Help of hinderance?

[Elijah John]

Does the claim that "Jesus is God" help or hinder your belief (or would be belief) that there is a God?

Please explain.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

You are arguing that if the earth were a prison planet and your idea of GOD was the prison Governor, then while the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being, as Governor of the prison, he has a job to do and that job requires a steadfast resolve to administer the prison accordingly.
Also, the Governor is not infallible and is learning the Job as he goes along...but is the best being for the job.

Is the above a fair assessment of your overall argument this particular GOD?

No, it is not. I said nothing of the sort. What is "evil" and what is "good" are subject to the perspective one chooses to take. In order to determine what is "evil", one must first establish what is "good". In the scenario above you have not defined what is "good", therefore, one can not determine whether or not the Governor is "evil".

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

ἀγάπη

Well, what we think is reasonable does not always equate to it being true.

Very true, but if we try to interpret Revelation 20:14-15 in isolation, then we must use basic logic to determine the fate of "anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life" whom Jesus cast into the lake of fire. This passage does not specify the fate of these poor people, but we are told in Revelation 20:10 that the beast and the false prophet will be tormented there forever. Since people who took the sign of the beast are also cast into that horrible place by Jesus, then they probably will suffer torment eternally as well. They are in the same situation, and beings in the same situation usually have the same experience.

This is speaking about the beast...

No, Tam--Revelation 14:11 very clearly states: "...those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name." So it's not the beast that is tormented here but the poor unfortunates that suffer a ghastly fate at the cruel hands of Jesus.

Christ is the one who gives us true rest and true peace.

Only if he spares you from his horrible and sadistic lake of fire.

Just to make sure you realize what we're dealing with here, here's a photo of a burn victim.

[Moderator action: Graphic image cropped]

This is what fire does to people. It's no joke. It's nothing to hold sacred.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

You are arguing that if the earth were a prison planet and your idea of GOD was the prison Governor, then while the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being, as Governor of the prison, he has a job to do and that job requires a steadfast resolve to administer the prison accordingly.
Also, the Governor is not infallible and is learning the Job as he goes along...but is the best being for the job.

Is the above a fair assessment of your overall argument this particular GOD?

No, it is not.

Okay

I said nothing of the sort.

You have said plenty of the sort in the past. Things such as 'GOD can do as he pleases with his creation' (The Governor can do as he pleases with his prison)

Do you deny that we are not consciousnesses captured and imprisoned?

What is "evil" and what is "good" are subject to the perspective one chooses to take.

Sure they are. Do you deny that you have not claimed - many times on this forum - that your idea of GOD is 'good'?

Doe this rule apply also to your GOD? You have claimed before that your GOD is in a better position to be able to determine What is "evil" and what is "good".
Are you now saying that the position does not matter, because regardless of ones perspective - be they men or gods, - what is considered good or evil is "subject to the perspective" any entity "chooses to take"?

In order to determine what is "evil", one must first establish what is "good".

How is the establishing done then? As you claimed, what is considered GOOD is "subject to perspective." Indeed, how is it that this apparent 'law' isn't the other way around, in that "In order to determine what is "good", one must first establish what is "evil"?

In the scenario above you have not defined what is "good", therefore, one can not determine whether or not the Governor is "evil".

What has that line of your argument to do with the actual content of my post? Where in my post was I making the call that the Governor of the prison, the prison, or even the prisoners themselves were 'evil'?

All I was doing was using it as a metaphor which seemed the best one which aligns with your particular oft-expressed idea of GOD in relation to humanity and this planet, in this universe.

Perhaps you can reassess what it is I said and asked and allow your next response to reflect the suitability of mutually polite discourse rather than simply knee-jerk defensiveness?

.

[bluethread]

I said nothing of the sort.

You have said plenty of the sort in the past. Things such as 'GOD can do as he pleases with his creation' (The Governor can do as he pleases with his prison)

Do you deny that we are not consciousnesses captured and imprisoned?

