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.

[brianbbs67]

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?


From what I know, He does not make mistakes. But, He does change his mind, depending on what we choose. Boiling it down, an answer from God could be : Yes, No, Maybe later and I changed my mind or no response at all.

Numbers 23:19New International Version (NIV)

19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?


James 1:17New International Version (NIV)

17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Hebrews 6:17

In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,

Well that is true to some degree, but the OT is rife with nations and people being condemned by Him and then the condemned party repents and puts on sack clothe and ashes and God repents from the evil he was about to do.

[brianbbs67]

I have learned from experience, when he doesn't answer, it is one of two things. He either has no opinion one way or the other Or we should already know the answer if we have paid attention and studied. He's not just going to give us the answer(unless its his Will we tread upon). He wants us to think and find it.

That was a good lesson but how you reached your conclusion is problematic. Is there any reason for you to assume knowledge of God's way of working?


Jesus did, erroneously, say: 'Ask and ye shall receive'. There is no evidence of that ever happening. The beneficiaries of prayers are those whom Chance has favoured.

I only know how He worked with me. So, I did not assume.

I have asked and received, so many times in my life, I lose count. Do I get every request or need ? No. But, I have gotten a lot , exactly as asked and as promised.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 149 by William]

All are affected within the whole aspect which is participating in this universe. The anomalies I mentioned are the actions of those who are specifically invested in helping those individuals out of their illusions and back towards the fullness of GOD.

These are ones who have either moved out from their self made illusions and are working together to assist others out of theirs, or never created any self made illusion in the first place and are working together to assist others in the reintegration process.

If you can break away from your preference for summaries and try the links to other material, you will see that I expand on this idea in the link I give. I prefer not to write something down repetitively if a facility available gives me the option not to have to do so.

I realize such a preference. Here is my thought process: when we have a sharer of a specific view and a listener/analyzer of that view, we should do what is most helpful for the listener/analyzer. As the listener/analyzer to your view, what you've done here in place of the links has been very helpful to me. You are certainly free to choose to no longer provide me with this service. And that's not a manipulative trick, you don't owe me anything.

I did define the difference in the types of ways in which 'justice' is thought and sought.

I defined my understanding as more mature and fair and the other as being immature and juvenile.

In view of my theology, annihilation would be nothing more or less than a deletion of the individual life-memory and a total reintegration of that blank slate conscious aspect, back into the wholeness of GOD.

Do you think that such a thing would be 'just'?

Thanks for making that connection clearer for me. I thought you were also saying that when comparing the views of Hell, given their own frameworks, your view is the only just view. I definitely grant that annihilation is less just given your larger theology and annihilation is even logically impossible.

Our real disagreement lies in the larger theology. In support of this, in our discussion, you say many things point towards it, but that the Biblical account of creation is enough. You briefly mentioned the part about God breating life into the first humans being metaphorical for your view of consciousness being an aspect of GOD-consciousness. I asked why you think that is the best interpretation. I don't think you explained why you think that. You said there were other clues, but in your latest response said that this was sufficient. So, why do you think this?


I think there are at least two objections to my understanding of your larger theology. Obviously, correct any misunderstandings I have and my critique may change or go away. First, I think your view of GOD and hell may conflict with free will. Second, I think your view of GOD may conflict with your view of GOD with things.

1. GOD, hell and free will

I understand your view of GOD (as it pertains to this point) to be a being that would not allow eternal suffering to go on. Therefore, you see hell as a temporary state. Yet, you believe in free will in some sense. In the latest post you said:

Would you rather believe that free will is given even though there is a possibility that we will use it to be stubbornly evil or ignorant of the illusion forever?
Free will is only for the purpose of discovering GOD as GOD truly is. After that, there is no need for free will.
Indeed, because anomalies are permitted, there is less free will in the next phase than in this present one.

It seems to me that you believe some sense of free will exists up until the point of discovering the illusion. If you do, and this free will is truly free, this logically leads to the possibility that one will always be fooled by the illusion, doesn't it? But you said this counts against that view of hell as being a solution.

If you were to believe that you would also have to believe that GOD went ahead with this anyway, knowing the risk involved and having no way out of that.
Does that sound logical to you?

Perhaps you are thinking of the individual as separate from GOD whereas GOD sees the individual as an aspect of Itself.

I do get your view of GOD seeing the individual as an aspect of Itself. Your question of whether the above is logical or not is my point. Your view, if you really believe in free will, means GOD knew the possible risk of an eternal illusion existing forever and went ahead anyway with no guaranteed way out. It seems to me that you either (a) need to give up free will so that there will be a guaranteed way out, (b) give up your view of hell and believe that it can involve eternal suffering/ignorance which will also require you to (c) give up your view of GOD as One that would never allow eternal suffering to happen or to (d) show the flaw in my reasoning and why you can hold old these beliefs.


2. GOD and GOD-with-things

I think our talk about truth should open us up here. The first question is how we define 'truth'. In most contexts, I mean something like "conforming to fact or reality." Would you have a different general meaning?

