Why is everyone afraid of a place called HELL?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by spy66

 

It is also predetermined by God who will do evil. If not; than the bible is false.

Another way to see it, maybe, is the god created a garden in the midst of this world as a showcase for his greatness and how benevolent he was. He placed in this garden every tree which was good to look at and was good for food and in the midst of this garden was the tree of life which was the greatest and most direct representation of his benevolent nature.
Also, in the midst of this garden sprung up from the earth, and not one this first god planted, the tree which represented the god of the underworld. The first god who fancied himself as the god of life showed his true nature, as being in an unfriendly league with the second god, not of death itself, but the caretaker of the earth in general, and of the dead in particular, which soon came into existence through this self-styled god of life, who flew into fits of wrath and struck down those who seemed too dear to the earth, such as Abel the grower of fruit bearing plants from the ground, the very ground this "life" god had cursed.

edit on 12-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Dude, we can see you are a Gnostic, and you keep writing and writing these ideas about the duality of what you percieve God(s) is - but your logic is flawed.

You cannot say there was a god then this god got killed or whatever - GOD CANNOT BE KILLED. God is Omnipotent. He is the Living, the One - there cannot be multiple "gods" - the whole idea is flawed. Because if there were more than one god - then they would all CEASE to be god.

Just look at the beauty and simplicity of Oneness of God explained by God Himself:

Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.
-Qur'an, 21:22

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

Dude, we can see you are a Gnostic, and you keep writing and writing these ideas about the duality of what you percieve God(s) is - but your logic is flawed.

You have no logic to be flawed, so how do you like that.
You are a mindless robot spewing forth the ravings of a madman someone was so foolish as to put in writing for the hopeless who can not go to the trouble of seeking truth on their own.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

Dude, we can see you are a Gnostic, and you keep writing and writing these ideas about the duality of what you percieve God(s) is - but your logic is flawed.

You have no logic to be flawed, so how do you like that.
You are a mindless robot spewing forth the ravings of a madman someone was so foolish as to put in writing for the hopeless who can not go to the trouble of seeking truth on their own.

Wow! Talk about someone who hasn't shown ANY logic in ANY of their postings.

Originally posted by Minori
reply to post by spy66

 

God condemned me before I even began to live........takes original sin to a whole new level.
I would really love to know where you got your information from.......it intrigues me.

Yes you were condemned before you were borne. Haven't you read the part when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit?

You are condemned to exercise and experiance good and evil until you die, because you will surly die. And you will sine.

I did not say you were condemned to hell. Non of us are. We cant be if we are condemned to experiance and exercise good and evil. And you will do all these things because you dont know the moral code.

reply to post by Deetermined

Well that's a nice thing to say. So, everything I write is so convoluted you can make no sense of it, whatsoever? Not one tiny little bit? Like looking at runes, or something? hmm. ok. Maybe I should take a look at your post and see if I can extract from it a thought, since you seem to be insistant on leaving it as it lay.

regarding the possibility that there is no eternal hell or punishment for mankind, but only for Satan, the Beast and False Prophet, here are my personal conclusions and it all boiled down to one thing..... FREE WILL

Any logic yet? No, but an allusion to there being some sort of thought occurring and out of that thought, a phrase. Then a quote. I am forced by you incorrigibility to read this quote to see if there is hidden among it some sort of nugget of truth which you have latched onto in order to propel your thoughts on to its goal. Your claim is that contained in this quote is the description of why God gave us free will.

. . .He wants us to experience the joy that comes from seeking and serving Him as we should. . .

God, according to the article you quote, wants us to experience Joy. So, you quoted this article in order to tell us that your great effort of thought over this great question of whether there is an eternal punishment for mankind has revealed to you this great truth that the key to understanding the answer to this question is that God wants us to experience the joy of searching to find out what God wants from us, which is, according to the article, to serve God in a proper way. So by great searching and thinking and seeking in prayer and study of scripture and other things in life, to know the Joy of this experience of not knowing, trying to know, then as if through these feelings of joy, the actual knowing, then, after all that to go ahead and do whatever it was that you were trying to find out that you should have been doing all along but could not, due to some terrible calamity which caused you not to know the slightest thing about God, of if God even existed. All so you could now feel Joy, which is what God wanted for you all along. Great!
Ok now that we have worked through that exercise in logic, let's see if there is any more to be found in this revelatory post of yours.
There is a paragraph with the clause, "it is obvious to me". Now, can we find a chain of logic to describe the obviousness of the claim, which is, God accepts those who previously accepted Jesus?
Then there are definitions offered for what these reconciliations and restorations are, but no explanation as to how the earlier postulate was arrived at.
Then a negative is offered, as an example of something which was presumably offered to you but were not persuaded by, in order to change your mind from what you already believed.
To conclude: was there any logic in this post? No, just a lot of things laid out as facts, and something pointed out as being snubbed as of any use as making a point in an argument.
Now comes the logical part:

Satan knew Jesus, it didn't mean he accepted him.

