| Send Vicki to Hell Thread! |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ® 01/10/2003, 05:24:27 Author Profile Mail author |
Hello Folks, I figured that since I started this thread on hell doctrine I might as well re-title it to reflect the true nature of what it's become. Enjoy the "discussion". _______________________________________________________________
I want to get this dialogue moving now so I can collect and respond to any replies it generates starting tomorrow. I realize that there are those who view hell doctrine as incompassionate. I disagree that hell doctrine is incompassionate and would venture a guess that nearly everyone on this board (even non-believers) already subscribes to a kind of "earthly" hell doctrine because the concept is part of normal human psychology. I'll draw that out as replies come in, if and when it seems relevant. Believers, I would like you to answer 3 questions. 1. What is hell?
Please know, in advance, that I'm going to question and challenge what you say. I will not disrespect you in any way. My intent is to provoke thought, not un-do you. I'll check back here tomorrow. Any takers? Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 18:29:47 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Hell doctrine Re: Send Vicki to Hell Thread! -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
01/10/2003, 07:33:51
Author Profile Mail author
as for who resides there if it does exist...i don't know, but i'm putting my money on the boston red sox.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
aw, come on.... Re: Re: Hell doctrine -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
01/10/2003, 10:22:18
Author Profile Mail author
and...apparently, hell is getting rather crowded as referenced by the link below.
Related link: http://www.theonion.com/onion3408/tenthcircle.html
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Note to Vicki: The Onion is a satirical site! Re: aw, come on.... -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/10/2003, 16:39:31
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
yeah, yeah Re: Note to Vicki: The Onion is a satirical site! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
01/11/2003, 08:00:50
Author Profile Mail author
Nice come back. Did you wait a whole month for that, sweet? Now, do you have anything serious to offer in regards to hell doctrine?
Vicki
p.s. I confess that I LOVE the Sticky Fingers emoticon. Now put your tongue back in your mouth and make a contribution.
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 13:22:37
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
First this Re: yeah, yeah -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
01/12/2003, 10:09:36
Author Profile Mail author
I'm starting my posts tonight with this one. I'm sorry for the sarcasm in the post above. It is very difficult for me to resist the sarcastic come back and especially with you. This is part of our glory/foolishness is it not? :) I see you and others have made, what I hope are, serious comments below. On to it!
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Sun, Jan 12, 2003, 10:10:23
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: First this Re: First this -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/12/2003, 19:35:58
Author Profile Mail author
I have no problem at all with what you wrote above. I'm not as thin-skinned as my bark suggests. I was only teasing... It was too good an opportunity to pass up! ;)
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Biblical Inerrency Re: Send Vicki to Hell Thread! -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
01/10/2003, 12:24:54
Author Profile Mail author
If you mean that the underlying message is simply to treat each other with honesty and compassion, I would agree that this is the essential core of true and practical morality and ethics. I don't see any good reason, however, why belief in God is necessary to arrive at that conclusion, or why God would condemn anyone who already believes in and practices that core principle merely for having honest doubts about God's existence. As I have said in the past, anyone who believes and practices that principle without any expectation of reward in the hereafter for doing so, or punishment for not doing so, ought to be considered more worthy of such reward than any true believer who does so only out of expectation of such reward or eternal punishment for failure to do so.
As for the Atonement, Imagine a human father with a large number of children, all of whom, except one, occasionally misbehave. Suppose further that this father, despite professing great love for all his children, decided that he could not, in good conscience, forgive any of them for their occasional misbehavior, even if they sincerely repented, unless the one son who never misbehaved voluntarily submitted to being slowly tortured to death to atone for the misdeeds of his siblings. Would not such a father be judged criminally insane? Why does it make even the slightest bit more sense for God to operate in that way? I have yet to hear any satisfactory answer to that question. Invariably, when pressed, believers in the Atonement admit their own lack of understanding of it, and fall back on the defense that we imperfect and limited mortals are simply not capable of fully understanding the wisdom and justice of God. This is about as unsatisfactory an answer as I can possibly imagine! Any religious charlatans and fanatics can and do rely on that ploy when the fraudulent and nonsensical nature of their belief system is exposed. Merely having to fall back on that kind of answer is as damaging to the credibility of whatever is thereby defended as anything I can imagine.
