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.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 354 by Soar]

I have a big problem with the ghastly JW cult after a couple of its members told me in the 80s my adopted Down's Syndrome son, who was 16 months old at the time, would have been better off dead than receiving a life saving blood transfusion!

[ttruscott]

Not applying there are other names for God ....

Could you explain this please??

I am not going to get into a name/nature debate with a JW because it is a merry go round.

First, I am no Jehovah's Witness.

Second, I am familiar with the names of GOD.

Third, the use of 'not applying' threw me off in this context.

Fourth, I don't think I care anymore.

[Soar]

[Replying to JJ50]

My heart goes out for you. The WHOLE JW system is a cult and nothing but religious bondage. I have debated these people and it is just not worth a debate.

2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 326 by William]

I didn't see a response to this from you from my last post:

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.

I think it's important that we get this straight. Terms are killing us in understanding each other. I can comprehend the idea of us not being separate from God/First Source. 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. So, I seek how you are using terms for clarity's sake.

[1] One of the major terms in your theology is 'consciousness'. We have to get this term straight before anyone can truly engage your view. Your definition of 'consciousness' (in itself) would help me to better assess your theology. Unless, of course, there can't be any definition of 'consciousness' apart from possible instantiations of it. You say this is a question framed from the perspective of my view. How? It leaves open the question we disagree on: whether we are separate consciousnesses than God/First Source.

Therein is one difference. It is not a matter of correct and incorrect so much as it is a matter of allowing for in terms of understanding.

This is why I can express along the lines that the biblical idea of GOD has identifiable human politics incorporated into it which act as additions which also skew the character of GOD as it suits the politics of humans.

When those additions are allowed to remain as if they were actually attributes of GOD, they act as devices of distortion, and thus false rendition is accomplished.

Because this happens, it is allowed for in terms of not being fully informed. A false rendition is in the same category as not being fully informed.

One might believe in those false renditions as true, but this in itself does not require the judgement of annihilation. This because there are far better, more mature ways in which to deal with that problem.

Also - as I have noted - there are things within the biblical idea of GOD which I can identify as non false renditions. These align with what I know of through relationship with the EE.

[2] I think the use of terms here is confusing things as well. It would be fine if you were just talking about an issue of 'immaturity' or 'not being fully informed' as opposed to talking about the issue of 'right/wrong' or 'correct/incorrect'. But you aren't. You claimed you didn't view my theology (and other theologies) as wrong, but only as immature. You said this was a difference in your theology versus other theologies (like my own). But you do think my view of God being a separate conscious being than us is incorrect. Just like other theologies.

What I see you saying with this idea of 'immaturity' is that you think your theology is better because everyone gets to the state of being 'correct' eventually, while my theology cuts it off at a point. This is a difference between your theology and many others (including my own). Of course, there are Christian universalists as well, but that is not the usual stance (nor mine).

And the reason supporting your view of what is mature seems to rest on a crucial difference in our views. You seem to me to be arguing that we need undeniable evidence, don't have it in this life but will get it in an 'afterlife.' While I believe we don't need undeniable evidence, have enough information to make an informed decision in this life and, therefore, have no need for extra lives after this one.

You have not supported your conclusions with reasons, at least not clearly to me. Why is your approach the more mature one? And why is your view truer? I know; you've said why. It's my fault for not getting it.

Okay. My understanding of competition is that there are winners and losers.
My theology in relation to views of 'ultimate reality' is that there are no losers. There is no thing to compete for. My theology does not compete with yours, or anyone else's.

For me at least, this discussion between us, isn't about competing.

But there are 'losers' in your view in the sense I have been talking about. Universalists don't think people lose, but you do think views lose. Our theologies agree that views lose (which was my point). Now, our theologies do disagree on whether people lose, so to speak. You think this is unfair given what you see as a lack of us being fully informed.

I see. But why would you regard this as faith, bearing in mind you are not trying to understand my theology through the lens of your own, having set aside your own in that regard.
I myself regard my understanding as being logic based.

[3] Here is a third term that we need to get straight. By 'faith' I understand "trust in somebody or something for good reasons." I do not say the following based on what I mean by 'faith'. I lay that aside and only look at what you have said about faith (as I understand it, of course).

You talked of faith in post 303. In post 304 I asked for clarification on what you meant by that term, since I'm well aware of people using that in very different ways. In post 312 you seemed to say that faith comes in when we are not fully informed about something. But you have also said that you don't think anyone can be fully informed in this phase. If you are not fully informed about reality, then by your own theology (not my understanding of faith or reality) you would be exercising faith in stating what you believe.

