Mageth

Probably Mrs. Serpent.

Queen of Swords

God isn't married, so He didn't understand the dynamics of the relationship. I'll bet if He did, He and the serpent would have put their feet up and had a beer together, instead of the whole Fall business.

Amos

That's ever so true because woman is the womb of man whereafter man is reproduced. She is the blueprint, we can say, and therefore "flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones."

At the metaphysical level woman is the soul or subconscious mind and human is the conscious mind and it is because we are divided in our own mind that we are not free. To regain our freedom both must leave their place of origen (Gen.2:24) and meet somewhere in the middle, on neutral ground, shall we say and there "become one." In "Coriolanus" this happened just outside of Rome (ever wondered why?) in the battle of Corioli.

Mageth

Amos...

Just curious...do you spin theology out of knock-knock jokes too?

Amos

Knock-knock jokes? I don't think so, but if woman is modeled after man why would you not lose your freedom if there is two of you?

Koyaanisqatsi

ummm....I know I started this....but...could we please get back to free will...?

I'd like luvluv to respond to my post.

luvluv

Koya:

"I did, by pointing out that it isn't logically possible to exist outside of existence in order to create existence ex nihilo."

You're presuming, of course, that the universe which God is said to have created is the first thing which existed. God would not have had to have created existence in order to create the universe. Beyond that, you're explanation seems to explain away all existence, yet we are here. By that token, I don't see how it could be a reliable refutation of the existence of God: are you saying that matter can create itself out of nothing, but God cannot? If matter can create itself out of nothing, which must have happened according to you, then I see no reason why God could not have created Himself out of nothing.

"What you have discussed elsewhere, obviously, has no relevance to me and my arguments, since we have never had a mutual discussion regarding this topic in order for your evasion to have any merit."

I simply meant it would be more relavent to bring it up on a thread totally devoted to the topic.

"God punishes us. We do not punish ourselves of our own free will. God is the active punisher according to the Bible. "

Again, you are assuming that the lake of fire is a punishment. If my theory is correct, it may be a release from even greater suffering. Both of us are dealing from theories on that issue, we simply do not know what Hades entails or what the Lake of Fire entails. The Bible is not explicit on that fact, and as I said, never goes into a literal and detailed description of what Hell is like (kind of an odd ommision if the sole purpose of the writers was to scare it's followers into obedience, eh?). The closest it gets is Jesus parable of Lazurus and the rich man. But since it is a parable, any literal description we can get of Heaven or Hell out of it is of limited use. The Bible NEVER goes into explicit detail about Hell, and I assume this is intentional.

Since the Bible is vague on this issue, neither of us can be proved right. It is clear that Hell (I think we can safely assume Hades means Hell, otherwise what the heck is it?) and the Lake of Fire are two different places. To know whether taking those from Hell and throwing them into the lake of fire constitutes a greater torment or a greater mercy would require us to know exactly what is transpiring in each. We don't. But I am extrapolating from a points to reach my conclusion:

1) The Bible describes the Lake of Fire as the second DEATH, not as a period of extended torment. To my knowledge, Hell is never referred to as a second death, but as a place of torment.

2) Shortly after the second coming, Satan is chained in a pit. Then, after the millenial reign, he is released for a short period to test believers again (Christian tradition suggests that He is released to test those who on earth never got the chance to hear the gospel, but who are given a chance during the millenial reign). If the Lake of Fire were a place of perpetual torment, as opposed to a place of annihilation, we can safely assume God would just torment Satan for a thousand years, then let Him out to test the new believers. This suggest to me that God did not send the Devil directly to the Lake of Fire because the Lake of Fire would have caused Satan to cease to exist.

3) If the ultimate destination for those in Hell is the Lake of Fire, why would God bother to torment them? Is he vindictive? A sadist? I don't think so. In my mind it's pretty clear that the "seperating" the sheep and the goats is a "storage facility" to keep the wicked away from the good until the day of Judgement. The Bible seems pretty clear from both the sheep and the goats parable and the Lazarus and the rich man parable that in the immediate afterlife the damned and the saved are not very far from each other. They are seperated by a gulf, but they are not in two entirely differnt places. In short, I think it is entirely possible that what we refer to as Hell is actually IN heaven. But again, the descriptions written seem to suggest that it is more of a holding area for the damned than a place specifically designed for torment. But admitedly Koya, THIS IS ONLY MY THEORY. I definitely could be wrong. I make no bones about that. But three things I maintain: 1) The Lake of Fire and Hell are two different places 2)Whether it is better to be thrown into the lake of fire or to suffer in Hell is dependant upon the exact nature of both, which we do not know 3) Nothing about being cast into the lake of fire refutes my theory that the suffering IN HELL is self-imposed.