I was using 'truth' differently in my last post, however, and I should have explained my thoughts more clearly than I did. When saying GOD-consciousness was 'all truth' and therefore wouldn't seek to make and experience an illusion, I was thinking of truth as a perfection in God. I think you view GOD consciousness as containing all perfections, but maybe I'm making a wrong assumption there. To me, making and experiencing an illusion (which is a truth in the sense of being a reality, but not in the sense of being a perfection or the deepest level of reality) is an imperfection, and that would seem to me to contradict the perfect nature of GOD. Why would a perfect being seek to create and experience an imperfect form? We, as imperfect beings, are always striving for perfection, but your view seems to me to have perfection (GOD) striving for imperfection (illusion).

Your argument seems to be saying that truth should be perpetual and unchanging, and my argument is that truth is able to experience illusion and still be truth. The illusion does not have to be true in order for truth to experience it.

I do think truth is perpetual and unchanging. It will always be true that in this moment (let's call it T=2017) I am a male human. Even if I depart my body and go to another plane of existence where I am no longer a male human, it is still true that at moment T=2017, I was a male human. That never changes. At different times I may be something else and there are true statements about those moments as well. All truths are about certain conditions (which can be moments or cover a collection of moments).

A further question I have regarding your view of our existence of illusion:

If they are part of the individuals self created reality, yes. For example, if someone dies and expects to see there loved ones in heaven, then this is what they create for themselves.

Does this mean that the loved ones have to stop whatever they are involved with and play the part?
No.
It means that the individual creates images of the loved ones in their own illusion.

So, we don't really interact with each other, but with images of each other? Analogically, is this like we are in our own virtual reality simulations? We interact with images of other people, but not actually those people, those consciousnesses? Is that what you think is going on right now between us? That I am simply an image of your own making and not an actually distinct consciousness? Or will that happen only in the next phase?

As it pertains to your questions for my view:

Annihilation can only be 'explained' if the consciousness involved is not an aspect of GOD.

Of course, the question would then be 'where did the consciousness come from if it is not an aspect of GOD?'

If it isn't, then what is it and where did it originate... etc...

If you think annihilation is the better option then you will need answers to those questions.

It could come from God, but not be an aspect of God. Creation ex nihilo.

[Claire Evans]

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?


From what I know, He does not make mistakes. But, He does change his mind, depending on what we choose. Boiling it down, an answer from God could be : Yes, No, Maybe later and I changed my mind or no response at all.

Numbers 23:19New International Version (NIV)

19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?


James 1:17New International Version (NIV)

17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Hebrews 6:17

In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,

Well that is true to some degree, but the OT is rife with nations and people being condemned by Him and then the condemned party repents and puts on sack clothe and ashes and God repents from the evil he was about to do.

Yahweh is not the Father. He was a Canaanite deity. So of course he'd change his mind. I just posted the OT scriptures because I think that you would give merit to those scriptures I posted.

[William]

[Replying to post 152 by The Tanager]

I realize such a preference. Here is my thought process: when we have a sharer of a specific view and a listener/analyzer of that view, we should do what is most helpful for the listener/analyzer. As the listener/analyzer to your view, what you've done here in place of the links has been very helpful to me. You are certainly free to choose to no longer provide me with this service. And that's not a manipulative trick, you don't owe me anything.

I guess neither of us owe each other anything...but then I think I owe anyone equal respect. You are interested in knowing more about the knowledge I have gained, and I am interested in sharing that knowledge, as best I am able.

I appreciate your being amicable.

Our real disagreement lies in the larger theology. In support of this, in our discussion, you say many things point towards it, but that the Biblical account of creation is enough. You briefly mentioned the part about God breating life into the first humans being metaphorical for your view of consciousness being an aspect of GOD-consciousness. I asked why you think that is the best interpretation. I don't think you explained why you think that. You said there were other clues, but in your latest response said that this was sufficient. So, why do you think this?

I think I asked you how you interpreted the 'GOD breathing life into the form of Adam'?

The reason I asked was to ascertain where the difference in interpretation might be, in order to then be able to think about how best to proceed - which was why I said that the example already given, would suffice. Suffice for now.

I do explain why I think this is the case, in relation to why I think my theology is pertinent. I would even go so far as to say that all my members notes revolve around the notion of GOD-consciousness in all things.

In a nut shell, everything involving consciousness, is involving GOD.

I think there are at least two objections to my understanding of your larger theology. Obviously, correct any misunderstandings I have and my critique may change or go away. First, I think your view of GOD and hell may conflict with free will. Second, I think your view of GOD may conflict with your view of GOD with things.

Okay...

1. GOD, hell and free will

I understand your view of GOD (as it pertains to this point) to be a being that would not allow eternal suffering to go on. Therefore, you see hell as a temporary state. Yet, you believe in free will in some sense. In the latest post you said:

Would you rather believe that free will is given even though there is a possibility that we will use it to be stubbornly evil or ignorant of the illusion forever?
Free will is only for the purpose of discovering GOD as GOD truly is. After that, there is no need for free will.
Indeed, because anomalies are permitted, there is less free will in the next phase than in this present one.

It seems to me that you believe some sense of free will exists up until the point of discovering the illusion. If you do, and this free will is truly free, this logically leads to the possibility that one will always be fooled by the illusion, doesn't it? But you said this counts against that view of hell as being a solution.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here.

