a unified internal subject of particular sensations, emotions, thoughts, volitions, actions that may or may not include self-awareness. The definition doesn't use the word 'consciousness' and so it is a helpful definition. Would you change anything about that definition? The other questions you have been answering in great detail are later steps in this process, but we shouldn't skip over this step.

Indeed. This is the same with all such things, On cannot be told what love is. One has to experience being what love is. The same is the case for consciousness...as love is an expression of consciousness. The individual has the will to determine WHO they are (how they self identify.)

One can be told what the definition of love is, so that people understand each other when using terms to talk about concepts. That is the kind of thing we are talking about. Some may define love as "strong affection for one another" or "an attraction based on sexual desire" or "a score of zero in the game of tennis" or "a choice to put others first", etc. None of those have the word "love" in the definition.

What is your definition of consciousness, if it is different than above? Do not use the word "consciousness" in the definition. Do not say "the reader can see my definition in all of my responses" because this reader cannot. You haven't defined the term, you've answered other kinds of questions surrounding consciousness.

[William]

[Replying to post 305 by The Tanager]

I did lapse into the traditional language. Sorry for that. I think this is ultimately tied to the relationship you see between GOD and aspects of GOD that still seems incoherent to me. I'm trying to get at that through your definition of consciousness.

Quite alright.

Perhaps think of it in terms of our bodies being the dwelling of GOD.

How can this be then, if we are all apparently separate individuals bodies? How can GOD dwell within each and every one of us if that is the case?

My theology explains how this can be.

I'm not asking about the source of consciousness. I'm asking for a definition of the term.

Yes and as explained, there is no conclusive definition available in that regard. You have defined it [human consciousness] as separate from GOD consciousness and I have defined it as not separate.

Those are the definitions we are using which also determine the differences in our theologies.

In my theology the "source" of consciousness is no different than consciousness diversified into forms.

What are its principal features?

As I have said already, the ability to acknowledge existence of itself is its principle feature.

Usually people mean some sense of a unified internal subject of their sensations, emotions, thought, volitions, actions. And beings that are aware that they are aware are said to be self-conscious.

Imagine consciousness without the framework of form. It is neither internal or external. It simply is, that it is. In that position consciousness can still be aware of itself - be self conscious - aware of it's own existence. It need not require the shape of form in order cause a reflection which then allows it to be self conscious/self aware. It need not require sensations, emotions and actions. Thought itself would be different than how we - in form - experience it. No language and no images.

From that position it would seem natural enough a conscious being would get creative, which my theology also covers.

You have talked about what you think the source of consciousness is (GOD) and what consciousness does (creates and experiences form) and what follows if that is true, but you have not clearly defined the term.

I would propose the definition above. Consciousness is a sense of being a unified internal subject of particular sensations, emotions, thoughts, volitions, actions that may or may not include self-awareness. The definition doesn't use the word 'consciousness' and so it is a helpful definition. Would you change anything about that definition? The other questions you have been answering in great detail are later steps in this process, but we shouldn't skip over this step.

What I have been saying re my theology is NOT that GOD is the source of consciousness, but rather that GOD IS consciousness. Think of that as the default setting of consciousness.

If you want a definition of consciousness from that position, you require a definition of GOD.

That would be difficult to accomplish given our position, I think you can agree?

But anyway, given what I have answered already in this post, the definition you offer would be tweaked along these lines...

Consciousness (in default setting) is a sense of being unified in the particular sensation of self. A unified wholeness devoid of any separation. Any sensation would be part of the overall Attribute of Consciousness unless the sensation could not be created without the necessity of internal/external interactions. Such interactions require form.

In that, this is GOD consciousness as the unified wholeness before the advent of things (form) and divestment of aspects of GOD consciousness into any containment of form.

One can be told what the definition of love is, so that people understand each other when using terms to talk about concepts.

No matter how often one may be told, unless one becomes Love, one cannot know what love is. One can get the gist of it, enough even to interact with one another regarding the subject - but having that knowledge does not mean one KNOWS.

Think of it in terms of having empathy. It is not in the telling but in the experiencing.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 306 by William]

Yes and as explained, there is no conclusive definition available in that regard. You have defined it [human consciousness] as separate from GOD consciousness and I have defined it as not separate.

I have not defined consciousness as separate from GOD consciousness. My definition leaves whether we are separate from GOD consciousness or not an open question. Definitions should not be question begging.

As I have said already, the ability to acknowledge existence of itself is its principle feature.

This could be one's definition of consciousness, but I don't think that is what you really mean by the term. When you say GOD is consciousness, you don't mean GOD is an "ability to acknowledge existence of one's self." GOD isn't an ability in your theology, like having the ability to hit a baseball. You see GOD as an entity, right? GOD has the ability to acknowledge its existence because it is conscious.