If God or the writers of the Bible were interested in using Hell as a tactic to frighten people into obedience, there would be VIVID descriptions of it in the scriptures. None exist, it is given only as a vague and ephemeral warning.

"Here's a perfect analogy: "I will either punch you or hug you." Do you have any free will in that scenario?"

I doubt it. A more probable analogy would be that you have been bitten by a rabid dog and will soon become a raving maniac if you do not trust me enough to let me administer the medicine to you. If you do not believe my diagnosis of what will happen to you (by placing your trust in me) you will come to such a state that it would be better for me to kill you than allow you to wallow in such agony.

The rabies, in this case, is sin.

Again, nothing in the Bible can justify either your analogy or mine, it's a pure judgement call. I don't want anyone here to believe that I am making dogmatic pronunciations. If I have appeared to in the past I apologize. As I said in other posts about heaven, I simply do not know what hell will be like. We have not been told these things in the Bible.

MadMordigan:

"Everybody there is doing God's will, but they are doing it freely.
Which, in fact, DESTROYS the freewill argument against the problem of evil. If it is possible to have a population of individuals with free will that consistently chooses not to do evil things, then the only reason we do not have this state of affairs now is the God chose not to make it so."

Not at all, you said yourself that the population of individuals is consistently CHOOSING not to do evil things. They, like God, have free will but choose never to abuse it with the help of God. But they have CHOSEN not to abuse it and they have CHOSEN to recieve the help of God. That is not an infringement upon their free will.

MadMordigan

Not at all, you said yourself that the population of individuals is consistently CHOOSING not to do evil things. They, like God, have free will but choose never to abuse it with the help of God. But they have CHOSEN not to abuse it and they have CHOSEN to recieve the help of God. That is not an infringement upon their free will.


I'm not suggesting that it is an infringement of their free will. I am suggesting that free will (if it exists) is not an explaination for evil in the first place. If your god can set up a population of free willed but universally good people, how come he hasn't?

Koyaanisqatsi

I am "assuming" nothing of the kind, nor am I limiting myself to the "lake of fire," as you are strangely doing.

The quotes I provided readily demonstrate that "hell" is God's punishment and, more importantly regarding free will, that it is God and/or his servants that throw you into it.

Whatever "it" ultimately is (or is not) is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The fact that it is never clearly described only demonstrates mythology, nothing else.

What is abundantly clear is that it is a place of torment/punishment involving fire as the main torturing agent.

Your "theory" contradicts the explicit (alleged) statements of God as written by his servants and only applies to that one esoteric passage from Revelations that can easily be reconciled with Matthew as I did previously:

Hades, as I'm sure you know, was the underground home of the dead in Greek mythology. Since we know that the NT authors were writing to a Greek audience, doesn't it make more sense that Matthew was refering to an even worse place than this Greek construct; a place so terrifying that even the already dead souls in the Greek version of "a place of torment" pales in comparison to the place of torment of the "one true God?"

The authors were trying to tell the world that all other mythologies (gods, godesses, and all of the constructs surrounding them) were lies and they were the messengers of the "one true God."

So when Matthew threatens us with Jesus' words:

Isn't it more likely that he is trying to tell us that his God has the power to kill even the dead (souls) in Hades? That hell (his God's place of punishment) is the second death?

Regardless, the point you continue to evade is not what hell actually is, rather that it is clearly and obviously used as a threat.

No, we know what Hades entails and we know that the fires of hell are meant to instill fear (terror) into the hearts and minds of all non-believers.

There simply is no question regarding this fact except by those intent on obfuscation and revisionist apologetics.

That's just not relevant.

Precisely the opposite! Not knowing precisely, literally what and where hell is proves that the intention is to inflict as much terror as possible, since the unknown is always more terrifying than the known.

Ever seen the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch? The terror comes from the imagination of what it could possibly mean to be dead and

Hell is largely left up to the imagination, true but the consequences of being thrown into hell by God are not.

Burning in a lake of fire or the fires of hell or a furnace of fire with "wailing and gnashing of teeth," etc., etc. is unmistakeably not desirable and is a threat in no uncertain terms.

Be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

And entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

As I've fairly conclusively demonstrated, yes, I assume it is as well.

Regardless, it is still irrelevant.

That's a nice turn of phrase, but of course only refers to whether or not the passage in Revelations is "Hades" or not and is, again, irrelevant.

Every single one of my other points, however, has been demonstrated to be "right" repeatedly.

Pick up a book of Greek mythology and read Matthew once again.

Better yet, kindly stop this pointless evasion from the central issue: no free will.

Incorrect and irrelevant.

Irrelevant and refer to Matthew 10:28

Matthew: be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

According to Greek mythology, souls are tormented in Hades, therefore, Matthew tells us that Hell is worse than Hades.

Un hunh...nice spin

We can safely assume, can we? Why is it that only cult members are allowed to "safely assume?"