But maybe you want to clarify that you mean something else by faith. Perhaps you mean that faith is holding a view for non-logical or illogical reasons? Perhaps you think neither of us is fully informed in this phase, but your believe things for logical reasons, while I believe things for non-logical or illogical reasons? If so, please explain why you think that (even if you feel you already have before, because it wasn't clear to me).

Or perhaps you mean something else by faith than these two possibilites? If so, great! Please help me to see what you mean.

Are you able to show me the falseness re First Source as the best foundation to build upon?
The Arbrahamic idea of GOD is different, how?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. You were saying that you could find your theology at the core of all theologies, if you just strip enough away. I said that was an irrational approach. Of course, if you strip away anything that disagrees with your view, you will be left with your view. I don't really think you are just stripping stuff away, anyway. You are adding and reinterpreting things.

Bearing in mind that the central focus of our discussion has to do with the difference in our theologies to do with what happens in 'afterlife' (the next phase as I have been referring to it) is how EE deals with the problem of falseness.

Yes, bearing in mind that you have a different belief about the afterlife, my point was that you were faulting other religions for re-interpreting other views to fit into their view of reality, which is exactly what you do as well.

I speak to how adherents of competing religions generally treat one another. My theology does not allow for that apparent 'need' to treat other theologies as threats to my own.

And my point was that this poor treatment is not a result of the theology, at least not in Christianity (but I think other religions as well). I do believe many Christians treat those of other faiths poorly, but that comes from going against Christian teachings. I do not see other religions as a threat to my own.

They see their ideas of GOD as distinctly different entities, whereas I see these as aspects of the EE, who does so to encourage humans to - at the very least - not dump the notions of GOD altogether, and in that - give opportunity for those adherents to examine their own theologies in terms of sorting chaff from wheat.

In Christianity, God gives people an opportunity to examine their own theologies as well.

Yes but you do appear to be ignoring the differences in my and your own theology on this. Yours gives a penalty in the form of annihilation, and mine does not. That is a significant difference, don't you agree?

Of course that is a big difference. I haven't said otherwise.

Most Christians have. It is simple part of the theology they support.

...

This would be because someone with my view would not be permitted to have political or cultural power unless my idea of GOD was able to be corrupted by such things. It isn't. Thus, this speaks volumes as to the nature of my theology in that regard.

Culture and politics are traditionally purveyors of disunity. My theology is not about disunity.

Could you be more specific on this inference you are making? Which Christian doctrines of mine promote political power and cultural barriers? It can't be my belief that there are incorrect views out there, because you share that belief with me. It's not my belief that there are people who won't come to correct views of reality, because Christianity doesn't say to oppress those who disagree with you. It says to love them and even sacrifice for them.

Well I am open to changing that 'doctrine', if good reason to do so presents itself. Can you say the same re your theology?

Absolutely.

Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the doctrine itself? Are you saying that there is no doctrine which exists in Christianity which is not open to preventing people from examining data from other sources and where appropriate, including that in its overall theology?

I am saying that there is no doctrine in Christianity that prevents people from examining data from any source.

In line with that, do you think there is doctrine which exists in Christianity which can be removed from being part of doctrine altogether based on the premise that it is most likely incorrect?

I'm not sure what all you mean by 'Christianity,' so I can't answer that. Saying 'run of the mill' Christianity won't help either, because I don't know what you mean by that. Point out which doctrine you are talking about and why it is likely incorrect and I can respond with whether I agree that is a doctrine of Christianity and, if so, whether I agree it is likely incorrect or not.

es, that is what I mean. Our theologies agree in that regard.

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

I still expect to be a physical being with a physical environment. I expect joy to be had. I don't have many expectations beyond that, off the top of my head.

Q: What process do you expect to occur regarding those who are annihilated? Will there be any visible entities involved in the determining of that?

In determining what? Who is annihilated? Or who annihilates them? Something else? I think there is a judgment and God will annihilate them by withdrawing his sustaining power from them.

What is your interpretation of the story? Perhaps by telling me that, it might help me understand your theology and why you believe in annihilation.

I do not get annihilation from the story of the prodigal son. The prodigal son, it seems to me, is about realizing one's condition away from God and coming back into relationship with a loving God who is overjoyed at your coming back. It is about grace, redemption, joy over those who come back. Not just for the son that left, but for the one that stayed (part of his audience were Pharisees).

Well was it helpful or not? Do you believe that interpretation of the bible can only be done - lets say 'properly' - if one is a Christian? Do all Christians interpret biblical stories the same way? Does something being 'foreign' to your way of thinking mean that it is therefore wrong? What tools are available to you in your theology in order to help you to understand the foreign?

