Eternal Conscious Torment

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Eternal Conscious Torment

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #171

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 169 by William]

There is a lot and I'm trying to condense it. I think I've understood the other things you've said, but feel free to correct any misunderstandings or misses.
William wrote:So the third option I introduced is based upon this idea, that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, and as such, simply cannot be annihilated.

We can be reasoned with, learn new things, understand our selves in this new light and grow with that knowledge.

Your thinking that anyone who has access to this knowledge would choose to remain in
an Eternal Conscious Torment forever rather than accept that knowledge, is illogical reasoning as far as I can see, and you haven't really provided any reasonable argument as for why this would happen.

Even so, for argument sake I will go along with your thinking on this and take it at face value.
That was never my argument. I didn't argue that, given your theology, annihilation makes sense. My argument has been that your wider theology seems to have logical contradictions and is therefore false. The contradictions seem to me to be:

(1) That a perfect being (GOD) would choose evil and ignorance.
(2) That you say aspects-of-GOD have limited free will, but your view on hell negates true (even limited) free will.


(1) That a perfect being (GOD) would choose evil and ignorance.
William wrote:When humans separate GOD consciousness from their own, they inevitably create theologies which attempt to make GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect. This is contrary logic. It is also juvenile. It is also part of why the world has problems.
This is exactly what I think your theology leads to. I'll address this comment in regards to my own view later on.
William wrote:[Are the creations in your mind truly distinct from you?]
I do believe I get what you are saying. I can imagine creating a story in my imagination. The different characters are distinct from each other, but they are aspects of my own thinking. They are me. But that is the problem. If evil exists in them, then it is of my making, my choices. If ignorance exists in them, then it is of my making, my choices.

I thought I understood you on the following questions, but maybe I don't. Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

(1) First Source Reality is perfect including being all-good and all-knowing
(2) Evil is an imperfection
(3) Ignorance is an imperfection




(2) That you say aspects-of-GOD have limited free will, but your view on hell negates true (even limited) free will.

Free will is something like "the capacity to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." You still seem to want to believe we aspects-of-GOD have free will in some sense. My question is whether we have that in regards to whether we stay in our illusion or not.

I don't think your view of hell allows free will in that specific sense.
William wrote:So I think that we do have limited free will. In relation to your argument that an individual might choose to endure hellish torment forever, the notion is absurd, because it is still based on your understanding of who GOD is, as a separate entity and in that the individual will continue to rebel against THAT notion.

The idea of GOD which I present is not something which I can imagine anyone would reject forever, because what is been rejected? The idea that the individual is an aspect of GOD -consciousness who has been lost to that understanding but is given opportunity to regain it? What is there to rebel in that?
It is true that you think people do rebel against that. The problem isn't that you can't imagine a reason they would reject it, then. The problem you see is why they would continually reject it.
William wrote:For example, what about the idea compels YOU to make the decision to continually resist accepting of, forever? Perhaps if you were to answer that question, I might understand better your argument.
It's the same reason that you see why people make that decision in specific moments. The reason has not changed.
William wrote:Do you really think that an individual who is;
...'torturing' themselves because they are so focused on themselves, living in isolation, loneliness, emptiness, etc would reject the information that the idea of GOD they had been lead to believe (and subsequently rejected) was a misrepresentation of GOD in the first place and then having access to the data that they are not separate from GOD Consciousness or being punished in some way with having to put up with their own company, and that they didn't need to be in that place they were in,
...would choose to reject that idea as well?

Why would anyone in such a position do that?
How do they have free will in this situation at all? You believe an anomaly comes in and presents them with this new information, right? Do they have to believe it is true information?





On Biblical interpretation:
William wrote:Your comments regarding this only serve to show that the bible is able to be interpreted in many number of ways, and in that, my own interpretations are not exempt, or somehow inappropriate.
Indeed, if you were willing to understand that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, you would find reading the bible in that light is a good 'wheat from chaff' sorter.
Yes, there are numerous ways people can interpret any text (not just the Bible). This doesn't mean all these ways are on equal ground. Why should I be allowed to interpret a scientific text on the primary colors and three types of light cells in our eyes as actually the author trying to be symbolic of the Trinity? Interpretations that try to make metaphors of something when that metaphor is not mentioned in the text at all are inappropriate because it makes the text meaningless. It takes what the texts says and replaces it with things the text does not say or even hint at.

Even if we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, the Bible doesn't say that, so don't put that on the Bible. Use different texts. This would be like me wanting to convey "I have three kids" by saying "My sister has a dog, a cat and a snake". If you want to convey something, use words or metaphors that directly speak to that.
William wrote:The examples I asked for had to do with being "how GOD rules" being seen within the physical universe.

The bible can be seen as existing in this universe, but as I said, the examples related to GOD ruling, are clearly mostly done through mediums such as political authorities, organised religious institution, doctrine and dogma, priests and prophets.
I think these roles can either reflect God's reign or rule in a different way. It depends on the person. I believe Jesus was God incarnate and, therefore (if that is true) who better to example how God rules than that?
William wrote:It seems to me that you are saying that GOD is seen to rule in this universe through the medium of Jesus, yet Jesus is not seen to rule in this universe, specifically on this planet.
God's reign is seen by looking at how Jesus lived and the teachings He gave while on earth.
William wrote:But does this not also have to fall under your 'logical contradiction' argument?
IF it is in us, why is it the world has problems?

For example, why do people have different interpretations as to what 'common moral principles' are?
No it's not contradictory because of free will. We are free to obey the moral law within us or not. It is a prescriptive law, not a descriptive law. People have different interpretations because (1) we want to believe something different is true, (2) we have accepted what others have taught without proper reflection, (3) we believe something else because of our commitment to other beliefs among other reasons, I'm sure.
William wrote:I was born in 1962, in a world full of problems which hardly aligns with your belief we were 'made' and placed in a situation where we can have a perfect experience of life, but chose not to.

Unless you are saying that life can be imperfect but we can chose to respond to it perfectly. Is that what you are saying?
I was specifically talking about the origin of humanity there, not each individual human. Humanity fell. In this imperfect situation, we can chose to respond to it differently, and perfectly. The way to do that is to restore our reliance upon God.
William wrote:Well as any atheist can argue, if free will can lead to us making imperfect choices, then it is not a perfect thing to be having in the first place.
Okay, so they can make a bad argument. Why does the potential for imperfect choices, mean it isn't now perfect?
William wrote:We were essentially created from nothing, given an imperfect thing called free will, and placed into an imperfect environment, by an idea of a GOD who is supposed to be perfect.

When humans separate GOD consciousness from their own, they inevitably create theologies which attempt to make GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect. This is contrary logic. It is also juvenile. It is also part of why the world has problems.
That's not my view. Free will is not perfect or imperfect by its very definition. The environment humanity was put in was not imperfect either. So, my view doesn't make God perfect and that which God creates imperfect.
William wrote:I think if you were to view what Jesus was attributed as saying while thinking that you are an aspect of GOD consciousness rather than separate, you would not be able to see in that, anything where Jesus say's differently - specifically to that subject.

But of course, part of your belief system is that this is one life on this planet is the only opportunity the individual will have to make the connection. After that. "Sorry - too late. No excuse. Hell or [perhaps] annihilation."

So - on that point, where is Jesus attributed with saying annihilation was an option?
First, are you saying that Jesus talks about this GOD consciousness view? If so, where specifically and directly?

On to my view. Jesus never directly answered that question, so we must piece it together from other things said. I think annihilation makes the best sense of what Jesus does address regarding hell, free will, God's character, etc.

Regarding hell, I think Jesus talks about the possibility of the soul being destroyed (Matt. 10:28) and about hell being a final state (verses like Mark 9:48). Jesus seems to say some will not have their sins forgiven (Matt 7:13; 12:31; 25:46, John 5:28-29).
William wrote:The theology above is unnecessary and also involves the problematic. If 'nothing' is absence then the absence is in GOD, as GOD hasn't yet created anything which doesn't exist (thus it is still absent) BUT when GOD does create something in is "In GOD." not something somehow outside of GOD (separate from GOD).

