Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

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

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 313 by William]

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

That's simply not true. That would be like saying 'biology' can't be defined other than in relation to different creature's biologies. We can define biology, as well as human biology, canine biology, etc.

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

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

I'll just ask about your view in another way and see if that is more helpful. Please don't say "what I said was clear enough." It wasn't for me. Is consciousness (1) an ability or (2) another name for an entity that has an ability of awareness (among other things) or (3) something else?

After your answer here, I may have something else to say about the analogy I shared and you better aligned with your view.

[William]

[Replying to post 314 by The Tanager]

When you try to openly shift the blame on the other person (even if it really is their fault)..."you aren't able to get outside your belief system or it would be clear to you"

It is unfair of you to take this stance, as it is very evident that I have been very consistent in my efforts to help you understand my idea of GOD. I am not blaming you, I am suggesting that it may be a case that your own theology and idea of GOD is preventing you from understanding mine and included in the suggestion is to place your idea of GOD aside, to see if that helps.

Then I simply disagree that we need to be able to question every single idea of God in order to find truth about God.

Well that is your prerogative of course. I think the subject requires all due diligence.

Can you back your view (that we need to question all ideas of God to be fully informed) up with a rational argument? That is your burden to bear since your critique rests on that being true.

Being fully informed is not possible in this phase, for obvious reasons. What we do have is the capacity of sorting wheat from chaff as best (and therefore, as honestly) as we have the personal willingness to do so.

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

The nature of my particular theology settles the question for me. It amounts to all ideas of GOD fitting in with One idea of GOD.
As I have mentioned, I think that the old and new testament ideas of GOD have their merits and their demerits, but these alone can be explained through the human invention of politics and cultures and are conflated with truthfulness.

To example, I wondered why different peoples believed in different ideas of GOD and prayed to those GOD-ideas and received answers to their requests in re their subjective realities...why would different and often competing ideas of GOD allow for this, when different ideas of GOD couldn't all be correct, and some must be false.

Indeed, some - if not most - organised religions ideas of GOD claim their idea of GOD is the TRUE idea of GOD. That makes the others, false.

How do they explain this? Some do so by introducing the idea of an entity who is opposed to 'the true GOD' they believe in, and then proclaim that this opponent is deceiving other people who have different ideas of GOD and that when their prayers are answered, it is a deceiving entity who answers the prayers.

This involves a myriad of 'demonic spirits' etc who are invested in deceiving the 'true' people of GOD by turning them away from the 'true' idea of GOD.

The whole policy of such doctrine ensures that those involved under its influence remain guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD contrary to their own.

My theology does away with that type of reasoning, and subsequent behavior.

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

In part this is why I suggested that you might think about putting aside your own idea of GOD as it may be acting against your being able to understand my own. I would not have suggested you do this but for the fact that you appear to be interested.

You have already accepted a particular idea of GOD as true, so by your own logic you are also choosing not to be fully informed, right?

No. I acknowledge that no one can be fully informed whilst in this phase. It is not a matter of choice in that regard.

But you don't think that. You think you have found the truth. Are you being hypocritical? If not, what's the difference? And why is that difference important?

What I am saying is that I take what information IS available and from that I construct a theology which takes all that into account. In this way, my theology embraces all theologies without the requirement of having to adhere to any single one, and in that my theology is open-ended - it does not have doctrine which prevents me from examining information which cause me to have to block off that information or otherwise demonize that information, as per my comments further back in this post.

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

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

Strictly speaking, atheists do not have theologies, but yes - 'everybody does that' but in my case I do not reject information outright which contradicts my particular position because there is no information I have yet to come across which contradicts my theology.

For example, atheists often point out what they consider the evil aspects of Abrahamic idea of GOD specifically as an argument to use against Christians and Jews and Muslims.
In response, counter arguments designed to try and justify those evil actions attributed to that idea of GOD are produced by the adherents in an effort to justify or otherwise explain those evil actions.

My theology does not need to create justifications for supposed evil actions attributed to that idea of GOD. Rather, it simply accepts that formative ideas of GOD such as those ones are natural enough but do not reflect the true nature of GOD. They reflect a made up notion of GOD which belongs in a former age and is irrelevant in relation to the actual subject of GOD.

In order for me to reach that conclusion it was simply a matter of my examining the information and piecing it together to form the most likely picture of what has occurred, and in that realization that the Abrahamic idea of GOD related to evil actions are politically motivated and therefore are images of ideas of GOD created in the minds of those in positions of power and influence over human societies, in those times.

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

I have been asking you questions. I await your answers.

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

That is why I changed tack in order to give you the opportunity to correct me regarding this. It was fair of me to assume your position was generically Christian. You appear to be strongly suggesting that it is not. Please explain why.

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

Perhaps you can appreciate that even in the above description 'heaven' is decidedly obscure.
As well as that, as I presumed of you in recent posts, you do share this faith-based belief system with generic Christianity.
You understand a relationship with your particular idea of GOD as being 'heaven' and this shall extend into the next phase.

It's not a reward in the sense of being separate from placing your trust in God through a daily, personal relationship with God. I believe heaven is breaking into my life right now as that relationship.

So your idea of GOD is synonymous of heaven, by the sounds of that.
In relation to that, heaven and earth are not separate places.

Many theists think along the same lines, and not all of them are Christians.

That it is slowly overtaking my life that I lived apart from God for so long.

Given the differences we have agreed on related to each of our theologies, how I would word the above is that my awareness constituted 'living apart' from the [relationship] with GOD. My understanding is that all along, it was my awareness rather than GODs awareness which gave me the impression I was separated from GOD. GOD was never at any time in my existence as a human being, actually separate from me. I was simply unaware that this was the case.

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

Again, I can say the same (as my last paragraph states) and in that I can tell you I am NOT a Christian nor do I adhere to any faith-based doctrines of Christendom.
Can you explain to me why this is the case? How is it GOD and I are able to have a relationship without my having to resort to faith-based ideals?

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

We are also involved in role-playing which the perception of separation [through form] helps to provide the opportunity for us to do.
My theology accepts that at the heart of it all, we are no more or less the same as each other, once the costume and role-playing is set aside - or even that it is not - this does not prevent me from realizing this and from responding to the realization through my own outward expression into the external playground.
My theology involves realization that I am an aspect of GOD consciousness who self identified as NOT being an aspect of GOD-consciousness, as my formative years educated me in accepting that idea without any alternatives.
Once I placed aside the formative and embraced the understanding of the idea that all consciousnesses are aspects of GOD-consciousness, I became free from that tyranny of perception and began to recalibrate my thinking to align with this new understanding.