How do you know there isn't fire in Satan's pit? How do you know that the pit isn't torment enough so that God doesn't need to throw him into the lake of fire? How do you know that the lake of fire and the pit aren't just special torments within hell, the second death after the souls are held in Hades? How do you know anything at all other than the fact that all of this is proof that God punishes and that God is the primary actor involved in that punishment proving that we have no free will?

I suggest you rethink that suggestion. I know you won't, but who cares? It's entirely irrelevant to the question you're avoiding.

Matthew tells us this isn't the case. The ultimate destination is hell and the fires of hell. How do you know that the fires of hell that almost everyone else in the Bible threatens everybody with (including Jesus, mind you) don't simply come from this lake of fire?

What a surprise.

Un hunh...

Congratulations! You've just started your very own cult faction.

What will you call your faction? There are over 20,000 of them so far, so what's the name of yours going to be?

Oooh! Why don't you pretend to find a golden tablet that explains all of this in your circular logic like that Mormon dude did, too?

It's about time we had another testemant, don't you think?

It is simply impossible to come to that conclusion. What "holding areas" do you know of that involve fire and wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Unequivacable horse poo.

No, luvluv this is not a theory. This is deliberate and calculated revisionist obfuscation in order to reconcile the irreconcileable.

Well, good, because you are. No bones about that either.

How can you "maintain" this, when you've just simply asserted it a few sentences prior?

These are utterly pointless observations that have nothing to do with the fact that God actively punishes us; that the fires of hell are meant as a threat; and that we have no free will.

Categorically and unequivocably incorrect. The Bible is unquestionably explicit on this central fact, it is God who throws and/or casts you into hell.

That is undeniable according to the authors of the bible, which are supposed to be inspired by God, which in turn means, according to God.

To me, it's all childish nonsense, but that's what the Bible states and is quite clear about.

Incorrect. Nothing is more terrifying than the imagination.

Incorrect. There is nothing vague or ephemeral about the warning. The warning (aka, threat) is quite clearly stated over and over and over again.

We are to be afraid of God, because he has the power to kill both body and soul in hell, the unknown, unimiganable place of torment so horrific that even the dead are there killed.

In other words, it is to be the most feared place imaginable, so much so, that one can't even imagine how horrific it is.

It's called "cognitive dissonance" (the psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously) and it's purpose is to strike abject fear into the hearts and minds of any non-believers so that the unimaginable outcome of disbelief will coerce one into believing.

As others mentioned, Pascal's Wager.

All you are here doing is apologetic spin control to attempt to reconcile the irreconcileable and it is not working.

I beg your pardon? How is that more "probable," let alone analogous to God stating, in essence, "Obey me or burn in hell?"

No, this would only be analogous to your apologetics, but it is fatally flawed, since it makes no mention or acceptance of the fact that God created the dog and the rabies and either orchestrated events to unfold so that you were bitten or deliberately sicked the dog on you to begin with.

The apt analogy was mine. "I will either punch you" (send you to hell) "Or hug you" (send you to heaven).

Again, in neither situation do you have any free will.

Incorrect as has been readily demonstrated. Your analogy makes no sense and does not take into account God's ultimate existence or position at all.

That's ok. I am. Your bible is. You are too. Call a cult a cult, it's ok.

Categorically incorrect.

It's a nice spin on an old tale, but categorically incorrect.

We are to be afraid of God because only God can kill both body and soul by throwing us/casting us into the fires of hell.

We are thrown into hell by God as punishment for non-belief.

NO

FREE

WILL

Period.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

luvluv

Koya:

"Precisely the opposite! Not knowing precisely, literally what and where hell is proves that the intention is to inflict as much terror as possible, since the unknown is always more terrifying than the known."

Pure speculation. That's an unjustifiable, unverifiable opinion.

"Matthew: be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

According to Greek mythology, souls are tormented in Hades, therefore, Matthew tells us that Hell is worse than Hades."

Again, utter speculation. Please name a biblical scholar who agrees with this rather incredible theory? I think before we can speculate on these issues we need to be more cognizant of the original Greek behind the translation. Anybody can do a word search on a Bible website. We need to explore the original language and the context to come up with the writer's intent. But the idea that the writer of Matthew is just bringing up Hades to compare for his audience is a purely speculative notion on your part. First of all, the book of Matthew was not written to pagans, but to Jews. Only Paul wrote letters expressly to non-jews, as far as I know. Secondly, you are the one constantly referencing a single Hades translation, there are numerous translations that translate the passage as Hell.

But most importantly, whether it is better to be tormented or destroyed is entirely dependant on the extent of the torment. Would you rather be in constant, excrutiating pain and terror or would you rather not exist? I'm going for non-existence 10 times out of 10. So even beyond the fact that your interpretation of the scripture is blatant speculation, whether it is worse to be destroyed or tortured is totally a judgment call.

