Jesus Christ's biggest mistake
Roaming Rider
very attractive to some.
Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
sentenced to eternal Hell.
It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
eternal Hell.
Do you follow the logic?
Anyone want to prove this?
PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
far, in my view. DS.
/RR
John Harshman
> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> very attractive to some.
>
> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> eternal Hell.
>
> Do you follow the logic?
No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
Christian theology but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
you mean god?
> Anyone want to prove this?
You would require a number of auxiliary assumptions. If this is
attempted to be a real objection to religion, you need to make the same
starting assumptions that the religion makes, and your assumptions don't
match what anyone believes. In fact they seem to be chosen only to make
your conclusion possible.
Roaming Rider
> Roaming Rider wrote:
> > The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> > very attractive to some.
>
> > Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> > Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> > Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> > It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> > will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> > includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> > sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> > It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> > eternal Hell.
>
> > Do you follow the logic?
>
> No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
If so, where in the Bible is this being stated? Does Jesus Christ say
this? No. Familiarize yourself with the Bible; after all Christian
theology has to be based on the Bible and what Jesus Christ actually
has teached. This statement of yours (or implication) is so important
that Jesus Christ obviously would make the issue clear if it was true.
Wishful thinking is wishful thinking.
> but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
> Christian theology
Again, where in the Bible?
> but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
> combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
> non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
> even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
> you mean god?
>
> > Anyone want to prove this?
>
> You would require a number of auxiliary assumptions. If this is
> attempted to be a real objection to religion, you need to make the same
> starting assumptions that the religion makes, and your assumptions don't
> match what anyone believes.
Again, wishful thinking is wishful thinking without substance from the
Bible.
> In fact they seem to be chosen only to make
> your conclusion possible.
>
> > PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
> > will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
> > still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
> > far, in my view. DS.
>
> > /RR
/RR
slothrop
> Roaming Rider wrote:
> > The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> > very attractive to some.
>
> > Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> > Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> > Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> > It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> > will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> > includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> > sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> > It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> > eternal Hell.
>
> > Do you follow the logic?
>
> No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
> but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
> Christian theology but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
> combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
> non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
> even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
> you mean god?
>
I can't believe I'm responding to this, but which Christian sect
teaches an impermanent stay in Hell? Admittedly, I went to Bob Jones
and don't know jack about actual Theology, but I thought I'd heard
most of the major doctrines...
thanks,
slothrop
> > Anyone want to prove this?
>
> You would require a number of auxiliary assumptions. If this is
> attempted to be a real objection to religion, you need to make the same
> starting assumptions that the religion makes, and your assumptions don't
> match what anyone believes. In fact they seem to be chosen only to make
> your conclusion possible.
>
>
>
> > PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
> > will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
> > still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
> > far, in my view. DS.
>
> > /RR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All-seeing-I
I do not follow the logic. It does not follow known biblical
principals or any scientific ones for that matter
Besides. There is a "get out of Jail For Free" card. If you ever run
into some really bad luck, I suggest you use it if you do.
But you have to be sincere and you have to want it.
The promises of Jesus.
No one comes to the Father except through me� (Jn 14:6).
So if ya wanna get to an after life despite some bad luck, which I
doubt you do because you do not believe there is one, there is your
way. (just in case you change your mind)
Boikat
> On Dec 15, 8:25�am, Roaming Rider <interested.reade...@live.se> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> > very attractive to some.
>
> > Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> > Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> > Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> > It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> > will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> > includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> > sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> > It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> > eternal Hell.
>
> > Do you follow the logic?
>
> > Anyone want to prove this?
>
> > PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
> > will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
> > still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
> > far, in my view. DS.
>
> > /RR
>
You don't follow *any* logic. Period.
<snip>
Boikat
All-seeing-I
Catholics believe in a "purgatory"
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not anymore, right? But is that what Harshman meant, is (was)
Purgatory considered part of Hell or something?
slothrop
Karel
> On 15 Dec, 15:39, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Roaming Rider wrote:
> > > The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> > > very attractive to some.