What I have been saying re my theology is NOT that GOD is the source of consciousness, but rather that GOD IS consciousness. Think of that as the default setting of consciousness.

If you want a definition of consciousness from that position, you require a definition of GOD.

That would be difficult to accomplish given our position, I think you can agree?

I don't agree. Definitions (of concepts) don't have to be accepted as true to be understood. We are talking about what concept you mean when you use a specific term. We can accomplish what definitions we use with our terms. If we can't, then we have a problem. There would be no way to tell if our own view was coherent or not if we don't even know the meaning of the terms we bandy about.

If you are defining consciousness as GOD, then what does it mean to say William is a consciousness? William is GOD? But you think William is an aspect of GOD not GOD as a unified whole, right? There is a distinction there, so the definition of consciousness you are using in your own theology cannot be "GOD". GOD is an entity to you, right? GOD isn't just an ability entities have to be aware or the collection of all such exercising of that ability, right?

Consciousness (in default setting) is a sense of being unified in the particular sensation of self. A unified wholeness devoid of any separation. Any sensation would be part of the overall Attribute of Consciousness unless the sensation could not be created without the necessity of internal/external interactions. Such interactions require form.

In that, this is GOD consciousness as the unified wholeness before the advent of things (form) and divestment of aspects of GOD consciousness into any containment of form.

Here you still are not giving us a definition of consciousness, I don't think. You are telling us what a consciousness is aware of. Consciousness is aware of being a unified wholeness without any separation before the advent of form and has a different awareness after the advent of form. We still don't know what concept you are talking about when you say "consciousness is...".

I would also draw your attention to post 304 if you did not see it previously. I put the "replying to post 303 by William" with post 305 because I was going to post that one first, but changed my mind and forgot to put that notification with post 304 instead.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager]

To say that I'm avoiding answering the questions and making a ploy is very disrespectful and out of touch with the reality. I've been very open and patient in this thread with you.

Okay sorry about that but I think at least we can coordinate in this laser focus on the initial difference in our theologies - my frustration is with having to continually go over the same points in order to satisfy your wants re me explaining my own theology only to find that you are not satisfied with those explanations. It appeared to be a kind of ploy on your part - especially when I introduce biblical stories which I gather you will be familiar with and aligned those with my theology, but you choose to ignore those.

So, you are saying that your view of GOD is more mature because GOD gives us more time to sort things out? If my view of God gives us enough time to sort things out, then it can't be less mature than your view.

If you recall, I was commenting on the evolution of theology and that the idea a human lifetime being enough time to make an informed decision is immature as we are not fully informed, and your theology requires faith-based decisions which are questionable and therefore require probing.

As far as 'time' goes, it is not as relevant as we think because death is simply leaving one phase and entering into another in which death no longer happens - thus time is not that relevant - if at all. The idea is to allow for the individual to accomplish whatever is necessary for them to fully reintegrate whilst maintaining their individuality.

Why would that not be a far more mature and just process?

I'm not sure what you mean here. What organized religious mediums does my theology say God gives them instructions through?

Sorry - I assumed based upon lack of information and thinking you were a follower of the bible and perhaps a member of one of the sects of Christendom. Feel free to inform me otherwise.

What do you mean by "faith-based" or "faith"?

If you are suggesting that there is no faith involved in your beliefs, please say so. Otherwise i do not understand why you have asked this question.

I think we have enough information to make the ultimate choice before us.

I think this is a fundamental pointer to what can be seen as coercion. An ultimate choice which has to be made before one dies to this physical experience in this universe.

I think we have enough evidence that God exists, that God created us, that God cares about our actions, that we are incapable of figuring out everything on our own which points us to needing to seek a relationship with God and rely on God,...

You would have to explain what evidence you are speaking about - also what is it you are relying on GOD for? (is it something to do with faith?).

I think you will find that not everyone has the opportunities you had or the willingness to accept things simply through faith.
My theology accepts this as part and parcel of an individuals journey and that GOD knows each individual better than they know themselves and understands there is no race against time or the coercive pressure time demands of the individual.

God has revealed Himself through the Person of Jesus. We make the choice whether to seek out and rely on God or do it on our own.

As you should be aware, I do not rely solely upon an organised religions doctrines to satisfy my curiosity regarding ideas of GOD and that I understand the story of Jesus is more the invention of Roman Elitists than anything actually inspired by GOD.

Certainly I 'cherry pick' what words are attributed to having been spoken by whoever the person was who started that movement, rather than simply accept everything written in the story as truth.

I have no doubts GOD appreciates that I do so. Indeed, overall it has assisted my relationship with GOD.

There is no coercion in what I just offered above. Where do you see coercion in my theology?