I think it was helpful to a degree (of course, I talk more about how later). I do not believe that only a Christian can have a proper interpretation of a biblical passage. That something is 'foreign' to my way of thinking is not a reason to consider it wrong. The tools available to help me (or anyone) understand the foreign is not the result of any theology; they are just normal critical thinking skills.

Indeed, the idea of GOD consciousness imbuing all things is more Buddhist, but how is that a problem? How is something foreign a problem for Christians, or for you in particular?

It's not a problem to me. Why do you think it would be a problem for me?

My theology can embrace such as it has no conditions on others abilities or lack thereof.
If someone finds your theology foreign to them, and thus they live their lives unable to accept your theology, will they be annihilated?

[4] Here is another term that may be causing some confusion. Finding another theology foreign simply means to me that it is different than. If someone rejects a view for simply being different than their own, then they are not thinking rationally.

My theology carries no such judgement with it as it understands that there is ample 'time' available to each individual to learn to understand the 'foreign'.

My theology understands there is ample 'time' to understand the 'foreign' as well. You just think we need more time to get there. In this sense, my theology thinks people are capable of more in this life than yours does. Your theology paints them as immature, while mine treats them as mature. I would say this shows my theology as more mature than yours.

..and one can assume that you are speaking from the position of your theology, if your theology was foreign to me and others, how can it be said that everyone will have enough information to see their false views are wrong and that those who choose the false will end up being annihilated?

Perhaps you would like to ask this question using a different term, or re-ask it after clarifying above on what you mean by 'foreign'?

As I have said often enough, there is no place anyone can be which is separate from GODs awareness, because GOD-consciousness is involved.
The parable uses a human father to relate in parable the idea of how humans are separate from GOD and return to GOD. This does not mean that GOD is reduced in awareness to that of a human, because the focus is on the reunion.

[5] This is a major term we need to get straight. Using your own words and nothing to do with my theology or interpretation of the story, here you say no one can be separate from GOD, but the parable talks about the idea of how humans are separate from GOD. For this to make sense you must be using two different senses of 'separate'. You need to spell these out more clearly. I know, you did it already; I haven't gotten it.

You talk about GOD having a certain perspective. GOD has a thought about reality (that there is no separation between GOD and humans). A Christian has a certain perspective. A Christian has a thought about reality (that there is separation between GOD and humans). Thoughts are what consciousness deals in, right? You think we are all one consciousness, right. But how does the same consciousness believe that competing ideas are both really true. There seems to be a separation in our thoughts, in our consciousness. That seems to be a logical contradiction of your view to me.

Okay...you are saying that your idea of GOD is real in your mind, not 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.

I did not say those things. I said that any relationship anyone has with their idea of GOD is better than no relationship whatsoever.

Please read what I said again;

:
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 saying that if your theology is true, then my idea of GOD is only true in my mind, not in reality. The Earth Entity allows me to have a relationship with that idea in hopes of me coming to have a relationship with the GOD that exists in reality, outside of just my mind.

So, what I was saying around [2] at the start of this post, your view is just like every other theology, in this specific way. You don't think I'm having a relationship with GOD [so you don't incorporate my God in your theology as an entity), but an idea in my mind GOD permits me to have for the purpose of getting me into a true perspective later. In the same way, I think you are having a relationship with an idea in your head that God permits you to have because God desires humans to have free will, but that he yearns for you to return to Him as an entity (not meant to denote a male-gendered deity).

Both of our views have God/First Source in some kind of relationship with non-followers that changes into a different kind of relationship with them when they become followers.

I am not sure what you are saying here. You mention that you are having a relationship with your idea of GOD 'in your mind'. You then say I am doing the same. In this, are you saying that everyone having a relationship with GOD does so 'in their mind'?
I can agree that this has something to do with relationship between GOD and the individual, but it is not all internal. The external is also involve in the relationship.

I was not trying to imply this. I agree that individuals have a relationship external and internal.

Ah yes. I mentioned that this was something which many organised religious incorporate into their theologies. In this way they can defend their own theologies from the perceived 'threat' of any other and thus create barriers.
Do you mention this in relation to my theology because it is part of your own?

Can you tell me who or what this entity is which is 'perhaps' deceiving me, and also why you might suppose this as being the case?

I believe demons exist. I don't bring this up as a way to defend my theology from any perceived threat. I don't think it creates barriers anymore than saying your view is true and another's is false. The same principle could be held by a Christian who believes demons do not exist. And any deception is not solely the result of a deceiving demon. They speak lies, but humans choose whether to base their life on them or not.

Is this based upon your theology? Are you saying that everyone will - in their lifetime - have enough information to see their false views are wrong in relation to your own theology? In other words, are you saying that your theology is right and everyone should be able to see that?