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 22:56:12
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Outstanding post, Gunnar! Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/10/2003, 17:40:34
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks, Martin! Re: Outstanding post, Gunnar! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
01/11/2003, 23:04:52
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Biblical Inerrency Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jrmh ®
01/10/2003, 23:10:33
Author Profile Mail author
Man was born with a sinful, selfish nature. He was also born with the desire for self preservation. He knows that he will not live forever so he must justify his lifestyle and his philosophy. He hopes that either there is no God, or that God will grant him special favors because of his good works. God, the creator of man, knows his thoughts. He has given man enough knowledge to decide for himself whether he will follow mans ways or God's ways. God wishes for man to follow Him, but He will not force man because that would not allow for choice. The Bible says we see through a glass darkly, and God's ways are not our ways. It also says that much is given and much is expected. Man will only judge man with man's rules on earth and God will judge man ultimately. As the Bud commercial says, "you only go around once." There are no second chances.
This is probably my only post on this topic because of moving errata. God bless, J
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Biblical Inerrency Re: Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/11/2003, 14:39:48
Author Profile Mail author
You ducked this vitally important subject the last time. You will probably use your "moving excuse" to duck it again regardless of whether you have net access or not, because you almost certainly have no plausible defense! Here are some direct, verbatim excerpts from your ugly, vicious, hateful Bible:
The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)Then there's Deuteronomy:
"They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God... I will spend mine arrows upon them....The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs." (Deuteronomy 32:21)Oh, and then there's Ezekiel:"And the Lord said unto him, Go through...the midst of Jerusalem, and... smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women..." (Ezekiel 9:4-6)And not's forget Hosea:"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)THERE is your vile Bible's malevolent, baby-murdering ghoul of a God, Jrmh! Ordering His henchmen to viciously slaughter innocent little babies without exception.
Let me repeat what Jrmh wrote earlier, which tells a truth more powerful than he knew he was uttering:
A careful reading of the Old and New Testaments will open up the truth of who God is and what He wants from us.We are awaiting your defense of your malevolent monster of a God and His inerrant Bible, Jrmh. Do you love your God enough to excuse Him of such evil?
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 14:42:37
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Excellent points, Martin! Re: Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
01/12/2003, 00:57:09
Author Profile Mail author
Some might answer to me, "Who are you to judge God?".
To this I would reply, "I don't believe for a microsecond that it is God I am judging. Whom I am judging are those who blasphemed God by claiming Him as the author of such atrocities!"
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Sun, Jan 12, 2003, 01:32:00
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"Who's to doom... Re: Excellent points, Martin! -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/12/2003, 18:41:58
Author Profile Mail author
Melville's powerful words hit my heart and mind like a hammer blow when I had matured enough to understand that stunning passage of Moby Dick which indicts the Bible's cruel "God". I've quoted the longer passage here before, and it seems high time to do so again...
This wise and moving series of metaphors about God the Author of All Murders comes from the chapter of Moby Dick titled "The Symphony":
"What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time; recklessly making me ready to do what in my own proper, natural heart, I durst not so much as dare? Is Ahab, Ahab? Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm? But if the great sun move not of himself; but is an errand-boy in heaven; nor one single star can revolve, but by some invisible power; how then can this one small heart beat; this one small brain think thoughts; unless God does that beating, does that thinking, does that living, and not I. By heaven, man, we are turned round and round in this world, like yonder windlass, and Fate is the handspike. And all the time, lo! that smiling sky, and this unsounded sea! Look! see yon Albicore! Who put it into him to chase and fang that flying-fish? Where do murderers go, man! Who's to doom, when the judge himself is dragged to the bar?It was clear to me that there was something egregiously indefensible about a God who is far less loving and moral than just about any mere human! This deity is utterly unworthy of worship.
If only Dave and Vicki and Jrmh could understand the evil they do by praising and loving such a monster!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: "Who's to doom... Re: "Who's to doom... -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/12/2003, 21:59:59
Author Profile Mail author
The problem which you pose well in your reference to Moby Dick and people like Vicki, Dave, Jrmh, and others may well be summed up by recognizing that they do not wish to recognize.