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.

Whereas I think that we do not have enough information in relation to the true nature of GOD and that examining the physical universe can only give us bits of information but enough to make an informed decision and that we are not incapable of figuring it out 'on our own' (as an individual) and that we do not need to reply on institutional ideas of GOD in order to figure it out. Indeed, as I have mentioned, the institutional ideas of GOD act as barriers rather than open ways.
More-so, understanding that I am an aspect of GOD consciousness allows for me to work it out without needing to rely solely on other endorsed mediums whilst rejecting other sources of information.

My theology allows for GOD to explain Itself rather than having to rely on anyone or thing else to act as that sole medium.

There is no particular hurry, so no merit in having to abide by doctrines which put time-limits - and negative consequence if that limit is reached - on the process of the individual's journey-of-the-self back into reintegration.

What is this 'ultimate choice' your theology teaches?

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

Seek out and rely on which particular idea of GOD?

Rely on God in our daily living and decisions, rather than just living life on our own.

How does this happen in relation to your own idea of GOD?
Why is it that those who do not rely on your idea of GOD in regard to daily living and decisions and just live life on their own, face extermination/annihilation?

[William]

[Replying to post 315 by The Tanager]

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

That's simply not true.

Why is that the case?

That would be like saying 'biology' can't be defined other than in relation to different creature's biologies.

Are you claiming that consciousness is like biology?

We can define biology, as well as human biology, canine biology, etc.

So therefore we can define consciousness? I don't see the connection in your reasoning.

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

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

I'll just ask about your view in another way and see if that is more helpful. Please don't say "what I said was clear enough." It wasn't for me.

Apparently not...

Is consciousness (1) an ability or

Consciousness is not an ability

(2) another name for an entity that has an ability of awareness (among other things) or

Consciousness is not an ability of awareness. Awareness is the ability of consciousness. Consciousness is not a name of any entity. It is the enabler of any entity to self identify as they choose, related to their situation.

(3) something else?

Consciousness is not a 'thing' as in and object or a form etc.

Let me ask you this.

Did your idea of GOD acquire consciousness sometime after [he] existed or has [he] always been conscious?

Do you differentiate between the consciousness of your idea of GOD and every other attribute you believe your idea of GOD is?

Are you able to define your idea of GODs consciousness?

Are you able to define your own consciousness?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 316 by William]

I am not blaming you, I am suggesting that it may be a case that your own theology and idea of GOD is preventing you from understanding mine and included in the suggestion is to place your idea of GOD aside, to see if that helps.

I am already setting my idea of God aside in trying to understand your view. I've never said things like "but that doesn't make sense because we are separate from GOD-consciousness." That would be not setting my view aside to try to understand yours. Instead, I've said things like "what do you mean by consciousness?", "how are we a unity, yet separate entities with different experiences" and that kind of stuff. That's setting aside my view in trying to understand yours. I don't consider my view at all when trying to understand your view. When we talk about our two views and comparing them, then I bring in my view.

Well that is your prerogative of course. I think the subject requires all due diligence.

I didn't say we shouldn't give it due diligence. I said one can find the truth about God without questioning every single idea of God that could exist. And you seem to agree. You believe you have found the truth and you admit that no one can be fully informed in this phase. You believe you have found truth without questioning every single idea of God that could exist.

Yet, somehow, your view is not faith-based while mine is. You agree you are not fully informed, but you said not being fully informed requires one to make faith-based decisions. You faulted my theology for being faith-based. But your view is also faith-based (i.e., not fully informed) and yet you don't say your view is faith-based and fault it for that reason.

Being fully informed is not possible in this phase, for obvious reasons. What we do have is the capacity of sorting wheat from chaff as best (and therefore, as honestly) as we have the personal willingness to do so.

And you think I'm not as willing to do that as you? If so, how do you judge that? If not, then why did you say this?

The nature of my particular theology settles the question for me. It amounts to all ideas of GOD fitting in with One idea of GOD.

It doesn't anymore than other theologies. They 'fit in' in the sense of they are wrong and need to be corrected to reach the truth. That's the same as all worldviews.

As I have mentioned, I think that the old and new testament ideas of GOD have their merits and their demerits, but these alone can be explained through the human invention of politics and cultures and are conflated with truthfulness.

And your view can also be explained in a myriad of ways other than how you explain it. So what? Not all explanations are true.

To example, I wondered why different peoples believed in different ideas of GOD and prayed to those GOD-ideas and received answers to their requests in re their subjective realities...why would different and often competing ideas of GOD allow for this, when different ideas of GOD couldn't all be correct, and some must be false.

First, What makes you think your answer of "they are all incorrect" is a better answer than "some must be false"?

Two, many faiths can account for this by things like deceiving entities, or perceived answers being misunderstandings and coincidences, or of answers to prayers by God for the ultimate reason of bringing them to the truth that they don't fully understand yet.

The whole policy of such doctrine ensures that those involved under its influence remain guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD contrary to their own.

My theology does away with that type of reasoning, and subsequent behavior.

No, it doesn't. Not anymore than most other theologies. Your view involves a myriad of deceiving views of God (self-inflicted) turning them away from the 'true' idea of GOD. You are doing the same thing as these other theologies. I don't think these theologies (including your own) necessarily leads to a guarded hostility to other ideas of GOD, as you say that kind of thinking does.

What I am saying is that I take what information IS available and from that I construct a theology which takes all that into account. In this way, my theology embraces all theologies without the requirement of having to adhere to any single one, and in that my theology is open-ended - it does not have doctrine which prevents me from examining information which cause me to have to block off that information or otherwise demonize that information, as per my comments further back in this post.

That's simply not true. You don't embrace all theologies. You have your theology and reinterpret other theologies to fit into your theology. It's a false sense of embracing them all. You do adhere to a single theology. It's no more open ended than most. It does have doctrine. If doctrine prevents other theologies from examining information, then it's the same for your theology.

The difference may be that you aren't gathered together with others in a community like most religions (although there are other people who share your doctrines). Yes, you disagree on some details with people under a larger umbrella term that fits your worldview, but so does every other worldview.

As well as that, as I presumed of you in recent posts, you do share this faith-based belief system with generic Christianity.

Not by how you described generic Christianity that prompted this line of response from me in the first place. You said my theology taught these two things:

(1) a variety of instructions on how to attain heaven
(2) if people fail following those instructions they miss the reward of heaven

It doesn't. If this is "generic Christianity," then that isn't my theology.