Perhaps it is because I confused the issue by saying that free will is for the purpose of reconnecting with the full knowledge of GOD?

What I was meaning therein, is that free will exists because we do not have the full knowledge of GOD and the final act of free will is when we accept the full knowledge of GOD.

In that, I was meaning that we choose - through the act of free will, to always use our free will in relation to our full knowledge of GOD, effectively no longer needing free will for any other purpose. Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully my clarification helps.

I do get your view of GOD seeing the individual as an aspect of Itself. Your question of whether the above is logical or not is my point. Your view, if you really believe in free will, means GOD knew the possible risk of an eternal illusion existing forever and went ahead anyway with no guaranteed way out.

I am not sure where the confusion has arisen here, but to clarify, I was saying that GOD would not have created anything if GOD had known there was no way out of the illusions and back into the full knowledge of GOD.

The illusions are not all directly created by GOD, they are also created by aspects of GOD, and can be experienced even in the full knowledge of GOD - and when I say 'full knowledge of GOD' am am referring to understanding that all consciousnesses are aspects of GOD and the separation is what is the illusion.
one can be aware of this while still within an illusion.

In relation to hell, I do not believe GOD (First Source) created hell. I think that human beings created the idea of hell and it becomes a reality for some individuals when their minds merge more fully with that aspect of mind of the Earth Entity, which is what is generically referres to as 'The Astral Realm/Plains' (which I write about in more detail in the My thoughts on death. post in my members notes.)

What I was trying to convey is that GOD would not place (aspects of) Itself in a situation like hell, for eternity. GOD does not place anyone in hells or heavens.

Free will involving choices made outside the full knowledge of GOD is limited. Here on earth we always have choice but we do not have choice about how others might use their free will relative to our own.

We have our own choice. Sometimes we use that choice to make choices for others which essentially interferes with their free will in relation to our choices. They may not want our will overriding their own, but that is the way it is. This also happens the other way around.

So free will is not an absolute thing, in this or any other universe/realm/place of experience where free will can be used in this way.

GOD does not have the free will to NOT exist. GOD may be able to create a universe where the illusion that GOD does not exist can be experienced by aspects of GOD placed into that universe, and in that GOD can gain knowledge of what it is like NOT to exist as GOD, from that perceptive, but it is still illusion. The knowledge might be helpful and might not be able to be obtained in any other way.

It seems to me that you either (a) need to give up free will so that there will be a guaranteed way out, (b) give up your view of hell and believe that it can involve eternal suffering/ignorance which will also require you to (c) give up your view of GOD as One that would never allow eternal suffering to happen or to (d) show the flaw in my reasoning and why you can hold old these beliefs.

Well I think the flaw in your reasoning is sourced in my expression which I have since (hopefully) clarified.

Also, much of what I am paraphrasing here is contained within my members notes. I am repeating myself, but since I have to do so, I am also at least, rewording things by introducing concepts in other ways that are not worded the same way in those notes.

2. GOD and GOD-with-things

Okay...

I think our talk about truth should open us up here. The first question is how we define 'truth'. In most contexts, I mean something like "conforming to fact or reality." Would you have a different general meaning?

If we are being specific to the material universe, then truth in that context is conforming to the fact of that reality, I would agree with that - bearing in mind that there is wriggle room in relation to conforming. We are able to make changes for better or worse.

I was using 'truth' differently in my last post, however, and I should have explained my thoughts more clearly than I did. When saying GOD-consciousness was 'all truth' and therefore wouldn't seek to make and experience an illusion, I was thinking of truth as a perfection in God.

Well then we get into 'what is perfection?' and I would not be one who says it is imperfect of GOD to place aspects of Itself into things, for the experience.

I think you view GOD consciousness as containing all perfections, but maybe I'm making a wrong assumption there.

I would say that the wholeness of GOD is perfect in its completeness. Every thing is contained within that wholeness.
However, aspects of GOD-consciousness are themselves contained within things, such as us within human forms. These create illusions for us GOD-aspects, the primary one seems to be the illusion of being separate.
The illusion itself is something which is believed by many, to be truth.

But the actual truth is that we are NOT separate. GOD knows this to be the case, and that is only natural because GOD exists within GODs fullness and thus views us as being aspects of Itself. GOD also exists simultaneously in the things of creation (us as well) and so through our beliefs and behaviors can experience the notion of being separate from Itself - from our perspective.
GOD can also merge the two perspectives and understand them not to be at odds with each other.

We do not see it the same way. Understandably, given the various obstacles which act as a veil to this knowledge.

Primarily it gets down to personal belief. If I believe I am separate from GOD, then I am separate from GOD. This does not mean that in truth I am separate from GOD (for GOD does not see it that way... GOD sees it the way that it truly is.) This just means that I accept the illusion as real. the illusion is that I am separate from GOD, I believe the illusion, therefore I am effectively 'separate from GOD'.

All that is required is for me to change my belief. I can believe that I am NOT separate from GOD, and thus the shift in belief will eventually bring me into that fuller knowledge slowly and surely WHILE I still exist in the reality of this universe.