I'm not sure where you are getting this. At best, that would be an overgeneralization of what I might have said in response to a specific question. I generally do not make such a statement, because there are too many givens that are not necessarily accepted. However, I do not generally think of humans as consciousnesses captured and imprisoned. That seems a bit pessimistic to me.

What is "evil" and what is "good" are subject to the perspective one chooses to take.

Sure they are. Do you deny that you have not claimed - many times on this forum - that your idea of GOD is 'good'?

Doe this rule apply also to your GOD? You have claimed before that your GOD is in a better position to be able to determine What is "evil" and what is "good".
Are you now saying that the position does not matter, because regardless of ones perspective - be they men or gods, - what is considered good or evil is "subject to the perspective" any entity "chooses to take"?

I don't think I have actually stated it that way, but I do think that of all of the concepts of a deity, Adonai is the best fit for the world we live in. That said, I do not think that it does not matter. In fact, that is my point. It does matter, so before we go running off declaring things "good" and "evil", we need to know what standard we are using to make those judgements.

In order to determine what is "evil", one must first establish what is "good".

How is the establishing done then? As you claimed, what is considered GOOD is "subject to perspective." Indeed, how is it that this apparent 'law' isn't the other way around, in that "In order to determine what is "good", one must first establish what is "evil"?

I guess one could have indifference and "evil" without "good", but wouldn't make much sense for one to be indifferent it evil.? If one only had indifference and "good" that would not make some sense.

In the scenario above you have not defined what is "good", therefore, one can not determine whether or not the Governor is "evil".

What has that line of your argument to do with the actual content of my post? Where in my post was I making the call that the Governor of the prison, the prison, or even the prisoners themselves were 'evil'?

"the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being" Thai is where you introduce the idea of whether or not the Governor is "evil".

All I was doing was using it as a metaphor which seemed the best one which aligns with your particular oft-expressed idea of GOD in relation to humanity and this planet, in this universe.

Perhaps you can reassess what it is I said and asked and allow your next response to reflect the suitability of mutually polite discourse rather than simply knee-jerk defensiveness?

Well, the metaphor was not correct. I do not think that I have been in any way impolite. I have simply given direct responses to your questions and statements. That said, let's step back and you tell me, what standard should we use in defining what is "good" and "evil".

[tam]

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

ἀγάπη

And to you.

This is what fire does to people. It's no joke. It's nothing to hold sacred.

This is what exposure to ordinary fire does to people. But lets say a person was suddenly exposed to the full force of the sun all at once. They would not get burned. They would simply cease to be (consumed, so to speak, in an instant).


The point is that people are standing before the judgment seat of God... (and none of these people are Christian, because all Christians were resurrected in the first resurrection a thousand or so years earlier)... and they are judged according to their deeds. Some of them receive the resurrection to life, and some receive the resurrection to judgement and the second death.

The lake of fire is the second death.

Note that the key word here is death. No one is alive and living in torment. They are dead (and this time, forever).



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 55 by tam]

OK, rather than argue with you, just let me cite Luke 16:24:

He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’

Here we have an unfortunate man suffering as he calls it, "agony in these flames." He pleads for compassion yet gets none. Whatever that flame might be, it's causing him terrible pain. The relevance of this passage is that Jesus is reputed to have taught that all those who don't believe him and do what he says will suffer this same fate. It helps to clarify the fate of all those whom Jesus has cast into the lake of fire.

You can say what you want to, but I prefer to tell people the truth about Christ.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]

I'm not sure where you are getting this.

I get this from what you have expressed re your beliefs.

At best, that would be an overgeneralization of what I might have said in response to a specific question.

No it isn't. It is an apt metaphor for how you and in general all Abrahamic religions express the idea of GOD.

I generally do not make such a statement, because there are too many givens that are not necessarily accepted.

Do you deny that you have said in the past that (your idea of) GOD can do whatever he likes with his creation? Have you not defended supposed acts attributed to (your idea of) GOD (as per the stories in the bible) as 'necessary for good', and done so regardless of whether there are 'too many givens that are not necessarily accepted.' or not?

However, I do not generally think of humans as consciousnesses captured and imprisoned. That seems a bit pessimistic to me.