You understand a relationship with your particular idea of GOD as being 'heaven' and this shall extend into the next phase.

But if this is what you now are calling "generic Christianity," then yes I do share this belief.

So your idea of GOD is synonymous of heaven, by the sounds of that.
In relation to that, heaven and earth are not separate places.

Many theists think along the same lines, and not all of them are Christians.

Of course. I never implied they didn't.

Given the differences we have agreed on related to each of our theologies, how I would word the above is that my awareness constituted 'living apart' from the [relationship] with GOD. My understanding is that all along, it was my awareness rather than GODs awareness which gave me the impression I was separated from GOD. GOD was never at any time in my existence as a human being, actually separate from me. I was simply unaware that this was the case.

Perhaps you can appreciate that even in the above description 'actually separate' is decidedly obscure. And to point out what I think is obscure about it: you talk about two different awarenesses...that is a kind of separation. That is an 'actual separation' to me. So what do you mean by 'actually separate'? And why isn't this an 'actual separation'?

Again, I can say the same (as my last paragraph states) and in that I can tell you I am NOT a Christian nor do I adhere to any faith-based doctrines of Christendom.
Can you explain to me why this is the case? How is it GOD and I are able to have a relationship without my having to resort to faith-based ideals?

First, you still have faith-based doctrines. If faith-based necessarily results from not being fully informed (as you seemed to say it does) AND you admit to not being fully informed in this phase of life, then you adhere to faith-based doctrines.

Second, in the sense of being a similar idea, this can be explained because we are both (in some sense) being out of relationship with God and then coming into relationship with God. Mine (analogically) moves from not knowing my wife in 1998 to knowing my wife in 2018...two separate entities now knowing each other. For you, you didn't realize GOD was with you all the time, and then you did.

Third, we can't both be right. If you are right in your view of GOD, then I am not having a relationship with God, I'm under an illusion. If I am right, then you are not having a relationship with GOD. If neither of us is right, then neither of us is having a relationship with God/GOD.

Once I placed aside the formative and embraced the understanding of the idea that all consciousnesses are aspects of GOD-consciousness, I became free from that tyranny of perception and began to recalibrate my thinking to align with this new understanding.

But how are you sure you haven't replaced one perceived tyranny for another?

Whereas I think that we do not have enough information in relation to the true nature of GOD and that examining the physical universe can only give us bits of information but enough to make an informed decision and that we are not incapable of figuring it out 'on our own' (as an individual) and that we do not need to reply on institutional ideas of GOD in order to figure it out. Indeed, as I have mentioned, the institutional ideas of GOD act as barriers rather than open ways.

Yes, but I'm interested in the reasons we hold the beliefs we have.

More-so, understanding that I am an aspect of GOD consciousness allows for me to work it out without needing to rely solely on other endorsed mediums whilst rejecting other sources of information.

If you want this claim to hold weight, prove that this is what all religious folk do. Or specifically, that this is what I do. Many Christian folk don't rely solely on other endorsed mediums and reject other sources of information either. We claim to do the same thing you claim to do. We take in various sources of information and try to make sense of it all. Listening to the wisdom of others (in our tradition and outside of it), rejecting some of it and accepting some of it as it makes sense to us.

My theology allows for GOD to explain Itself rather than having to rely on anyone or thing else to act as that sole medium.

What you think is GOD explaining itself. Something I would say as a Christian, too. Something other religious people would say about their gods.

There is no particular hurry, so no merit in having to abide by doctrines which put time-limits - and negative consequence if that limit is reached - on the process of the individual's journey-of-the-self back into reintegration.

Doctrines don't put time limits and negative consequences on anything. Either those limits and consequences exist or they don't. Whether we want them to or not, is not a reason to consider them true or false.

What proof is there that there is no particular hurry?

Seek out and rely on which particular idea of GOD?

It may really just be an idea in my head, but if correct it's seeking out and relying on an actual agent.

How does this happen in relation to your own idea of GOD?

From within, not as an audible voice (although there is no reason to think that hasn't or couldn't take place in human history). Through everything I do, be it studying Scripture, praying or talking with others, studying non-Christian things, performing my job, spending time with my family, when I'm mad at my wife, when I'm writing a response to you, etc.

Why is it that those who do not rely on your idea of GOD in regard to daily living and decisions and just live life on their own, face extermination/annihilation?

If true, they don't rely on God Himself, not just an idea of God. They wouldn't be living with their Creator. They want to live life on their own. They get to do that. Humans are designed to live in concert with this God. If they don't, they technically become less than human. Like blindness is less than what is meant for an eye to function properly. This 'sub-human' life would, logically, result in increased loneliness and curving in on one's self (living their life on their own) for eternity after having rejected God from their life or, as God withdraws as the source of life, it would result in ceasing to exist (i.e., annihilation).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 317 by William]

Are you claiming that consciousness is like biology?

Only in the sense that these words can be defined without referring to particular instantiations. There is a definition of biology, as well human biology, as well as canine biology, as well as consciousness, as well as human consciousness, as well as unembodied consciousness, etc.

Consciousness is not an ability...

Consciousness is not an ability of awareness. Awareness is the ability of consciousness. Consciousness is not a name of any entity. It is the enabler of any entity to self identify as they choose, related to their situation.

What does it mean to be an enabler of something? Personal agents can enable. Impersonal forces can enable. Being an ability means enabling someone to do something. What do you mean here?

Did your idea of GOD acquire consciousness sometime after [he] existed or has [he] always been conscious?

God has always been conscious. I see consciousness as an ability.

Do you differentiate between the consciousness of your idea of GOD and every other attribute you believe your idea of GOD is?

If you are asking whether God's consciousness is differentiated from God's ability to be loving, then yes I see a distinction there.

Are you able to define your idea of GODs consciousness?

Are you able to define your own consciousness?

I can take first stabs at ones, but don't claim they are deeply thought out.

Consciousness is an ability an entity has to be aware, have thoughts, volition, experiences.

Human consciousness is an awareness of being embodied, which includes thoughts, volitions, experiences of sensation and emotion.

God's consciousness is an awareness of being unembodied, having thoughts, volitions.

[William]

[Replying to post 318 by The Tanager]

I am already setting my idea of God aside in trying to understand your view.

In reading your replies, I don't get that impression.

I've never said things like "but that doesn't make sense because we are separate from GOD-consciousness."

You have said things similar in meaning to this, yes.