>
> > > Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> > > Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> > > Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> > > It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> > > will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> > > includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> > > sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> > > It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> > > eternal Hell.
>
> > > Do you follow the logic?
>
> > No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
> > in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
>
> Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
>
> If so, where in the Bible is this being stated? Does Jesus Christ say
> this? No. Familiarize yourself with the Bible; after all Christian
> theology has to be based on the Bible and what Jesus Christ actually
> has teached. This statement of yours (or implication) is so important
> that Jesus Christ obviously would make the issue clear if it was true.
> Wishful thinking is wishful thinking.
2 Tim 2:10; Heb 5:9
Regards,
Karel
Roaming Rider
John Harshman, you don't follow the logic, huh? Why don't you respond
with objections?
Someone, IIRC, here on talk.origins, has said that just because a lot
of people believe that something is true, doesn't make it true,
although it may or not have to be considered and followed. Just
because a lot of people wishes something to happen does not mean it
will happen. There is the substance (or lack of it) of your assumption
of Christian theology relevance.
As for Christian theology, within the strict assumptions and logic,
given the opening post, I did not say it did apply, did I? Although
the title hinted at it. Jesus Christ stated the rules within the
Christian religion, and the openings in interpretation by leaving
blank areas where clarification would be important; these blank areas
of silence in relation to speculation could be interpreted the same
way silence in some conversations is understood as an approval. It's a
hard world, isn't it? The assumptions and logic in the opening post
are a general thought path that can apply to any religeous belief
within the assumptions, can't it? I did not assume one came to a
Christian Heaven, did I? I just assumed, in general, one would live
forever and risked (serious bad luck would lead to) being sent to
eternal Hell.
Within the framework of the assumptions, I would say the conclusion
follow some logic, wouldn't you say that?
I am a Christian that believe in discussions and love.
/RR
Roaming Rider
MATTHEW 7:21
All are at risk, that's my point.
/RR
Will in New Haven
No. It is a separate place for those who are not condemned eternally
but not worthy of Heaven. Most fire-breathing Protestants consider it
a very dubious and much too tolerant doctrine. I don't know whether
the Church has given up Purgatory or not but it was never part of Hell
or synonymous with Hell.
I don't think the concept of a just god can coincide with "bad luck"
getting one into Hell. Since god is supposed to know everything he
will know that you aren't really guilty.
--
Will in New Haven-
John Harshman
> On 15 Dec, 15:39, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Roaming Rider wrote:
>>> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
>>> very attractive to some.
>>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
>>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
>>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>>> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
>>> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
>>> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
>>> sentenced to eternal Hell.
>>> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
>>> eternal Hell.
>>> Do you follow the logic?
>> No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
>> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
>
> Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
>
> If so, where in the Bible is this being stated? Does Jesus Christ say
> this? No. Familiarize yourself with the Bible; after all Christian
> theology has to be based on the Bible and what Jesus Christ actually
> has teached. This statement of yours (or implication) is so important
> that Jesus Christ obviously would make the issue clear if it was true.
> Wishful thinking is wishful thinking.
I believe it's implied in the concept of the judgment, which happens once.
>> but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
>> Christian theology
>
> Again, where in the Bible?
Implied. But you are confused, because that's your assumption. To
repeat: you assume that heaven is revocable, but hell is final. What is
your basis for these assumptions?
>> but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
>> combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
>> non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
>> even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
>> you mean god?
>>
>>> Anyone want to prove this?
>> You would require a number of auxiliary assumptions. If this is
>> attempted to be a real objection to religion, you need to make the same
>> starting assumptions that the religion makes, and your assumptions don't
>> match what anyone believes.
>
> Again, wishful thinking is wishful thinking without substance from the
> Bible.
Where are your assumptions supported in the bible?
Where does the bible say this?:
1. One can be sent from heaven to hell.
2. One can't be sent from hell to heaven.
3. One can be falsely convicted in heaven, and there is no appeals process.
(Let me clarify a bit: I don't think there are reasonable grounds for
any of the assumptions here, including the existence of god, heaven, and
hell; nor can the bible be used as support for anything other than
claims about what it says. I merely critique your argument on its own
terms.)