You have simply not connected the dots then. All Abrahamic organised religions essentially convey the idea that human beings are not free, and this is natural enough in itself because, human beings are not free in reality.

That the realization of this truth might have a negative affect on your optimism simply means that you resist the truth in order to maintain an optimism based on the misguided belief that you are free.

Accepting the fact of the matter does not mean one has to become a victim of the circumstances. Indeed, accepting the truth of the matter opens ones eyes up and allows the truth to set the mind free.

Are you now saying that the position does not matter, because regardless of ones perspective - be they men or gods, - what is considered good or evil is "subject to the perspective" any entity "chooses to take"?

I don't think I have actually stated it that way, but I do think that of all of the concepts of a deity, Adonai is the best fit for the world we live in.

The universe we live in is a prison. "Adonai is 'the best fit'" is you stating that good and evil are subject to the perspective he chooses to take. Isn't this exactly why you defend the alleged actions of this idea of GOD?

That said, I do not think that it does not matter. In fact, that is my point. It does matter, so before we go running off declaring things "good" and "evil", we need to know what standard we are using to make those judgements.

Are you aware that you consistently appear to sidestep, backtrack, and ignore people who question you about your justification of beliefs re the alleged actions of the idea of GOD you consistently support on this forum?

The standard you are using to make these judgments re good and evil, are the actions of the Abrahamic ideas of GOD, and your particular sect is no different than any other in regard to that. Obviously those standards are questionable. I personally consider you to being the most intelligent Christian on this forum, but be that as it may, your arguments often don't hold water and when questioned about them, your tendency is to sidestep. However, the hard questions won't stop on account of that.

I guess one could have indifference and "evil" without "good", but wouldn't make much sense for one to be indifferent it evil.? If one only had indifference and "good" that would not make some sense.

Can you reword that as it makes no sense in its present form.

What has that line of your argument to do with the actual content of my post? Where in my post was I making the call that the Governor of the prison, the prison, or even the prisoners themselves were 'evil'?

"the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being" Thai is where you introduce the idea of whether or not the Governor is "evil".

The full context of my statement had to do with how you present your idea of GOD in your posts on this forum, and argue for his alleged righteousness.

I wrote;

...then while the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being, as Governor of the prison, he has a job to do and that job requires a steadfast resolve to administer the prison accordingly.
Also, the Governor is not infallible and is learning the Job as he goes along...but is the best being for the job.

This was making metaphor of your own explanations of your idea of GOD. It does not introduce the idea of whether or not your idea of GOD is good or evil. Rather it acknowledges what you have been claiming in your posts on this forum - that this idea of GOD has a job to do and as unpleasant as that job might often be, he is dealing with a mixed bag of good and evil and is bound by his alleged promises/covenants, to see that job through to its stated conclusion. The alleged actions of this idea of GOD many regard as evil, but you regard as good.

I have simply given direct responses to your questions and statements.

As I said, it appears otherwise to me, and not only responses you have so far made in this thread, but in other threads where I have questioned you as well.

That said, let's step back and you tell me, what standard should we use in defining what is "good" and "evil".

There is no successful way in which to achieve this for the total prison population. This gets down to the individual.
As I replied to you in another thread where you asked me 'what is Love' - and we touched on the idea of the one law which fulfills all the law, it is something the individual has to understand and relates to the subject of 'who is GOD?' and 'Who is my neighbor?' and 'are these both one and the same?' and 'how should I behave in relation to the answer to these questions?'

'Good' and 'Evil' are relative ideas rather than pure absolutes. They are products of dualic thinking 'left brain/right brain' 'dark/light' 'man/woman' 'human/deity' 'god/devil' and dualic thinking is the harbinger of confusion, deception, ignorance, assumption etc...those attitudes which lean toward and support the manifestation of Evil intent into this prison world, and even out of this prison world and into other realities.

So one is not correct in looking for 'standards' which define Good or Evil, for that is the Law and the law can serve Evil intent even while wearing the pretense of righteousness.