Not the theology in its entirety. I also don't think I'm 100% right on everything. I haven't explored every complexity of reality and couldn't and even if I did, I'm not smart enough to figure it all out. No human is, in my opinion. I'm saying that everyone in their lifetime has enough information to realize they were made to be in relationship with God, that they rebel from that in their life, that they need God's help getting it back. They have enough info to place their trust in God.

Can you explain wherein this aspect of your theology, is a true view, based upon this supposed information you and everyone else has access to? What makes your theology so obviously true that everyone should be able to see it that way?

It comes down the line after accepting other beliefs. If (a) God and people are separate consciousnesses and (b) people have a personal will, then (c) they can reject a relationship with God which results in (d) harming themselves and others.

At this point the question becomes what God does with the one who rejects the relationship and is causing harm. The logical options, it seems to me are (e) not do anything or (f) deal with this.

If you choose (f), then the question becomes how God deals with it. God can (g) negate human free will or (h) not negate human free will.

If you choose (h) here, then the question becomes how God deals with it by not negating human free will. There, God can (i) let them continue to harm themselves and others, (j) put a stop to it.

If you choose (j), then the question becomes how to stop it. There, God can (k) let the person continue to live by itself with no joy, (l) actively physically and mentally torture them or (m) annihilation.

We'd have to work our way down the line, if you wanted to pursue my reasonings on these in an organized way.

But you said that the necessary time is only one human lifetime on this planet. What about those who find your theology foreign? Or never heard about your theology? Or only heard about their theology? Does your GOD allow for more time and information extended in the next phase for them to understand what currently is foreign?

The specific 'theology' I'm talking about here is that God made us to be in relationship with Him, that we are not in relationship with Him, that we can't do it on our own, and that we therefore need to trust/rely on God to set things right. These concepts are understandable. You don't have to know all the details of Christian theology to come to these beliefs. I don't think people even need to know how God accomplished this (Jesus), if they are truly trusting God to set things right.

You don't want to talk about how your theology which gives everyone only their lifetime to make the choice to accept or reject it and that this is not in any way a form of coercion, but my theology which allows for as much time as each individual requires to reintegrate and yet you claim that MY theology is coercion whereas yours is not?

Why are you unable to see the logical fault of such reasoning? Remember - it was YOU who brought the subject of coercion into this discussion by claiming my theology uses this as a method which works against the individuals will.

I have shown that this was an incorrect analysis of my theology. No force is involved with the anomaly against the individual. Reason, information, time, opportunity to reflect etc - these things are not devices of coercion.

Whereas, saying 'this life you are now living - this is your one opportunity to make the choice to accept this theology through faith in the belief that it is true, and be saved from annihilation... that IS indeed a form of coercion, plain and simple!

It's not the amount of time that makes it coercion or not, it's whether the final choice is required to be a certain way or not. Via analogy, here is the difference. I'm telling my kid that she has 5 minutes to decide where she wants to eat. That's not coercion simply because I could have given her more time. She has enough time to decide. You are telling your kid that she has all the time in the world to choose to eat at Benny's Chop House in Chicago. Yes, your theology is coercion here and mine is not.

If one was to hand-wave away the idea that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness as being 'data from deceptive entities' simply as a means of defending their own theology (which apparently is not 'data from deceptive entities') then how is such behavior anything BUT immature?

I have never done that. Those who do would be immature.

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

Yes! Even then the son did not understand himself and self identified as someone LESS than he actually was. Less than the father saw him to be!

This aligns with my theology exactly... Smile

I would hope so because you quoted yourself there, not me.

Quote:
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...")

Not reintegration back to true humanity. Reintegration back into the understanding that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness. Such a state would be beneficial to humanity, but that would be a byproduct of the process and something which is not likely due to the large numbers of individuals who resist such a concept. Theists and atheists alike.

In this part we were analyzing my theology. I talked about my view and you said "unlike the prodigal son, who..." which made it sound like you were saying the prodigal son story contradicted my view, so I tried to show how my interpretation fit into the prodigal son parable.

Okay so you honestly prefer, as far as ideas of GOD go, the one which allows for as much 'time' as necessary and provides the occasional anomaly in order to quietly nudge each individual towards reintegration.

Quote:
But I think that describes Christianity.

If that were true, you would not have a problem with my theology. Our interaction over the weeks tells me otherwise.

No. You don't seem to understand our disagreement here. Our theologies disagree on how much 'time' is necessary. My problem is that you think we need more time than this lifetime. I think this lifetime is enough and that we get nudges from God towards 'reintegration' (or as I would say, salvation or redemption or setting our relationship with God right, among other terms).