In lengthy discussions even recently and throughout her history here, Vicki substitutes the “believing mind” for the thinking mind. By selective Bible citing and various escape mechanisms, some people make the substitution and never recognize even when the particulars are spelled out in detail.
When facts demonstrate a particular notion (view) to be incorrect, the response is repeated assertions of I believe..., I believe..., I believe.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Hey, Martin! Re: Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jrmh ®
01/12/2003, 19:31:31
Author Profile Mail author
Yes, He has warned mankind to not go against His words or to blaspheme Him. Yes, he did destroy most of the world and most of certain sinful cities. He is God and He wrote the rules. Don't like the rules? Take it up with God. He really doesn't want much from you, Martin, just your acknowledgement and your love. Give Him that and He will give you much more than you could ever imagine, and for eternity.
This thing about quoting only certain Bible passages reminds me of the story about W.C. Fields where someone caught him reading the Bible and said, "I thought you did not believe in the Bible?" W.C. replied, "I am only looking for loopholes." I have a picture of certain people actually doing that. The Bible says, "a fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Do you consider yourself a fool?
I have asked you kindly to refrain from replying to my posts, Martin. You haven't had the courtesy to refrain from jumping in where you really weren't wanted and it is useless to block you because life HAS to bow down to the wishes of Martin. Well, kind of... You are not the kind of person I enjoy spending time with because you are so judgmental and negative. Reading your posts is like watching a slow motion of a train wreck. Or watching that silly movie about Bill Murray and the groundhog and every day he wakes up to just about the same scenario.
Most of this board bores me to tears. The old board had the two places where some people could discuss some important biblical doctrine and the other part of the board had the psudo-intellectuals that could pat each other on the back. This new board is a bad unbalanced mix of the two. I have seen people come on here to share their beliefs and if those beliefs do not fit in with the non-believer crowd, they will be driven off by any means necessary, even if it means calling them names.
Yes, I'm moving. Moving to Arizona. I'm also moving to a bulletin board where I can run my beliefs out to people who respect human values and a love for their fellow man (and woman). I have a pretty thick skin, Martin, but I certainly don't need to swim in the shark tank to take a bath. I'm sure you will have some pretty smart comebacks to my sincere remarks, and I hope all your court enjoy them. I for one will miss them.
God bless, Martin, and God bless to all those that are still here.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Yet another unsatisfactory answer! Re: Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
01/12/2003, 00:09:51
Author Profile Mail author
It is true enough that we were born with the desire for self preservation. I submit that the simple fact that we humans, perhaps alone of all the earth's creatures, are aware of and capable of resenting our own mortality would have motivated Man to invent the concept of God and a hereafter, even if there were no such thing, contrary to your contention that "He hopes that either there is no God, or that God will grant him special favors because of his good works." Besides, we don't need hope of special favors from God to motivate us to do good works. Anyone who does good works only for that reason does not deserve such favors, God or no God. Nevertheless, it is probably better to do good works for that reason than to not do them at all, at least for the sake of the beneficiaries of such good works.
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Sun, Jan 12, 2003, 00:24:32
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
And no one likes a quick fix, do they? Re: Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
01/12/2003, 01:17:35
Author Profile Mail author
Because people these days above all else don't want quick fix answers for anything?! Everyone's just out there just looking for a way to make life harsher and more challenging, literally HOPING that they can escape God's easy, clearly defined way out!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Man's ways vs. God's ways Re: Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
01/12/2003, 02:02:37
Author Profile Mail author
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Sun, Jan 12, 2003, 02:28:50
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Atonement Re: Biblical Inerrency -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grman ®
01/11/2003, 00:44:51
Author Profile Mail author
(I hope it's okay to pop in for a visit.) This is the way I understand the Atonement: Jesus was not simply the one sibling who never misbehaved. He was God himself, who came to earth to take responsibility for the suffering of His creation. May I offer a rewording of your illustration:
Imagine a human father with a large number of children, all of whom misbehave in ways that harm themselves and each other, committing crimes punishable by death, and all of whom in their bitterness have disowned him. Suppose further that this father, professing great love for all his children, decided that he could not, in good conscience, allow them to go to their demise without intervention on his part. If that father were to voluntarily submit to being slowly tortured to death to atone for the misdeeds of his errant and ungrateful children, would he not be considered the model of parental love?