Which is precisely what the theology I am speaking of is pointing at.
Absence can't be 'in' anything. There is no thing there to be 'in' anything else.
William wrote:But it is YOUR theology which is treating 'nothing' as some thing existing independent of God." as it is YOUR theology which is claiming that GOD created our consciousness independent of Its own.
No, my theology claims that something is independent of God once creation occurs. Before creation there is only God. In the pre-creation state, 'nothing' isn't something existing in God. After creation, something is independent (in the sense of being a separate consciousness) of God.
William wrote:All I have been doing is trying to point that out to you. You cannot have it both ways. Either there is some place outside of/ independent of GOD in which GOD can use in order to create consciousnesses specifically NOT as aspects of Itself, OR such theology has to be upgraded in order to align with the idea that there is no thing independent of GOD, or separate from GOD.
You might be talking about a kind of material cause here (like a statue is made out of marble). If so, I'm not having it either of these ways. God doesn't use something else co-eternal ('nothing'...analogical with marble) with Him to create Creation out of (analogical with the statue). And God doesn't use Himself as the material to create Creation out of.

Before Creation there is only God. At Creation, God makes the time-space continuum separate from Him in which Creation is "placed" if you mean "some place" in that sense.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #172

Post by William »

[Replying to post 170 by The Tanager]
Your thinking that anyone who has access to this knowledge would choose to remain in
an Eternal Conscious Torment forever rather than accept that knowledge, is illogical reasoning as far as I can see, and you haven't really provided any reasonable argument as for why this would happen.
That was never my argument.
Yes it was. Your suggested that if free will remained a factor, then the individual could choose to remain in that state for eternity.
I didn't argue that, given your theology, annihilation makes sense.
I never argued that my theology made annihilation a sensible option.
In my last post I simply went along with it for the sake of argument.
My argument has been that your wider theology seems to have logical contradictions and is therefore false. The contradictions seem to me to be:

(1) That a perfect being (GOD) would choose evil and ignorance.
(2) That you say aspects-of-GOD have limited free will, but your view on hell negates true (even limited) free will.
(1) Rather than repeat myself, would you say that an imperfect being would choose 'evil and ignorance'? Perhaps your answer to this question might help.

(2) Unfortunately your statement does not include any example in which one can get a bearing on what it is you are trying to convey.

Are you suggesting that peoples beliefs are not part of the product of free will? Because my theology clearly states that people find themselves in their own hells. (or heavens for that matter.)

And do you agree with me that free will is limited?
When humans separate GOD consciousness from their own, they inevitably create theologies which attempt to make GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect. This is contrary logic. It is also juvenile. It is also part of why the world has problems.
This is exactly what I think your theology leads to. I'll address this comment in regards to my own view later on.
Okay...
[Are the creations in your mind truly distinct from you?]
I do believe I get what you are saying. I can imagine creating a story in my imagination. The different characters are distinct from each other, but they are aspects of my own thinking. They are me. But that is the problem. If evil exists in them, then it is of my making, my choices. If ignorance exists in them, then it is of my making, my choices.
Well you also need to extend this in relation to the fractal metaphor. Not only are the characters made real, but they also have the ability to make characters in their minds which are also real, and these in turn are able to make characters in their minds which are also real....

Given that the characters have their independent free will (limited of course to the setting they exist within) would you feel ultimately responsible for the outcome of some of those characters who create situations which promote their creations to to wander down paths which are not conducive to your own preferences and create harm to those involved?

If so, then how would you proceed to fix that problem?
If ignorance exists in them, then it is of my making, my choices.
As you know, the biblical story of creation includes the state of ignorance. The GOD which created them (who I refer to as the Earth Entity) had knowledge of good and evil. The consciousness within the forms should also have had this knowledge (based upon my theology re 'the breath of GOD') thus it must have had something to do with the form which suppressed this knowledge from being part of their conscious awareness.
Much the same way as we can understand that a dog might not contemplate actions as 'good' or 'evil' to the point of feeling fear and guilt over it.
Indeed, Adam had to be taught how to learn.
Thus, at this level of physical restraint, GOD consciousness is extremely limited and does not directly know itself.
I thought I understood you on the following questions, but maybe I don't. Do you agree or disagree with these statements?
(1) First Source Reality is perfect including being all-good and all-knowing
(2) Evil is an imperfection
(3) Ignorance is an imperfection
1: In order to get a better bead on what you are attempting to say here, please explain 'all good' and 'all knowing' in terms of perfection related to the ability to create things.

FSR is the source of all other realities born from that.

(2) What is evil? Is it that which exists within perfection or cannot exist within perfection?

(3) Is having no knowledge of good and evil, an imperfection?

Obviously ideas of 'perfection' 'good' 'evil' 'imperfection' 'ignorance' are subjective and in relation to our position (within this physical universe') it would be best to assume that we know relatively nothing about these, other than they are not absolutes and vary from person to person/ group to group in relation to what they constitute as well as in relation to the planet.

We could say - for example - that our own theology is 'perfect' and anyone who thinks otherwise is 'ignorant' but how would we really know for sure?

Is not knowing for sure, an imperfection?

Is having faith in what we are told about what is 'the truth' the best option? Is having the ability to use logic and critical thinking to question faith-based belief systems, an 'imperfection'?
Free will is something like "the capacity to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." You still seem to want to believe we aspects-of-GOD have free will in some sense. My question is whether we have that in regards to whether we stay in our illusion or not.

I don't think your view of hell allows free will in that specific sense.


Which is more important to you. To have free will forever or to exist with truth? What would you do in such a situation? What are your beliefs regarding how you will experience afterlife?
Which do you think is important? Having the option to choose to remain in a reality of your own making, or to experience truth?
It is true that you think people do rebel against that.
I think it natural enough to rebel against an idea which has human consciousness separate from GOD consciousness.
I also think it is natural enough to accept without question the notion of a GOD consciousness separate from our own, if there is something to fear from not doing so.
The problem isn't that you can't imagine a reason they would reject it, then. The problem you see is why they would continually reject it.


On the contrary. The problem I am having is why you think anyone would have reason to continue to reject it. You have yet to answer that one.
For example, what about the idea compels YOU to make the decision to continually resist accepting of, forever? Perhaps if you were to answer that question, I might understand better your argument.
It's the same reason that you see why people make that decision in specific moments. The reason has not changed.
You will have to clarify this statement as on its own it makes very little sense as any answer to my question.
How do they have free will in this situation at all? You believe an anomaly comes in and presents them with this new information, right? Do they have to believe it is true information?
Not only are they presented with information, but they are also shown evidence. They are removed from their situation in order to experience a glimpse of the true reality which is otherwise hidden behind the walls of their own creation.

It will be explained to them that eventually those walls will have to come down, as they are only permitted to be there as part of the reintegration process.

The idea of course is to bring knowledge into an ignorant situation. Case-by-case, little by little, bit by bit...each situation is dealt within its own uniqueness and merit.

But you still haven't explained why you think individuals would have a problem with the information to begin with.

This is why I am asking, what it is about the information that you have a problem with.
This is because I suspect that you are projecting how you would likely react to the anomaly whilst experiencing your own creation of your own afterlife beliefs.

Bearing in mind that the whole point of this discussion is centered around the best course of action to take regarding judgement and justice, and my saying that the biblical idea as interpreted by Christendom, is a very juvenile approach to that, in relation to many of its concepts.

Yes, there are numerous ways people can interpret any text (not just the Bible). This doesn't mean all these ways are on equal ground. Why should I be allowed to interpret a scientific text on the primary colors and three types of light cells in our eyes as actually the author trying to be symbolic of the Trinity?
If, by that analogy you are implying that my own interpretations pretty much amount to the same thing, then you are off course.
Interpretations that try to make metaphors of something when that metaphor is not mentioned in the text at all are inappropriate because it makes the text meaningless. It takes what the texts says and replaces it with things the text does not say or even hint at.
It is all very well you stating such, but you fail to give an example with that statement so there is nothing to back it up.

I regard the garden of Eden story as metaphor. I regard 'the breath of GOD' as metaphor. I assume you do not? It is a literal thing to you?

The story of the garden of Eden in itself brings more questions than it does provide answers, so as far as text saying or hinting at anything in relation to that idea of GOD and how he created things goes, it is not a question of replacing things as it is a matter of filling in the gaps to make some sort of reasonable coherency out of it.

I regard 'you must be born again' as metaphor. I assume you do not? It is a literal thing to you?
Even if we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, the Bible doesn't say that, so don't put that on the Bible.
Granted, the bible doesn't say it in those words, but that does not mean there are no statements within it which can be interpreted in that way.
I think these roles can either reflect God's reign or rule in a different way. It depends on the person. I believe Jesus was God incarnate and, therefore (if that is true) who better to example how God rules than that?
Where in the story of Jesus, is there any sign that he ruled anyone?