I have mentioned that already, If you are unwilling to agree with me on that point, so be it.

People are free both to disbelieve the earlier steps as well as to reject seeking and relying on God to sort things out with.

And what is the penalty related to that? What penalty does your theology speak of for those who use their freedom to reject your theology?

I didn't follow you here. You were talking about love needing to be experienced, as well as consciousness, and the individual having the will to determine who they are. My theology has all of this. My Biblical theology is very experiential.

It fails in that it separates GOD-consciousness from all other consciousnesses. It is an unnecessary theology which has demonstrable added to the problems of the world.
I have mentioned many examples re this, often enough not to have to add more at this point.

Your claim that your biblical theology has all of the above mentioned elements requires more than a simple statement. From my own understanding, Christendom has been far more the bane than the boon of human progression and it is designed to express the tendency of blaming others not accepting it as 'the truth' as the reason for that being the case.

Traditionally it has never been something which is willingly capable of removing the blind-spot from its own eyes before attempting to do so with those it wishes to attract.

Which of course, is simply another example of immaturity and the immaturity is sourced in the idea of their GOD. The idea is molded into an image that suits those who like that kind of thing.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 308 by William]

Okay sorry about that but I think at least we can coordinate in this laser focus on the initial difference in our theologies - my frustration is with having to continually go over the same points in order to satisfy your wants re me explaining my own theology only to find that you are not satisfied with those explanations. It appeared to be a kind of ploy on your part - especially when I introduce biblical stories which I gather you will be familiar with and aligned those with my theology, but you choose to ignore those.

You have to keep going over it because you have an unusual theology. It's not straightforward. You talk of us not being separate from GOD, but still being individuals and all of that. You use different terms (in non-traditional ways) to try to distinguish this, but it's not clear exactly what concepts you are portraying by those terms and whether they really cohere with each other. You think it's clear, but I bet you get this frustration with a lot of people on these boards, if it goes beyond surface understandings. That's because it's not as clear as you think it is.

And your use of biblical stories (which I haven't ignored) doesn't help at all because you totally re-interpret those stories. It's not the names that help someone understand something, it's the content the stories try to get across and your content for those stories is completely foreign to Christianity.

If you recall, I was commenting on the evolution of theology and that the idea a human lifetime being enough time to make an informed decision is immature as we are not fully informed, and your theology requires faith-based decisions which are questionable and therefore require probing.

As far as 'time' goes, it is not as relevant as we think because death is simply leaving one phase and entering into another in which death no longer happens - thus time is not that relevant - if at all. The idea is to allow for the individual to accomplish whatever is necessary for them to fully reintegrate whilst maintaining their individuality.

Why would that not be a far more mature and just process?

What do you mean by "fully informed"? I think the human lifetime gives us enough to accomplish whatever is necessary for us to make an informed decision on choosing or rejecting God. Do you mean we need to have complete knowledge of reality? Or something else?

Sorry - I assumed based upon lack of information and thinking you were a follower of the bible and perhaps a member of one of the sects of Christendom. Feel free to inform me otherwise.

Your insult is not worth our time. But I am a Christian. Your description was vague offering the name of no specific religious medium or instruction. So, I asked for a clarification of what you meant with those terms.

You said my theology says that if we fail to follow the various instructions of a variety of organized religious mediums, we fail in getting the reward of heaven. I don't think there are a variety of instructions on attaining heaven and I don't even see heaven as some kind of separate reward for following instructions correctly as your wording seemed to suggest.

If you are suggesting that there is no faith involved in your beliefs, please say so. Otherwise i do not understand why you have asked this question.

When some people say "faith" they mean it in the sense of being "blind faith," as an antonym for reason. Others mean "trusting God for good reasons." Others mean something else. Rather than assuming you meant it one way, I asked for clarification. Once you clarify I can answer whether I think faith (as you use that term) is involved in my worldview.

I think this is a fundamental pointer to what can be seen as coercion. An ultimate choice which has to be made before one dies to this physical experience in this universe.

If we have enough info before we die to make this ultimate choice, then where is the coercion?

You would have to explain what evidence you are speaking about - also what is it you are relying on GOD for? (is it something to do with faith?).

I'm talking about things like the cosmological arguments, fine-tuning of the universe, moral argument, personal experience of our intellectual and moral limitations, historical case for the resurrection of Jesus, etc.

I think you will find that not everyone has the opportunities you had or the willingness to accept things simply through faith.

I did not say everyone has the same opportunities. Everyone has what they need.

As you should be aware, I do not rely solely upon an organised religions doctrines to satisfy my curiosity regarding ideas of GOD and that I understand the story of Jesus is more the invention of Roman Elitists than anything actually inspired by GOD.