John Harshman
I don't know of any. But I don't know of any that teaches an impermanent
stay in heaven either. I was asking RR why he makes one assumption but
not the other. His argument only works if heaven is temporary but hell
is permanent.
John Harshman
There's no purgatory any more? Are you sure you aren't referring to
limbo? That was closed down. And no, I wasn't referring to purgatory.
John Harshman
> On Dec 15, 8:25 am, Roaming Rider <interested.reade...@live.se> wrote:
>> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
>> very attractive to some.
>>
>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>>
>> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
>> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
>> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
>> sentenced to eternal Hell.
>>
>> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
>> eternal Hell.
>>
>> Do you follow the logic?
>>
>> Anyone want to prove this?
>>
>> PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
>> will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
>> still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
>> far, in my view. DS.
>>
>> /RR
>
> I do not follow the logic.
So what else is new?
> It does not follow known biblical
> principals or any scientific ones for that matter
But it does follow known logical principles. Given the premises, the
conclusions are true. That's beyond anything you have ever posted.
> Besides. There is a "get out of Jail For Free" card. If you ever run
> into some really bad luck, I suggest you use it if you do.
Pay attention. He's talking about bad luck happening to people who are
already in heaven.
John Harshman
I follow the logic. And the logic is valid, given the premises. I just
don't think the premises are valid. And I did respond with objections.
> Someone, IIRC, here on talk.origins, has said that just because a lot
> of people believe that something is true, doesn't make it true,
> although it may or not have to be considered and followed. Just
> because a lot of people wishes something to happen does not mean it
> will happen. There is the substance (or lack of it) of your assumption
> of Christian theology relevance.
>
> As for Christian theology, within the strict assumptions and logic,
> given the opening post, I did not say it did apply, did I? Although
> the title hinted at it. Jesus Christ stated the rules within the
> Christian religion, and the openings in interpretation by leaving
> blank areas where clarification would be important; these blank areas
> of silence in relation to speculation could be interpreted the same
> way silence in some conversations is understood as an approval. It's a
> hard world, isn't it? The assumptions and logic in the opening post
> are a general thought path that can apply to any religeous belief
> within the assumptions, can't it? I did not assume one came to a
> Christian Heaven, did I? I just assumed, in general, one would live
> forever and risked (serious bad luck would lead to) being sent to
> eternal Hell.
>
> Within the framework of the assumptions, I would say the conclusion
> follow some logic, wouldn't you say that?
Yes. But why make those assumptions instead of any other assumptions?
They seem designed specifically to allow your conclusion. That's a
vacuous practice. One could make equally valid assumptions to conclude
that everyone will end up in heaven (heaven is final, and at any time an
error in hell could move you there). What's the point?
> I am a Christian that believe in discussions and love.
Is it then your contention that everyone will eventually end up in hell?
John Stockwell
Actually it was the Baptists who spoke out against limbo. Owing
to a misunderstanding over spelling, they believed it could lead
to dancing.
-John
John Harshman
But your assumption is that the risk continues after you're in heaven.
Your cited verse has nothing to do with that, but about events before
death, whereas the verses cited by Karel say that one's place in heaven
is eternal, i.e. permanent.
Kalkidas
news:7908dcdb-d0b4-48af...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> very attractive to some.
>
> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
Where did Jesus Christ say that there is such a thing as "luck"?
Roaming Rider
The closest I can see from Jesus Christ's actual words is MATTHEW
25:31-46. There it says eternal life. But a bad life is still a bad
*life*, wouldn't you say?
> >> but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
> >> Christian theology
>
> > Again, where in the Bible?
>
> Implied. But you are confused, because that's your assumption. To
> repeat: you assume that heaven is revocable, but hell is final. What is
> your basis for these assumptions?