Furthermore, why is it that you have no trouble thinking Jesus' own consciousness was not only an aspect of GOD consciousness, but a totality, whereas the rest of us are of separately created consciousnesses?

How do you suppose that the totality of GOD consciousness can reside in one human being? How do you suppose that could be the case, when even the whole universe would be unable to contain it?

The better explanation is that such parts of the story come from the pens of those who want us to think of ourselves as specifically separate from GOD consciousness, in order that we will therefore either rebel, or accept without question, what we are being told about GOD. Indeed it is not even hard to understand reasons why such ideas would be employed by those in positions to do so.

But have you ever considered the possibility? If not, then why not? If so, then why precisely, have you then rejected it?
God's reign is seen by looking at how Jesus lived and the teachings He gave while on earth.
Can you condense that into one or two paragraphs to at least illustrate what you are saying here?

The way I think about that is Jesus told us that we are aspects of GOD and if we learned to understand this, then we would behave far better towards each other, and this would have a good effect on the world we presently live in. This in effect is GOD 'ruling' over our sense of self and purpose related to that. This was a contrary message to those who were (and those who now are) in the business of ruling over people by of telling people that they are separate from GOD and are created to worship the idea of a separate GOD through fear, and unquestioning humility knowing we are truly unworthy of such a GOD.
We are free to obey the moral law within us or not.
And what if the very thing which activates that 'moral law' is understanding that we are each aspects of GOD consciousness?
People have different interpretations because (1) we want to believe something different is true, (2) we have accepted what others have taught without proper reflection, (3) we believe something else because of our commitment to other beliefs among other reasons, I'm sure.

And what If;

(1) We want to believe something different is true, because we understand that what is claimed as true has proven to be false throughout history and has contributed mainly to separatism rather than unity?

(2) We have accepted what others have taught without proper reflection, but upon proper reflection have found those teachings to be more likely false than true - specifically the teaching that insists we are separate from GOD consciousness?

(3) We believe something else because of our commitment to other beliefs insists that we should not question those beliefs through proper reflection, thus we would argue that we are separate from GOD consciousness if the consequences of NOT believing such would mean a great risk to us losing out on the promises which accompany such beliefs?
I was specifically talking about the origin of humanity there, not each individual human. Humanity fell. In this imperfect situation, we can chose to respond to it differently, and perfectly. The way to do that is to restore our reliance upon God.
Your reliance upon belief in an idea of GOD consciousness which is separate from your own consciousness, and one in which you believe through stories you are told, that heaven is a reward for such belief and hell (or maybe annihilation) is the punishment for rejecting such belief.

Or is there some other 'reliance' on GOD you are referring to?

Certainly (and once again) it is easy enough to fit the idea of 'reliance upon GOD' into the idea that we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness.
Why does the potential for imperfect choices, mean it isn't now perfect?
Why does the potential for imperfect choices, mean it wasn't always perfect?

Now ask yourself the same question in relation to the idea that we are all created of GOD consciousness, rather than separate.

What would your answer be? Why would the thought that we are aspects of GOD consciousness make you think therefore that GOD somehow therefore cannot be perfect?
That's not my view. Free will is not perfect or imperfect by its very definition. The environment humanity was put in was not imperfect either. So, my view doesn't make God perfect and that which God creates imperfect.
Are you saying your idea of GOD had no choice in the matter?

I ask because it seems to me that you are trying to separate GOD from any responsibility of choice by making claims that the environment was perfect, but because the consciousness placed into the environment was NOT an aspect of GOD consciousness, it was imperfect.

After all, your theology requires that human consciousness is the reason why things became imperfect.


Thus it behoves that your theology insists that human consciousness was created as a separate consciousness from GOD consciousness so that GOD consciousness is not directly implicated, but in doing so some other explanation is required, so in this case it is that the consciousness GOD created separately from his own, was imperfect, and had to be imperfect in order for it to NOT be an aspect of GOD consciousness.

Unfortunately this is where the whole theology ties itself into knots trying to separate GOD consciousness from human, in order that no imperfect thing is seen to be done by a supposed perfect being, but that alternate explanation cannot rid itself of the fact that if human consciousness was not perfect for the job of being incarnated into human form, then it had to be imperfect.

Even that you also claim that God is perfect and that which God creates is perfect, is demonstrably false in relation to human beings, original sin, evil, et al.

Your only explanation is this thing called 'free will' which allows for the possibility of the perfect creation choosing to be imperfect, but even free will is a creation of GOD, therefore - by your own stated theology, it should also be perfect and not be able to be used imperfectly.

Like I say - the theology ties itself up in knots.

"Be perfect, therefore, as GOD is perfect."

It is far better to understand GOD as being perfect in allowing for evil to impermanently exist as a means for us to learn and to reintegrate and that - as aspects of GOD consciousness we are so very deep in this particular process it is expected that we will make bad choices but that we will also have opportunity now, and forever, in which to learn from those and reintegrate back into the full knowledge of who we are as aspects of GOD consciousness.

Indeed, this deep into the density if the process, it should be regarded as natural enough and rather than become victims of our circumstance and create inadequate myths and contradictory explanations based upon being the victims of our circumstance, we can - if we choose to - rise above that and embrace our experience as 'perfect for the job' and get on with that - and self identifying as being aspects of GOD consciousness, is perfect for the job - surely far better than believing we are separate. History clearly shows that such an idea has only led to separatism. A kingdom divided.
Free will is not perfect or imperfect by its very definition.
Then what value is it in relation to perfection and imperfection?
First, are you saying that Jesus talks about this GOD consciousness view? If so, where specifically and directly?
You are asking for specific quotes which clearly show Jesus speaking about the consciousness of human beings as being aspects of GOD-consciousness.
Is the word 'consciousness' even used in the bible?
If not, which word(s) do you think which are used, most likely denote consciousness?

Perhaps if we start at this point, we can progress toward finding those most likely statements attributed to Jesus which are able to be interpreted to mean that Jesus did not see human consciousness as separate from GOD consciousness.
So - on that point, where is Jesus attributed with saying annihilation was an option?
Jesus never directly answered that question, so we must piece it together from other things said. I think annihilation makes the best sense of what Jesus does address regarding hell, free will, God's character, etc.
Okay - so with that in mind, can we agree to the possibility that as a final option, (when all other options have failed) annihilation is on the table?
Perhaps after a billion or so years, where billions of formerly lost souls have reintegrated, and only a small percentage - say roughly 150,000 - have remained stubbornly resistant in changing their beliefs to better reflect the truth, those few may be annihilated as a lost cause -their DoE deleted and the blank slated GOD-consciousness reintegrated.
Regarding hell, I think Jesus talks about the possibility of the soul being destroyed (Matt. 10:28)
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. NIV

So Okay. There is the definition of what one should and should not fear. The body is only the container, but the soul is something else.

In regard to my theology in that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, the soul is an aspect of that...rather than the soul is 'another word for GOD consciousness.'

It is the mechanism through which data of experience is stored in order for the individual to retain their ongoing sense of being an individual. (the GIFT)

If that data is deleted, then what is left is essentially the aspect of GOD consciousness with a 'clear slate' - it contains no DoE.
and about hell being a final state (verses like Mark 9:48).

47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’


Including verse 47 for context, we can ascertain that these words may not have even been spoken by Jesus, or if they were, then they have to be taken metaphorically.

We know this because the body does not go with us to the afterlife, but remains behind to be reconstituted into the earth.

As well as this, one eye is the same and the other, so plucking one out does not solve the problem of 'causing to stumble' and indeed, it is not the eyes which are the problem anyway but the way in which the eyes are being used in relation with the mind of the individual and the external expressions which oft accompany that process.

Verse 48 does not speak of the individual (still within a body) as not being annihilated, but rather of indestructible worms and a fire that burns without fuel.

I would say that this is more likely a case of words being placed into the mouth of Jesus (through Roman-Judaeo political motivation), but *whatever* - it does not clearly define anything noteworthy, because it can be interpreted in a number of ways.
Jesus seems to say some will not have their sins forgiven (Matt 7:13; 12:31; 25:46, John 5:28-29).


Matt 7:13
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

Specifically the destruction is not directly linked with the idea of the cessation of the individual experience but at the affects caused by the popular choice of the ignorant.