I've said things like "what do you mean by consciousness?", "how are we a unity, yet separate entities with different experiences" and that kind of stuff. That's setting aside my view in trying to understand yours.

No it is not. These are questions framed from the perspective of your view. You have said that your belief is that we are separate consciousnesses from GOD consciousness, and because of this belief, you are unable to comprehend how it could be otherwise, and in that you are also unable to understand any explanation given which is designed to assist your understanding.

This is why I suggested you set aside your view because it is your view which creates a barrier to your understanding my own.

I didn't say we shouldn't give it due diligence. I said one can find the truth about God without questioning every single idea of God that could exist

My theology is able to incorporate all such ideas that could possibly exist. One can get the gist of this in the visual diagram I have used often enough to denote this.

And you seem to agree. You believe you have found the truth and you admit that no one can be fully informed in this phase. You believe you have found truth without questioning every single idea of God that could exist.

Once the realization of FSC is understood, all ideas of GOD fold into that, whether they are human, or related to this universe, or any other.

Yet, somehow, your view is not faith-based while mine is. You agree you are not fully informed, but you said not being fully informed requires one to make faith-based decisions. You faulted my theology for being faith-based. But your view is also faith-based (i.e., not fully informed) and yet you don't say your view is faith-based and fault it for that reason.

I am ever open to any explanations you have to do with observing faith-based views my theology incorporates.

Specifically, please appreciate that my comments re faith-based have to do with the OP and our interactions over the past few weeks to do with putting faith in a particular theology which speaks to making choices here and now which will affect a future outcome in the next phase. In that, your faith is in believing you have to make the critical choice NOW, in this lifetime, in order to not be annihilated.

Being fully informed is not possible in this phase, for obvious reasons. What we do have is the capacity of sorting wheat from chaff as best (and therefore, as honestly) as we have the personal willingness to do so.

And you think I'm not as willing to do that as you? If so, how do you judge that? If not, then why did you say this?

Your claim has been that you do not understand my theology. If that is the case, then how are you informed?
Obviously I am making every effort to help you be informed re my theology. It may be the case that it is not possible for you to be informed in any way you can understand it. I do not think we have reached that point yet, and leave it to you to decide if and when that point is reached.

The nature of my particular theology settles the question for me. It amounts to all ideas of GOD fitting in with One idea of GOD.

It doesn't anymore than other theologies.

How do you know this, having said more than once that you do not understand my theology?

They 'fit in' in the sense of they are wrong and need to be corrected to reach the truth. That's the same as all worldviews.

No. My theology does not make statements to do with right and wrong. Immature is not 'wrong' it is just not mature.

Any correction re immaturity is - obviously - to become more mature.

The idea of the biblical GOD fits in with my own theology, once the chaff is removed.

Think of chaff as it is. That which protects the seed.
Think of the seed as it is, that which - given the right conditions - matures.

Everything I am hinting at here, is fully explained in my Members Notes.

As I have mentioned, I think that the old and new testament ideas of GOD have their merits and their demerits, but these alone can be explained through the human invention of politics and cultures and are conflated with truthfulness.

And your view can also be explained in a myriad of ways other than how you explain it. So what? Not all explanations are true.

Again. This from someone who claims not to understand my theology.

But lets look at what I actually said. I did not say that there were a myriad ways in which to explain biblical ideas of GOD. I was very specific in how these ideas are able to be explained. Indeed, my own theology and idea of GOD cannot be explained in the same way.

To example, I wondered why different peoples believed in different ideas of GOD and prayed to those GOD-ideas and received answers to their requests in re their subjective realities...why would different and often competing ideas of GOD allow for this, when different ideas of GOD couldn't all be correct, and some must be false.

First, What makes you think your answer of "they are all incorrect" is a better answer than "some must be false"?

Please take care not to misquote me. In doing so this will help avoid any misunderstanding.

I will try to assist you here. There are specific ideas of GOD which compete with each other, and this is reflected in organised religion.

In that way, they cannot all be correct. Some must be false. One has to have a foundation in which to build upon, and that foundation for me, is the idea of First Source.

In understanding FS, one is more capable of seeing where likely human imagery has invaded the idea of GOD, putting that human spin on it. Mostly this can be seen to have everything to do with culture and politics and if one treats that as the chaff, one can remove it from the seed.

The seed is what is left over, as it were. One can then take what is left over from all the ideas of GOD religions espouse and find therein they fit together nicely within the idea of FS.

In relation to that, the source entity for such 'answers to prayers' which happen regardless of which competing organised religions idea of GOD may be, can be seen to come from the closest entity in relation to the goings on, re the planet.
That entity would be EE - the Earth Entity.

In relation to the biblical idea of GOD, and all the names of GOD associated with that idea, each and every one of these can be acted on only by an actual real living entity able to do so, and - looking around - there is only one candidate for that role. The Earth Entity.

This is the same for all such GOD ideas human beings care to come up with.

Two, many faiths can account for this by things like deceiving entities, ...

As I said about so-called 'deceiving entities' in post #316

Indeed, some - if not most - organised religions ideas of GOD claim their idea of GOD is the TRUE idea of GOD. That makes the others, false.

How do they explain this? Some do so by introducing the idea of an entity who is opposed to 'the true GOD' they believe in, and then proclaim that this opponent is deceiving other people who have different ideas of GOD and that when their prayers are answered, it is a deceiving entity who answers the prayers.

This involves a myriad of 'demonic spirits' etc who are invested in deceiving the 'true' people of GOD by turning them away from the 'true' idea of GOD.

The whole policy of such doctrine ensures that those involved under its influence remain guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD contrary to their own.

My theology does away with that type of reasoning, and subsequent behavior.

...or perceived answers being misunderstandings...

Indeed, if in doubt, one can always seek clarification.

...and coincidences,

Once or twice. Strings become coinciding incidences and cannot as easily be hand-waved away as 'mere coincidences'.

...or of answers to prayers by God for the ultimate reason of bringing them to the truth that they don't fully understand yet.

Yes - it can be 'explained' other than one idea of GOD competing against another.

The whole policy of such doctrine ensures that those involved under its influence remain guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD contrary to their own.

My theology does away with that type of reasoning, and subsequent behavior.

No, it doesn't. Not anymore than most other theologies.

Again, this is an interesting comment from someone who claims not to understand my theology. In what way can you say that my theology is guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD contrary to what I have already shared about my theology?

If you can offer none, then perhaps you would care to retract?