In this sense GOD acts as the anomaly - although indirectly through the Earth Entity, who Itself has been going through the same process through the Galactic Entity, who in turn has been going through the same process through the Universal Entity. - I only mention this to acknowledge the process involved in GOD being able to imbue aspects of Itself into human (biological) form - the human form cannot contain GOD the wholeness of GOD outright - even the universe cannot contain the wholeness of GOD outright...so these processes require a 'stepping down' from point 'A' (Being First Source Consciousness) and Point 'Z' (the human being)

I have 3 metaphorical diagrams related to this concept, which might help you get a better gist of this idea , here in this post;

The Earth Entity

To me, making and experiencing an illusion (which is a truth in the sense of being a reality, but not in the sense of being a perfection or the deepest level of reality) is an imperfection, and that would seem to me to contradict the perfect nature of GOD. Why would a perfect being seek to create and experience an imperfect form? We, as imperfect beings, are always striving for perfection, but your view seems to me to have perfection (GOD) striving for imperfection (illusion).

If you think GOD is perfect just being GOD without creating things in which to experience through, then of course you are going to think GOD would be acting imperfectly by creating things.

The perfection I see in the process I have already mentioned. If GOD is only perfect in just being GOD all on Its own, why would GOD create things which GOD could then place aspects of Itself into in order to allow for those aspects of Itself to share in the perfection of GOD?

I do not see this as being GOD 'striving for imperfection' or becoming imperfect through creating things to experience.

The things are illusion (in that they are not permanent) but that does not mean that they are imperfect. The physical universe is perfect for the job and in that I am saying that the universe has a purpose. In the same sense, the Astral Plains are also perfect for the job, for reasons I have already stated - to do with giving the individual the opportunity to created their own realities and through those, eventually learn what they need to.

We are not really 'striving for perfection' We are reacting to a universe which appears to us to be imperfect. We think of our forms as being imperfect. It is a matter of how we each choose to perceive things and our place within things and what beliefs we create in relation to those perceptions.

The question I ask of any who see things in the way you are saying, is this;

Q: If we are not aspects of GOD-Consciousness, then where did GOD get the consciousnesses that we are? How did GOD create consciousnesses which are separate from Its own?

I do think truth is perpetual and unchanging. It will always be true that in this moment (let's call it T=2017) I am a male human. Even if I depart my body and go to another plane of existence where I am no longer a male human, it is still true that at moment T=2017, I was a male human. That never changes. At different times I may be something else and there are true statements about those moments as well. All truths are about certain conditions (which can be moments or cover a collection of moments).

In that sense you are a data of experience collector. My post about the Earth Entity mentions that every one of our individual experiences as humans are altogether the ONE subjective experience the EE is having ( and has been having for a very long time) - simultaneously. And that's just an aspect of Its experience as an individual entity. Add to that, all the other biological life forms, as well as all the past moments and the future unfolding, and that is the sum total of the EEs individual experience directly related to the planet and its situation in this galaxy.

In this universe things are always changing. When your body dies and you find yourself experiencing something else, you have changed. You are no longer the human male you once were - even that you retain the memory of that experience.

When you say: "It will always be true that in this moment (let's call it T=2017) I am a male human." what you are doing is self-identifying with the form you occupy, rather than as being an aspect of GOD which is currently occupying that form.

I would not suggest that it is easy to comprehend what I am saying. It is not, and I am trying to keep things as simple as possible, realizing what a vast subject this is...but I am saying that our self identity determines our beliefs which in turn determines our next experience after this one ends.

A further question I have regarding your view of our existence of illusion:

If they are part of the individuals self created reality, yes. For example, if someone dies and expects to see there loved ones in heaven, then this is what they create for themselves.

Does this mean that the loved ones have to stop whatever they are involved with and play the part?
No.
It means that the individual creates images of the loved ones in their own illusion.

So, we don't really interact with each other, but with images of each other? Analogically, is this like we are in our own virtual reality simulations? We interact with images of other people, but not actually those people, those consciousnesses? Is that what you think is going on right now between us? That I am simply an image of your own making and not an actually distinct consciousness? Or will that happen only in the next phase?

I really appreciate that you asked this question because it shows that you are really genuinely thinking about what I am trying to convey.

The answer to your question is related to what I said about us all being aspects of the EE. (I tend to understand the EE as being 'The Local GOD')
In that, we are aspects of one another. In this phase we reside in the physical universe which can be likened to being within the mind of the Universal Entity which we are (less directly) aspects of...
In the next phase, the general shift is into the mind of the EE (the Astral Realm) which contains everything human beings have ever imagined but these are specifically partitioned off from one another as our individual creations.

So in the physical universe, you and I are individuate consciousnesses. You are not someone I have created to interact with while the 'real you' is off doing something else.

You are - what I am - an individuate aspect of the EE consciousness having an experience as a human being.

What I have mentioned, but not in any detail in relation to the afterlife (the next phase) is that not all of us will be experiencing our own unique creations in the Astral. It depends largely on what we believe, and if our beliefs are not truth, then we will get about creating our own personal illusion which we will experience as real.