But wait.
Surely you understood my question was related to my theology as I explained it - that the time extends into the next phase?

Surely you understood that I nuanced it to take it out of your theology into a larger sphere where we could compare our two theologies.

So, what you want to ask whether I would prefer a God who allows for multiple lifetimes to come to choose trust or reliance in God versus a God who allows for one lifetime to choose trust or reliance in God? Well, since I believe one lifetime is enough, then the latter. The former would be superfluous.

If you mean related to your theology in the sense of 'one lifetime is not enough,' then the question is useless. Of course, if I believe your theology is true in that one lifetime is not enough, then I would opt for a God who allows multiple lifetimes.

Would GOD need to do this if one was already understanding the reintegration process and accepted it?

In my theology or yours? In yours, GOD would not need to keep getting our attention. In mine, there is a lot of self-reliance to die to. It's a daily process, a daily relationship, not just a one time kind of thing.

For many individuals the church is foreign and confusing and demonstrably unreliable as a trustworthy medium between GOD and the individual.

Yes, it can be foreign. But people can come to understand foreign things. Yes, it can be confusing and unreliable. But it is irrational to disbelieve a truth because of how someone who claims to (or even actually does) believe something acts. They may not truly believe what they pay lip service to or may have a weakness of the will in some area that God is helping them improve upon. If I were to see you do or say something against your theology, I would not be rational to disbelieve your whole theology. Your theology stands on its own merit.

One could write books about that. Such as is the case, all the more reason why the next phase also has to justly include time for individuals to learn the truth. 2000 years - and counting - of misrepresentation does not bode well with ANY doctrine coming forth in the name of this 'body of Jesus, the church'. Sorting wheat from chaff is helpful in that regard. Necessary, in fact.
I could argue that Jesus says I am an aspect of GOD consciousness because his teaching also included such things as the parable of prodigal son, or the idea that we are 'sons of GOD' or the idea that religion has misrepresented GOD in that we are taught that we are separate consciousnesses from GOD consciousness, and you can (as you have) argue in return that this is foreign to Christian teaching.

I could then say that my theology is 'foreign to Christian teaching' because Christian teaching is has largely evolved from 2000 years of 'some people misrepresenting this body of Jesus, the church.' and to such a degree that demonstrably the Christian church is suspect to the degree that it is completely untrustworthy as any truthful ambassador to the truth of GOD.

Then argue it. Where is the historical evidence of this corruptive process?

Why would any true GOD thus annihilate me on account of my reasoning above?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is - 'No true GOD would." Plain and simple.

It's wrong, but this isn't why God would annihilate you. If my theology is correct, then God would annihilate you because you are trying to live life on your own apart from God as though you were God, when you are not.



Any response to post 325?

[Soar]

I see annihilation ridicules why would God cause all men to fall into sin and death and then torture them? Annihilate them? Adam had no choice and carnal man has no choice in salvation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 359 by Soar]

I see annihilation ridicules why would God cause all men to fall into sin and death and then torture them? Annihilate them? Adam had no choice and carnal man has no choice in salvation.

What leads you to believe God caused all people to fall into sin and death? That Adam had no choice and carnal man has no choice in salvation?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to JJ50]

My heart goes out for you. The WHOLE JW system is a cult and nothing but religious bondage. I have debated these people and it is just not worth a debate.
.

Moderator Comment

As you are a new member here I'll make this a comment rather than a warning, but please do not make blanket statements against an entire group in this manner. We expect certain standards when it comes to civility and we have quite a few active JW members here.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 354 by Soar]

I have a big problem with the ghastly JW cult after a couple of its members told me in the 80s my adopted Down's Syndrome son, who was 16 months old at the time, would have been better off dead than receiving a life saving blood transfusion!

Moderator Comment

Likewise with you JJ50. All people of all religions are welcome to post here and should be able to do so without being labelled a cult.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

[Replying to post 358 by The Tanager]

I can comprehend the idea of us not being separate from God/First Source.

Okay. Explain what it is that you comprehend therein and perhaps we can get a bead on where the confusion sits.

I know; you've said why. It's my fault for not getting it.

Maybe or maybe not.

From my perspective this discussion we have been having seems to have a definite pattern to it. The more I try and explain, the more you have brought in feedback which does not reflect what I have tried to explain. I then try to correct that, only to receive more feedback which again, does not reflect what I actually said.

Part of this involves your being relatively quiet about what it is you actually believe and why you think - for example - your theology is more mature than my own in relation to what happens in the next phase.

I can give you an example of how you reflect back at me your misunderstanding of my theology.