Your view involves a myriad of deceiving views of God (self-inflicted) turning them away from the 'true' idea of GOD. You are doing the same thing as these other theologies.

Self inflicted being the key here yes? It is not that those who believe in immature ideas of GOD are incapable of making the choice to investigate the idea of GOD my theology speaks of. It is not as if my idea of GOD condemns anyone for making that choice. It is not as if anything can threaten my idea of GOD or cause me to create political or cultural barriers because of perceived threats.

Ones own choice not to, is self deception. I am okay with pointing out the deceptions as I see them, just as surely as the stories of Jesus have him doing the same.

Nothing in my theology has GOD punishing (or annihilating) those who cling to immature ideas of GOD. What my theology does incorporate is that such choices inevitably lead to those making them being required to see them out, in the next phase, but not without the anomaly assisting them in eventually escaping that consequence of choice.

I don't think these theologies (including your own) necessarily leads to a guarded hostility to other ideas of GOD, as you say that kind of thinking does.

More often that not, it surely does, as history demonstrates. My own theology cannot lead to guarded hostility to other ideas of GOD, because there is nothing to threaten it, as I explained above.

That's simply not true. You don't embrace all theologies. You have your theology and reinterpret other theologies to fit into your theology.

Bearing in mind the context was about not being guarded or hostile, it is indeed true. Cherry-picking other theologies is not an act of hostility and interpreting other theologies is acceptable practice because this is even done internally by those professing to support any particular theology.

If you are prepared to claim I am being untrue about my theology, I would appreciate you giving examples of where I have been hostile and guarded against any other theology.

If you cannot, then please retract.

Also give examples to these claims below, or likewise retract, where applicable.

1:It's a false sense of embracing them all.
2: It's no more open ended than most.
3: It does have doctrine.
4: If doctrine prevents other theologies from examining information, then it's the same for your theology

You do adhere to a single theology.

Yes, one which embraces the qualities of all others.

FS is the overall uniting factor.
EE is the local deity which is the uniting factor.

(1) a variety of instructions on how to attain heaven
(2) if people fail following those instructions they miss the reward of heaven

It doesn't. If this is "generic Christianity," then that isn't my theology.

I have noticed your tendency to state things without offering any support in the way of explaining what then IS your theology, even that I have recently asked this of you quite a few times.

Would it not be more appropriate for you to simply say [1]what instructions you are required to follow in order to attain what you believe you will, in the 'afterlife' phase?
And [2] What is annihilation but NOT attaining what you believe one can, in the 'afterlife' phase?

You understand a relationship with your particular idea of GOD as being 'heaven' and this shall extend into the next phase.

But if this is what you now are calling "generic Christianity," then yes I do share this belief.

Never mind that now as you made it obvious you are not a run-of-the-mill Christian.

As was explained by me (many posts ago), I can incorporate your theology into my own. I have asked you more than once to explain to the reader what you expect in the next phase. You have yet to answer this in any detail.

Perhaps if I ask some basic questions re this, it might help you formulate answers.

Q: Do you expect to see you idea of GOD?

If so;

Q: In what manner do you expect the imagery will take form, based upon your present relationship with your idea of GOD?

Q: What do you expect your surroundings/environment to be like?

Given the differences we have agreed on related to each of our theologies, how I would word the above is that my awareness constituted 'living apart' from the [relationship] with GOD. My understanding is that all along, it was my awareness rather than GODs awareness which gave me the impression I was separated from GOD. GOD was never at any time in my existence as a human being, actually separate from me. I was simply unaware that this was the case.

Perhaps you can appreciate that even in the above description 'actually separate' is decidedly obscure. And to point out what I think is obscure about it: you talk about two different awarenesses...that is a kind of separation. That is an 'actual separation' to me. So what do you mean by 'actually separate'? And why isn't this an 'actual separation'?

I answered that question in relating it to the story of the Prodigal Son, and you at first didn't acknowledge it at all and when I reminded you of it, You said something which amounted to that 'it wasn't how Christians normally interpreted the story.'

Post #294 (me)

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.

Post #309 (you)

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

Is that generic Christianity or your particular take on Christianity?

So at least what can be established is that one is free to interpret as one feels justified in doing, regardless of generic Christianity or not so generic Christianity.

Thus I revert to use of that story once again with the proviso that it does not matter if my doing so flies in the face of generic Christianity or even your own version of that theology in order to once again attempt to answer your question, knowing also as I do, that you have stated in your last post that you are already setting your idea of God aside in trying to understand my view. Hopefully in doing so, you are also happy to set aside those things about your theology which make my theology otherwise completely foreign to you.

Back to you question;

Perhaps you can appreciate that even in the above description 'actually separate' is decidedly obscure. And to point out what I think is obscure about it: you talk about two different awarenesses...that is a kind of separation. That is an 'actual separation' to me. So what do you mean by 'actually separate'? And why isn't this an 'actual separation'?

To begin with, this is what I actually wrote;

GOD was never at any time in my existence as a human being, actually separate from me. I was simply unaware that this was the case.

So, what do I mean by NOT 'actually separate'?

Using the parable of the Prodigal Son, in relation to my theology and myself and my relationship with GOD.

I am an aspect of GOD consciousness who was unaware of that being the case as I began my experience as a human being. The experience of form coupled with the environment and accompanying influences effective cut me off from that information.

Thus my behavior reflected this lack of knowledge but there was - nonetheless - an inkling of something not quite right in which the idea of GOD (no particular idea of any particular GOD) attracted that inkling motivating investigation.

GOD on the other hand, was completely aware of my predicament and never once considered me to being separate from It, in the same way that the father of the prodigal son never considered the son to being 'not the son' as it were. The father did not condemn the son or ex-communicate the son, or otherwise deny that the son was an aspect of his family, albeit, a wayward one.

From the fathers point of view, I was NOT actually separate.

The father never lost hope in the potential that the son would eventually come home.

The son forgot the father for a time while sojourning into the realm of discovering for himself what was best for him, who his true friends were, etc...eventually the son remembered - it meant exhausting all other options- scraping the bottom of the barrel - being in the pit of despair, feeling disgusted in himself and regretting his choices but it did not matter what it took, the potential to reintegrate, unfolded into reality.

And to point out what I think is obscure about it: you talk about two different awarenesses...that is a kind of separation.

Yes - it is the kind of separation which is actually an illusion on the part of the son and his perceptions and the way he chose to self identify.

In relation to my idea of GOD, there is NO place I can be, where GOD is not actually with me...not just in 'spirit' or getting the gist of. This is because I am an aspect of GOD consciousness, and in that, GOD is literally with me, whether I care to know it and acknowledge it or not.