What defines Good and Evil is behavior - the actions of the individual and behind those actions, the motivations, thoughts, intents etc.

These are things of which no human has access to in relation to any other human, and which no law can grant access to, except the One Law Jesus spoke of, which fulfills all Law and sets the prisoner free from lies, for what else will the Truth free us from?

In that, the Truth reveals a vast 'grey area' where 'good' and 'evil' are seen to be that which was taught to us but was not the Truth, but rather was the ignorance of those who came before us and called themselves our teachers.

[bluethread]

I generally do not make such a statement, because there are too many givens that are not necessarily accepted.

Do you deny that you have said in the past that (your idea of) GOD can do whatever he likes with his creation? Have you not defended supposed acts attributed to (your idea of) GOD (as per the stories in the bible) as 'necessary for good', and done so regardless of whether there are 'too many givens that are not necessarily accepted.' or not?

It is not uncommon for people to presume that I have argued for a great many doctrines, simply because that is common among Christians. Also, I have said a lot of things in the past. I've been around for quite a while. That said, I tend to avoid making such declarative statements. I prefer to do things like enquire as to what standards one is using to determine if a deity is "good" or not. I do this because, "good" seems to mean different things to different people.

However, I do not generally think of humans as consciousnesses captured and imprisoned. That seems a bit pessimistic to me.

You have simply not connected the dots then. All Abrahamic organised religions essentially convey the idea that human beings are not free, and this is natural enough in itself because, human beings are not free in reality.

That the realization of this truth might have a negative affect on your optimism simply means that you resist the truth in order to maintain an optimism based on the misguided belief that you are free.

Accepting the fact of the matter does not mean one has to become a victim of the circumstances. Indeed, accepting the truth of the matter opens ones eyes up and allows the truth to set the mind free.

They all do? Have you talked to someone from each and every one? I do agree that freedom is a matter of degree. However, I prefer to focus on those areas where I at least appear to have a choice.

The universe we live in is a prison. "Adonai is 'the best fit'" is you stating that good and evil are subject to the perspective he chooses to take. Isn't this exactly why you defend the alleged actions of this idea of GOD?

That is how you prefer to see it. I see it as more of a closed system.

Are you aware that you consistently appear to sidestep, backtrack, and ignore people who question you about your justification of beliefs re the alleged actions of the idea of GOD you consistently support on this forum?

I have noticed that when I do present my prospective, it is either rejected out of hand, or misrepresented, based on presumptions related to what other people believe. Therefore, I like to ask what standard we are using before we get into the weeds and I am asked to defend a viewpoint that I do not hold.

The standard you are using to make these judgments re good and evil, are the actions of the Abrahamic ideas of GOD, and your particular sect is no different than any other in regard to that. Obviously those standards are questionable. I personally consider you to being the most intelligent Christian on this forum, but be that as it may, your arguments often don't hold water and when questioned about them, your tendency is to sidestep. However, the hard questions won't stop on account of that.

I have no intention of avoiding the hard questions. In fact, I often propose the hard questions. What I do wish to avoid is presumptions that lead to misunderstandings. That said, it is interesting that you are so certain of my "particular sect". I was not aware that I was part of a particular sect. The standard I generally use to define "good" and "evil", if I am permitted to set the standard, is based on a historical, grammatical, cultural interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. However, I realized that the common definitions of those terms are different, therefore, I enquire as to what definition we are using.

I guess one could have indifference and "evil" without "good", but wouldn't make much sense for one to be indifferent it evil.? If one only had indifference and "good" that would not make some sense.

Can you reword that as it makes no sense in its present form.

Sorry, it does not make sense for "evil" to stand alone, because how can one be indifferent to what one considers "evil". However, "good' can stand alone, because one can be indifferent to what is considered "good".

The full context of my statement had to do with how you present your idea of GOD in your posts on this forum, and argue for his alleged righteousness.

I wrote;

...then while the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being, as Governor of the prison, he has a job to do and that job requires a steadfast resolve to administer the prison accordingly.
Also, the Governor is not infallible and is learning the Job as he goes along...but is the best being for the job.