You said this;

And the reason supporting your view of what is mature seems to rest on a crucial difference in our views. You seem to me to be arguing that we need undeniable evidence, don't have it in this life but will get it in an 'afterlife.' While I believe we don't need undeniable evidence, have enough information to make an informed decision in this life and, therefore, have no need for extra lives after this one.

This reflects back to me what you think my theology is, but considering how much I have shared about my theology I find it unacceptable that you would get it so wrong.

I could ask you to look at what you said above and see if you can find out where you have wandered, but would that correct anything? Would that help stop what you are doing?

Frankly, I am over attempting to correct you every time you post a reply in this manner due to how this invites more of the same.

But there are 'losers' in your view in the sense I have been talking about. Universalists don't think people lose, but you do think views lose.

This too is another example of your incorrectly reflecting my theology back to me.

Your statement that I think 'views lose' is never anything I have outright said or even implied. If you see implication of this in my theology, you put it there yourself.

The same goes for this;

Our theologies agree that views lose (which was my point). Now, our theologies do disagree on whether people lose, so to speak. You think this is unfair given what you see as a lack of us being fully informed.

I think it would be best if you choose to feedback in this manner, that you always accompany it with example by quoting me so that at least the reader has something to go on re you assertions about what I have - supposedly - said.

If you are not fully informed about reality, then by your own theology (not my understanding of faith or reality) you would be exercising faith in stating what you believe.

I don't state what I believe, but what I understand based upon my own DoE and other data related to ideas of GOD and so-called afterlife.

There is simply no reason for me to place any faith in my theology, because it is not faith-based. It is information based. It does not require any faith.

Are you able to show me the falseness re First Source as the best foundation to build upon?
The Arbrahamic idea of GOD is different, how?

I asked you the question "Are you able to show me the falseness re First Source as the best foundation to build upon?" because you seemed to be saying that my idea of GOD (FS) is false.

That is why asked you this;

"The Arbrahamic idea of GOD is different, how? " assuming (obviously) that your idea of GOD was the same as the Arbrahamic idea of GOD and in that you could show why you think the one is false while the other is not.

Bearing in mind that the central focus of our discussion has to do with the difference in our theologies to do with what happens in 'afterlife' (the next phase as I have been referring to it) is how EE deals with the problem of falseness.

Yes, bearing in mind that you have a different belief about the afterlife, my point was that you were faulting other religions for re-interpreting other views to fit into their view of reality, which is exactly what you do as well.

That is your assertion. Is it relevant to the focus, or shall we drop it (for now) and focus on the focal point?

And my point was that this poor treatment is not a result of the theology, at least not in Christianity (but I think other religions as well). I do believe many Christians treat those of other faiths poorly, but that comes from going against Christian teachings. I do not see other religions as a threat to my own.

Again, is this relevant to the focus or wandering away from it?

Yes but you do appear to be ignoring the differences in my and your own theology on this. Yours gives a penalty in the form of annihilation, and mine does not. That is a significant difference, don't you agree?

Of course that is a big difference. I haven't said otherwise.

Good. Then can we agree this is the main thing to focus on for now?

I am saying that there is no doctrine in Christianity that prevents people from examining data from any source.

Examining, and where appropriate replacing. Is there any doctrine in Christianity that prevents people from examining data from any source and adopting that data even if it contradicts doctrine in Christianity?

I still expect to be a physical being with a physical environment. I expect joy to be had. I don't have many expectations beyond that, off the top of my head.

What gives you those expectations? What about them attracts you to believe in them. Will this 'physical being' you expect to be, be human like you are now or some other type of being? What gender do you expect to be? What form will you expect to occupy?

Q: What process do you expect to occur regarding those who are annihilated? Will there be any visible entities involved in the determining of that?

In determining what? Who is annihilated?

Yes.

Or who annihilates them?

Yes that too.

I think there is a judgment and God will annihilate them by withdrawing his sustaining power from them.

1: What is the 'sustaining power' GOD will remove from them. Is it their consciousness?

2: Do you expect GOD to be visible during this event and if so, what do you expect GOD will look like? Where will you expect GOD to be situated in all this?
If you don't expect GOD to be visible, will those who are annihilated, simply disappear before your eyes?

I do not get annihilation from the story of the prodigal son. The prodigal son, it seems to me, is about realizing one's condition away from God and coming back into relationship with a loving God who is overjoyed at your coming back. It is about grace, redemption, joy over those who come back. Not just for the son that left, but for the one that stayed

Why is it then that you also don't get where my theology on the next phase fits into this parable?

Roles of those three characters. GOD. Those who have never been separate from GOD in their own understanding, and those who have been separate from GOD in their own understanding, but eventually reintegrate.

My theology understands there is ample 'time' to understand the 'foreign' as well. You just think we need more time to get there.