Certainly I 'cherry pick' what words are attributed to having been spoken by whoever the person was who started that movement, rather than simply accept everything written in the story as truth.

I have no doubts GOD appreciates that I do so. Indeed, overall it has assisted my relationship with GOD.

And if you would stop assuming things and instead asked me questions about these sorts of things perhaps you could see that I don't just buy what an organized religion says. That I think through things deeply. That I study the scholarly materials. That I wasn't born into a family that taught Christianity the way I understand it now. That I question everything about my beliefs. And God appreciates that I do so. It has helped me tremendously in my relationship with God.

And what is the penalty related to that? What penalty does your theology speak of for those who use their freedom to reject your theology?

It's not a penalty. It is the description of what they choose. It's not a penalty for making a separate choice. And it's giving them what they want: no relationship with God; separation from God.

Your claim that your biblical theology has all of the above mentioned elements requires more than a simple statement. From my own understanding, Christendom has been far more the bane than the boon of human progression and it is designed to express the tendency of blaming others not accepting it as 'the truth' as the reason for that being the case.

You were talking about, and I said my theology has, the idea of love and consciousness needing to be experienced and not just defined. You can't seriously think Christianity is only concerned in making a dictionary. Christianity also clearly talks about individuals having the will to determine who they are. Those three things are different than what you talk about now: whether it adds or takes away from social progress. That is a completely different critique. If that is what you meant all along, then you did it in a very, very confusing way. And, of course you'll remember, we are focusing narrowly and taking one critique at a time. Bring this critique back in later if you want me to talk about it.

[William]

[Replying to post 307 by The Tanager]

I have not defined consciousness as separate from GOD consciousness.

Please read what I said again. "You have defined it [human consciousness] as separate from GOD consciousness and I have defined it as not separate."

As I have said already, the ability to acknowledge existence of itself is its principle feature.

This could be one's definition of consciousness, but I don't think that is what you really mean by the term.

It is exactly what I mean by the term. If you want evidence re that, please read my Members Notes, because therein it will become obvious to you.

What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

From that link:

Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one.

You see GOD as an entity, right? GOD has the ability to acknowledge its existence because it is conscious.

First Source (GOD) did not gain an ability.

Consciousness is not something one acquires. It is something one is.

Perhaps this is where we can source our differences re our idea of GOD.

If you want a definition of consciousness from that position, you require a definition of GOD.

That would be difficult to accomplish given our position, I think you can agree?

I don't agree. Definitions (of concepts) don't have to be accepted as true to be understood.

It is not the case of accepting something as true. It is the case of only being ale to define GOD within the limitations of our positions here in this universe on this planet as human beings.

As you should know by now, I think there are many entities which can be regarded as GODs, the local one being the EE [her] self. In that we have clear evidence of how [she] works and in line with my theology [she] is connected with each and every conscious being on the planet as they are all aspects of [her] experience as an individual entity and altogether, represent a significant aspect of [her] overall subjective experience as an individual entity.

Can you put yourself in [her] place in order to understand [her] position as that entity? One may get the gist, but one cannot fully understand all the implications this involves, so how much more unlikely is it that we can understand First Source and Its subjective position?

That is what I was talking about in relation to defining GOD.

If you are defining consciousness as GOD, then what does it mean to say William is a consciousness? William is GOD?

We are all aspects of GOD-consciousness, not GOD-as-First-Source. Thus, I am NOT First Source, I am NOT the EE - I am William who is an aspect of GOD-consciousness because there is no 'other' consciousness outside of FSC.

I am an aspect of GC through the process of the creation and ongoing evolution of the universe

We are talking about what concept you mean when you use a specific term. We can accomplish what definitions we use with our terms. If we can't, then we have a problem. There would be no way to tell if our own view was coherent or not if we don't even know the meaning of the terms we bandy about.

I have sufficiently defined what I am meaning in using the word 'consciousness'. Language has its limitations, but I do not think it is a fair call on your part to suggest that I am using the word (in relation to GOD) in a bandy about manner.

But you think William is an aspect of GOD not GOD as a unified whole, right? There is a distinction there, so the definition of consciousness you are using in your own theology cannot be "GOD". GOD is an entity to you, right? GOD isn't just an ability entities have to be aware or the collection of all such exercising of that ability, right?

You are under the impression my theology separates GOD from all other consciousnesses. FS is not a separate entity from other entities. All entities together represent the collective subjective experience of FS.

FS is never separate from aspects of Its self, in a macro version of the same principle I touched on in relation to EE not being separate from the aspects of [her] consciousness - every conscious critter on the planet.