Jesus Christ spoke of *eternal* punishments, on the contrary. I do not
have the Bible as my basis, the assumptions are in their own right; it
is really only that which is my point.
A side note, my opening post does not assume Christian theology, as
stated in a above post, however, I will still discuss it to some
extent.
>
> >> but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
> >> combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
> >> non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
> >> even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
> >> you mean god?
>
> >>> Anyone want to prove this?
> >> You would require a number of auxiliary assumptions. If this is
> >> attempted to be a real objection to religion, you need to make the same
> >> starting assumptions that the religion makes, and your assumptions don't
> >> match what anyone believes.
>
> > Again, wishful thinking is wishful thinking without substance from the
> > Bible.
>
> Where are your assumptions supported in the bible?
>
Not an assumption, see above.
> Where does the bible say this?:
>
> 1. One can be sent from heaven to hell.
> 2. One can't be sent from hell to heaven.
> 3. One can be falsely convicted in heaven, and there is no appeals process.
>
On the contrary, it does not say the opposite, as far as I know (I am
not an expert in the field). It is open to discussion, as far as I
know. But I am not really discusisng Christian theology with my
opening post, I hint at it with my title, but within the framework of
the stated assumptions and logic, the conclusion follow, in my view.
> (Let me clarify a bit: I don't think there are reasonable grounds for
> any of the assumptions here, including the existence of god, heaven, and
> hell; nor can the bible be used as support for anything other than
> claims about what it says. I merely critique your argument on its own
> terms.)
You critique it on wrong grounds. I do *not* assume Christian theology
within the assumptions and logic of the opening post.
/RR
John Harshman
You're saying that Jesus is promising eternal damnation in that passage?
An interesting interpretation to say the least. And I find it touching
that you think the gospels contain actual quotes from Jesus.
>>>> but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
>>>> Christian theology
>>> Again, where in the Bible?
>> Implied. But you are confused, because that's your assumption. To
>> repeat: you assume that heaven is revocable, but hell is final. What is
>> your basis for these assumptions?
>
> Jesus Christ spoke of *eternal* punishments, on the contrary. I do not
> have the Bible as my basis, the assumptions are in their own right; it
> is really only that which is my point.
Your point is that your assumptions are assumptions?
> A side note, my opening post does not assume Christian theology, as
> stated in a above post, however, I will still discuss it to some
> extent.
What was the point of your opening post?
>>>> but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
>>>> combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
>>>> non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
>>>> even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
>>>> you mean god?
>>>>> Anyone want to prove this?
>>>> You would require a number of auxiliary assumptions. If this is
>>>> attempted to be a real objection to religion, you need to make the same
>>>> starting assumptions that the religion makes, and your assumptions don't
>>>> match what anyone believes.
>>> Again, wishful thinking is wishful thinking without substance from the
>>> Bible.
>> Where are your assumptions supported in the bible?
>
> Not an assumption, see above.
Of course they're assumptions, whether or not they're supported in the
bible.
>> Where does the bible say this?:
>>
>> 1. One can be sent from heaven to hell.
>> 2. One can't be sent from hell to heaven.
>> 3. One can be falsely convicted in heaven, and there is no appeals process.
>
> On the contrary, it does not say the opposite, as far as I know (I am
> not an expert in the field). It is open to discussion, as far as I
> know. But I am not really discusisng Christian theology with my
> opening post, I hint at it with my title, but within the framework of
> the stated assumptions and logic, the conclusion follow, in my view.
So? Why those assumptions rather than any others?
>> (Let me clarify a bit: I don't think there are reasonable grounds for
>> any of the assumptions here, including the existence of god, heaven, and
>> hell; nor can the bible be used as support for anything other than
>> claims about what it says. I merely critique your argument on its own
>> terms.)
>
> You critique it on wrong grounds. I do *not* assume Christian theology
> within the assumptions and logic of the opening post.
I ask again: why make those particular assumptions rather than any
others you might have made? I will also point out that another
consequence of your logic is that god is a really huge asshole. Was that
your point?