So you have one thing presented as a given, which is, "all people will eventually know of Jesus". Your argument (use of logic, presumably) is that since the translation says "should", instead of "will" then there is no implied acceptance of Jesus as anything beyond there being presented a person and the people saying, "ok, there is a person there and you are saying his name is Jesus, and so what?"
There is one level of "logic" which is that if the text is ambiguous, then there is no reason to believe they will actually submit themselves to his authority. The other layer of "logic" is that if you don't see a translation that says it differently, it is safe to assume that your earlier assumption is correct.
So here is a two-fold logic: 1. it is not clear from the text, to my satisfaction, that it means what others have proposed that it means, and 2. I don't see anything which contradicts this reading which I accept as evidence for this argument.
This is the full extent of any logic I can find in this post.
How could this be flawed logic? Because there is no exhaustive research to back it up. The logic only stands if there is not contradictory evidence that exists, or could possibly be found. You do not offer evidence that such an exhaustive search has taken place.
The flawed logic collapeses in one minute by my doing an internet search for Pillipians 2:10 and 11.

so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father

NETBible

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Well that's a nice thing to say. So, everything I write is so convoluted you can make no sense of it, whatsoever?

That pretty much sums it up. I think you live in a world of mythology, not reality. You should change your name because you are far from being a "Bible Scholar of Revelation". A scholar in mythology perhaps. I encourage you seek out a true Bible scholar and start studying.

reply to post by Deetermined

You should go in a time machine to Troy and Athens and go around telling everyone how they are so deceived to believe in mythology, and see how long you survive.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

You should go in a time machine to Troy and Athens and go around telling everyone how they are so deceived to believe in mythology, and see how long you survive.

A time machine? What are you talking about?

I believe mythology was created as a form of communication to try and make sense and understanding out of something that they truly didn't understand. I think it's fine to compare ancient mythology and the stories of the Bible together, however, I'm hoping you believe the Bible's words to be that of authority and not the other way around! With you it's hard to tell which one has more influence!

reply to post by Deetermined
I'm hoping to get a book in the mail today that I can read to see what the connection is. There is this big lake in the middle of the Florida peninsula, Lake Okeechobee, where to get mail from the other side, it has to go three and a half times the distance, than if it could somehow go in a straight line, so it can be tricky calculating when a package will arrive, but this is where I ordered the book from. I am working on learning the Greek that the New Testament was written in, so it seems helpful to me to understand where it comes from and how it was used, including rhetorically. The Book is Paul and the Stoics written by the Professor of theology at Copenhagen University. If it makes any sense to me then I am going to buy his newer book on spiritual materialism, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit.
I believe Paul is authoritative, probably more than anything else. I believe without Paul there would not be such a thing as Christianity and that what existed outside of his influence would have evaporated or have been reabsorbed. That is another book I am waiting on the mail for, which is Jesus according to Paul where the author goes through all of Paul's writings and extracts whatever he can find in them about Jesus and create a Pauline Christology.
If you think mythology is weird, I suggest you read, Preparation for the Gospel by Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314). You can read it on-line at tertullian.org, the digital version.
You can read the photo-copied, flip version of the book, on-line at, Open book,
Internet Archive
Oops, that seems to be volume II.
I recommend downloading the PDF version of the transcribed text, done by Roger Pearse. I have that in my files and it is better than trying to read it on-line because the PDF has the pages very nicely formatted, much like the original books, which I have the printed copies of. I either downloaded the PDF from tertullian, or earlychristianwritings.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

I'm hoping to get a book in the mail today that I can read to see what the connection is. There is this big lake in the middle of the Florida peninsula, Lake Okeechobee, where to get mail from the other side, it has to go three and a half times the distance, than if it could somehow go in a straight line, so it can be tricky calculating when a package will arrive, but this is where I ordered the book from. I am working on learning the Greek that the New Testament was written in, so it seems helpful to me to understand where it comes from and how it was used, including rhetorically. The Book is Paul and the Stoics written by the Professor of theology at Copenhagen University. If it makes any sense to me then I am going to buy his newer book on spiritual materialism, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit.
I believe Paul is authoritative, probably more than anything else. I believe without Paul there would not be such a thing as Christianity and that what existed outside of his influence would have evaporated or have been reabsorbed. That is another book I am waiting on the mail for, which is Jesus according to Paul where the author goes through all of Paul's writings and extracts whatever he can find in them about Jesus and create a Pauline Christology.
If you think mythology is weird, I suggest you read, Preparation for the Gospel by Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314). You can read it on-line at tertullian.org, the digital version.
You can read the photo-copied, flip version of the book, on-line at, Open book,
Internet Archive
Oops, that seems to be volume II.
I recommend downloading the PDF version of the transcribed text, done by Roger Pearse. I have that in my files and it is better than trying to read it on-line because the PDF has the pages very nicely formatted, much like the original books, which I have the printed copies of. I either downloaded the PDF from tertullian, or earlychristianwritings.

edit on 13-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Actually, I think this sounds like some interesting reading based on the reviews I found. Haven't gotten to the "Preparation for the Gospel" part yet. Sounds interesting, not sure what I'm going to find. I may get back to you later on that one.