Same with the UE - all Galactic Entities are aspects of Its consciousness and altogether represent the subjective reality of the UE - and all Planetary Entities are aspects of GEs and represent the subjective reality of the GE and all individuate consciousnesses on individual planets represent the subjective reality of the Planetary Entity.
All this is an undivided flow of DoE (data of experience) connected through the common denominator - FSC - the quintessence which allows for the universal connection of all separate things.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 310 by William]

Please read what I said again. "You have defined it [human consciousness] as separate from GOD consciousness and I have defined it as not separate."

I was not talking about human consciousness in asking for a definition from you. I've been asking for a definition of consciousness. The definition I gave of consciousness for you to accept, modify or replace did not define human consciousness as being separate from GOD consciousness. It said nothing of humanity or GOD.

It is exactly what I mean by the term. If you want evidence re that, please read my Members Notes, because therein it will become obvious to you.

To make sure you understood what I said correctly (and whether I've been greatly misunderstanding you), are you saying that GOD is an ability (to acknowledge their own existence) that entities have? Because that is what the definition I gave that you just said "it is exactly what I mean by the term." You don't believe that GOD is a being or entity of some kind that has an ability to acknowledge its own existence? GOD, in your view, is a concept that is on par with having an ability to play the guitar or throw a football?

You are under the impression my theology separates GOD from all other consciousnesses.

FS is not a separate entity from other entities. All entities together represent the collective subjective experience of FS.

Are you saying that we are like the letters of the english alphabet and GOD is the alphabet? That we are like the members of a mathematical set and GOD is just the set itself?

Or perhaps this would be a better analogy. Let's say we have 100 marbles that all travel different distances. Each marble is a distinct entity: one travels 1 inch, another travels 5 inches, and so forth. If we are the marbles (each experiencing their own travel of distance), then are you saying First Source (GOD) is just a collection of all us marbles and the experiences of our travels?

If you don't mean this, then I must stop my engagement with your view because I just don't get it. I would still gladly answer any questions you have of my view.

[William]

[Replying to post 309 by The Tanager]

What do you mean by "fully informed"? I think the human lifetime gives us enough to accomplish whatever is necessary for us to make an informed decision on choosing or rejecting God. Do you mean we need to have complete knowledge of reality? Or something else?

Going back to your last comment;

It's not the names that help someone understand something, it's the content the stories try to get across and your content for those stories is completely foreign to Christianity.

This is why I use the phrase "Idea of GOD" and also why very early on in this interaction with you I suggested that one of the reasons you are finding it difficult to understand the idea of GOD which my theology expresses has to do with it contradicting the idea of GOD which you have been taught and have accepted as true.

I also suggested that you most likely would have to place that Idea of GOD aside in order to then be able to contemplate my theology because your own theology (idea of GOD) was interfering with that process.

This is part and parcel of being able to engage with things otherwise 'completely foreign' and ideally the approach needs to be one which sees no threat of harm to the familiar while investigating the foreign.

The problem I have experienced with Christian familiarity is that it often serves as a barrier to foreign ideas which contradict the familiar ones taught by Christendom and accepted by its adherents.

In all cases where this becomes apparent, I abandon the effort, and have not done so in this case because you appear to be interested.

What do you mean by "fully informed"? I think the human lifetime gives us enough to accomplish whatever is necessary for us to make an informed decision on choosing or rejecting God. Do you mean we need to have complete knowledge of reality? Or something else?

I re-quote you because I want to underline what I commented on above.

The 'choosing or rejecting God' focuses upon the idea of GOD which Christendom endorses as the true idea of GOD, and part of that notion involves the doctrine that the human lifetime gives us enough to accomplish whatever is necessary for us to make an informed decision on choosing or rejecting that particular idea of GOD.

What I mean by being fully informed has to do with having the opportunity to use this lifetime to question all ideas of GOD in conjunction with what is being experienced within this reality (the physical universe) and rather than taking the word of any particular organised religions doctrine on the matter.

This allows for the opportunity to open up our understanding and become more informed than those particular organised religions individual doctrines on the matter.

So on that matter, it isn't easy to be fully informed - even as to everything going on re this shared planetary experience we each and all are having together. Be that as it may, we do have the opportunity to be more informed if we so choose to be, and as I have written, if we have already accepted an religiously molded idea of GOD as true, we effectively choose not to be fully informed re alternatives.

In relation to afterlife ideas, we have less opportunity to be informed, but even so there are areas of human experience which do - at least - have the affect of tearing a small hole in the veils separating the physical reality from the next phase reality.

From Christendoms teachings, the options are limited. Heaven, hell, a new earth, purgatory, or annihilation. Not all agree on which are true. Other avenues are available to the individual to investigate ideas related to 'afterlife' which help to broaden the possibilities. by providing data which can be put together for a more comprehensive picture of those possibilities.

My own theology is built on gathering these different ideas and finding a coherent picture of the most likely thing that would happen.