Inez
You don't even need to go to this non-standard theology to show the
absurdity of hell.
John is a Buddhist who spends his life doing charity, and generally
being a swell guy. He dies and is tormented forever in God's private
torture chamber.
Jack is a bad man who murders and rapes. He is sentenced to life in
prison, and in prison finds Jesus and goes to heaven.
The whole notion is absurd. No finite crime merits infinite
punishment.
Inez
> "Roaming Rider" <interested.reade...@live.se> wrote in message
Where did Jesus Christ say that there is such a thing as twinkies?
Roaming Rider
> What was the point of your opening post?
What the point was?
Sleep on it.
/RR
All-seeing-I
The baptists may have it wrong.
Matthew 18:34-35
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he
should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly
Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one
his brother their trespasses."
This suggests that you will go to a part of hell that has tormentors
but you can escape with a repayment for sin. This also goes a long way
to understanding the importance of forgivness too.
Catholics believe sins are divided into two categories.
The first category is called mortal sin.
Mortal comes from the word mortis in Latin which means death.
Catholics believe if you die without having repented of mortal sin you
will go to hell, which is actually the second death and the reason for
regular confessions. generally most church doors are left open 24/7
for this reason. One can go at any time and ask forgivness for a
mortal sin.
So in essence, if you have premeditatedly murdered someone but
genuinely repent before you die, that murder can be forgiven and you
escape final destruction but not necessarly escape purgatory. This is
supported in Jesus' parabable in Matt 20:16 when he says " I want to
give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you.
The second category of sin is referred to as venial sin. Venial comes
from the Latin word venialis which means pardonable. This gets ya
"hell" but it does not seem to result in a final death:
Luke 16: starting at vs 19:
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine
linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his
gate, full of sores,
21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich
man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the
angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth
Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my
tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime
receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now
he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf
fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither
can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest
send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they
also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from
the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
---
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes, I was thinking of limbo, sorry....
All-seeing-I
pffft!
>
> > Besides. There is a "get out of Jail For Free" card. If you ever run
> > into some really bad luck, I suggest you use it if you do.
>
> Pay attention. He's talking about bad luck happening to people who are
> already in heaven
Which is illogical. Is someone that does not believe in heaven but got
there anyway, it shows they must have some damn good luck while in
heaven AND out
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<7908dcdb-d0b4-48af...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
[snip sillyness]
And here I was thinking that his biggest mistake was arriving when he did.
After all, if he'd come today he could have reached a whole nation. Israel in
4 BC had no mass communication.
Don't you get me wrong, now...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<f39507c1-c030-439e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
Though Ray-ray and madman come close.
Greg G.
I have used a similar argument, prefaced on the theology that says
Satan and the demons are fallen angels (See Revelation 12:7-9). It
must be the case that sin is possible in heaven. If angels can sin,
why can't humans? If a third of the angels have been cast out already,
it may well be quite easy to sin, so it may well be inevitable that
humans will commit some offense in heaven, given an eternityand an
infinite number of opportunities.
Of course, this is all clearly explained in the fine print of the
original documents. 80)
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a problem with this.
After the final battle there is going to be a new heaven and a new
earth.
There may have been sin in the first heaven, but there will not be in
the second. That is the entire point of our existance
The angels made their choice already. The ones that rebelled with
their free-will got the boot. Now each of us has to make the same
choice in a world corrupted by those that got the boot.
Mike Lyle
It's not in the four canonical Gospels, but a very early papyrus
fragment in the Sinai monastery gives us:
And he went forth before the Scribes and the Pharisees, and spoke,
saying: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Lo! the more a man practiseth,
even so the luckier he doth get." Almost all scholars accept the passage
as genuine.
On the other matter, all I can find is "This is a true saying, that as a
man twinketh, even so shall it be twinked unto him." But this is
apocryphal and of obscure meaning, and it's by no means clear that the
reference is to modern "Twinkies", a word not found in Syriac-Aramaic;
so you may well be right.
--
Mike.