I believe that we, the hateful children who daily wish the father out of existence, are the ones who perpetrated the torture, and that we, in spite of our cruelty, were proclaimed forgiven by the one we put to death.I have no idea why God has chosen to do things the way He has. But I believe that His ultimate intention regarding Hell is to virtually separate evil out of the universe, relegating it to a place where it can no longer have any affect on those who receive His forgiveness.
-Dave
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Atonement and the great I am. Re: Re: Atonement -- grman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/11/2003, 03:42:44
Author Profile Mail author
You words are exactly that belief that horrified me out of Christianity.
D--This is the way I understand the Atonement: Jesus was not simply the one sibling who never misbehaved. He was God himself, who came to earth to take responsibility for the suffering of His creation.R - How would you answer for Numbers 23: 19 I am not a man... I also reject The idea that God was once a spirit type being and then became man. First because of the Numbers scripture cited and secondly because God states, "I am what I will be" the correct interpretation of the I am.
D--May I offer a rewording of your illustration:
Imagine a human father with a large number of children, all of whom misbehave in ways that harm themselves and each other, committing crimes punishable by death, and all of whom in their bitterness have disowned him. Suppose further that this father, professing great love for all his children, decided that he could not, in good conscience, allow them to go to their demise without intervention on his part. If that father were to voluntarily submit to being slowly tortured to death to atone for the misdeeds of his errant and ungrateful children, would he not be considered the model of parental love?
I believe that we, the hateful children who daily wish the father out of existence, are the ones who perpetrated the torture, and that we, in spite of our cruelty, were proclaimed forgiven by the one we put to death.R- I put no person to death, save the death penalty that the government continues to force as acceptable societal murder, but I digress.
I also reject in whole, the need for an intermediary to atone for my sake.
D--I have no idea why God has chosen to do things the way He has. But I believe that His ultimate intention regarding Hell is to virtually separate evil out of the universe, relegating it to a place where it can no longer have any affect on those who receive His forgiveness.
R--I also reject, in whole, hell. If God had not wanted evil, God should not have created it, or isn't your god capable?
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
This isn't making sense to me , Ramona Re: Atonement and the great I am. -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
01/11/2003, 12:58:35
Author Profile Mail author
Maybe it's too late for me to be reading or something. What you've said here doesn't make sense to me. What in Dave's statement represents what "horrified" you out of Christianity? I would like you to draw out your thinking on that for me. What "horrifies" you about the concept of Christs atonement on the cross? This is a love-based concept. What horrifies you about it?
Why is the Numbers ref the deciding factor in your rejection of God as spirit? I don't see the connection there.And this...why do you reject the idea of hell? You probably already subscribe to an earthly hell concept. Why would you reject an eternal hell? I don't understand why you say you reject this. Wow, it's too late for me to be writing too!
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 13:38:47
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Here's why Dave's view is horrific Re: This isn't making sense to me , Ramona -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/11/2003, 15:14:23
Author Profile Mail author
Please see my post to grman: How you hate your God, Dave!
I don't mean to put words in Ramona's mouth, but I strongly suspect that she'd agree with me that what's horrific is the notion of Hell and conditional salvation that you and Dave and all Christians who believe in Hell and the Bible envision of a "God" who places conditions on His love! A father without unconditional love for his children is unworthy of respect, let alone worship.
(For the record, however, and to be fair, if the Jewish "God" requires conformance to The Law for salvation, that "God" is no better -- and arguably much worse -- than the Christian "God").