In relation to the afterlife, this could translate into belief induced realities which are destructive on (work against) the individuals grasp of truth.

Matt 12:31
And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

This appears to be extremely cryptic. What does it mean? Perhaps in context more light can be shone on it...the preceding verse....

Matt 12:30
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Thus, can it be that the above has something to do with what it means to "blasphemy against the Spirit"? ... he next verse...

Matt 12:32;


Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


Significantly I can fit these verses directly into my theology pertaining to us being aspects of GOD consciousness.

The scattering (v30) is the act of separating. The gathering is the act of unifying.
Whosoever is supporting the notion that human consciousness as being separate from GOD consciousness is scattering against Jesus rather than unifying with Jesus.

Regarding the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (v31) every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven but the one thing which cannot be forgiven is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Now if the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was in the very act of denying that all consciousnesses are aspects of GOD (First Source) consciousness, then the act is unforgivable because it ultimately leads those who continue to deny it, to the final destruction of the individuals data of experience.

It is not 'unforgivable' because GOD cannot forgive it, but because it naturally leads to the destruction of the individuals DoE (soul) eventually. Through their own free will to resist it. There is no way around that.

Matt 25:46
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Eternal punishment implies existing within a living experience of punishment but not when related to eternal life. Both situations infer eternal experience, so one wonders why the words 'eternal reward' were not used in relation to the opposing state of eternal punishment.

In context it has much to do with an attempt at prompting individuals to act in the correct manner befitting those who are aspects of GOD consciousness.

Given only one option or the other, it reverts back to a very juvenile approach to a problem, which I think most likely comes, not from the mouth of Jesus but through the later inventory of those who founded Christendom as an organised religion - politically motivated.

Nonetheless, it is not so much a matter of where ideas are sourced, as to how they affect human belief systems and what consequences these have in the next phase.

John 5:28-29
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.


This is very evidently written from the perspective of those who see human beings as the flesh. I would discount it because it is contrary to other writings which do not. That is to say, I treat it as chaff in relation to the wheat - the wheat being the idea that we are not the flesh, but the consciousness experiencing the flesh.

The verse implies some state of suspended animation (yet the body still decays) and at an undetermined future time, all these bodies are thus reformed and the consciousness reactivated in order for the sorting of the individuals into two groups through the reviewing of the soul (DoE) and making a judgment on that.

As a process, it is primitive (juvenile) in nature.

Furthermore, I would offer that if there were any word in the bible which can be linked with the word consciousness, it would be spirit...although indirectly so- because I tend to understand 'spirit' in the same sense as I understand 'attitude' - but we cannot have attitude without consciousness, as it were.

Anyone who can declare "I am" is an aspect of GOD consciousness within biological form.

On the subject of nothing:
Absence can't be 'in' anything. There is no thing there to be 'in' anything else.
Precisely. It does not exist and thus cannot be used for anything, let alone be used to create something as complex as consciousness, let alone something as complex as the physical universe.

The idea of a magical wizardry GOD is juvenile. It might allow for the arguments of juvenile concepts to be upheld, but eventually they will fail and will be replaced.
No, my theology claims that something is independent of God once creation occurs. Before creation there is only God. In the pre-creation state, 'nothing' isn't something existing in God. After creation, something is independent (in the sense of being a separate consciousness) of God.
First off your theology claims that Consciousness is some THING, and thus is material.

GOD is not material. GOD is Consciousness. Material is that which is the THING.

But we have been over this and it has almost come to the point of being circular argument and pointless for that.

Simply put, if GOD is aware of Its creation then the creation is not independent of GOD.
You wish to believe that consciousness within the physical universe is not of GOD but is a thing.
This means that you are predisposed to accept the flesh rather than the spirit as that which you self identify with being. The flesh is a thing and the consciousness is also a thing - for all intent and purpose - a thing of the flesh. This in itself leads smoothly to the notion that the consciousness is emergent of the brain, and in that, there is no necessity for GOD anyway - except politically - but even then, that will fade like fog in the sunlight.

In my understanding, that whole concept is the very thing - the very device of belief - through which the deception of separatism is sourced.

Which is it to be? Did Jesus promote separatism or unity? Answer that question and then proceed to sorting the chaff from the wheat in relation to words attributed to Jesus.

The analogy of the breath of GOD which I used in order to say that this is metaphorical of GOD-consciousness is an appropriate interpretation and shouldn't be discarded simply because you feel it somehow doesn't fit in with the rest of the narrative or because it is not said in so many words or "GOD consciousness." isn't mentioned in the bible.

I don't recall you giving another explanation either. You haven't said what it is you think the 'breath of GOD' might metaphorically represent.

Also. I said:
When humans separate GOD consciousness from their own, they inevitably create theologies which attempt to make GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect. This is contrary logic. It is also juvenile. It is also part of why the world has problems.
You replied;
This is exactly what I think your theology leads to. I'll address this comment in regards to my own view later on.
You didn't address this. I am interested in why you think so.

brianbbs67
Guru
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #173

Post by brianbbs67 »

Let me see if I get this. We are all part of God?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #174

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 171 by William]
William wrote:Well you also need to extend this in relation to the fractal metaphor. Not only are the characters made real, but they also have the ability to make characters in their minds which are also real, and these in turn are able to make characters in their minds which are also real....
Yes, I see that extension in your view. I don't think it changes my critiques of your view.
William wrote:You didn't address this. I am interested in why you think so.
Do you mean why I think your theology makes "GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect" or why I think my theology doesn't do this? If the former, then that continues to come in section 1b which will be my next post. If the latter, I did and you directly responded to it (your response starts "Are you saying your idea of GOD had no choice in the matter..."). I further address it in section 3f in the fourth post.

(1) Analysis of your view

I think your view may lead to two instances of logical contradiction. I'm switching the order I previously presented them in, because I think the flow of logic is better represented that way.

(1a) You say aspects-of-GOD have (limited) free will, but you also say everyone will become one in GOD

You'll notice that I've changed this wording, because it's not really just about your view on hell, I don't think. It involves the illusion of heaven, traditionally conceived, as well. You speak of us having limited free will in our situation, but I'm specifically asking in regards to whether we can remain in an illusion of separation or not. Do we have free will specifically in regards to that issue?

To answer this question it does not matter why they would actually choose to stay in that state of illusion or not. By definition, if we have free will, in this specific issue of choosing to remain in an illusion of separation, we can conceivably choose to remain in an illusion forever, whatever the reason.
William wrote:On the contrary. The problem I am having is why you think anyone would have reason to continue to reject it. You have yet to answer that one.
First, that is exactly what I said the problem you had was.

Second, again, the specific reason does not matter. Free will, by definition, means we could choose to remain in an illusion for some reason(s). If that is not possible, then we don't have true free will in this specific regard.

Third, let's look at possible specific reasons anyway. You admit that people right now are accepting illusions as truth, correct? Why? Name some reasons why people believe this. Pleasure, peer-pressure, upbringing, religious doctrine, whatever. If free will exists it is logically necessary that a person may still choose one of those very same reasons to remain in the illusion. Free will means they can keep switching the reasons why they believe the illusion or that they can even stubbornly hold onto the same reason in spite of any evidence to the contrary. At every future moment, they can do this for any of the four reasons I give and many more that we could list off.
William wrote:Not only are they presented with information, but they are also shown evidence. They are removed from their situation in order to experience a glimpse of the true reality which is otherwise hidden behind the walls of their own creation.
But are they compelled to believe it true or do they have free will here? Must they wake up once given the information or do they have free will here to remain in an illusion or even choose a new illusion? And then the next anomaly comes. Are they really free or does the evidence compel them to believe the truth? And then the next anomaly comes. Every time we need to ask the same questions. Do we maintain free will or is it eventually overrided?

The only guaranteed way out of this is to have GOD make it so that everyone must eventually wake up, in spite of any stubbornness to the contrary. In other words, you are rejecting that aspects-of-GOD have free will in the specific case of remaining in an illusion or not. GOD can still have free will, but not us aspects of GOD.
William wrote:The idea of course is to bring knowledge into an ignorant situation. Case-by-case, little by little, bit by bit...each situation is dealt within its own uniqueness and merit.