That is an 'actual separation' to me.

Apparently so. But is it really 'actual'?

Not to me re my theology. Perhaps to you re your own?

So what do you mean by 'actually separate'? And why isn't this an 'actual separation'?

No. What I actually said was this;

GOD was never at any time in my existence as a human being, actually separate from me.

From GODs perspective, I was never actually separate. The illusion was all mine.

In having a relationship with GOD, one adopts GODs perspective. Thus I adopt the understanding that GOD was never actually separate. This is also why my theology extends this into the next phase of existence. Because no one is actually separate from GOD (from Gods perspective) but they still have to go through the motions of coming to terms with this in their own 'time' and entering into that realization (the reintegration process) so as to adopt the same perspective as GODs.

Third, we can't both be right. If you are right in your view of GOD, then I am not having a relationship with God, I'm under an illusion. If I am right, then you are not having a relationship with GOD. If neither of us is right, then neither of us is having a relationship with God/GOD.

I skipped one and two because I feel I have covered them in this post already. I feel that also about the third point but will add...

If I am right, you are having a relationship with your idea of GOD and this will extend into the next phase and you will receive everything you expect, (whatever these might be) plus the anomalies. Bearing in mind that my theology makes the observation that any individual - regardless of their chosen religious belief - who are sincere and with good intention are encourage by the EE to at least continue along in some kind of relationship, even if that relationship is reduced to the believer accepting stories attributed to GOD which are untrue. That will be sorted later...
It is far more important some type of relationship between the individual and GOD is maintained here and now, than no relationship whatsoever.

If you are right, and in that, I am not having a relationship with GOD (supposedly your idea of GOD?) then WHO am I having a relationship with? Also, would my being wring about this amount to having to be exterminated?

If neither of us is right, then neither of us is having a relationship with God/GOD, then WHO are we having a relationship with?

Once I placed aside the formative and embraced the understanding of the idea that all consciousnesses are aspects of GOD-consciousness, I became free from that tyranny of perception and began to recalibrate my thinking to align with this new understanding.

But how are you sure you haven't replaced one perceived tyranny for another?

Because (my idea of) GOD is not one of a tyrant. What tyrant allows the individual as much 'time' as necessary? What tyrant allows for the individual to do what they will, all along knowing that the individual will eventually reintegrate, largely of their own accord?
What tyrant offers nudges in the form of anomalies in which to encourage (or what you refer to as coerce) the individual to make more mature choices etc?

(Note that encouraging is different from coercing).

Those are the basics. I could mention my own subjective experience as adequate evidence that my idea of GOD is no tyrant and that I am (and everyone is) an aspect of GOD -Consciousness...but I mention that in better detail in my Members Notes and as it so far turns out, a great percentage of data in those notes is concentrated on the subject of;

The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

Go figure!



Point being, we are individuals and all having our own uniquely subjective experiences and make our choices accordingly. That is the GIFT.

Doctrines don't put time limits and negative consequences on anything. Either those limits and consequences exist or they don't. Whether we want them to or not, is not a reason to consider them true or false.

Some do indeed appear to do just that. In relation to the OP, the question of Eternal Conscious Torment comes from doctrine.

What proof is there that there is no particular hurry?

What proof is there that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just?

Rather it is this very notion which carries over into the philosophical, allowing for the understanding my theology explores. It is a matter of finding more mature ideas related to the idea that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just which permit this ability to evolve in our understanding from the less mature to the more, in order to align the notions in a fashion which is unarguable. Watertight. Presents no contradictions etc.

Why is it that those who do not rely on your idea of GOD in regard to daily living and decisions and just live life on their own, face extermination/annihilation?

If true, they don't rely on God Himself, not just an idea of God. They wouldn't be living with their Creator. They want to live life on their own. They get to do that. Humans are designed to live in concert with this God. If they don't, they technically become less than human. Like blindness is less than what is meant for an eye to function properly. This 'sub-human' life would, logically, result in increased loneliness and curving in on one's self (living their life on their own) for eternity after having rejected God from their life or, as God withdraws as the source of life, it would result in ceasing to exist (i.e., annihilation).

Unlike the prodigal son, who - despite dropping to a 'sub-human' state - eventually reintegrated.
Which do you honestly prefer, as far as ideas of GOD go? One which allows for as much 'time' as necessary and provides the occasional anomaly in order to quietly nudge each individual towards reintegration, or one that places conditions of time limits and only allows for certain questionable human institutions to have the authority of medium within the context of that one human life in the physical universe time limit and then annihilates the failures?

[William]

[Replying to post 319 by The Tanager]

Please explain a GOD which is not conscious, has no consciousness.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 319 by The Tanager]

Please explain a GOD which is not conscious, has no consciousness.

Some scientific theories?

According to some, their god (or a mighty power) without a consciousness is chance. A string of incredible accidents where the chances are so small you can't write the odds down because there are enough atoms to write the number on. Therefore if a 'god' is something more powerful than we are, than luck is many people's god and luck, from my understanding has no consciousness. I mean forget a lucky rabbit's foot, we are standing on the biggest chuck of luck the universe has ever known according to some folks.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 319 by The Tanager]

Please explain a GOD which is not conscious, has no consciousness.

Some scientific theories?

According to some, their god (or a mighty power) without a consciousness is chance. A string of incredible accidents where the chances are so small you can't write the odds down because there are enough atoms to write the number on. Therefore if a 'god' is something more powerful than we are, than luck is many people's god and luck, from my understanding has no consciousness. I mean forget a lucky rabbit's foot, we are standing on the biggest chuck of luck the universe has ever known according to some folks.

Funny thing luck. According to the OT, Luck and Destiny are both false gods, baalim. SO, someone having luck as their god would be historically correct.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 320 by William]

No it is not. These are questions framed from the perspective of your view. You have said that your belief is that we are separate consciousnesses from GOD consciousness, and because of this belief, you are unable to comprehend how it could be otherwise, and in that you are also unable to understand any explanation given which is designed to assist your understanding.

How is "what is consciousness?" framed from the perspective of my view? It leaves open the question we disagree on: whether we are separate consciousnesses than God/GOD. It's simply trying to get terms straight so that we even have a chance of understanding each other's views.

I can comprehend us and God not being separate. Where I'm having trouble with your view is that you talk of us not being separated from GOD in one breath, and speak of distinctions or separations in another. I'm having a hard time understanding how you fit those ideas together coherently. So, I seek how you are using terms, to see if it is different than I naturally understand those terms.