I did mention the anomalies. These are those who either never created belief based illusions or did so but have since abandoned those.
These individuals are like you and I here on this planet. They are all real individual rather than created illusions. They are autonomous and work together in assisting those who have created their illusions, to abandon those partitions and join the whole.

There is a place within the Astral Mind of the EE which is a true representation of wholeness. It is where we can remain an individual AND be a part of one another as intimately as if we were all the same being. No 'privacy' no 'secrets'. We know each others thoughts as if they are our own. There is no distinction of separation between the individual and the collective. We are experiencing what the EE experiences in relation to all of us being the sum total of that entities 'self' and self identity.

In every sense, this is the true 'Heaven'. Not some place where we are worshiping a figure on a throne, calling it 'GOD' but rather, we are being GOD, (within the local setting) unencumbered by the physical universe and forms and concepts of separation.

As it pertains to your questions for my view:

Annihilation can only be 'explained' if the consciousness involved is not an aspect of GOD.

Of course, the question would then be 'where did the consciousness come from if it is not an aspect of GOD?'

If it isn't, then what is it and where did it originate... etc...

If you think annihilation is the better option then you will need answers to those questions.

It could come from God, but not be an aspect of God. Creation ex nihilo.

You will have to elaborate on this idea quite a bit more before I can offer any substantial reply.

For now, my reply is that GOD does not create something out of nothing.

All things exist because of GOD, and have to exist within the mind of GOD, in order for them to exist at all. There is no thing which exists separate from GOD. There is no such thing as 'nothing' The nearest thing to nothing is 'potential'...but potential is still something...potentially.

GOD consciousness is not a thing. That is how I understand consciousness. It is not a 'thing'. Things are things. consciousness is what creates things and occupies things in order to experience things.

And as I said, things can an do create illusions for the aspects of GOD-consciousness which are within those things. But as aspects of GOD consciousness we don't have to believe in the illusion of separation, even while being within it.

Adding to that point, we are often encouraged to either believe GOD does not exist, or if GOD does exist, then we are separate from GOD. Most of us tend not to leave the parameters of either of those two positions. But we do stay in the parameters of those positions, by the choice of our own free will to do so.

[paarsurrey1]

Eternal Conscious Torment

It is for a long time but not eternal as God is. There will come a time when all inhabitants of hell will be delivered from it:

[101:9] But as for him whose scales are light,
[101:10] Hell will be his nursing mother.
[101:11] And what should make thee know what that is?
[101:12] It is a burning Fire.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 01&verse=9

Hell is like rehab where the addicts of sins will be treated when one gets cured one will come out of it. God's mercy will release one from it. Right, please?
Regards

[The Tanager]

I think I asked you how you interpreted the 'GOD breathing life into the form of Adam'?

The reason I asked was to ascertain where the difference in interpretation might be, in order to then be able to think about how best to proceed - which was why I said that the example already given, would suffice. Suffice for now.

That request sounds familiar, and I probably dropped the ball there. I'm pretty sure we are talking about Genesis 2:7 here, and I would interpret that as God giving life to humankind. There God makes humans the kind of being they are: material and spiritual.

You seemed to me to be saying that this shows them sharing the same life (which you seem to think is a synonym for consciousness). I don't see that necessitated by the verse. I can give 'life' to a machine without sharing a consciousness with that machine or that machine being an aspect of me. I see God and Adam as being distinct beings with separate existence.

Well I think the flaw in your reasoning is sourced in my expression which I have since (hopefully) clarified.

You have clarified your thought some, but my question still remains. I'm not sure where I am misunderstanding you still. You believe an individual aspect of GOD-consciousness (e.g., me) has free will and that, possibly, it will use that free will to create it's own hell, right? GOD-without-things doesn't directly create that hell, but set up the situation within which I have the freedom to create my own hell, if I choose to, right?

If I understand you correctly there, then doesn't a truly free will (not that it's not limited in certain ways, but that there is still some level of true freedom when we boil it down) mean it is possible for me to eternally choose the illusion of my own hell?

Primarily it gets down to personal belief. If I believe I am separate from GOD, then I am separate from GOD. This does not mean that in truth I am separate from GOD (for GOD does not see it that way... GOD sees it the way that it truly is.) This just means that I accept the illusion as real. the illusion is that I am separate from GOD, I believe the illusion, therefore I am effectively 'separate from GOD'.

I did look over the 3 metaphorical diagrams, but I'm still having some problems. Perhaps this analogy can help you see my thoughts and where I am misunderstanding you. That way, you can shift the analogy around to better fit what you are really claiming.

Let red signify perfection. Let a brick wall signify the wholeness of GOD. Let blue signify imperfection. Let bricks signify individual aspects of GOD-consciousness.

You are saying the wall (the wholeness of GOD) sees itself as red/perfect and it is red/perfect. You are also saying that individual bricks see themselves as blue/imperfect, but they really aren't blue/imperfect; they are red/perfect. So, the brick wall is made up of red bricks that think they are red and red bricks that think they are blue. But if these are truly red bricks, how can they think they are blue? Thinking it was blue when it is not is an imperfection, therefore it can't really be red.