But you still haven't explained why you think individuals would have a problem with the information to begin with.
But you are saying people won't be as stubborn as I say above. How do you know that? It's easier to see people with self-induced hells opting for the anomaly on the basis of blind hope if nothing else. What about the ones who believe they will receive heaven with God forever? They are under an illusion according to your view. Their self-created existence after this one won't be hellish at all, it will be heavenly. What will cause them to question and reject all of that? I can see somebody being perfectly happy forever in an illusion like that. But your view says GOD won't allow them that eternity...against their will, if it comes to that.
William wrote:Which is more important to you. To have free will forever or to exist with truth? What would you do in such a situation? What are your beliefs regarding how you will experience afterlife?
Which do you think is important? Having the option to choose to remain in a reality of your own making, or to experience truth?
First, I'm specifically talking about freedom of our will in regards to remaining in this state of illusion or not. We can't have free will on this issue for some of the time. We either have free will (on this issue, at least) or not. If we are forced to wake up eventually, then we do not have free will on this issue, even for a moment. We are allowed an illusion that our will is free for a time perhaps, but it actually isn't free.

Second, do you actually think we have free will or not? At this point in the logic, you would be saying we don't have free will (in this regard), but that this isn't a problem.

Third, I think this would still be a problem. To me (not emotionally, but logically), free will is more important than being one with God. Without free will, all is meaningless. Sure, 'we' would exist in truth, but 'we' are as real as pixels on a screen in a video game. We are empty of any significant existence. We are robotic. Any good acquired is empty because it is forced upon us. Real love cannot exist in such a situation.
William wrote:Okay - so with that in mind, can we agree to the possibility that as a final option, (when all other options have failed) annihilation is on the table?
Perhaps after a billion or so years, where billions of formerly lost souls have reintegrated, and only a small percentage - say roughly 150,000 - have remained stubbornly resistant in changing their beliefs to better reflect the truth, those few may be annihilated as a lost cause -their DoE deleted and the blank slated GOD-consciousness reintegrated.
Do you mean it's on the table for Jesus (and that he's wrong on this front?) or that it's on the table for you? As to what would follow for your view, I do think you are drawing the right conclusions based on your given theology. I'm not sure if you thought that I was saying anything against that, but I'm not. I thought you said annihilation was not an option for a good GOD.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #175

Post by The Tanager »

(1b) That a perfect being (GOD) would choose evil and ignorance

But let's assume there is a way around (1a). I think there is still a logical contradiction in your view.
William wrote:Rather than repeat myself, would you say that an imperfect being would choose 'evil and ignorance'? Perhaps your answer to this question might help.
In case you are thinking of this being a binary point we are discussing, I think I need to make a clarification. That is, I'm not sure if you are saying there are either perfect beings or imperfect beings. I think there are at least four general options here when talking about perfection and imperfection.

i. Prescriptively perfect beings who are determined to act perfectly
ii. Prescriptively imperfect beings who are determined, at least in part, to act imperfectly
iii. Descriptively perfect beings who are not determined to act perfectly, but always do what is best
iv. Descriptively imperfect beings who are not determined to act imperfectly, but, at least in part, do act imperfectly.

A prescriptively imperfect being would have to choose evil and ignorance. A descriptively imperfect being (in regards to evil and ignorance) didn't have to choose those things, but did actually choose them.

Does this help at all?
William wrote:Obviously ideas of 'perfection' 'good' 'evil' 'imperfection' 'ignorance' are subjective and in relation to our position (within this physical universe') it would be best to assume that we know relatively nothing about these, other than they are not absolutes and vary from person to person/ group to group in relation to what they constitute as well as in relation to the planet.
They are not subjective concepts. Here you are conflating the ontological question with the epistemological, I think. We don't disagree on the concepts themselves, we disagree on what we put in which categorical concept. What we think is perfect, good, evil, imperfect, ignorant differs, but we still think certain things are perfect and other imperfect. I'm talking about this ontologically, not epistemologically.
William wrote:We could say - for example - that our own theology is 'perfect' and anyone who thinks otherwise is 'ignorant' but how would we really know for sure?

Is not knowing for sure, an imperfection?

Is having faith in what we are told about what is 'the truth' the best option? Is having the ability to use logic and critical thinking to question faith-based belief systems, an 'imperfection'?
I don't think blind faith is the best option, if that is what you mean by faith. I definitely don't think using logic and critical thinking to question everything is an imperfection. I would champion it. I also don't think we should address this as if we can have 100% certainty. We go with what seems the best explanation and are always ready to reconsider should new evidence be brought to bear on whatever issue we are talking about.

My critique here seems to center around three issues that I thought you agreed with:

(i) First Source Reality is perfect (including being all-good and all-knowing)
William wrote:In order to get a better bead on what you are attempting to say here, please explain 'all good' and 'all knowing' in terms of perfection related to the ability to create things.
A perfect being would not seek imperfect things. An all-good being would not seek to become or do evil. An all-knowing being would not seek to become ignorant. So, in the act of creation a perfect being would not seek to do evil (directly or to create evil things) or to become ignorant.

(ii) Evil is an imperfection
William wrote:What is evil? Is it that which exists within perfection or cannot exist within perfection?
I think evil cannot exist within perfection. What do you think?

(iii) Ignorance is an imperfection
William wrote:Is having no knowledge of good and evil, an imperfection?
I believe so.
William wrote:Given that the characters have their independent free will (limited of course to the setting they exist within) would you feel ultimately responsible for the outcome of some of those characters who create situations which promote their creations to to wander down paths which are not conducive to your own preferences and create harm to those involved?

If so, then how would you proceed to fix that problem?
(i) Direct responsibility would not exist for me if my creations (or creations of my creations, etc.) are truly distinct entities with their own consciousnesses, but not if there is truly only one consciousness (me) underlying it all. But I would be responsible in the indirect sense of setting up a system that could result in such a state of affairs.

You, however, think there is only one consciousness truly being split into these limited settings, right? There is only one consciousness that can be ultimately responsible, directly and 'indirectly.'

(ii) But let's assume there is a way around that. Still, even at the very first step, at the Universal Entity being created from First Source Reality...at the very first step you are introducing ignorance in GOD at least. You even seem to think the Adam and Eve story shows this truth, but I may have misread you there.

That's a problem for your view (if I was correct in thinking you believe GOD is perfect in knowledge) because it would mean that a perfect being sought to experience ignorance itself. But that isn't what a perfect being would do. It seems to be a logical contradiction.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #176

Post by The Tanager »

(2) On Biblical Interpretation
William wrote:I regard the garden of Eden story as metaphor. I regard 'the breath of GOD' as metaphor. I assume you do not? It is a literal thing to you?

The story of the garden of Eden in itself brings more questions than it does provide answers, so as far as text saying or hinting at anything in relation to that idea of GOD and how he created things goes, it is not a question of replacing things as it is a matter of filling in the gaps to make some sort of reasonable coherency out of it.
It's not a matter of literal vs. metaphor. You can still believe these stories are metaphor. But if they are metaphor, then their metaphorical meaning is still limited to their textual context. Genesis teaches a God who is distinct from humanity at every turn. So when God breathes into Adam we should not go against this context unless told to by something in the text itself. You don't have to believe Adam was a pile of dirt and God puffed air into his earthy lungs and then, poof, humanity is born. You can hold to evolution and the creation story in Genesis as metaphorical, for instance. You don't have to believe Adam and Eve actually ate a fruit. Maybe it was metaphorical of humans rebelling against God in some other way. But we shouldn't then say any metaphor goes and now we can say Adam and Eve weren't even rebelling at all. And rather that this is metaphorical of God wanting to experience separateness.

That doesn't mean you are wrong about reality, it just means the Bible doesn't agree with you. You should be using a text like the Brahma Sutra.
William wrote:I regard 'you must be born again' as metaphor. I assume you do not? It is a literal thing to you?
Again, we look at the context. Jesus explicitly denied he meant this literally. And he goes on to tell Nicodemus what he does mean. What, from the text itself, makes you think Jesus is saying we need to wake up to the fact that we are not separate from GOD?
William wrote:You are asking for specific quotes which clearly show Jesus speaking about the consciousness of human beings as being aspects of GOD-consciousness.
Is the word 'consciousness' even used in the bible?
If not, which word(s) do you think which are used, most likely denote consciousness?