Just out of curiosity, do you mind telling me what specifically you're hoping to learn from these books? Are you expecting them to help you develop a better understanding of the Bible?

reply to post by Deetermined

Haven't gotten to the "Preparation for the Gospel" part yet. Sounds interesting, not sure what I'm going to find. I may get back to you later on that one.

Check the article in Wikipedia, for Eusebius, and click on some of the links, such as Sanchuniathon, who was a chronicler of the Phoenician myths which were doubted until the Ugarit discoveries verified his sources as being authentic. You can look up the pages in Eusebius where he quotes Sanchuniathon. Very interesting reading, where these people who were the gods, supposedly seemed like otherwise ordinary people, other than you would fail against them in combat, since they had divine protection or something. (recalls to me, Brad Pitt as Achilles in the movie, Troy.

reply to post by Deetermined

Just out of curiosity, do you mind telling me what specifically you're hoping to learn from these books? Are you expecting them to help you develop a better understanding of the Bible?

I had been studying Hebrew for a couple decades, then a couple years ago decided to study NT Greek and was overwhelmed to where I set it aside as nothing but a pagan document. Since then, I came to the realization that so was the OT, just a different kind. So I sort of embrace the milieu, from which the vocabulary comes, since the Bible writers did not just invent a biblical language from whole cloth (though earlier theologians would have liked to have made us think so, that there was a divine language that only exists in the Bible).

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Haven't gotten to the "Preparation for the Gospel" part yet. Sounds interesting, not sure what I'm going to find. I may get back to you later on that one.

Check the article in Wikipedia, for Eusebius, and click on some of the links, such as Sanchuniathon, who was a chronicler of the Phoenician myths which were doubted until the Ugarit discoveries verified his sources as being authentic. You can look up the pages in Eusebius where he quotes Sanchuniathon. Very interesting reading, where these people who were the gods, supposedly seemed like otherwise ordinary people, other than you would fail against them in combat, since they had divine protection or something. (recalls to me, Brad Pitt as Achilles in the movie, Troy.

edit on 13-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I found this interesting about Eusebius:

"Eusebius held that men were sinners by their own free choice and not by the necessity of their natures. Eusebius said, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God is has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature” (The Christian Examiner, Volume One, published by James Miller, 1824 Edition, p. 66)"

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Just out of curiosity, do you mind telling me what specifically you're hoping to learn from these books? Are you expecting them to help you develop a better understanding of the Bible?

I had been studying Hebrew your a couple decades, then a couple years ago decided to study NT Greek and was overwhelmed to where I set it aside as nothing but a pagan document. Since then, I came to the realization that so was the OT, just a different kind. So I sort of embrace the milieu, from which the vocabulary comes, since the Bible writers did not just invent a biblical language from whole cloth (though earlier theologians would have liked to have made us think so, that there was a divine language that only exists in the Bible).

edit on 13-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

So, it's all about understanding the use/terminology of the language in the Bible?

jmdewey60, I really need to understand where you were going with your response to shuruluni. Can you elaborate on that one again and why you disagree with him at the top of the page?

Originally posted by Deetermined
jmdewey60, I really need to understand where you were going with your response to shuruluni. Can you elaborate on that one again and why you disagree with him at the top of the page?

Nothing to elaborate on. He is just quoting from something. I don't think people who practice that sort of writing (giving quotes) should be criticizing people who do thinking. They are not the same thing. If someone wants to so criticize, they should submit for inspection, their own thinking. If I want "quotes" I can look up all I want, with the search engine of my choice, and don't need to be on a discussion forum for that. People should discuss, on a discussion forum.

reply to post by Deetermined

So, it's all about understanding the use/terminology of the language in the Bible?

I am seriously into doing my own translations, not trusting others to do it in a completely unbiased way.

reply to post by Deetermined

I found this interesting about Eusebius:

Augustine came up with all the depravity of the soul stuff, which was taken up by the likes of Calvin. We need to have a thread on all that and have been thinking about how to do it. I got mailed by a friend, Xerox'd pages from a book, The Funeral of Arminianism. It was written by an Antinomian. I have to laugh because to me, you have to walk a zigzag line between the two. The central paragraphs from the two pages, I think, would be a good way to maybe get a discussion going on whether there exists such a thing as free-will. I know it comes up enough here but normally quickly devolves, I think because most people know nothing about the subject.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by Deetermined
jmdewey60, I really need to understand where you were going with your response to shuruluni. Can you elaborate on that one again and why you disagree with him at the top of the page?

Nothing to elaborate on. He is just quoting from something. I don't think people who practice that sort of writing (giving quotes) should be criticizing people who do thinking. They are not the same thing. If someone wants to so criticize, they should submit for inspection, their own thinking. If I want "quotes" I can look up all I want, with the search engine of my choice, and don't need to be on a discussion forum for that. People should discuss, on a discussion forum.

edit on 13-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

So, it wasn't what he said, but how he said it? Did you or didn't you agree with his comment?

reply to post by Deetermined

Read my comments over on the "God Created the Universe" thread where I am trying to have a discussion with queenofangels_17, another person with the same sort of mind-set.