In that, as per my example of the anomalies, these serve to help the individual be more informed than their situation allows, if the anomalies were absent.

Overall this serves as a more mature approach to these age old questions. It allows for the individual to exercise the ability to reason things out more logically - utilizing their intelligence toward maximum potential.

It also allows for one to lay aside the more simple ideas attached to GOD and delve into the complex without having to resort to the equally simplistic notion that GOD does not exist.

Your insult is not worth our time.

What insult? Who's time?

I don't think there are a variety of instructions on attaining heaven and I don't even see heaven as some kind of separate reward for following instructions correctly as your wording seemed to suggest.

Well, this is exactly why I made the comment 'Feel free to inform me otherwise.'
You seem to have chosen to take that as an 'insult'? Surely you can acknowledge that generically that is the overall impetus of Christendom and what it teaches. It is more than an impression the general population has of Christianity and what it teaches.
The opportunity for you to inform us otherwise, is there for your convenience. Why be offended? If it ain't so, explain why that is the case.

When some people say "faith" they mean it in the sense of being "blind faith," as an antonym for reason. Others mean "trusting God for good reasons." Others mean something else. Rather than assuming you meant it one way, I asked for clarification. Once you clarify I can answer whether I think faith (as you use that term) is involved in my worldview.

My explanation was clear enough when aligned with the context of what I was saying regarding being fully informed.

When we are not fully informed about something, and are required to make a choice regardless of that, this is a choice (to support that) based upon faith. Or a choice to reject that, based on a variety of reasons, but in this case, ultimately based upon the understanding that it is best not to make such decisions where faith is required/demanded of the individual. If the information is not forthcoming, make no decision. Remain open to new information, etc.

If we have enough info before we die to make this ultimate choice, then where is the coercion?

What is this information which we have enough of?

What is this 'ultimate choice' your theology teaches?

Answer that and then I might be able to identify clearly where I think the coercion exists.
In saying that, I do so because you have alluded that your particular theology - while Christian based - is not like the mainstream, generically understood one.

(Such as your belief that annihilation rather than Eternal Conscious Torment is what will happen to those who reject...well...reject what exactly?)

You would have to explain what evidence you are speaking about - also what is it you are relying on GOD for? (is it something to do with faith?).

I'm talking about things like the cosmological arguments, fine-tuning of the universe, moral argument, personal experience of our intellectual and moral limitations, historical case for the resurrection of Jesus, etc.

Be that as it may, this does not in itself present me with any particular information on what you are regarding as evidence and why you regard it as so. It still does not tell me what is it you are relying on GOD for?

I did not say everyone has the same opportunities. Everyone has what they need.

Then it would be simple enough for you to outline what these needed things are which everybody has.

And if you would stop assuming things and instead asked me questions about these sorts of things perhaps you could see that I don't just buy what an organized religion says.

As is evident, I am more than happy for you to explain in further detail, but for now it seems you saw insult in my asking.

That I think through things deeply. That I study the scholarly materials. That I wasn't born into a family that taught Christianity the way I understand it now. That I question everything about my beliefs. And God appreciates that I do so. It has helped me tremendously in my relationship with God.

Okay...

It's not a penalty. It is the description of what they choose. It's not a penalty for making a separate choice. And it's giving them what they want: no relationship with God; separation from God.

So you would also argue that heaven (or whatever it is that you believe in re afterlife) is not a reward?

If so, I revert to a question I asked of your earlier. What exactly is this heaven you believe you are going to experience?

What makes it more attractive than being separate from GOD?

How are you having your relationship with GOD in relation to your belief that you are a separate consciousness from GOD?

How do you reconcile your separation from GOD-Consciousness with 'having a relationship with GOD'?

[William]

[Replying to post 311 by The Tanager]

I was not talking about human consciousness in asking for a definition from you. I've been asking for a definition of consciousness. The definition I gave of consciousness for you to accept, modify or replace did not define human consciousness as being separate from GOD consciousness. It said nothing of humanity or GOD.

Consciousness is consciousness and cannot be defined other than in relation to the form it occupies.

In terms of my theology the definition of Earth Entity consciousness can be defined in the form.
In relation to Human consciousness, this can be defined differently from Earth Entuty consciousness in regard to the form occupied.

In relation to the Earth Entity consciousness, this is an aspect of GOD-consciousness (FSC) imbued through a process which allows for FSC to experience being the Earth Entity.
In relation to human consciousness, this is an aspect of GOD-consciousness (FSC) imbued through a process which allows for FSC to experience being an individual human being.

FSC consciousness is defined as "GOD-consciousness."

GOD- consciousness is defined in relation to the form but not as separate from GOD consciousness.

Same consciousness, different forms.