Perhaps if we start at this point, we can progress toward finding those most likely statements attributed to Jesus which are able to be interpreted to mean that Jesus did not see human consciousness as separate from GOD consciousness.
I'm not saying it has to directly say that word. I'm a Trinitarian and the word 'trinity' isn't in the Bible. But the concepts are there. I pull on specific verses that directly speak to those concepts. As to the starting point, pick the verses you think show your view. Say what word is used and why it means consciousness like you use it. And we can look at them.
William wrote:The analogy of the breath of GOD which I used in order to say that this is metaphorical of GOD-consciousness is an appropriate interpretation and shouldn't be discarded simply because you feel it somehow doesn't fit in with the rest of the narrative or because it is not said in so many words or "GOD consciousness." isn't mentioned in the bible.
That's exactly why it should be discarded. It doesn't fit in what the author wrote. The concept isn't stated anywhere in the whole Biblical record (as far as I can tell, but I'm open to hearing where you think it does.

[quote="WilliamI don't recall you giving another explanation either. You haven't said what it is you think the 'breath of GOD' might metaphorically represent.[/quote]

If you mean my personal interpretation, then I have. God breathes life into matter making it a human being that is matter and soul.

I also talked about Genesis 1:26-27 which has also lead to this question of yours. I'm not sure if this is the right place for where you see this point going, but I'll put it here for now:
William wrote:Where in the story of Jesus, is there any sign that he ruled anyone?
Well, he 'ruled' his disciples as their teacher. But I was thinking of it in the sense of the type of person humans should be as stewards over creation, which would be the same type of person we need in political roles of authority. The general character of love, servant leadership, reliance upon God and seeking that relationship out above all others, etc. I do think it extends into our own self-identity and relationship to God (although we disagree on what that is). It isn't through fear and unquestioning humility.
William wrote:The better explanation is that such parts of the story come from the pens of those who want us to think of ourselves as specifically separate from GOD consciousness, in order that we will therefore either rebel, or accept without question, what we are being told about GOD. Indeed it is not even hard to understand reasons why such ideas would be employed by those in positions to do so.

But have you ever considered the possibility? If not, then why not? If so, then why precisely, have you then rejected it?
While you shared this in response to the problems you seem to have with the concepts of the Trinity and Incarnation, I think it may fit better here. However, I'm not entirely sure what your idea is here. This is what it seems to me to be. You seem to be pitting your view that (a) people came up with the Trinity and Incarnation specifically to fit their already held belief that we are separate from GOD-consciousness against the view that (b) the ideas of Trinity and Incarnation and separateness from GOD-consciousness comes out of events.

So, in (a) we have the idea determining what is 'reality,' creating a story to fit a preconceived idea, while the reverse is happening in (b) where the idea is fitting the way reality is and events that transpired.

If I don't understand your point there, could you clarify? If I do, then why is this a better explanation? What criteria are you using? Explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, something else?
William wrote:Given only one option or the other, it reverts back to a very juvenile approach to a problem, which I think most likely comes, not from the mouth of Jesus but through the later inventory of those who founded Christendom as an organised religion - politically motivated.
William wrote:This is very evidently written from the perspective of those who see human beings as the flesh. I would discount it because it is contrary to other writings which do not. That is to say, I treat it as chaff in relation to the wheat - the wheat being the idea that we are not the flesh, but the consciousness experiencing the flesh.
So the reason you seem to think this isn't of Jesus is because it disagrees with your view of reality. Why discount Matthew 25:46 and John 5:28-29 as opposed to the these other verses you hint at (although I doubt I would agree with you that they contradict each other)...other then the reason that it doesn't fit your view of reality?

Why do you feel the need to have Jesus on your interpretive side? Why not just reject Jesus' thoughts if they disagree with you? If they don't, then you should be able to point to the texts and use evidence from the text, from the context, that supports your view that Jesus actually taught the same thing as you. But Jesus didn't, 'unless' you bring in these metaphorical meanings from out of left field that are not warranted textually.
Last edited by The Tanager on Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #177

Post by The Tanager »

(3) Analysis of my view

You bring up several critiques of my view:

(3a) Logical contradiction of the Trinity and Incarnation
William wrote:Furthermore, why is it that you have no trouble thinking Jesus' own consciousness was not only an aspect of GOD consciousness, but a totality, whereas the rest of us are of separately created consciousnesses?
I believe you are saying the Trinity basically says your view of reality exists within the Godhead and, therefore, if I have a problem with your view of GOD-consciousness, then I should also have a problem with the Trinity. But could you expand upon that further? I don't think the Trinity does this, so how exactly do you see the Trinity positing this?
William wrote:How do you suppose that the totality of GOD consciousness can reside in one human being? How do you suppose that could be the case, when even the whole universe would be unable to contain it?
I'm not sure what you see as the problem here. It seems like you might be thinking God would be too big to fit in 150 pounds of flesh and bone, but this would confuse immateriality with materiality. The immaterial can't be measured like the material can. Maybe I'm missing your point.

(3b) The moral law
William wrote:And what if the very thing which activates that 'moral law' is understanding that we are each aspects of GOD consciousness?
Why think that? I think that is demonstrably false, if you mean that converting to your view is the only thing that could activate that within ourselves. People of all different beliefs have the 'moral law' active in them.

(3c) Christianity has been proven false
William wrote:And what If;

(1) We want to believe something different is true, because we understand that what is claimed as true has proven to be false throughout history
How so? Do you mean because it supposedly leads to separatism rather than unity or because of other reasons?

(3d) Christianity has caused separatism rather than unity
William wrote:and has contributed mainly to separatism rather than unity?
What exactly do you mean here? And, if true, why does this show it to be false?

(3e) Christianity is believed because of wishful and/or fearful thinking
William wrote:(3) We believe something else because of our commitment to other beliefs insists that we should not question those beliefs through proper reflection, thus we would argue that we are separate from GOD consciousness if the consequences of NOT believing such would mean a great risk to us losing out on the promises which accompany such beliefs?
I don't believe we should hold traditional Christianity to be true because we want it to be true, if that is what you mean.
William wrote:Your reliance upon belief in an idea of GOD consciousness which is separate from your own consciousness, and one in which you believe through stories you are told, that heaven is a reward for such belief and hell (or maybe annihilation) is the punishment for rejecting such belief.

Or is there some other 'reliance' on GOD you are referring to?

Certainly (and once again) it is easy enough to fit the idea of 'reliance upon GOD' into the idea that we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness.
Certainly, I don't think my theology has a monopoly on the idea of 'reliance.' Our views will have different nuances of what that means or perhaps even completely different views.

I was referring to a general reliance upon God to live life as God intended it to be. That we were made to live life in concert with God, relationally, like I have a marriage with my wife. She doesn't just give me rules to follow or demands or hold out rewards or anything like that. We just live life together, we spend time together, we rely upon each other. We are made to live life in concert with God as two individuals in love.

I do not believe just based on stories told to me. I don't believe to get a get out of hell free card. I don't believe because I'm afraid of what will happen if I don't. I don't believe to get some goodies at the end. I believe because I love God and believe I had a personal experience with God that is backed up by philosophy and history and the experiences of others and the witness of the Holy Spirit.

(3f) Free will
William wrote:Why does the potential for imperfect choices, mean it wasn't always perfect?
You didn't answer my question. You were saying there is an argument that free will is an imperfection. I said it wasn't a good one. Do you agree or do you think that it is a good argument? Do you think that free will is an imperfection?
William wrote:Are you saying your idea of GOD had no choice in the matter?

I ask because it seems to me that you are trying to separate GOD from any responsibility of choice by making claims that the environment was perfect, but because the consciousness placed into the environment was NOT an aspect of GOD consciousness, it was imperfect.

After all, your theology requires that human consciousness is the reason why things became imperfect.

Thus it behoves that your theology insists that human consciousness was created as a separate consciousness from GOD consciousness so that GOD consciousness is not directly implicated, but in doing so some other explanation is required, so in this case it is that the consciousness GOD created separately from his own, was imperfect, and had to be imperfect in order for it to NOT be an aspect of GOD consciousness.

Unfortunately this is where the whole theology ties itself into knots trying to separate GOD consciousness from human, in order that no imperfect thing is seen to be done by a supposed perfect being, but that alternate explanation cannot rid itself of the fact that if human consciousness was not perfect for the job of being incarnated into human form, then it had to be imperfect.
I am not saying God didn't have a choice in the matter. I think God is responsible for creating us with the ability to sin. I think it a better existence than a robotic one, so that it was a good, loving choice to make anyway. The choice a perfect being would make.