We all need to face the fact that the common human notion of supernatural reward and punishment is nothing more than our species' psychological projection of our thirst for human judgement and vengeance upon the distressingly silent heavens.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Unconditional Love Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
01/12/2003, 10:59:29
Author Profile Mail author
I greatly appreciate what you've said here. I feel that you are confusing unconditional love with the sanctioning of unconditional behavior. Any father worth his salt, loves his child unconditionally, that is true. But likewise, any father worth his salt, who loves his child unconditionally, sets boundaries for his child, and consequences for not following them. In the real world, our inappropriate or risky behavior results in real consequences. In this case, we are speaking of eternal consequences. I see nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I don't. I am going to put up a post now titled "Who goes to hell". I've chosen to place it as a response to Dave. I have another brief post titled "Hell on earth" that I will try to get up tonight also. I hope you will read those and offer your views/reactions to what I've said.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Sun, Jan 12, 2003, 11:28:34
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What vicious HATE is in your idea, Vicki! Re: Unconditional Love -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/12/2003, 18:06:25
Author Profile Mail author
I have nothing but utter disgust and contempt for your vile, loathsome "God" and your vile, loathsome beliefs, and most of all for your vile, loathsome words: "In this case, we are speaking of eternal consequences. I see nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I don't."
The horrifying truth is... that I'm sure you are being honest.
A person who feels that way isn't even fully human. You and Dave and Jrmh and your malevolent, world-polluting religion of sanctimonious hate and vengeance disgusts me utterly.
Honestly, it does.
This is not rhetoric: I can only hope you don't teach that filth to children.
I am so exceedingly serious about this, Vicki, because the notion of Hell is perhaps the most obviously insane, hateful, anti-human, life- and love- polluting idea that Humanity has ever produced!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sun, Jan 12, 2003, 19:43:53
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No, Martin, NO! Re: Unconditional Love -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
01/14/2003, 10:09:32
Author Profile Mail author
Now, if we think about the "lake of fire"--I'm pretty sure that's extracted from the real Tophet. What about the fiery furnace? That is how Christ describes hell. That sounds, if you will forgive the expression, like a brutally hellacious concept. Who could murder their own child? Could God murder his own children? Is the fiery furnace meant to be a LITERAL fiery furnace? Or does it refer to the eternal burning of the separated soul to be with God?
What about this? I offered this up in my other post as well and you COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED IT. Most Christians, myself included, believe that in the afterlife there will be no more want, no more unmet need, that we will all receive a new spiritual body, all be healed. Okay, where does that leave us on the concept of hell?
This HAS to be a biblical contradiction of some sort. If there are people burning in a literal fiery furnace, if there is gnashing of teeth (etc) then that pretty much contradicts what I just said.
What about the new body concept and healing? The people I mentioned in my post below are unreachable, unsure, some are not competant, and so, if we believe that we will be healed does that only mean Christians with bum legs? Does it mean physical healing AND spiritual healing? If it does, then you have to believe (and all of this would have come up after Dave answered my post, I haven't yet looked to see if he has) that this means the healing of the autistic, the healing of the mentally ill criminal, the Manson's, the Dahmer's...ALL HEALED.
And Then! You have to think about the unreached! What about the hypothetical Buddhist woman I described? Do all believers think she will automatically go to hell because she hasn't "accepted Christ" when she NEVER HAD THE CHANCE? You CANNOT square that any way you look at it.
And then!! And then!! You want to think about what I call the unsure. People who go about their business, law abiding folks, folks who have adopted strong values and act on them, folks who aren't sure if there's a God. They consider God, but just aren't sure and have come to the conclusion there is no way to be sure. Is God into twisting people's arms? What should these people do? Fake it? Wouldn't God know they were faking it? Would God WANT them to fake it?
And then!! You've got a slew of religions that teach that one MUST be baptized to be saved. What is up with that? Suppose (and I brought this up two summers ago when you were gone) there was this guy who, lets say, met with his pastor on Saturday. He decided to accept Christ and be baptized on Sunday. On his way to church Sunday morning he dies in a car wreck? Does HE go to hell?
Come on!!! Now, Mr. word twister, had you allowed the dialogue between Dave and I to continue without putting words in my mouth, had you QUESTIONED me instead of JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS and ACCUSED ME OF HAVING AN EVIL HEART!!! You might have seen this dialogue come your way to start with and NOT after you'd already pissed me off entirely with YOUR hate-filled ACCUSATIONS.
I'm still bloody MAD at you!