That is a reasonable conclusion for me to make, based on what I have to say about my theology in relation to our present reality experience.

The idea we need as much time as necessary to make informed decisions also comes with there being more data to work with. I have mentioned that more than once. While this may appear to be foreign to you, from what you have said now;

That something is 'foreign' to my way of thinking is not a reason to consider it wrong.

So it is something you are willing to take into consideration.

We are all uniquely positioned and in that, not everyone can have the same opportunities. Your reasoning appears to assume that everyone does.

In this sense, my theology thinks people are capable of more in this life than yours does.

I will direct you to a thread I created in which you may see clearly that I do indeed think people are capable of more in this life. This simply to give evidence that my theology is not as you are saying it is.

♦ A System of Parity

Also, perhaps you might care to contribute to that thread and use your theology in relation to that.

Your theology paints them as immature, while mine treats them as mature. I would say this shows my theology as more mature than yours.

People ARE immature, even in relation to ideas of GOD and the next phase. We are a 'type zero' species. It is just the nature of our particular position, which is largely one of ignorance and coercion.
Your theology has chosen to ignore this and assume we are more mature than we actually are and thus falsely judges humanity according to that misconception, and assigns the judgement through the doctrine of annihilation and that particular idea of GOD.

For this to make sense you must be using two different senses of 'separate'. You need to spell these out more clearly. I know, you did it already; I haven't gotten it.

No you haven't.

If you were the EE and in that - connected to every human being through their consciousness - which were all aspects of your own, would you consider yourself separate from any of them, even if they considered themselves separate from you, or did not even realize you existed, let alone that there was an intimate connection available?

But how does the same consciousness believe that competing ideas are both really true. There seems to be a separation in our thoughts, in our consciousness. That seems to be a logical contradiction of your view to me.

You see the ideas as 'competing' I do not.

I incorporate your ideas into my theology allowing for you to experience what you believe that you will experience, in the next phase.
My theology is not separating your theology from mine. Through the lens of your theology, you see a separation which isn't there.

I'm saying that if your theology is true, then my idea of GOD is only true in my mind, not in reality. The Earth Entity allows me to have a relationship with that idea in hopes of me coming to have a relationship with the GOD that exists in reality, outside of just my mind.

Okay.

You don't think I'm having a relationship with GOD [so you don't incorporate my God in your theology as an entity), ...

Not entirely. As I said there are similarities and these are less about politics and culture and more about relationship and truthfulness.

...but an idea in my mind GOD permits me to have for the purpose of getting me into a true perspective later.

Also my theology re the next phase allows for your idea of GOD to be experienced by you, as real in relation to you beliefs systems and expectations, as I have mentioned in past posts.

In the same way, I think you are having a relationship with an idea in your head that God permits you to have because God desires humans to have free will, but that he yearns for you to return to Him as an entity

Where does the similarity end regarding both our theologies, bearing in mind, the focus.

(not meant to denote a male-gendered deity).

Then why use it? Specifically why use it in the masculine?

Both of our views have God/First Source in some kind of relationship with non-followers that changes into a different kind of relationship with them when they become followers.

Even so - Where does the similarity end regarding both our theologies, bearing in mind, the focus.

One GOD annihilates the non believers, while the other does not.

It comes down the line after accepting other beliefs. If (a) God and people are separate consciousnesses and (b) people have a personal will, then (c) they can reject a relationship with God which results in (d) harming themselves and others.

At this point the question becomes what God does with the one who rejects the relationship and is causing harm. The logical options, it seems to me are (e) not do anything or (f) deal with this.

Would you say then that those not causing harm are having a relationship with GOD, even if they do not realize that is the case?

It's not the amount of time that makes it coercion or not, it's whether the final choice is required to be a certain way or not. Via analogy, here is the difference. I'm telling my kid that she has 5 minutes to decide where she wants to eat. That's not coercion simply because I could have given her more time. She has enough time to decide. You are telling your kid that she has all the time in the world to choose to eat at Benny's Chop House in Chicago. Yes, your theology is coercion here and mine is not.

That analogy is of no value in relation to the focus. It's value is in helping others understand your particular way of believing things and what you leave out is also very telling.

You forgot to mention that you will annihilate your daughter if she does not make a choice. There is only one choice which allows for staying alive. Choose that one thing OR die. You are thinking like an impatient parent who demands an answer NOW.

That is immature and irresponsible.

Also by leaving out the part you forgot to include, you gave your theology the appearance of being mature and one of non coercion. < Sneaky or absentminded?

Yet we are not talking about choosing where to eat. We are talking about the difference between your theology on this matter and my own. In that, like I said, the analogy you came up with there is simply an inadequate representation, other than it shows the underlying idea of your idea of GOD as well as a tendency on your part to forget to include certain pertinent details.