This was making metaphor of your own explanations of your idea of GOD. It does not introduce the idea of whether or not your idea of GOD is good or evil. Rather it acknowledges what you have been claiming in your posts on this forum - that this idea of GOD has a job to do and as unpleasant as that job might often be, he is dealing with a mixed bag of good and evil and is bound by his alleged promises/covenants, to see that job through to its stated conclusion. The alleged actions of this idea of GOD many regard as evil, but you regard as good.

However, as I stated that is a misrepresentation of my views.

I have simply given direct responses to your questions and statements.

As I said, it appears otherwise to me, and not only responses you have so far made in this thread, but in other threads where I have questioned you as well.

OK, sorry for the break down in communication.

That said, let's step back and you tell me, what standard should we use in defining what is "good" and "evil".

There is no successful way in which to achieve this for the total prison population. This gets down to the individual.
As I replied to you in another thread where you asked me 'what is Love' - and we touched on the idea of the one law which fulfills all the law, it is something the individual has to understand and relates to the subject of 'who is GOD?' and 'Who is my neighbor?' and 'are these both one and the same?' and 'how should I behave in relation to the answer to these questions?'

Well, I dropped that discussion, because that is such a subjectivist view it make rational discussion appear to me to be impossible.

What defines Good and Evil is behavior - the actions of the individual and behind those actions, the motivations, thoughts, intents etc.

These are things of which no human has access to in relation to any other human, and which no law can grant access to, except the One Law Jesus spoke of, which fulfills all Law and sets the prisoner free from lies, for what else will the Truth free us from?

In that, the Truth reveals a vast 'grey area' where 'good' and 'evil' are seen to be that which was taught to us but was not the Truth, but rather was the ignorance of those who came before us and called themselves our teachers.

Sorry, again this appears to leave one with nothing more that a subjectivist stew, where each does what is right in one's own eyes. In that case, there is nothing more to say, because whatever is said can be rejected as not "my truth".

[William]

[Replying to post 58 by bluethread]

Sorry, again this appears to leave one with nothing more that a subjectivist stew, where each does what is right in one's own eyes. In that case, there is nothing more to say, because whatever is said can be rejected as not "my truth".

Now we are getting somewhere. what is necessary is to understand, and accept the truth of our shared reality, because THAT is our truth.

[tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

[Replying to post 55 by tam]

OK, rather than argue with you, just let me cite Luke 16:24:

He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’

Here we have an unfortunate man suffering as he calls it, "agony in these flames." He pleads for compassion yet gets none. Whatever that flame might be, it's causing him terrible pain. The relevance of this passage is that Jesus is reputed to have taught that all those who don't believe him and do what he says will suffer this same fate. It helps to clarify the fate of all those whom Jesus has cast into the lake of fire.

You can say what you want to, but I prefer to tell people the truth about Christ.

A - the rich man has not been cast into the lake of fire. The rich man is in Hades (Luke 16:23)... the world of the dead; also called Sheol, and translated most often as 'hell'. So this is speaking about Hades, not about the lake of fire (the second death).



B - people who believe in the (traditional) doctrine of hell(fire) often use this story about Lazarus and the Rich Man to try and support that doctrine of literally burning in hell. Of course no one who is literally burning alive (while dead, figure that one) would even be able to ask for a drop of water on their tongue... and even if they were capable of asking for something, how would a drop of water on the tongue soothe or ease their torment from a literal fire?

Now if there is no LIFE in Hades (the world of the DEAD), that is another matter. Then asking for even just a drop of water (the water of LIFE) would make sense.



So there may be a couple of lessons taught in this story (as well as predicting that those who do not listen to Moses and the Prophets - who testified to Christ - will also not listen to someone who rises from the dead - meaning Christ of course). But hades being a place of eternal torment in literal flames is not one of those lessons. That would have been an entirely new teaching for Israel - and then we should have at least SOME evidence of this new and terrifying teaching being questioned or objected to. Because Israel had no such teaching about the world of the dead.

Indeed, Job longed to go there to ESCAPE his suffering.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy