Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

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

[brianbbs67]

I don't see how you can logic an afterlife into existence. You can speculate until the cows come home, but in the absence of any evidence for souls and eternal consciousness, the effort expended on debating the details of an afterlife is wasted. It's just tossing made up stuff back and forth. There are far more worthwhile subjects on which to exercise human intellect. All the evidence we have points to consciousness being dependent on a functioning brain. After death there is no functioning brain and hence no persistence of consciousness.

I like this except for the last line. Only because we don't know if thats true or not. I agree arguing about hypotheticals, is hypothetical. Leads not very far. And the long winded responses, are a hard read. Tempus fugit.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 295 by brianbbs67]

I like this except for the last line. Only because we don't know if thats true or not.

I understand what you mean. My statement was probably too blunt, but I meant it in the sense that it was the conclusion that all the evidence we have ultimately leads to. It seems to me to be the height of absurdity to discuss the details of an afterlife when you can't even establish that such a thing even exists.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 294 by William]

On both occasions you have asked me these questions based upon what you have interpreted my theology to be. I never said either of those things. Certainly not in the way you have bounced them back to me.

That is why I am asking you to re-frame your questions, so that they align with what I actually said, rather than how you decided to interpret them.

Which is why I am asking clarifying questions. That is your opportunity to correct my misunderstandings rather than to just say 'you got it wrong, get it right and then reframe the question.'

I have made the effort of bringing in different types of analogies in order to try an help you understand better, and some of those you haven't even mentioned, such as the example of the parable of the Prodigal Son or the example of Jesus being anomaly.

Did those examples go over your head, or did you simply decide to ignore them? I don't know. You tell me.

Directly point out how those analogies answer/correct my clarifying questions.

(1) Yes, I originally asked "Why is it more loving for one consciousness to undergo illusions for awhile and then reintegrate itself than it is for a God to create separate wills that are capable of freely loving each other and God?"

Your response in post 287? What you said about the GIFT will clear up any confusion for this new question I had (when you should have just laid out exactly how it clears up the confusion if you wanted to be helpful). And you said that you didn't claim your view was more loving, but that it was more mature.

Okay, so I admitted that I must have misunderstood you regarding this latter point. You said you didn't say your view was more loving. The implication? You don't think your view of GOD is more loving or it is as equally as loving. But I still ask a clarifying question to make sure you were implying that, rather than just ignoring that question and trying to move the discussion onto a different question. Which you haven't actually answered.

It's a straightforward question. Do you think your view of GOD is of a more loving GOD than my view of God? Why or why not? Answering this question doesn't keep us from asking the other ones you want to.

(2) Since you said that you said your view of GOD was that GOD was more mature, you change my question into a new one, which is fine. The question now becomes "Why is it more mature for one consciousness to undergo illusions for awhile and then reintegrate itself than it is for a God to create separate wills that are capable of freely loving each other and God?"

But even that question is wrong because I have misunderstood what you said about the GIFT. This is shown in what I say about it in post 288 and how you respond to that in post 289.

So, in post 290 I ask a clarifying question (so that I'm not addressing my misinterpretation of your position, but your actual position) to see what is the difference between saying GOD is more loving and saying GOD is more mature with love. This has nothing to do with my misunderstandings of your view. It is a question of comprehension of the terms you are using. Can you clarify those terms?

For some reason you don't want to plainly help me with that. You first want to point out that I'm having a problem grasping your view. We both know I'm having a problem grasping you, why keep pointing it out? I'm trying to understand you correctly. Are you willing to help someone understand you? If so, answer the question: define GOD being more mature (at least 'with love') versus GOD being more loving.

Now, the analysis of this question does require me to grasp what your view actually is. So, I shared my confusion on your view as well. You say we are individuals, which is a concept that, traditionally understood, requires separation. You say we are individuals, but we are not separated from GOD. That makes no sense to me. I say as much.

Your response? Something can be one whole undivided object and a seemingly infinite number of unique objects. That makes no sense to me, so I share that confusion.

According to you, you and I are separate individuals yes? I agree with that in relation to our subjective realities. That is the GIFT, and as such, will always be.

According to me, we are connected through the equalizer of GOD-consciousness, and in that we are not, and never can be as separate as total separation, because total separation is not really real.