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Tue, Jan 14, 2003, 10:10:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
That's just more evasionary ranting Re: No, Martin, NO! -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/14/2003, 12:12:32
Author Profile Mail author
You ramble on and on and on but never get to the point.
Either openly and publicly completely repudiate a belief in the existence of Hell or every single word I said is fully appropriate and justified.
It is specious and irrelevant for you to blather on pointlessly as you have that you aren't quite as evil as those who believe that the sentence Hell is easily achieved. What you have NOT done is openly repudiated a belief in Hell.
When you have done that you will have earned the right to be considered a more enlightened Christian. Until then, you still harbor extreme hatred and vengeance in your heart, and you will still remain dishonest in your heart.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Your heart IS evil if you don't repudiate Hell Re: No, Martin, NO! -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/14/2003, 12:15:42
Author Profile Mail author
Your heart is filled with evil and vengeance, as you make perfectly clear when you write: "I see nothing wrong with thinking there could be eternal consequences just as there are real life consequences."
That's a loathsome, hateful and untrue heart speaking.
Either openly and publicly completely repudiate a belief in the existence of Hell or every single word I said is fully appropriate and justified.
It is specious and irrelevant for you to blather on pointlessly as you have that you aren't quite as evil as those who believe that the sentence Hell is easily achieved. What you have NOT done is openly repudiated a belief in Hell.
When you have done that you will have earned the right to be considered a more enlightened Christian. Until then, you still harbor extreme hatred and vengeance in your heart, and you will still remain untrue in your heart.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Tue, Jan 14, 2003, 12:16:19
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
You should see something wrong Re: Unconditional Love -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/26/2003, 22:57:48
Author Profile Mail author
You state:
“But likewise, any father worth his salt, who loves his child unconditionally, sets boundaries for his child, and consequences for not following them. In the real world, our inappropriate or risky behavior results in real consequences. In this case, we are speaking of eternal consequences. I see nothing wrong with that.But what are you attempting to say here? You appear to be anthropomorphic still. You see “God” in human terms with human subjectivity. You should see something wrong with the notion that God would punish eternally. How could a father punish eternally? One way would be to kill his child.
Parent: I love you so much my child that I will speed your uniting with God the Father by killing you for your violation of MY boundaries. I will save you from a possible eternal hell by killing you. You are my innocent child and God will receive you before you do anything that would violate eternally punishable sin. So I, your earthy father, assist in placing you with your heavenly Father by killing you for your failure to observe MY boundaries.
This sounds good, doesn’t it, Vicki? What greater love could an earthly father show than to assist his child to an early heaven which will be ETERNAL?
If that sounds sick to you, just why does it?
You speak of “in the real world...” and “real consequences.” Against eternity...all earthly life is what?
What “father worth his salt, who loves his child unconditionally...” would demonstrate that love by irrevocable “consequences”? If that is your idea of love, you might want to reconsider it.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 23:00:29
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/14/2003, 00:13:41
Author Profile Mail author
But the difference is that the "Jewish" God does not require conformance. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning. Perhaps you might expound.
Martin - We all need to face the fact that the common human notion of supernatural reward and punishment is nothing more than our species' psychological projection of our thirst for human judgement and vengeance upon the distressingly silent heavens.
Ramona - As far as the last statement. I am eager for no judgement or vengeance I only hope to see my mother again. Is this a hopelessly simplistic reason for belief? Probably, but it's all I have.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
See your mother? Re: Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/14/2003, 08:12:00
Author Profile Mail author
As far as the last statement. I am eager for no judgment or vengeance I only hope to see my mother again. Is this a hopelessly simplistic reason for belief? Probably, but it's all I have.
In short, probably so. “See” is an interesting term as you write in context here. Do you hope to see her when she was 20, 30, 40, 50 or as she was at the time of her death? (From your writing, I presume she is not living.)
Or do you want to see her as she was when YOU were 6? Are you really sure that you want any of these options presuming that you KNOW all that you do now plus what you may learn or know prior to your own death?
It is “simplistic” until one begins to extrapolate just what one REALLY intends by such a comment. For example, would you also “hope to see” your grandparents? your great grandparents” your great-great grandparents? Just whom do you “hope to see”?