I would hope so because you quoted yourself there, not me.

So I did.

The son wanted to come back as a servant, not a son.

The speaks to the nature of the illusion wrought through false self identification. He went so far down he forgot who he really was and in wanting and receiving forgiveness he still couldn't forgive himself enough to see himself as his father saw him.
Did the father accept his sons lack of self forgiveness and lack of understanding who the son really was? No.

The reintegration happens by the father's grace and mercy

And love and acceptance and knowing exactly who the son really is and not accepting anything less etc..et al. The reintegration happens because it is natural.

and the son accepting that undeserved gift that brings the son back to true humanity.

The father begs to differ. This stating it is undeserved would be something the other son might say in ignorance and perhaps jealously... but not the father. Something Christians would be inclined to say, but not GOD.

So, what you want to ask whether I would prefer a God who allows for multiple lifetimes to come to choose trust or reliance in God versus a God who allows for one lifetime to choose trust or reliance in God? Well, since I believe one lifetime is enough, then the latter. The former would be superfluous.

This is what I noticed and commented on near the beginning of this post in reaction to your reflecting my theology back in a way which is not even what I have said of my theology.

I am not going to ask you to explain what you mean by 'multiple lifetimes' as every time you introduce a new concept into the discussion we veer away from the focus.

If you mean related to your theology in the sense of 'one lifetime is not enough,' then the question is useless. Of course, if I believe your theology is true in that one lifetime is not enough, then I would opt for a God who allows multiple lifetimes.

Surely you must have been able to ascertain in context that when I speak of one lifetime I am specifically relating that to one human lifetime here on this planet beginning at birth and ending at the death of the human instrument (form/body) in relation to your belief that one lifetime is enough time!!

How can you then reflect that back at me as meaning my theology claims 'multiple lifetimes'???

Please!

I don't want any explanation from you about this. Just stop doing it.

In my theology or yours? In yours, GOD would not need to keep getting our attention. In mine, there is a lot of self-reliance to die to. It's a daily process, a daily relationship, not just a one time kind of thing.

I would really like to know what you mean by 'self reliance' but I think for now this moves away from the focus, so - depending on whether we continue discussing theology together, perhaps we can revisit it later.

One could write books about that. Such as is the case, all the more reason why the next phase also has to justly include time for individuals to learn the truth. 2000 years - and counting - of misrepresentation does not bode well with ANY doctrine coming forth in the name of this 'body of Jesus, the church'. Sorting wheat from chaff is helpful in that regard. Necessary, in fact.
I could argue that Jesus says I am an aspect of GOD consciousness because his teaching also included such things as the parable of prodigal son, or the idea that we are 'sons of GOD' or the idea that religion has misrepresented GOD in that we are taught that we are separate consciousnesses from GOD consciousness, and you can (as you have) argue in return that this is foreign to Christian teaching.

I could then say that my theology is 'foreign to Christian teaching' because Christian teaching is has largely evolved from 2000 years of 'some people misrepresenting this body of Jesus, the church.' and to such a degree that demonstrably the Christian church is suspect to the degree that it is completely untrustworthy as any truthful ambassador to the truth of GOD.

Then argue it. Where is the historical evidence of this corruptive process?

Are you denying it exists? If so, then *whatever*. Even Jesus is attributed with saying that such is and would continue to be the case, so what do you think?

I am surprised at your answer. But for now, I think for me to provide what you ask for would be shifting from the focus at hand.

I do however have some things I have said about this in my Members Notes, which you can read here;

♦ Christianity - a political device created for a specific purpose.

I do not know if you even bother to read the links to my Members Notes - from memory I think you said you do not like to do that kind of thing, but anyway - the links are provided in the same manner as the water is offered to the horse.

It's wrong, but this isn't why God would annihilate you. If my theology is correct, then God would annihilate you because you are trying to live life on your own apart from God as though you were God, when you are not.

You know - I really am getting tired of your method of reflecting my theology back at me in a way which I myself certainly didn't present it to you, and urge the reader not to take your word for it.

If you want to carry on interacting with me on these matters, I suggest you learn to reflect back (feedback) to me exactly what I have been saying. That way, it keeps things honest.

In the mean time, for the sake of the reader, please show us where I ever claimed I was living my life separate from GOD as though I was GOD.

If you cannot, then retract your statement and perhaps try to answer the question again.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 363 by William]

Thanks for the conversation. I'm sorry that we couldn't come to an understanding on each other's views, but thanks for trying with me. I would be willing to talk with you on different topics in the future, so perhaps I will see you around.

Peace to you,

Jason