To make sure you understood what I said correctly (and whether I've been greatly misunderstanding you), are you saying that GOD is an ability (to acknowledge their own existence) that entities have? Because that is what the definition I gave that you just said "it is exactly what I mean by the term." You don't believe that GOD is a being or entity of some kind that has an ability to acknowledge its own existence?

You would need to explain the steps you made in order to reach this conclusion you have from what I have told you of my theology.

Consciousness is not an ability that someone acquires. You cannot BE some ONE without consciousness. Since FS is eternal, FS has always been conscious, and thus has never had to acquire consciousness. Therefore Consciousness is eternal and cannot be differentiated from FS as these are one and the same.

GOD, in your view, is a concept that is on par with having an ability to play the guitar or throw a football?

FS has the potential ability to not only conceive of and to make a guitar but also to play a guitar. In order to make that potential a reality, FS must first create the conditions in which to do so.

Thus the conditions are created, and the potential realized. Ergo, this physical universe, the earth, the evolution of the human form, trees, metal, etc...all to design, create and play the guitar. But obviously not just for that purpose alone.

Are you saying that we are like the letters of the english alphabet and GOD is the alphabet? That we are like the members of a mathematical set and GOD is just the set itself?

I think the above analogies are too simplistic. Lets go for the same principle on a grander scale. An aspect of GOD-consciousness imbues the whole universe...we are like individual aspects of that same consciousness imbued within biological forms on a planet.

Or perhaps this would be a better analogy. Let's say we have 100 marbles that all travel different distances. Each marble is a distinct entity: one travels 1 inch, another travels 5 inches, and so forth. If we are the marbles (each experiencing their own travel of distance), then are you saying First Source (GOD) is just a collection of all us marbles and the experiences of our travels?

That analogy aligned with what I am saying, would be something more akin to;

Each marble is a distinct entity: one travels 1 inch, another travels 5 inches, and so forth. In other words they are distinguishable from each other as separate entities having subjective experiences which are unique even that they share similar environments.

If we are that which is experiencing being marbles (each experiencing their own travel of distance), then I am saying First Source (GOD) is (in relation to the marbles) a collection of all us marbles and the experiences of our travels.

In relation to FS, it isn't just about one particular object (the marbles/human beings) though - it involves everything. FS as the UE - FS as the GEs FS as the PEs FS as the individual biological lifeforms, FSC as that which is experiencing all individual things, simultaneously.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 312 by William]

This is why I use the phrase "Idea of GOD" and also why very early on in this interaction with you I suggested that one of the reasons you are finding it difficult to understand the idea of GOD which my theology expresses has to do with it contradicting the idea of GOD which you have been taught and have accepted as true.

I also suggested that you most likely would have to place that Idea of GOD aside in order to then be able to contemplate my theology because your own theology (idea of GOD) was interfering with that process.

I have talked with people who hold very different ideas of God than my own. I have been able to understand their views because I understand what they mean when they use certain terms. My different belief about God has not held us back. If I ask for a definition, they usually provide a clear definition. I think you haven't. You think you have. So, one of us is wrong, but your definitions just are not clear to me.

And when I try to clarify it, you say "I've been clear enough" and things like that. Even if true, it isn't helpful. If you want to be helpful you try to come at it a different way or say that "I'm incapable of rephrasing the idea in a different way." When you try to openly shift the blame on the other person (even if it really is their fault)..."you aren't able to get outside your belief system or it would be clear to you" and stuff like that...you come across as condescending or evasive. I can try to get past that with you because you seem to not mean it that way, but this has happened a lot in our conversation and you keep doing it after being made aware of how it comes across. If it happens again, I'm going to throw in the towel.

What I mean by being fully informed has to do with having the opportunity to use this lifetime to question all ideas of GOD in conjunction with what is being experienced within this reality (the physical universe) and rather than taking the word of any particular organised religions doctrine on the matter.

Then I simply disagree that we need to be able to question every single idea of God in order to find truth about God. Can you back your view (that we need to question all ideas of God to be fully informed) up with a rational argument? That is your burden to bear since your critique rests on that being true.

And on a personal note, have you actually questioned every single idea of God? Can you honestly say that you have?

Note that I'm not saying I don't question every single idea of God I come into contact with, for I have studied many different worldviews. I do not advocate just taking the word of a particular organized religion's doctrine on any matter. I have never taken that approach in this thread or any other thread or in my grown-up life for that matter. I do not think that is a rational approach.

Be that as it may, we do have the opportunity to be more informed if we so choose to be, and as I have written, if we have already accepted an religiously molded idea of GOD as true, we effectively choose not to be fully informed re alternatives.

You have already accepted a particular idea of GOD as true, so by your own logic you are also choosing not to be fully informed, right? But you don't think that. You think you have found the truth. Are you being hypocritical? If not, what's the difference? And why is that difference important?