Nashton
> On 15 Dec, 15:39, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Roaming Rider wrote:
>>> very attractive to some.
>>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
>>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
>>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>>> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
>>> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
>>> sentenced to eternal Hell.
>>> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
>>> eternal Hell.
>>> Do you follow the logic?
>> No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
>> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
>
> Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
Not according to Christian theology you dim-witted nut-job.
Nashton
You seem to know an awful lot about the subject of twinkies.
Been in any gay parades lately?
Inez
Really? You think this post shows wide knowledge of twinkies?
> Been in any gay parades lately?
I went to one in June, but I wasn't in it.
Burkhard
> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> very attractive to some.
>
> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> eternal Hell.
>
> Do you follow the logic?
>
>
> will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
> still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
> far, in my view. DS.
>
> /RR
>
http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html
The logic can't be faulted, but the premises are dodgy to say the least.
All in all too much like a projection of our current prison system into
eternity.
And that shows where the problems are:
First, the idea of "wrongful convictions" assumes god can make mistakes
in deciding who deserves hell and who deserves heaven - unorthodox to
say the least.
A stronger argument would be that even without bad luck, it would be
impossible to stay law abiding for eternity. Since you have eternity to
play with, even a remote chance to break the laws in heaven would
suffice for your argument. So something along the lines: sometimes only
moral luck prevents us from succumbing to temptation and violate the law
- hence, over an infinite period of time, we are bound to lapse at some
point. This assumes temptations in heaven, unorthodox for sure, but is
it even conceptually consistent?
Look at e.g. Ian Banks culture novels, which are premised on the idea
that even in an artificial "heaven", temptation can be eliminated and
with it crime. If I have all I need, and all the time of the world,
literally, to experience whatever I want, I'd be lacking the reason to
transgress
Having said that, we are dealing of course here with a god who likes to
set people up by introducing arbitrary rules, and we also have the
precedent of the rebellion of angels, so maybe we have to assume that
even in heaven, there are (again) things worth to rebel against.
But that gets you to the next problem. If we go beyond scripture to that
extend, and assume that god cannot simply will a transgression free
heaven into existence, then the same also applies to hell. There is no
reason that I can see to change the rules for heaven into a "temporary
stay" and keep the ones for hell infinite.
You find on possible model of this idea in Neil Gaiman's depiction of
hell - where people could, if they wanted to, walk out anytime, they
themselves are the source of their punishment.
So you'd just end up with the system we have here, and a constant
population exchange between heaven and hell.
Burkhard
And since Christ endorses all of the OT in Matthew 5:17-48, the
conclusion is he also accepts the existence of luck as described in
Ecclesiastes.
Kalkidas
news:hg8vfh$dsv$1...@news.albasani.net...
No. Christ acknowledged that everything is under God's control, as in "every
hair on your head is numbered" and "not a sparrow falls to the ground
without God knowing about it". There is no such thing as "luck", unless you
define it as personal ignorance of outcomes.
The point is, nobody goes to hell because of "bad luck".
Burkhard
Burkhard
so Ecclesiastes 9:11 is wrong then?
Davej
> very attractive to some.
No, no, no. Jesus Christ's biggest mistake was that he was a stingy
little god. I mean he wandered around and did as little as possible.
He healed only those who would come and beg at his feet. Some old
woman touches him in a crowd and the power goes out of him, maybe
enough power to heal a hangnail and a few warts, and immediately Jesus
is complaining. Maybe he needed to string some wires and have a power
meter installed in his ass so he could send out bills to registered
customers, except that he didn't believe in money, he only believed in
poverty and suffering. Everyone was supposed to aspire to poverty and
suffering. The more poverty and the more suffering the better. Then
what does Jesus do? He dies. Then he sneaks back. Then he disappears.
Well golly darn.
Kalkidas
The understanding that Ecclesiastes is teaching that events occur by chance
is wrong. You know that.
Burkhard
All-Seeing-I
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:hg8vfh$dsv$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >> Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> "Roaming Rider" <interested.reade...@live.se> wrote in message
> >>>news:7908dcdb-d0b4-48af...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> >>>> very attractive to some.