If you ponder such questions and more, what specifically do you “hope to see”? Do you hope to have a conversation? Who else do you hope will participate in the encounter? How long to you hope it will last? What would be next?
JAK
Modified by JAK at Tue, Jan 14, 2003, 08:17:08
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Jak, a request Re: See your mother? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
01/14/2003, 09:48:02
Author Profile Mail author
Forgive me for butting in here and please know that no one has asked me to butt in here, but could you please drop this portion of the dialogue and just let it be? There are some things better left undissected in public.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Tue, Jan 14, 2003, 09:48:24
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: See your mother? Re: See your mother? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/14/2003, 18:43:57
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: See your mother SPECIFICALLY Re: Re: See your mother? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/15/2003, 05:59:17
Author Profile Mail author
“To see” is quite specific. For us “to see” is for us to see in specific and in detail.
Your conclusion was: “...I only hope to see my mother again.”
“The specifics” in such a “hope” would be critical.
You stated:
“I could care less the specifics.”While not speaking for you or anyone in particular, “hope to see” in reverse would seem an impossibility. The only way any of us might even recognize would be “to see” that with which we have knowledge. Hence, you must “hope to see” that which was.
If I were to echo your sentiment, I would hope to see my own mother in animation before and after photographs which I can see because I possess them. What did she say, and how did she say it, and how did she sound just before and after the photographs were taken?
How did she speak and how did she look when she learned that she was pregnant with me? For that matter, how did my dad sound, look, and act when HE learned my mother was pregnant with me?
I suspect such a seeing would be bitter-sweet knowing how things are now and how things progressed (even in general) before and after my impact on them and their impact on me. Would it be the same for you?
I would like to see my mother as a little girl playing as she did...a DVD of some activities, experiences, pains which she experienced. I suspect such a “to see” experience would give me (and it would not for everyone) a greater love for my mother (and for my father).
Ramona, it is a romantic thought wishing “to see...” But any actual “seeing” would necessarily be in the specific. And I think “the specifics” would, indeed, matter to you.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: See your mother SPECIFICALLY Re: Re: See your mother SPECIFICALLY -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/15/2003, 06:15:02
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona - Perhaps that is according to JAK. But Ramona and JAK are not the same. My husband though, would agree with your perspective.
JAK - Your conclusion was: “...I only hope to see my mother again.”“The specifics” in such a “hope” would be critical.
Ramona - Again, I disagree about specifics. My mother was a woman quite capable of evolving. I think I would be more impressed seeing the future aspect of her.
JAK - You stated: “I could care less the specifics.”While not speaking for you or anyone in particular, “hope to see” in reverse would seem an impossibility. The only way any of us might even recognize would be “to see” that with which we have knowledge. Hence, you must “hope to see” that which was.
Ramona - I'm having a blonde moment. Reverse?? Not hope to not see?? Who's on First? I have bulbs that I have purchased sight unseen. I find no greater enjoyment than seeing the surprise of what they become. Then, I have my children, my loves, my heart. I long to see what they will become, even though I have no knowledge of their futures.
JAK - If I were to echo your sentiment, I would hope to see my own mother in animation before and after photographs which I can see because I possess them. What did she say, and how did she say it, and how did she sound just before and after the photographs were taken?
Ramona - Sounds interesting, but I really don't think that's it.
JAK - How did she speak and how did she look when she learned that she was pregnant with me? For that matter, how did my dad sound, look, and act when HE learned my mother was pregnant with me?
I suspect such a seeing would be bitter-sweet knowing how things are now and how things progressed (even in general) before and after my impact on them and their impact on me. Would it be the same for you?
Ramona - Not really.
JAK - I would like to see my mother as a little girl playing as she did...a DVD of some activities, experiences, pains which she experienced. I suspect such a “to see” experience would give me (and it would not for everyone) a greater love for my mother (and for my father).
Ramona, it is a romantic thought wishing “to see...” But any actual “seeing” would necessarily be in the specific. And I think “the specifics” would, indeed, matter to you.