Or perhaps you are saying that individual bricks see themselves as blue/imperfect, but they really are blue/imperfect. If this is the case, then the brick wall is actually made up of blue and red bricks. But then the wholeness of GOD is not truly all red/perfect for real parts of it are blue.

The things are illusion (in that they are not permanent) but that does not mean that they are imperfect. The physical universe is perfect for the job and in that I am saying that the universe has a purpose. In the same sense, the Astral Plains are also perfect for the job, for reasons I have already stated - to do with giving the individual the opportunity to created their own realities and through those, eventually learn what they need to.

Illusion is a falsehood, so how can it not be imperfect? Illusion will give way to truth, you seem to say, but this still means that before doing so it was a falsehood and, therefore, imperfect.

Q: If we are not aspects of GOD-Consciousness, then where did GOD get the consciousnesses that we are? How did GOD create consciousnesses which are separate from Its own?

God created our consciousness out of nothing.

For now, my reply is that GOD does not create something out of nothing.

All things exist because of GOD, and have to exist within the mind of GOD, in order for them to exist at all. There is no thing which exists separate from GOD. There is no such thing as 'nothing' The nearest thing to nothing is 'potential'...but potential is still something...potentially.

Why do you think that is the case? I agree all things exist because of God, that we rely on God to continue to exist every moment we do exist (whether that means forever or temporarily), but this doesn't mean we can't be separate from it.

A computer relies upon electricity from its power source to continue existing, but this doesn't mean the computer is just an aspect of the power source. It can be a separate thing. A computre relies upon the intellect of the programmer to be what it is, but this doesn't mean it is the intellect of the programmer.

This doesn't mean there is a thing called 'nothing' that God fashions into us. Nothing is the absence of anything. This means that what previously did not exist (a seperate consciousness, will, being, etc.) now exists.

GOD consciousness is not a thing. That is how I understand consciousness. It is not a 'thing'. Things are things. consciousness is what creates things and occupies things in order to experience things.

But why can't a consciousness create another consciousness?

[William]

[Replying to post 156 by The Tanager]

If I understand you correctly there, then doesn't a truly free will (not that it's not limited in certain ways, but that there is still some level of true freedom when we boil it down) mean it is possible for me to eternally choose the illusion of my own hell?

How does one choose to exist in their illusion of their own hell forever?

Do they do this right from the start?
Or somewhere in the middle?
Or somewhere near the end?

What is the nature of their creation? Assume it is the worst possible scenario. Flames and demons and unrelenting torture. Assume they have no idea that they created the illusion themselves and that they believe GOD created hell for them and they are experiencing is as real and they believe they have to be there, suffering forevermore.

Inject into that, the anomaly. Something from outside the hell comes into that situation and interferes with the process and in doing so, offers them the truth of their situation and advice on how they can free themselves from that.

What reasons can you give me that no matter how often that this might happen, the individual will always and forevermore opt for the choice of remaining in their hell?

True free will does not equate to forever making bad decisions.

You are saying the wall (the wholeness of GOD) sees itself as red/perfect and it is red/perfect. You are also saying that individual bricks see themselves as blue/imperfect, but they really aren't blue/imperfect; they are red/perfect. So, the brick wall is made up of red bricks that think they are red and red bricks that think they are blue. But if these are truly red bricks, how can they think they are blue? Thinking it was blue when it is not is an imperfection, therefore it can't really be red.

It is interesting that you used the analogy of a brick wall to represent the wholeness of GOD. Is there a particular reason for doing so?

I think you are forgetting that GOD sees them as red (an aspect of GOD) and GOD also sees them as perfect, even if they presently appear not to be, because they are incorrect in how they see themselves/self identify and thus behave.

GOD sees them as they were, as they are and as they will become, not simply as they presently are.

But as I suggested in my last post, and expand upon now, our perceptions of what is perfect are likely presently imperfect.

Therefore bringing perfection into the argument isn't productive anyway.

Illusion is a falsehood, so how can it not be imperfect? Illusion will give way to truth, you seem to say, but this still means that before doing so it was a falsehood and, therefore, imperfect.

You are forgetting things I have already covered. Illusion = not real but can be experienced as real, because the only reality is GOD-consciousness. Consciousness has to be involved otherwise what is doing the experiencing and what is doing so as if the experience was real?

Consciousness makes the illusion real.

As well as this I also said that anything not eternal is not real.

You seem to think that illusions are falsehood as as such GOD would not be involved with them.

How then do you explain why GOD would create consciousnesses out of nothing and place these into illusions and expect those consciousnesses to react truthfully?

God created our consciousness out of nothing.

Explain how this was achieved. How can something come from nothing? Or are you saying that our consciousnesses are nothing because they were created from nothing?

Wouldn't that make our experience of life an illusion? How does that fit with you view that illusion is falsity? Which of course returns to the question as to why GOD would create consciousnesses and place them into something which is non eternal. Simply an illusion of life rather than the real thing. Why would GOD use a false setting if GOD is not perfect if GOD uses illusion?

This means that what previously did not exist (a seperate consciousness, will, being, etc.) now exists.

In going with that then, we have a real Consciousness called GOD who creates non real consciousnesses (not GOD) out of nothing (not real) and while they appear to exist, they exist as illusions because they were made of nothing real and are not real consciousness in the way that GOD is.
How is something separate from GOD supposed to be actually real?