As far as whether humans were made perfect or imperfect, it depends on what you mean by that. I don't think God could make humans as perfect in every way God is perfect. For example, God is self-existent. Creatures cannot be, by definition.

But we need to talk about moral perfection here. I do not think that just because human consciousnesses are not an aspect of God that they sin. I think they had the ability to make perfect moral human choices. They weren't prescriptively perfect or prescriptively imperfect in that regard. They had free will. They used that free will imperfectly. Therefore, they are the reason things became imperfect (humanly speaking).
William wrote:Even that you also claim that God is perfect and that which God creates is perfect, is demonstrably false in relation to human beings, original sin, evil, et al.
I'm not saying a perfect being can only create prescriptively perfect beings, if that is what you mean. I'm saying the actions (like creation) of a perfect being must be perfect. Creating beings with free will is not an imperfection. God doesn't create evil and original sin in my view. Yes, God makes such things possible. But making that a potential is better than the alternative of robotic goodness.
William wrote:Your only explanation is this thing called 'free will' which allows for the possibility of the perfect creation choosing to be imperfect, but even free will is a creation of GOD, therefore - by your own stated theology, it should also be perfect and not be able to be used imperfectly.
It's a logical absurdity to say free will would have to be used perfectly. That's the opposite of free will: it's determinism. For free will to exist, it must be neither (prescriptively) perfect or imperfect or it doesn't make sense. God, the perfect being, makes humans neither perfect nor imperfect in that way.
William wrote:Then what value is it in relation to perfection and imperfection?
Descriptively. We will act perfectly or imperfectly. It puts the main responsibility for evil on us, since a perfect God cannot be the source of evil. You think it a better explanation that a perfect GOD built evil into GOD's illusion (for nobody else exists to have the illusion). That's a logical contradiction.

(3g) On scriptural reasons against universalism

Your view is a kind of universalism. Annihilationism and eternal torment views both counter universalism, for they assert a final state of affairs for individual beings including both Heaven and Hell. I shared some Biblcial verses that I felt point towards their being a final state including Heaven and Hell. I shared the main verse, but of course the wider context is to be considered, always, when someone just shares one verse.
William wrote:I would say that this is more likely a case of words being placed into the mouth of Jesus (through Roman-Judaeo political motivation), but *whatever* - it does not clearly define anything noteworthy, because it can be interpreted in a number of ways.
Mark 9:42-50. I'm not entirely sure why you think this is being placed in Jesus' mouth. But it seems to me to be clearly talking about two eternal destinies: kingdom of God versus hell. I don't see how you get around that interpretation without doing injustice to the text itself.
William wrote:Specifically the destruction is not directly linked with the idea of the cessation of the individual experience but at the affects caused by the popular choice of the ignorant.

Matthew 7:13. In relation to the afterlife, this could translate into belief induced realities which are destructive on (work against) the individuals grasp of truth.
Matthew 7:13-14. What, textually, makes you think the destruction isn't final? Matt 7:14 adds that only a few will find this way. That seems to speak against universalism.
William wrote:Matt 12:31
And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

This appears to be extremely cryptic. What does it mean? Perhaps in context more light can be shone on it...the preceding verse....
Matthew 12:22-37. I don't think my point relies on what exactly the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is. It says it won't be forgiven. The unforgiven are not eternally with God in Scripture.
William wrote:Significantly I can fit these verses directly into my theology pertaining to us being aspects of GOD consciousness.
But this goes back to doing the text justice. The text doesn't give any clues to your interpretation. You have to already believe this in order to see this in the text. No one coming to this text without your background belief would come up with your interpretation. You have to already have the belief to see it in any verses in the Bible.
William wrote:It is not 'unforgivable' because GOD cannot forgive it, but because it naturally leads to the destruction of the individuals DoE (soul) eventually. Through their own free will to resist it. There is no way around that.
But I thought you said annihilation was not something a good GOD would do? That is why you think my view is more juvenile than yours, I thought.

(3h) Creatio ex nihilo
William wrote:Precisely. It does not exist and thus cannot be used for anything, let alone be used to create something as complex as consciousness, let alone something as complex as the physical universe.
In my view, it's not used for anything. That's my point. 'Nothing' isn't being transformed into something. There was nothing else than God. Then there was something else from God because of God's power and nothing else (i.e., for no other reason/cause/explanation). 'Where' there was an absence there is now a 'something' because of God alone.
William wrote:The idea of a magical wizardry GOD is juvenile. It might allow for the arguments of juvenile concepts to be upheld, but eventually they will fail and will be replaced.
Why is it juvenile to posit an all-powerful being that can create things that didn't exist, i.e., without pre-existing material? It's to believe in less power to believe God can only rearrange things that already exist.
William wrote:First off your theology claims that Consciousness is some THING, and thus is material.
My theology doesn't say consciousness is necessarily material or immaterial. God has consciousness, but is immaterial. We are material beings with consciousness.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #178

Post by myth-one.com »

William wrote:Matt 25:46
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Eternal punishment implies existing within a living experience of punishment . . .
No, it does not!

The punishment or wages of sin is Death:
Romans 6:23 wrote:For the wages of sin is death . . .
And death is everlasting.

So the punishment for sinning is the everlasting or never ending punishment of death.

That is, they will never exist again!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #179

Post by William »

[Replying to post 173 by The Tanager]
You didn't address this. I am interested in why you think so.
Do you mean why I think your theology makes "GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect" or why I think my theology doesn't do this? If the former, then that continues to come in section 1b which will be my next post. If the latter, I did and you directly responded to it (your response starts "Are you saying your idea of GOD had no choice in the matter..."). I further address it in section 3f in the fourth post.


No - specifically what I meant was that you said you were going to address this;
When humans separate GOD consciousness from their own, they inevitably create theologies which attempt to make GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect. This is contrary logic. It is also juvenile. It is also part of why the world has problems.
You'll notice that I've changed this wording, because it's not really just about your view on hell, I don't think. It involves the illusion of heaven, traditionally conceived, as well. You speak of us having limited free will in our situation, but I'm specifically asking in regards to whether we can remain in an illusion of separation or not. Do we have free will specifically in regards to that issue?

To answer this question it does not matter why they would actually choose to stay in that state of illusion or not. By definition, if we have free will, in this specific issue of choosing to remain in an illusion of separation, we can conceivably choose to remain in an illusion forever, whatever the reason.
I have already answered - in great detail - that the realities created through individual belief systems are not permanent. They might last a very long time, but that is besides the point.
Free will is always specific to situation - to the parameters of the reality being experienced. Do you have free will to stay in this physical universe forever? No you do not. The reason for this has to do with the limitations which are in place - the parameters of the reality being experienced.
On the contrary. The problem I am having is why you think anyone would have reason to continue to reject it. You have yet to answer that one.
First, that is exactly what I said the problem you had was.
Well you could help me with my problem by providing the answer, yes?
Second, again, the specific reason does not matter. Free will, by definition, means we could choose to remain in an illusion for some reason(s). If that is not possible, then we don't have true free will in this specific regard.
Were there is individual ability to choose, there is free will, specific to the parameters of the reality being experienced.
Third, let's look at possible specific reasons anyway.
That would be good.
You admit that people right now are accepting illusions as truth, correct? Why?
I understand this to be the case based upon the data - data which I have linked you to already throughout the course of this discussion.
Name some reasons why people believe this. Name some reasons why people believe this. Pleasure, peer-pressure, upbringing, religious doctrine, whatever.
There is no one 'this' belief. You choose to believe what you believe for the reasons that you do. It is no different in process from anyone else who have beliefs, even if those beliefs are different from your own. The reasons are incredibly variable. My question was specific to why YOU believe that given the choice not to have to exist in an experience of hell, that individuals would choose to do so anyway - and would, even if the option was to do so forever.
If free will exists it is logically necessary that a person may still choose one of those very same reasons to remain in the illusion. Free will means they can keep switching the reasons why they believe the illusion or that they can even stubbornly hold onto the same reason in spite of any evidence to the contrary. At every future moment, they can do this for any of the four reasons I give and many more that we could list off.
This is what you say, but you really need to give a hypothetical example as to why you believe anyone given the choice not to have to exist in an experience of hell, that individuals would choose to do so anyway - and would, even if the option was to do so forever.