My theology is able to incorporate all such ideas that could possibly exist.

In the exact same sense that my (and every other) theology does. The ideas of GOD that are different from your own are incorporated as being incorrect ideas.

Specifically, please appreciate that my comments re faith-based have to do with the OP and our interactions over the past few weeks to do with putting faith in a particular theology which speaks to making choices here and now which will affect a future outcome in the next phase. In that, your faith is in believing you have to make the critical choice NOW, in this lifetime, in order to not be annihilated.

And your faith is believing we don't have to make the critical choice NOW, in this lifetime.

Your claim has been that you do not understand my theology. If that is the case, then how are you informed?

It's not all or nothing. I understand some things about your view. What I haven't understood, I ask questions about. And that sounds like what I was addressing in this specific line of our conversation: having a personal willingness to sort wheat from chaff.

How do you know this, having said more than once that you do not understand my theology?

Because I at least understand that you say my theology is wrong about GOD and yours is right.

No. My theology does not make statements to do with right and wrong. Immature is not 'wrong' it is just not mature.

You absolutely think my view of us being separate consciousnesses from GOD-consciousness is wrong. Using another term doesn't hide that.

But lets look at what I actually said. I did not say that there were a myriad ways in which to explain biblical ideas of GOD. I was very specific in how these ideas are able to be explained. Indeed, my own theology and idea of GOD cannot be explained in the same way.

I'm not sure that I made my point clear enough. I'll try again. I have a belief about the origin of Christianity. Other people offer other explanations. At least some of the explanations will be wrong, even though they can have quite a lot going for them. In the same way as that you have an explanation for your view of GOD, while other people would offer a different explanation. So what? That's all I was saying. It was a general point.

If you think your more specific point (your explanation of Christianity's origin) is vital to our conversation, then back up your explanation with evidence and reasons to give me something substantive to respond to there.

Please take care not to misquote me. In doing so this will help avoid any misunderstanding.

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a quote. I should have used single quotes, I guess. I just figured you would realize it wasn't a direct quote, but an attempt to summarize what I felt you were saying.

I will try to assist you here. There are specific ideas of GOD which compete with each other, and this is reflected in organised religion.

Your idea of GOD competes with various organized religion's views of ultimate reality. I don't understand why you think your view is exempt from this.

One has to have a foundation in which to build upon, and that foundation for me, is the idea of First Source.

In understanding FS, one is more capable of seeing where likely human imagery has invaded the idea of GOD, putting that human spin on it. Mostly this can be seen to have everything to do with culture and politics and if one treats that as the chaff, one can remove it from the seed.

The seed is what is left over, as it were. One can then take what is left over from all the ideas of GOD religions espouse and find therein they fit together nicely within the idea of FS.

Of course if you start with one's view (First Source for you) and strip away from all religions all that is not one's view, then what will be left over is one's view. This is not a rational way to believe one's view is true.

In relation to that, the source entity for such 'answers to prayers' which happen regardless of which competing organised religions idea of GOD may be, can be seen to come from the closest entity in relation to the goings on, re the planet.
That entity would be EE - the Earth Entity.

In relation to the biblical idea of GOD, and all the names of GOD associated with that idea, each and every one of these can be acted on only by an actual real living entity able to do so, and - looking around - there is only one candidate for that role. The Earth Entity.

This is the same for all such GOD ideas human beings care to come up with.

This is the same thing you fault organized religions for. They re-interpret the experience of others into their own pantheon of entities, which is exactly what you do. You don't have deceiving evil spirits, but you still have deception all the same. You think your view explains it correctly; their view does not and is false.

Once or twice. Strings become coinciding incidences and cannot as easily be hand-waved away as 'mere coincidences'.

To go further, you'll probably need to get specific on what you mean about everyone's prayers being answered. I was trying to approach the general point, but I'm sure we would disagree on some of the specifics that lead you to your general conclusion.

In what way can you say that my theology is guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD contrary to what I have already shared about my theology?

If you can offer none, then perhaps you would care to retract?

You were talking about theologies seeing their God as the true idea of God and other ideas of God as false. You believe the exact same thing. I don't think this kind of belief necessarily leads to being guarded and hostile. You were seemingly saying it does. If it does, then since you hold the same kind of belief, your theology would also be guarded and hostile to other ideas of GOD.

Self inflicted being the key here yes? It is not that those who believe in immature ideas of GOD are incapable of making the choice to investigate the idea of GOD my theology speaks of.

It is not as if those who believe the wrong idea of God are incapable of making the choice to investigate the idea of God my theology speaks of.

It is not as if my idea of GOD condemns anyone for making that choice.

I'm not sure why you said this. I said your view of reality involves deceiving views of GOD existing, just like these other theologies. I didn't say you believe in a hell.

It is not as if anything can threaten my idea of GOD or cause me to create political or cultural barriers because of perceived threats.

I would say the same thing about Christianity. Some Christians have created those barriers. But someone with your view could also do it. The difference is those with your view have not had political or cultural power.

Nothing in my theology has GOD punishing (or annihilating) those who cling to immature ideas of GOD. What my theology does incorporate is that such choices inevitably lead to those making them being required to see them out, in the next phase, but not without the anomaly assisting them in eventually escaping that consequence of choice.

That has nothing to do with whether your theology is true or not, though.

Also give examples to these claims below, or likewise retract, where applicable.

Quote:
1:It's a false sense of embracing them all.
2: It's no more open ended than most.
3: It does have doctrine.
4: If doctrine prevents other theologies from examining information, then it's the same for your theology

1. You don't embrace all theologies. You think they are false and need to be changed or shedded as immature. To say you embrace them all, as they are, is a "false sense of embracing." You seem to think your addition of eternity to get things right changes this, but it doesn't. The principle of correct vs. incorrect is still there.

2. These other theologies don't prevent people from examining info from other sources. Your theology and mine both sees the information from other views as wrong/immature.

3. You have doctrine, clearly. You believe it is true that we are not separate from GOD-consciousness. That is a doctrine.

4. So, if doctrine does prevent people from examining info from other sources, and since you have doctrine, then your view would prevent other theologies from examining info.

Would it not be more appropriate for you to simply say [1]what instructions you are required to follow in order to attain what you believe you will, in the 'afterlife' phase?
And [2] What is annihilation but NOT attaining what you believe one can, in the 'afterlife' phase?