"How do you know anything at all other than the fact that all of this is proof that God punishes and that God is the primary actor involved in that punishment proving that we have no free will?"

What you are not getting is that if I am right and if becoming the slaves to one's desires constitutes a loss of self, and if that loss of self entails a suffering worse than annihilation, we cannot judge whether Hell is an act of punishment or an act of mercy. You can quote as many passages as you want from the Bible, none of them speak to this. Whether or not the lake of fire is worse than becoming a shell of a human being capable only of hurting onself and other people, a being reduced to a primal, unthinking, sadism, is totally unknowable to us at this time. Either opinion is a matter of belief.

"I beg your pardon? How is that more "probable," let alone analogous to God stating, in essence, "Obey me or burn in hell?"

More probable in light of other scripture. The Bible clearly defines sin as something harmful to us IN AND OF ITSELF regardless of consequences imposed by God. This is the opinion of church history. Therefore, God is not saying "Obey me or burn in hell". He is saying "Obey me, I know what is best for you, I know where this will, IN AND OF ITSELF, take you and I want to prevent you from going there." This is what you get from those other thousand or so pages you are not mentioning. If the only thing that existed in all of Christendom were the passages you are quoting, then we would have no way to prove what God is really trying to say. But the overwhelming mass of Christian opinion, throughout history, is that God wants us to avoid sin because of sin's negative consequences to us: not because if we don't He will punish us. The Bible repeatedly re-iterates the theme that sin is it's own punishment ("rest assured: your sin will find you out." Your SIN will find you out. Not God). Your argument totally omits this glaring fact.

"No, this would only be analogous to your apologetics, but it is fatally flawed, since it makes no mention or acceptance of the fact that God created the dog and the rabies and either orchestrated events to unfold so that you were bitten or deliberately sicked the dog on you to begin with."

As I've said, I believe in this post, I do not believe God invented the consequence of evil. I have said that if God Himself was to do evil it would harm Him. I am of the opinion that it is the logical consequence of free will that it can be used unwisely, and the logical consequence of using your freedom unwisely would be adverse consequences to the self. I've argued this in the CS Lewis Problem of Pain thread if you want to see more of my opinion of it. Suffice it to say, that I believe that suffering due to the unwise use of free will is a natural consequence of the wrong use of free will, and to rid us of the natural consequences God would have to rid us of free will.

Let us deal with a more provable angle of our disagreement. Is there anyone here who has objections about my opinion that continued sin entails a loss of self-control, and thus a loss of free will, and ultimately a loss of humanity? Is there anyone here who thinks that if a rapist or a drug addict or a murderer who goes on raping or shooting up or killing for thousands and thousands of years will eventually cease to be anything we can recognize as human?

If you do agree with that, then what is God to do? Per his own standards, He will not simply override the will of his creation. If he objects to torturing them, the only option he has is to put those people into a holding pen with each other. Now, what exactly do you expect some of the worst people in the history of the world to do when they are locked all in one place? Do you expect they will NOT hurt each other? Even those who were not as heinously evil on earth, is there anyone who does not conceed that after being in such an environment for a few thousand years, that they will not become as sadistic as their neighbors? Whatever else Hell may entail, is it not entirely probable that those who have done nothing but hurt other people and themselves on earth will continue to do so in Hell, and will they not get worse cut off from all possibility of redemption (by their own choice, I might add).

If we agree so far, then we see that the natural implication of eternal sinners continuing eternally in their vices would lead them to victimize each other increasingly, until in a million or so years they would be little more than sadistic beasts inflicting pain on each other. Now, is it worse for these beings to be destroyed or is it worse to allow them to keep torturing each other? If hell is just a holding pen for people whose unwillingess to submit themselves to God has entailed a spiraling decline of self control until they are no longer human, isn't it better for God to destroy such creatures? If sin produces a lack of self-control which produces sadism and massochism IN AND OF ITSELF produces suffering, is God wrong for destroying souls which have lost the ability to give and feel love, and who can now only feel and receive pain.

Can we agree that some forms of sin logically produce their own consequences? If we can agree that we can see, even on earth, those who give in to evil becoming more and more evil... and if we can see that their becoming more and more evil is DETRIMENTAL to them... is it not logical to assume that if this process were to go on eternally... if these people were to go on eternally doing evil... that it would cause these people GREAT suffering without God needing to impose any suffering on additionally? If this is the case, then the suffering in Hell is obviously not ALL God's doing, we can at least say that. And we can agree that God's act of DESTROYING (not torturing) the body in Hell may constitute an act of mercy. It may be a mercy killing. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE TO VERIFY EITHER THIS THEORY OR YOUR THEORY. So please stop acting like there is. It is a belief, on both of our parts, and I guess one day we will see which one of us was right, if either of us are. You are welcome to your interpretation. I do not share it.