Again, it is about language and the way it is used. We are separate through form and united through GOD-consciousness.

We can indeed be both, and it is no wonder the English language does not have a word for that, (at least not as far as I am aware) because people are largely unaware of this truth.

Maybe it's your use of GOD-consciousness that is confusing. Is it merely an ability to have experiences that unites us, or something else? Is it 'consciousness' in the same way that human consciousness is consciousness? Feel free to use a different definition, but here is one definition of consciousness:

(1) the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

So, Tanager-consciousness is aware of all of my experiences, beliefs, memories, etc. Using this same definition, GOD-consciousness is aware of all of my experiences, beliefs, memories, etc. but everyone else's as well.

If this is your definition, then we are not united by GOD-consciousness because I only have a part of GOD-consciousness that isn't shared by you and I have nothing of GOD-consciousness, so I don't share that with GOD.

So, how do you define my consciousness and GOD-consciousness?

Please don't respond about how you've already shared this through various analogies and how I'm misunderstanding you and 'why haven't I grasped it yet' and 'please tell me what you understand about such-and-such that I've said, but you haven't responded to.' Just address the issue directly to help me understand you because I do not understand your view.

Simply put, when you speak of the universe, do you speak of a separate part of it or do you speak of it as a whole thing, which gets it's wholeness from the sum total of its parts?

We speak of the universe in this way because that is the way that it is. It IS an undivided object, consisting of innumerable separate parts.
The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents.

Did you see what you did there? I said: "The universe is either one whole undivided object or it is a collection of separate objects." You speak of object and parts.

The universe is not all of spacetime AND its contents. All of the space-time universe is the contents. Those aren't two separate ideas. The universe is NOT an undivided object consisting of innumerable separate objects. It is either an object that is undivided into parts or it is a collection of divided/separate objects (or parts if you want to say the universe is an object). Which option better represents your view of GOD? One object or a collection of objects?

A brick is one object. A pile of bricks is a collection of different objects. A wall is a more organized collection of different objects. Or you can call a brick a part of the object we call a wall.

Otherwise you would have to say that the parts are separate from the whole, which is precisely how your theology speaks of GOD consciousness being separate from all other consciousnesses.

That isn't what my theology says because I don't think GOD consciousness is the whole of everything. God is a part of the collection of consciousnesses, in that sense. And it makes perfect sense (in that view) to think of my consciousness being a separate part from God's consciousness which is also a part of the collection of all consciousnesses (which is just a conceptual category, a collection, not a thing in and of itself having experiences).

Using the language I've been using to help me understand, how do you view GOD and/or GOD consciousness? Is GOD one of the parts that make up the collection of objects or is GOD just the sum total of all objects? Or something else?

[William]

[Replying to post 297 by The Tanager]

Yes, I originally asked

"Why is it more loving for one consciousness to undergo illusions for awhile and then reintegrate itself than it is for a God to create separate wills that are capable of freely loving each other and God?"

Yes you did and I explained where you were incorrect in your interpretation of my theology because your question, framed as it is above, did not take that into account.

Do you think your view of GOD is of a more loving GOD than my view of God?

There you see? You have re-framed the question to better suit what I have been saying regarding my theology. You have removed the parts of the question which are not (as I explained) part of my theology, as was the implication the way you framed your original question.

Now I feel I can answer your question without those implications coming into it.

So my answer to your re-framed question;

Q: "Do you think your view of GOD is of a more loving GOD than my view of God?"

A: I think my idea of GOD in relation to your idea of GOD is more mature [less juvenile] (which you already knew) and that consequently the Love displayed by my idea of GOD, is more mature.

The example in relation to that can be seen within the nature of our different theologies to do with this life experience in the physical universe, as well as the next phase (generically referred to as 'afterlife').

Now in relation to the rest of you post, specifically;

For some reason you don't want to plainly help me with that. You first want to point out that I'm having a problem grasping your view.

I do indeed want to help you with that but the way you were using language was limiting - your original question was framed so that if I answered in the affirmative, I was also implying that you were correct about those other things mentioned in the original question, which in itself would lead to further confusion and you could then bring them up later and say 'but you said...' so it was necessary for me to point out where you were going astray in your interpretation of my theology, and in that, ask you to re-frame your question to better reflect that.

Now I will also acknowledge that it was more than likely accidental that you re-framed the question as you now have so that I was better able to answer it, but hopefully you can examine the original next to the re-framed one and see therein what the difference between them is and - along with my clarification in this post - perhaps understand better - your call was for 'laser focus to prevent confusion' and this is my answer to that call.

Effectively the laser cuts away the unnecessary (which potentially will cause confusion in future discussion ['but you said...']) and keeps the focus on what is actually said, rather than what was not actually said.

That is also why our short lists with the 11 points upon them are useful for cross-referencing.

In relation to your original question, the short list should have been a useful tool, for you especially in these points.

(5)

You: These expressions are actually occurring illusions that GOD has.

Me: That the separate expressions of GOD have. We discussed the use of the word 'illusion'. My use of it denotes the impermanent compared to the eternal.

(6)

You: These expressions have their own consciousness, but this consciousness is an aspect of GOD's consciousness.

Me:The consciousnesses derive from the one Source consciousness and it is form (things) which allow for individual expression. The 'expressions' have their own individuality. That is the GIFT.

We both know I'm having a problem grasping you, why keep pointing it out?

I am attempting to help you with that, and believe that the way language is used has its part to play in that.

For example, your re-framed question (which is now answered) the language you used in that aligned sufficiently with what I had been saying re my theology in order for me to be able to answer it without the possibility of being misunderstood further down the line ('but you said...'.)

Having said that, you have re-framed your question once more;

Q: "Define GOD being more mature (at least 'with love') versus GOD being more loving."

There is no 'versus'. If it gets down to the question of love and relationship (which indeed it does) then I choose the more mature because that is what I am looking for in a relationship.

You say we are individuals, but we are not separated from GOD. That makes no sense to me. I say as much.

Your response? Something can be one whole undivided object and a seemingly infinite number of unique objects. That makes no sense to me, so I share that confusion.

Yes I did say that. In attempting to explain where you are not understanding my position (in relation to your originally framed question) this led to - not laser focus - but veering away from that, which in turn produced confusion.

We can approach that question in more detail next if you want to, but suffice to say, there is nothing in my theology that is separate from anything else in my theology...it is all connected, but the laser approach seems the best one to adopt...one question at a time...when each question is answered in that, the one asking the question is satisfied they understand the answer, we can move to the next, and slowly build the bridge to understanding.

Maybe it's your use of GOD-consciousness that is confusing. Is it merely an ability to have experiences that unites us, or something else? Is it 'consciousness' in the same way that human consciousness is consciousness? Feel free to use a different definition, but here is one definition of consciousness:

(1) the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

I would frame the definition "The quality or state of being aware that consciousness IS ones self - quintessentially speaking." because that definition aligns best with my theology and understands that ALL consciousness is GOD-consciousness and that GOD IS Consciousness.

"Quintessentially speaking" = 'the heart of the matter'.

So, Tanager-consciousness is aware of all of my experiences, beliefs, memories, etc.

Yes. It is also aware that how Tanager sees himself is not entirely correct. I did touch on this way back in the thread...but it is something which is necessarily complicated and getting into that concept will be difficult.

This is why I often refer members/the reader to my Members Notes because these expand upon the ideas regarding my theology and should be able to assist those interested in knowing more about my position to understand better, in order to be able to ask questions suitably framed to reflect that better understanding.

If this is your definition, then we are not united by GOD-consciousness because I only have a part of GOD-consciousness that isn't shared by you and I have nothing of GOD-consciousness, so I don't share that with GOD.

So, how do you define my consciousness and GOD-consciousness?

"The quality or state of being aware that consciousness IS ones self - quintessentially speaking."
"Quintessentially speaking" = 'the heart of the matter'.

That is my definition. In relation to that can you still state that;

"We are not united by GOD-consciousness because I only have a part of GOD-consciousness that isn't shared by you and I have nothing of GOD-consciousness, so I don't share that with GOD. "

Using my definition (in green) how would I answer this;

So, how do you define my consciousness and GOD-consciousness?

My answer - succinctly - I define your individuate consciousness as an aspect of God-consciousness at it most quintessential. Any 'costume' of concept taught to you or otherwise developed by you to do with how you self identify which rejects the idea of you being an individuate unit of GOD-consciousness, is superfluous and does not work toward unification. The costume acts as a veil occulting the quintessential

Did you see what you did there? I said: "The universe is either one whole undivided object or it is a collection of separate objects." You speak of object and parts.