What is it that you think could possibly want them to make such a choice, given the option? That is specifically what I am wondering. You make it an argument, but you do not state why the argument should be regarded as valid and relevant.
But are they compelled to believe it true or do they have free will here? Must they wake up once given the information or do they have free will here to remain in an illusion or even choose a new illusion? And then the next anomaly comes. Are they really free or does the evidence compel them to believe the truth? And then the next anomaly comes. Every time we need to ask the same questions. Do we maintain free will or is it eventually overrided?
I can go with the idea that some individuals will resist, and continue to resist, but eventually I think truth will always win out over illusion. The illusions are created through belief systems in the first place, and the nature of the Astral is fundamentally different from that of the physical universe - which is by nature, far more densified and constricting. We are dealing with individuate consciousnesses who are no longer within the limitations of the human animal form one the surface of a gigantic rock...
The only guaranteed way out of this is to have GOD make it so that everyone must eventually wake up, in spite of any stubbornness to the contrary. In other words, you are rejecting that aspects-of-GOD have free will in the specific case of remaining in an illusion or not. GOD can still have free will, but not us aspects of GOD.
Well to be fair, it was not my argument, it was your argument. You brought free will into the discussion as if it were an important part of the process. I am not arguing that it is or isn't, I have been arguing that the GIFT given is allowed to continue in its choices and self created circumstances for as long as it takes for that individual to reintegrate with the truth and abandon their beliefs and personalized self identities created through those beliefs. I have been arguing this as a far more mature manner in which to rectify injustice and waywardness than the more juvenile methods to do with separatism which people still presently believe in and have believed in for thousands of years.
But you are saying people won't be as stubborn as I say above. How do you know that? It's easier to see people with self-induced hells opting for the anomaly on the basis of blind hope if nothing else. What about the ones who believe they will receive heaven with God forever? They are under an illusion according to your view. Their self-created existence after this one won't be hellish at all, it will be heavenly. What will cause them to question and reject all of that? I can see somebody being perfectly happy forever in an illusion like that. But your view says GOD won't allow them that eternity...against their will, if it comes to that.
This is specifically why I asked you about your beliefs and why you might choose to opt for a heavenly experience of your own creation, in that I suspected (and said as much) that you were conflating how you would react to the anomaly with how someone experiencing a hell would react.

Thus, in order to answer your question above, I would need to have some kind of understanding as to the expectations you have in relation to heaven. What do you expect your experiences to be?
The main points will do for now. The details are not necessary.

Then I can proceed to counter that with methods the anomaly may employ in order to bring you into the fullness of the truth through that reintegration process.

Having said as much, from the data I mentioned, often 'Guilds' and 'Soul Retrievers' are focused upon the worst case situations which obviously involved rescuing individuals from the hells their beliefs have created for them.

People in heavens are less of a concern, but are of value in relation to those of them who have been convinced to abandon their heavens and then often offer their services as Soul Retrievers - especially in cases where they have employed their beliefs on earth in trying to convince people of an idea of a GOD who judges people to hell for eternity and by doing so, either directly or indirectly, helped to cause the individual(s) to react adversely to their initial experience of life after death.

For example, the person may have never believed all that woo stuff about afterlife, and when they died and discovered that they had been wrong, they immediately thought that those who had tried to convince them of hell, had been right after-all... they panic and imagination goes into override and the roll-on affect of that thinking has inadvertently resulted in them creating that hell - and even being judged and sentenced to go there by some GOD - all along not realizing that the nature of the Astral involves the individual's beliefs coupled with the capabilities of that aspect of the Earth Entities mind, to instantly manifest realities for the individual to experience, based on their beliefs.

If you knew about that as being the case, would you choose to stay in your heaven, or would you choose to join the Anomalies and become a Soul Retriever?


First, I'm specifically talking about freedom of our will in regards to remaining in this state of illusion or not. We can't have free will on this issue for some of the time. We either have free will (on this issue, at least) or not. If we are forced to wake up eventually, then we do not have free will on this issue, even for a moment. We are allowed an illusion that our will is free for a time perhaps, but it actually isn't free. will give you that option.
As pointed out, you are the one who brought free will into the argument as if it was relevant. More-so, it appears you think it is most relevant.
What you are speaking about is personal free will, but in relation to the above, you are speaking as if this particular type of free will somehow actually exists!
Where does this particular type of free will exist? Can you point to an example of it existing in this universe?
Second, do you actually think we have free will or not? At this point in the logic, you would be saying we don't have free will (in this regard), but that this isn't a problem.
Not the kind you are speaking about. As I said earlier;

Free will is always specific to situation - to the parameters of the reality being experienced.
Third, I think this would still be a problem. To me (not emotionally, but logically), free will is more important than being one with God.
Remember a few post back when I said that free will is only useful in relation to the reintegration process? The final act of free will is to use it to be one with GOD.
Without free will, all is meaningless. Sure, 'we' would exist in truth, but 'we' are as real as pixels on a screen in a video game. We are empty of any significant existence. We are robotic. Any good acquired is empty because it is forced upon us. Real love cannot exist in such a situation.
Do you believe that fear of hell is a great tactic to use to get people to love you? Or even for that matter, the promise of heaven?

If we revert to the visual metaphor of the Fractal image, when I am speaking about reintegration with the full knowledge of GOD (First Source) I am not saying we all have to go into the area I labelled as representing FSC-FSR and just 'be' GOD.

Not at all. I am speaking about the GIFT of individual experience as an aspect of FSC within something which can be experienced, understanding completely that it is an individual aspect of GOD-consciousness having experiences, and retaining that knowledge forever and expressing oneself in accordance with that knowledge.


We don't 'become robots' or lose the free will. First Source is the source of all free will, so in reintegrating, we cannot lose what essentially is something FS has always and will always have. It is never about losing free will - it is always about how we are using free will.

Your argument above implies that if we are not always separate from GOD, our only other option is to lose our free will.

My argument that we GIFTS are never in truth - separate from GOD. GOD does not view us in that way. We are only under the impression through our belief systems that we are separated from GOD. Believing something to be true is different from something actually being true.

That is why I have said, it is only a matter of tweaking the belief to include that we are inseparable from GOD.

My argument is that we GIFTS are never in truth - separate from GOD. GOD does not view us in that way. GOD acknowledges that we are under the illusion, but that does not mean that GOD has to accept that the illusion is permanent, or more real that the actual truth. GOD does not have to go along with our beliefs about separation as if they are true.
Do you mean it's on the table for Jesus (and that he's wrong on this front?) or that it's on the table for you? As to what would follow for your view, I do think you are drawing the right conclusions based on your given theology. I'm not sure if you thought that I was saying anything against that, but I'm not. I thought you said annihilation was not an option for a good GOD.
No. What I said was that I would incorporate your argument for the sake of seeing where it might logically lead.

Personally I do not believe that such a process would have been initiated in the mind of GOD if even one GIFT were to be lost.
But I am open to the argument that if it can be explained to me how anyone could resist better options with the assistance of anomalies and enough time given for the GIFT to stop resisting, that the GIFT would continue to resist anyway - then I could grant that when all is said and done, the final verdict must be that the GIFT has been rejected - because it rejects itself. It rejects experience - the experience of being individual and the offer for it to reintegrate with the truth. Thus I can accept that - if someone can give me a good enough reason WHY this could eventuate, the data of experience which represents the individual - the GIFT - would be deleted and the aspect of GOD Consciousness which was attached to that now deleted DoE would reintegrate into the Wholeness of First Source Reality - that area in the fractal image metaphor shown as black.

So, if you can offer a convincing reason as to why anyone would opt for such a fate, please do so. I think GOD is just too loving and lovable for anyone to choose to resist forever, and I also understand that we - being aspects of GOD-Consciousness - given the right circumstances, will recognize our selves as we truly are - eventually.

Which is also why I think that the Astral Realm is a good and necessary stepping stone in the reintegration process because it allows for individual GIFT to chose as it will in its own time and have as long as applicable in order to make those choices as well as having the assistance of the anomaly involved in all of that.

People have been deceived here on earth and there has to be a place where the affect of those deceptions can be justly dealt with in a mature and well thought out manner.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #180

Post by myth-one.com »


William wrote:People have been deceived here on earth and there has to be a place where the affect of those deceptions can be justly dealt with in a mature and well thought out manner.
There is!

Those deceptions will be justly dealt with in a mature and well thought out manner here on the earth upon the Second Coming of Christ.

At that time we shall know the truth, and the truth shall make us free.

Post Reply