>
> >>>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> >>>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> >>>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
> >>> Where did Jesus Christ say that there is such a thing as "luck"?
> >> Nowhere directly as far as I know, but it is in Ecclesiastes 9:11
>
> >> And since Christ endorses all of the OT in Matthew 5:17-48, the conclusion
> >> is he also accepts the existence of luck as described in Ecclesiastes.
>
> > No. Christ acknowledged that everything is under God's control, as in "every
> > hair on your head is numbered" and "not a sparrow falls to the ground
> > without God knowing about it". There is no such thing as "luck", unless you
> > define it as personal ignorance of outcomes.
>
> so Ecclesiastes 9:11 is wrong then?
>
> > The point is, nobody goes to hell because of "bad luck
To understand verse 11 you need to go to the beginning of the chapter.
"the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God"
Have you ever wondered why that small guy was able to one-punch the
big guy and win the fight? Was it luck? According to Solomon's view
the small guy was righteous and the punch was in the hands of God
because of his righteous.
But you are correct. No one will die a second death or spend time in
purgatory/hell due to bad luck. They will not even spend time in
heaven because of good luck.
Because the OP question was gibberish.
All-Seeing-I
> Roaming Rider wrote:
> > The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> > very attractive to some.
>
> > Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> > Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> > Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> > It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> > will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> > includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> > sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> > It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> > eternal Hell.
>
> > Do you follow the logic?
>
> > Anyone want to prove this?
>
> > PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
> > will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
> > still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
> > far, in my view. DS.
>
> > /RR
>
>
> The logic can't be faulted, but the premises are dodgy to say the least.
> All in all too much like a projection of our current prison system into
> eternity.
>
> And that shows where the problems are:
> First, the idea of "wrongful convictions" assumes god can make mistakes
> in deciding who deserves hell and who deserves heaven - unorthodox to
> say the least.
>
> A stronger argument would be that even without bad luck, it would be
> play with, even a remote chance to break the laws in heaven 锟絯ould
> suffice for your argument. So something along the lines: sometimes only
> moral luck prevents us from succumbing to temptation and violate the law
> - hence, over an infinite period of time, we are bound to lapse at some
> point. This assumes temptations in heaven, unorthodox for sure, but is
> it even conceptually consistent?
>
> Look at e.g. Ian Banks culture novels, which are premised on the idea
> that even in an artificial "heaven", temptation can be eliminated and
> with it crime. If I have all I need, and all the time of the world,
> literally, to experience whatever I want, I'd be lacking the reason to
> transgress
>
> set people up by introducing arbitrary rules, and we also have the
> precedent of the rebellion of angels, so maybe we have to assume that
> even in heaven, there are (again) things worth to rebel against.
>
> But that gets you to the next problem. If we go beyond scripture to that
> extend, and assume that god cannot simply will a transgression free
> heaven into existence, then the same also applies to hell. There is no
> stay" and keep the ones for hell infinite.
>
> You find on possible model of this idea in Neil Gaiman's depiction of
> hell - where people could, if they wanted to, walk out anytime, they
> themselves are the source of their punishment.
>
> So you'd just end up with the system we have here, and a constant
> population exchange between heaven and hell
Thanks for posting this.
All-Seeing-I
I want to thank you for posting this. You have reminded me that that
there are atheists with character and there are atheists that have
have no character.
The atheists with character will probably make it to heaven. It will
be those Christians, and Atheists, as well as many others inbetween
the two that have no sense of character that will have a few problems
to deal with if that bible thingy is correct.
Can you guess which category you may belong to?
Ye Old One
Yes, he saw you there handing out your cards.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
John Harshman
Thanks for the explanation. Sigh, another poster who has no interest in
communication.
John Harshman
So now the question is whether we have any basis for supposing that
fallen angels, or any other residents of hell, can be redeemed. We also
must wonder whether there do exist any souls, human or angelic, with
zero probability of falling. (If the probability for any person is
non-zero, then as RR claims, that person will inevitably end up in hell
eventually.)