Please explain that theology.

But why can't a consciousness create another consciousness?

Why can't all consciousness be sourced at the One Consciousness, even that they can experience different things, at different times and positions in space and densities and forms or for that matter, different universes etc?

Really - from what you have said, your question needs to be "But why can't a consciousness create another consciousness out of no consciousness?"

That request sounds familiar, and I probably dropped the ball there. I'm pretty sure we are talking about Genesis 2:7 here, and I would interpret that as God giving life to humankind. There God makes humans the kind of being they are: material and spiritual.

We are made in GODs image. GOD is not physical. GOD is spirit. We are spirit. Spirit is the metaphorical breath which animates form. We are children (aspects) of GOD.
If we were to see ourselves and each other in this way, how different do you think we might behave and how might this change the way things currently are in this world?
Would the world be closer to what the GOD of the bible appears to want it to be?

You seemed to me to be saying that this shows them sharing the same life (which you seem to think is a synonym for consciousness). I don't see that necessitated by the verse. I can give 'life' to a machine without sharing a consciousness with that machine or that machine being an aspect of me. I see God and Adam as being distinct beings with separate existence.

You see Adam as like the computer which has 'life' but is not really consciousness? Does not have life like GOD has life but has 'life'?

We ARE life. Just as GOD is life. Consciousness is that which is able to acknowledge "I am that I am." Apparently it is also able to get confused about what exactly it is, depending on the form it is occupying.


The body is not the life. Adam was not named while the body lay empty of life.

The body is not that which gave itself life.

[brianbbs67]

So you are saying God made a mistake? He changed His mind?


From what I know, He does not make mistakes. But, He does change his mind, depending on what we choose. Boiling it down, an answer from God could be : Yes, No, Maybe later and I changed my mind or no response at all.

Numbers 23:19New International Version (NIV)

19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?


James 1:17New International Version (NIV)

17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Hebrews 6:17

In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,

Well that is true to some degree, but the OT is rife with nations and people being condemned by Him and then the condemned party repents and puts on sack clothe and ashes and God repents from the evil he was about to do.

Yahweh is not the Father. He was a Canaanite deity. So of course he'd change his mind. I just posted the OT scriptures because I think that you would give merit to those scriptures I posted.

??? so throw out the whole OT? I don't profess that name as Gods. Is it possible ? Yes, looking at the Tetragrammaton. I do give merit to all the scripture. I also believe, some things are specific to the situation. For instance, we all have sinned, but ask for atonement. So, since the wages of sin is death, are we all to die eternally even if we repent and ask forgiveness? No, I don't believe so.

[The Tanager]

What reasons can you give me that no matter how often that this might happen, the individual will always and forevermore opt for the choice of remaining in their hell?

True free will does not equate to forever making bad decisions.

The only reason I give is that it's a free will. I'm saying that, by definition, there is no guarantee that the individual will eventually choose to free themselves because of the anomaly. So, there is a possibility, in your view, of eternal suffering. To say this definitely will not happen (and that is what your view seems to require of you) negates free will by definition.

So, then you are faced with a GOD who knew this possibility of eternal suffering and (1) went ahead with it anyway or (2) did away with true free will to make sure eternal suffering would not result.

It is interesting that you used the analogy of a brick wall to represent the wholeness of GOD. Is there a particular reason for doing so?

Not that I'm aware of. I'd be open to using a different one, it's just what popped in my head.

I think you are forgetting that GOD sees them as red (an aspect of GOD) and GOD also sees them as perfect, even if they presently appear not to be, because they are incorrect in how they see themselves/self identify and thus behave.

GOD sees them as they were, as they are and as they will become, not simply as they presently are.

On your view (analogically speaking, of course) am I actually a red brick or a blue brick right now? Not what will I eventually become, but what am I right now?

If I am red, then how can I think I am blue...I would believe something false and therefore, by definition, not be red.

If I am blue, then I am either separate from GOD (who is a wall made up of only red bricks) or GOD is not a wall made up of only red bricks and, therefore, GOD has some blue, some imperfection in GOD.

But as I suggested in my last post, and expand upon now, our perceptions of what is perfect are likely presently imperfect.

Therefore bringing perfection into the argument isn't productive anyway.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying falsehoods may actually really be a perfection?

You are forgetting things I have already covered. Illusion = not real but can be experienced as real, because the only reality is GOD-consciousness. Consciousness has to be involved otherwise what is doing the experiencing and what is doing so as if the experience was real?

Consciousness makes the illusion real.

As well as this I also said that anything not eternal is not real.

You seem to be using 'real' in multiple ways. You think consciousness is actually experiencing an illusion right now (this is a real experience), but this experience will not last forever. What you seem to be saying is that the experience is real, but not everlasting. So, what does it mean to say the "illusion = not real"? It is a real experience, but it will eventually go away, right?

You seem to think that illusions are falsehood as as such GOD would not be involved with them.

My understanding of your view is that the illusion is a real experience (so not a falsehood in that sense), but still a falsehood in the sense of that experience isn't our true identity, because we are all really GOD, who is perfect.