Ramona - Perhaps we are, based on personalities are simply on a different page.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Clarify Re: Re: See your mother SPECIFICALLY -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/15/2003, 07:17:24
Author Profile Mail author
Your response is vague and evasive to me. Can you actually clarify what YOU mean by “to see my mother again”?
Nothing you stated in your post addresses the issues and problems which I raised with your "wish to see my mother again."
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Clarify Re: Re: Clarify -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/15/2003, 07:39:22
Author Profile Mail author
I intend no vagueness or evasiveness. Your explanation of "seeing" your mother, makes no sense to me. You want clarity of that which is most difficult to explain. You seem to empasize physical attributes, though my mother was a great beauty, that and age is completely irrelevant. To be completely new agey, I want to see her spirit (To see/to visit/spend time/associate)
I didn't address anything you stated because, in all honesty, I didn't understand what you were saying. I thought I made that clear. Obviously not.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: See your mother SPECIFICALLY Re: Re: See your mother SPECIFICALLY -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Kyle ®
01/17/2003, 04:43:02
Author Profile Mail author
As you well know, "to see" has multiple meanings in English, not all of which are exhausted within the context of visibile sight. Just a simple look in Websters' makes that "clear."
In addition to "perceive by the eye," we find the following usages of the verb "to see":
to have experience of
to come to know
to form a mental picture of
to perceive the meaning or importance of
to be aware of
to imagine as a possibility
to take care of : provide for
to regard as
to call on or visit
to keep company with especially in courtship or dating
to grant an interview to
to accompany or escort
to meet (a bet) in poker or to equal the bet of (a player) (i.e., "to call")It seems to me that some of the above alternatives to the visual aspect of "seeing" apply when dealing with the metaphysical concepts appertaining to "knowedlge of others" in an afterlife. At least, this is how I both understand and apply the word in my own usage.
In the afterlife I expect to "see" my grandmother again. "What will she look like?" I have no earthly idea. What will *I* look like is an even more interesting question to me. I actually don't think we'll have ANY look, as such, since we'll be disembodied, non-corporeal beings. NEVERTHELESS, I believe that there will be something about the being who was once known as "Lona Mae Miller" that I will (somehow) recognize; and, there will be something about me which, somehow, will enable her to know that it is I. "To see" in this sense contains an aspect of knoweldge, experience, and understanding. Anything beyond that is like trying to discuss the concept of "light" with a person born blind.
"For how long will you "see" her?" Heck if I know. Since time is a quality of the physical universe, and the afterlife is most likely to be beyond the physical universe, I doubt that temporality will have much, if anything, to do with the encounter.
Kyle
Modified by Kyle at Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 04:44:41
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific Re: Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/14/2003, 13:09:20
Author Profile Mail author
Since you say that the Jewish God does not require conformance with The Law for salvation, I will take you at your word. All I said is that if following The Law were required for salvation with the punishment for failure being eternal, then that version of God would be even more evil than the Christian God.
I had written:
We all need to face the fact that the common human notion of supernatural reward and punishment is nothing more than our species' psychological projection of our thirst for human judgement and vengeance upon the distressingly silent heavens.I had hoped my meaning would be plain. What I was getting at is that we all know that perfect justice does not prevail on Earth. It is a clear part of human nature to nevertheless desire that perfect justice will obtain somewhere, which is a very large part of why the human race has so consistently and insistently invented concepts like Karma, Reincarnation, Heaven, and Hell. We as a species invented such concepts and reified them in "places" where we could not easily reach, in large part for mythic-poetic reasons.I accept that you are an enlightened person, Ramona, but just like everyone else, I've got to believe that there's a hidden part of you which would feel comfort or satisfaction to believe that Hitler and those who executed his orders were punished for their attempted genocide, and which would conversely find great sorrow if your Mother's essence were truly gone forever. It is from such afterlife hopes and dreams that we invent, respectively, Hells and Heavens.
Does Heaven or Karma or Reincarnation actually exist? No living person can ever know. But that hasn't stopped us from inventing them.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Tue, Jan 14, 2003, 13:11:37
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I only wish Re: Re: Here's why Dave's view is horrific -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/14/2003, 23:14:51
Author Profile Mail a