The universe is not all of spacetime AND its contents. All of the space-time universe is the contents. Those aren't two separate ideas. The universe is NOT an undivided object consisting of innumerable separate objects. It is either an object that is undivided into parts or it is a collection of divided/separate objects (or parts if you want to say the universe is an object). Which option better represents your view of GOD? One object or a collection of objects?

Again - it is all about perception and interpretation of what IS.

I got the definition of the universe from the online dictionary. "all existing matter and space considered as a whole"

Your interpretation of what the universe is;

"The universe is not all of spacetime AND its contents. All of the space-time universe is the contents"

You are incorrect because space-time is not an 'object'. Space-time is not a 'thing' other than it is that which contains the things. and presently the container is expanding (according the the theory of the Big Bang.)

In the same way, GOD-consciousness is not an object, a 'thing' which is of form. It is that which is within form and also outside of form, so depending on its position relevant to form, it can be both - simultaneously - without any logical contradiction.

The objects do not determine where separation of GOD-consciousness starts and finishes. There IS no separation.

Allowing the object (your human form) to separate your consciousness from GOD-consciousness = your self generated illusion. The antidote is to comprehend that regardless of form, one can never be truly separate from GOD-Consciousness. Part of the process of utilizing the antidote is to NOT self identify with the form.

Self generated illusion = misuse of GOD-consciousness.

Otherwise you would have to say that the parts are separate from the whole, which is precisely how your theology speaks of GOD consciousness being separate from all other consciousnesses.

That isn't what my theology says because I don't think GOD consciousness is the whole of everything.

Then how is GOD to know - intimately first hand subjectively speaking - of all things, if GOD is only 'part' of all things, separated and objectifying those things as separate from Its subjective awareness?
It is not so much that GOD-consciousness is the 'whole of everything' - but rather - It is the reason everything exists. GOD-Consciousness incarnates into form for the subjective experience, and without that happening, no form can be 'living' because it is GOD-consciousness (consciousness itself) which is the only attribute which can make that call.

A planetary body cannot make the call "I am living" if it is not conscious. A human body cannot make the call "I am living" if it is not conscious. What then makes the call?

Consciousness experiencing the body is what makes the call. It is consciousness which is living, NOT the form.

My theology does not distinguish difference in consciousness expressing through form, as being 'GOD' or 'not GOD.' The form can and does influence the way individual units of consciousness choose to self identify. Regardless of how individuals choose to self identify, I understand them as being aspects of GOD-consciousness.

Is GOD one of the parts that make up the collection of objects or is GOD just the sum total of all objects? Or something else?

GOD is none of the objects (forms). GOD is Consciousness.

In relation to the objects (forms), GOD is not something else. GOD is some ONE else.

First Source is Some ONE.

FSC within form (the object) is individuate (the GIFT that we are) through the experience and - in truth - is able to acknowledge itself within all other objects (forms) as long as self identifying AS the form is removed. Self identifying AS the form is the primary reason humans have problems with one another, and this itself can be traced to such ideas as GOD being separate consciousness from humans.

Regarding the OP topic specifically, and my own theology in relation to that, the idea of reintegration is NOT to stop being an individual unit of consciousness (the GIFT) and be reabsorbed into FSC (such as having the individual data of experience annihilated), but rather, understanding and self identifying as being an aspect of GOD-consciousness and in that, reintegrate through changing ones expression in order to reflect through the expression, the internal knowing into the external world of form.

In short, behaving as GOD would actually behave rather than behaving as if we were separate consciousnesses from GOD-consciousness.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 298 by William]

Q: "Do you think your view of GOD is of a more loving GOD than my view of God?"

A: I think my idea of GOD in relation to your idea of GOD is more mature [less juvenile] (which you already knew) and that consequently the Love displayed by my idea of GOD, is more mature.

The next question I asked after that was "why or why not?" Exactly why do you see the Love displayed by your idea of GOD as more mature? What is it about this life experience in the physical universe, as well as the next phase?