To make sense of this, it seems that either (a) GOD itself becomes imperfect (with the ability to experience illusion) or (b) the imperfect things are something separate from GOD itself that will eventually return back to being a 'part' of GOD itself.

How then do you explain why GOD would create consciousnesses out of nothing and place these into illusions and expect those consciousnesses to react truthfully?

Well, I don't think these are illusions. I don't believe (a) or (b) are true above. Are you asking if (b) above is true and there are these separate consciousnesses, then why would GOD place them into illusions and expect them to react truthfully? It doesn't make sense to me, and so, would be a reason to not believe (b).

So, then what about (a)? This seems to conflict with your view that GOD, as GOD (do you call that FSC?), is perfect and untouched.

Explain how this was achieved. How can something come from nothing? Or are you saying that our consciousnesses are nothing because they were created from nothing?

No, I don't think our consciousness is an absence of anything. It's a real thing; not nothing. I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, though. I am not saying that a thing (like ourselves) can come from nothing uncaused. There must be a cause. God is the cause that brings what didn't exist into existence. That doesn't mean we moved from one container (non-existence) to another, different container (existence). To not exist means there is no container. It's that we did not exist and now we do.

Wouldn't that make our experience of life an illusion? How does that fit with you view that illusion is falsity? Which of course returns to the question as to why GOD would create consciousnesses and place them into something which is non eternal. Simply an illusion of life rather than the real thing. Why would GOD use a false setting if GOD is not perfect if GOD uses illusion?

How would that make our life an illusion? It is who we really are.

In going with that then, we have a real Consciousness called GOD who creates non real consciousnesses (not GOD) out of nothing (not real) and while they appear to exist, they exist as illusions because they were made of nothing real and are not real consciousness in the way that GOD is.
How is something separate from GOD supposed to be actually real?

Please explain that theology.

I'm not sure why you think "out of nothing" is the same thing as "not real." To be real is to actually exist. I'm saying we actually exist. We weren't real before being created, before we existed, but now we do exist/are real. So, you can be real and not have come out of nothing (i.e., you could have always existed) or you can be real and have come out of nothing. (i.e., you have not always existed, but do now).

Why can't all consciousness be sourced at the One Consciousness, even that they can experience different things, at different times and positions in space and densities and forms or for that matter, different universes etc?

I'm not saying there is anything logically impossible about your view of sourced consciousness (in and of itself...I think contradictions come in what you do with that, but that is beside the point here). I was just wondering if you thought it was logically impossible for a consciousness to create another consciousness. I don't think it is. Do you?

Really - from what you have said, your question needs to be "But why can't a consciousness create another consciousness out of no consciousness?"

What do you mean by "out of no consciousness"? You seem to be saying you need to already have something there in order to make it a consciousness? But then something is already there, so you aren't creating anything. Maybe you are changing some things around, but you aren't creating anything.

We are made in GODs image. GOD is not physical. GOD is spirit. We are spirit. Spirit is the metaphorical breath which animates form. We are children (aspects) of GOD.
If we were to see ourselves and each other in this way, how different do you think we might behave and how might this change the way things currently are in this world?
Would the world be closer to what the GOD of the bible appears to want it to be?

It is clear in Genesis 2:7 that we are both physical and spiritual. Spirit animates matter. This verse is not talking about being made in the image of God.

Being made in the image of God comes in Genesis 1:26-28. What does image of God mean, from the actual textual content? "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that..." So that, what? What does it mean to be in God's image? "so that they may rule..." Ruling as God rules requires having consciousness, rationality, goodness, but why does it require us to be the same consciousness of GOD? Why can't there be a separation and us still share some qualities.

I quite agree, however, that if we truly and consistently saw ourselves and others as images of God, we would behave differently than we often do and this would create the world God wants.

The body is not the life. Adam was not named while the body lay empty of life.

The body is not that which gave itself life.

I agree. But Adam isn't just God's breath either. It's put in a body formed from the ground which was formed from nothing. Adam is breath and body; soul and matter.

You see Adam as like the computer which has 'life' but is not really consciousness? Does not have life like GOD has life but has 'life'?

We ARE life. Just as GOD is life. Consciousness is that which is able to acknowledge "I am that I am." Apparently it is also able to get confused about what exactly it is, depending on the form it is occupying.

Let me explain the analogy better. Using something like intellect may be confusing, so let's talk about beauty. Picture a beautiful and talented young woman artist that is about to paint a portrait. She is beautiful. The image she paints is beautiful. But they are two separate instances of beauty; they aren't the same beauty. Analogically, your view seems to be saying that for that painting to be beautiful, it actually has to be the same beauty the painter actually has.

Or move it to intellect. I have the ability to compute mathematical problems, or at least many of them. I can create a machine that has the ability to compute mathematical problems. But when the machine computes the problem, I'm not computing it. Why must Adam and God, from Genesis 1:26-28 or 2:7, be the same consciousness?

The artist gave 'life' to the painting, but it is a different 'life' than her own. If it is destroyed, she isn't. I gave 'life' to the computer program, but it is a different 'life' than mine. If it is destroyed, I'm not.