(1) I don't think we are required to follow instructions to attain something for ourselves, as I understand those terms. As I've said, whether we get heaven is an extension of this life and whether we are in a relationship with God as is accomplished through accepting what Jesus did in His life, death and resurrection.

(2) Again, heaven is not a reward for doing something. It's not us performing something for God and then God saying "since you followed these instructions in your actions, you get the reward of heaven." And annihilation isn't the punishment for not following a list of instructions on behavior. It (if true) is the natural result of our choice to distance ourselves from the source of life.

Never mind that now as you made it obvious you are not a run-of-the-mill Christian.

Our ideas of 'run-of-the-mill' Christians are obviously different.

Q: Do you expect to see you idea of GOD?

If so;

Q: In what manner do you expect the imagery will take form, based upon your present relationship with your idea of GOD?

Q: What do you expect your surroundings/environment to be like?

I don't think God is a physical being, if you mean 'see' in that way.

I answered that question in relating it to the story of the Prodigal Son, and you at first didn't acknowledge it at all and when I reminded you of it, You said something which amounted to that 'it wasn't how Christians normally interpreted the story.'

...

Is that generic Christianity or your particular take on Christianity?

Your interpretation is completely foreign to any form of Christianity, if that was your question there.

So at least what can be established is that one is free to interpret as one feels justified in doing, regardless of generic Christianity or not so generic Christianity.

I never said you weren't free to interpret things however you wanted. My specific point here was that you had said you tried to use Biblical stories to help me understand your view because I was a Christian. My response back was that since your view of the Biblical stories completely reinterprets those stories in a non-Christian way, that this is not helpful in the way you seemed to think it was. It would be just as 'foreign' as using a Hindu story. That doesn't mean it can't be helpful, anyway.

So, what do I mean by NOT 'actually separate'?

Using the parable of the Prodigal Son, in relation to my theology and myself and my relationship with GOD.

I am an aspect of GOD consciousness who was unaware of that being the case as I began my experience as a human being. The experience of form coupled with the environment and accompanying influences effective cut me off from that information.

Thus my behavior reflected this lack of knowledge but there was - nonetheless - an inkling of something not quite right in which the idea of GOD (no particular idea of any particular GOD) attracted that inkling motivating investigation.

GOD on the other hand, was completely aware of my predicament and never once considered me to being separate from It, in the same way that the father of the prodigal son never considered the son to being 'not the son' as it were. The father did not condemn the son or ex-communicate the son, or otherwise deny that the son was an aspect of his family, albeit, a wayward one.

From the fathers point of view, I was NOT actually separate.

The father never lost hope in the potential that the son would eventually come home.

This doesn't help. Not because of how I interpret the story differently, but your own interpretations. You say you are 'cut off,' but not separate. Those are synonyms to me. Not completely cut off, sure, but still cut off. You say the son was 'not at home' from the father's point of view. The father wants the son to come home, to a place the son is not, to a relationship the father does not currently have with the son. There is a separation from the father's point of view. The father has hope that the future will see a change in that relationship, bringing the son back to truth.

If I am right, you are having a relationship with your idea of GOD and this will extend into the next phase and you will receive everything you expect, (whatever these might be) plus the anomalies. Bearing in mind that my theology makes the observation that any individual - regardless of their chosen religious belief - who are sincere and with good intention are encourage by the EE to at least continue along in some kind of relationship, even if that relationship is reduced to the believer accepting stories attributed to GOD which are untrue. That will be sorted later...
It is far more important some type of relationship between the individual and GOD is maintained here and now, than no relationship whatsoever.

I'm having a relationship with my idea of GOD (i.e., it's in my mind, not something in reality). Or if you are saying that I still have a relationship with GOD, it's not the relationshihp I think I'm having, because I'm under an illusion in your view. So, you aren't embracing my theology. You are reinterpreting it to fit your view. And there's nothing wrong with that, unless we tell ourselves that we aren't doing that.

If you are right, and in that, I am not having a relationship with GOD (supposedly your idea of GOD?) then WHO am I having a relationship with?

You are having a relationship with your idea of GOD, that is, your own mind. Or perhaps an entity that is deceiving you.

Also, would my being wring about this amount to having to be exterminated?

I think everyone will have enough information to see their false views are wrong and that those who choose the false will end up being annihilated.

Because (my idea of) GOD is not one of a tyrant. What tyrant allows the individual as much 'time' as necessary?

In my theology, God allows the individual as much time as necessary. So, there's no advantage one way or the other here.

What tyrant allows for the individual to do what they will, all along knowing that the individual will eventually reintegrate, largely of their own accord? What tyrant offers nudges in the form of anomalies in which to encourage (or what you refer to as coerce) the individual to make more mature choices etc?

I obviously disagree with your assessment of your own view here and I won't revisit our talk on wills being free/of-their-own-accord or coerced.

What proof is there that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just?

Rather it is this very notion which carries over into the philosophical, allowing for the understanding my theology explores. It is a matter of finding more mature ideas related to the idea that GOD exists and is eternal and absolutely just which permit this ability to evolve in our understanding from the less mature to the more, in order to align the notions in a fashion which is unarguable. Watertight. Presents no contradictions etc.

I don't look at 100% proof as the standard; I asked proof of you because you talk about being fully informed and fault things based on 'faith.' I think there are better reasons to believe God exists than there are that God does not exist. The same for God's eternity and justice.

That this idea ['there is no particular hurry'] helps the rest of one's theology look more rational is not a good reason to believe the idea is true or more 'mature'. Whether your theology is watertight is still very much up in the air.

Unlike the prodigal son, who - despite dropping to a 'sub-human' state - eventually reintegrated.

The son wanted to come back as a servant, not a son. The reintegration happens by the father's grace and mercy and the son accepting that undeserved gift that brings the son back to true humanity. This is done through Jesus' life, death and resurrection, according to Christianity. So, I don't see how this contradicts what I was saying (i.e., why you said "unlike...")

Which do you honestly prefer, as far as ideas of GOD go? One which allows for as much 'time' as necessary and provides the occasional anomaly in order to quietly nudge each individual towards reintegration, or one that places conditions of time limits and only allows for certain questionable human institutions to have the authority of medium within the context of that one human life in the physical universe time limit and then annihilates the failures?

The first. But I think that describes Christianity. God gives everyone as much time as they need. God continually tries to get our attention, nudging us. God doesn't just rely on the church, but does use it. Some people misrepresent this body of Jesus, the church. People have everything they need to make their choice. You have the will to make one choice or the other and you get what you want.