I would frame the definition "The quality or state of being aware that consciousness IS ones self - quintessentially speaking." because that definition aligns best with my theology and understands that ALL consciousness is GOD-consciousness and that GOD IS Consciousness.

"Quintessentially speaking" = 'the heart of the matter'.

That's not a good definition at all. You are using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It leads to an infinite regress. Consciousness can't be defined as an awareness of something about the consciousness.

[William]

[Replying to post 299 by The Tanager]

The next question I asked after that was "why or why not?" Exactly why do you see the Love displayed by your idea of GOD as more mature? What is it about this life experience in the physical universe, as well as the next phase?

That question has been answered by me in the course of this interaction with you.

Why do you think it my theology is not more mature than your own?

What makes you think that one lifetime on this planet is sufficient time in which an individual can make a choice between 'heaven' and 'annihilation'?

That's not a good definition at all. You are using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It leads to an infinite regress. Consciousness can't be defined as an awareness of something about the consciousness.

In what way does this idea lead to infinite regress? How can you be aware of yourself in any capacity including how you choose to self identify, if you are not consciousness?

How can you be someone other than consciousness if, in order to self identify, you require consciousness?

Consciousness is not something we HAVE, it is that which we ARE.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 295 by brianbbs67]

I like this except for the last line. Only because we don't know if thats true or not.

I understand what you mean. My statement was probably too blunt, but I meant it in the sense that it was the conclusion that all the evidence we have ultimately leads to. It seems to me to be the height of absurdity to discuss the details of an afterlife when you can't even establish that such a thing even exists.

The audience is lost and the beat goes on. Argument is the call of the day.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 300 by William]

That question has been answered by me in the course of this interaction with you.

Why do you think it my theology is not more mature than your own?

You've said a lot of things. And I've responded. I was hoping you could pinpoint it in our laser focus. As we've seen I'm not the best at understanding what you write. So, do you want to help me understand or not?

I mean, I could say that I've answered your question as well. But since I'm concerned with trying to help you understand my views I will actually answer it again straightforwardly here. Your theology seems to me less mature because it does not involve real free will. When I look at relationships with other people, the more mature relationships involve freedom not coercion.

What makes you think that one lifetime on this planet is sufficient time in which an individual can make a choice between 'heaven' and 'annihilation'?

I will answer this again when we are done analyzing your view.

In what way does this idea lead to infinite regress? How can you be aware of yourself in any capacity including how you choose to self identify, if you are not consciousness?

How can you be someone other than consciousness if, in order to self identify, you require consciousness?

Consciousness is not something we HAVE, it is that which we ARE.

I didn't ask you what we are aware of. I didn't ask you if we are conscious. I didn't ask you if we have or are consciousness. I asked you for a definition of the term 'consciousness'. I gave you a definition and asked if you agreed or if you would use another definition. Your definition of 'consciousness' was:

I would frame the definition "The quality or state of being aware that consciousness IS ones self - quintessentially speaking." because that definition aligns best with my theology and understands that ALL consciousness is GOD-consciousness and that GOD IS Consciousness.

"Quintessentially speaking" = 'the heart of the matter'.

So, consciousness is a state of being aware that consciousness is something? But I'm asking you what consciousness is. So, let me plug your definition of consciousness into the sentence you just gave me: consciousness is "the quality or state of being aware that [the quality or state of being aware that consciousness IS ones self - quintessentially speaking] IS ones self - quintessentially speaking." But that definition has the word consciousness in it and that's what I'm asking you to define. Let's plug in your definition of that and we get "the quality or state of being aware that [the quality or state of being aware that [the quality or state of being aware that consciousness IS ones self - quintessentially speaking] IS ones self - quintessentially speaking] IS ones self - quintessentially speaking." And it just keeps going ad infinitum.

The point is that your 'definition' isn't really telling me what consciousness is. You are saying "we are consciousness" but I want to know what consciousness means to see what you are saying we are. I'm not wondering if you are saying we are consciousness or not. Give me a definition of the term 'consciousness' so that I can substitute it in the sentence "We are consciousness" to understand what you are talking about.

If I were to define love as "a feeling of love" this doesn't tell you what love is.

[William]

[Replying to post 302 by The Tanager]

You've said a lot of things. And I've responded. I was hoping you could pinpoint it in our laser focus. As we've seen I'm not the best at understanding what you write. So, do you want to help me understand or not?