My own theology is built on gathering these different ideas and finding a coherent picture of the most likely thing that would happen.

Everybody does that: you, Christian, atheist, etc.

Well, this is exactly why I made the comment 'Feel free to inform me otherwise.'
You seem to have chosen to take that as an 'insult'? Surely you can acknowledge that generically that is the overall impetus of Christendom and what it teaches. It is more than an impression the general population has of Christianity and what it teaches.
The opportunity for you to inform us otherwise, is there for your convenience. Why be offended? If it ain't so, explain why that is the case.

I misread your statement, then. It sounded like you were saying I was a Christian because I have a lack of understanding and thinking. I guess you meant that you were assuming things about me while you had a lack of information about me. But if that was the case, why not ask me questions instead of having to clarify wrong assumptions?

I have never said God created humans and gave them instructions through a variety of organized religious mediums and that if they fail those instructions they fail in getting into the reward of heaven. When you write "your theology..." says these things and I have never said those things, then I think it's fair of me to ask what you mean by saying that my theology says these things.

There are multiple understandings of Christianity. You've said you have gathered many ideas together, so you should be aware of that. So, when talking to a Christian you cannot just assume they take one understanding of Christianity to be true. I have shared parts about my view and you have had ample opportunity to ask further questions to see what understanding of Christianity you are dealing with with me. And my understanding is not some obscure, minority understanding, either (except for in regards to annihilation, perhaps).

I do not think the Biblical record teaches that there are a variety of instructions on attaining heaven. It teaches that one is to place their trust in Jesus and what He did in his life, death and resurrection for us to be reconciled into a relationship with God. And this placing of trust is heaven that will be extended into eternity.

So you would also argue that heaven (or whatever it is that you believe in re afterlife) is not a reward?

If so, I revert to a question I asked of your earlier. What exactly is this heaven you believe you are going to experience?

It's not a reward in the sense of being separate from placing your trust in God through a daily, personal relationship with God. I believe heaven is breaking into my life right now as that relationship. That it is slowly overtaking my life that I lived apart from God for so long. That I'm experiencing a fuller heaven in my living every day that will extend on forever beyond this physical life (which popularly has become all that people mean by heaven, unfortunately).

What makes it more attractive than being separate from GOD?

One example would be that my life, while separate from God, has caused a lot of anxiety, while when in relationship with God I am at peace.

How are you having your relationship with GOD in relation to your belief that you are a separate consciousness from GOD?

How do you reconcile your separation from GOD-Consciousness with 'having a relationship with GOD'?

Similar examples would be the relationship of a wife and husband or parent and child. Those separate consciousnesses can have a relationship with each other. We are separate entities, but we can communicate and interact with each other.

My explanation was clear enough when aligned with the context of what I was saying regarding being fully informed.

No, it wasn't. When someone tells you they don't understand your usage, it is useless (and frustrating) to respond that what you said was clear enough. When you do respond that way, you come across as either being evasive or condescending. I have not been playing games with you. I've spoken honestly. I don't care whose at fault for any misunderstandings. I seek understanding. I'm sorry if you must tell your view in a second way because I didn't understand the first way you gave it. I've had to bring this kind of thing up multiple times. Please stop doing it.

You could have easily just answered which sense of faith out of the senses I gave fits your use. Or offered a new one and how it was clearly different from what I offered. As it stands I think you mean we must know everything about reality to be fully informed, but I don't know for sure, because you aren't being clear enough to me. You seem to think complete certainty is required. Do you? The answer to that question, if you want to be clear, is either 'yes' or 'no.' If 'no,' then you can try to clarify what you do mean.

And I'll save you some time. The break in communication is my fault. You were very clear in what you said for a normal person to understand, but I just didn't. So, you can choose to (1) say which sense of mine you mean, or repeat how it is a different sense in a new way, (2) say that you are unable to put it in any other way or (3) come off as condescending and say you've already said it clearly enough.

What is this information which we have enough of?

Then it would be simple enough for you to outline what these needed things are which everybody has.

I think we have enough evidence that God exists, that God created us, that God cares about our actions, that we are incapable of figuring out everything on our own which points us to needing to seek a relationship with God and rely on God, and that God has revealed Himself through the Person of Jesus.

Be that as it may, this does not in itself present me with any particular information on what you are regarding as evidence and why you regard it as so.

If you want me to go through all the arguments, I'm going to do it one step at a time.

What is this 'ultimate choice' your theology teaches?

We make the choice whether to seek out and rely on God or do it on our own.

[The different arguments I talked about] still does not tell me what is it you are relying on GOD for?

Rely on God in our daily living and decisions, rather than just living life on our own. It's trusting God in an every moment of the day kind of relationship rather than trying to do life on our own steam apart from God.