Yes. That is why I thought that if you could say why you think your theology is more mature than my own, we could move forward with this.

As I mentioned, the main difference seems to be that you think one lifetime on this planet is enough time in which to adequately sort out who gets into heaven and who gets exterminated.

Your theology has the idea of a GOD who creates human beings and gives them instructions through a variety of organised religious mediums, and if they fail in following those instructions, they fail in getting into the reward of heaven.

(You were asked by me in a much earlier post what it was you thought heaven was and would be like for those who will experience it. You did not answer that. Perhaps it would help if you did.)

My theology involves a far more complex method of reintegration wherein this present universe represents a phase of that reintegration process, (RP) and the next phase (afterlife) is a continuation of that RP.

I have explained that process throughout this interaction with you.

I mean, I could say that I've answered your question as well. But since I'm concerned with trying to help you understand my views I will actually answer it again straightforwardly here. Your theology seems to me less mature because it does not involve real free will. When I look at relationships with other people, the more mature relationships involve freedom not coercion.

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

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

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

In relation to coercion, you have yet to give examples where your theology does not use such as a means of getting individuals to make what you might consider - 'the correct choices' necessary to receive the reward (heaven) rather than not (annihilation).

It does not take into account the lack of information available to the individual that the individual can make informed choices and so the choices are largely faith-based, so one either believes in the reward through faith or - at the other extreme - decides that doing so is not something which flows harmoniously with acts of the will, and in its own way uses coercion as a means in which to force individuals to make a choice here and now in relation to an event portrayed as promise for something yet to come.

The point is that your 'definition' isn't really telling me what consciousness is. You are saying "we are consciousness" but I want to know what consciousness means to see what you are saying we are. I'm not wondering if you are saying we are consciousness or not. Give me a definition of the term 'consciousness' so that I can substitute it in the sentence "We are consciousness" to understand what you are talking about.

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

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

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

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

If I were to define love as "a feeling of love" this doesn't tell you what love is.

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

This is also part of the overall reason my theology is the more mature one. It doesn't take something complex and attempt to stuff it in a simple book, as does biblical theology.

I will answer this again when we are done analyzing your view.

Might I suggest you make the effort to answer and keep the balance that way, Otherwise you can simply continue with this ploy and avoid answering these questions. As well as that, it will help to clarify the differences in our theologies.

[The Tanager]

Might I suggest you make the effort to answer and keep the balance that way, Otherwise you can simply continue with this ploy and avoid answering these questions. As well as that, it will help to clarify the differences in our theologies.

I thought we agreed to take a laser focus? I even asked you if you wanted to focus on analyzing my view first! I asked you multiple times and said that if you don't choose a topic, then we can focus on your view first since you originally brought it up in response to the topic of this thread. To say that I'm avoiding answering the questions and making a ploy is very disrespectful and out of touch with the reality. I've been very open and patient in this thread with you.

I'm open to going back to a discussion on each of our views at the same time, as long as we do so in a very focused manner. If you bring in all of these different critiques again all at once, though, I will only respond to them one at a time.

As I mentioned, the main difference seems to be that you think one lifetime on this planet is enough time in which to adequately sort out who gets into heaven and who gets exterminated.

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

Your theology has the idea of a GOD who creates human beings and gives them instructions through a variety of organised religious mediums, and if they fail in following those instructions, they fail in getting into the reward of heaven.

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

It does not take into account the lack of information available to the individual that the individual can make informed choices and so the choices are largely faith-based, so one either believes in the reward through faith or - at the other extreme - decides that doing so is not something which flows harmoniously with acts of the will, and in its own way uses coercion as a means in which to force individuals to make a choice here and now in relation to an event portrayed as promise for something yet to come.

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

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

In relation to coercion, you have yet to give examples where your theology does not use such as a means of getting individuals to make what you might consider - 'the correct choices' necessary to receive the reward (heaven) rather than not (annihilation).

There is no coercion in what I just offered above. Where do you see coercion in my theology? People are free both to disbelieve the earlier steps as well as to reject seeking and relying on God to sort things out with.

This is also part of the overall reason my theology is the more mature one. It doesn't take something complex and attempt to stuff it in a simple book, as does biblical theology.

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