John Harshman
anyone to change his/her/its mind?
John Harshman
angels. They started in heaven, but were sent to hell. Problem for
Christian theology, or just different rules for humans and angels?
John Harshman
Excellent logical defense of your position. Or was it support for mine?
>>> Besides. There is a "get out of Jail For Free" card. If you ever run
>>> into some really bad luck, I suggest you use it if you do.
>> Pay attention. He's talking about bad luck happening to people who are
>> already in heaven
>
> Which is illogical. Is someone that does not believe in heaven but got
> there anyway, it shows they must have some damn good luck while in
> heaven AND out
Confused, as usual. Nobody said anything about not believing in heaven,
and there's no reason to suppose that luck must be consistent for all
eternity.
By the way, I actually do have a "Get out of Hell Free" card in my
wallet. Just in case.
John Harshman
> On Dec 15, 9:29 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Roaming Rider" <interested.reade...@live.se> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7908dcdb-d0b4-48af...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> very attractive to some.
>>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
>>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
>>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> Where did Jesus Christ say that there is such a thing as twinkies?
>
smoke.
John Harshman
Tinky Winky.
All-Seeing-I
God asks us to forgive 7x's seventy. Why would he not do the same?
Did you even bother to read the bible at any point in your life?
Burkhard
partner catches me next time snacking before meals?
"They just disappeared in a puff because they were not mentioned in
the bible, something just like that happened to John, it wasn't me who
ate them."
John Harshman
What does that have to do with a choice being made only once? In fact it
suggests the opposite, that a choice should be changeable, i.e. that a
soul in hell should have the ability to repent and be saved. I suppose
it suggests that a soul in heaven could sin mortally and be forgiven too.
Hey, here's an idea: why not answer my questions?
> Did you even bother to read the bible at any point in your life?
Yes. I can even tell relevant from irrelevant quotes.
All-Seeing-I
Hey. It is Satan that argues he and his followers are better then
mankind. Why should they not be held to a higher standard?
Did you read the book of Job?
Or Enoch? The jublies? cave of treasures?
The entire reason Satan tempted that silly couple in the garden is he
was trying to show God man was inferior.
Then he tried again with Job and failed. Poor Job's children were
murdered yet he still stayed true to God ---showing Satan man is
worthy.
Sure. Let them be held to a higher standard. Look at the destruction
they have caused so many people and for so long.
John Harshman
I'm intrigued about these jublies. Are they the same sort of thing
Austin Powers is talking about re "machine gun jublies"?
> The entire reason Satan tempted that silly couple in the garden is he
> was trying to show God man was inferior.
>
> Then he tried again with Job and failed. Poor Job's children were
> murdered yet he still stayed true to God ---showing Satan man is
> worthy.
Worthy of what? Try to be coherent here.
> Sure. Let them be held to a higher standard. Look at the destruction
> they have caused so many people and for so long.
What exactly do you mean by this "higher standard"? Are you suggesting
that if a fallen angel should repent, god shouldn't forgive him? Seems a
bit arbitrary, if you ask me.
All-Seeing-I
I'm so glad to hear that JH.
But please. Check the terms and conditions on the back of the card,
OK?
I want to make sure you clear the pearly gates on arrival.
Nashton
I will have to get to you on that one, John.
Very interesting question indeed.
>
Nashton
And to point out his sinful nature. To convince God that Job was deep
down, unworthy of God's love.
One of my favorite Old testament Bible passages.
>
> Then he tried again with Job and failed. Poor Job's children were
> murdered yet he still stayed true to God ---showing Satan man is
> worthy.
>
> Sure. Let them be held to a higher standard. Look at the destruction
> they have caused so many people and for so long.
Indeed.
>
>
>
>
Davej
>
> I want to thank you for posting this. You have reminded me that that
> there are atheists with character and there are atheists that have
And then there are Jews who don't believe in Jesus. And then there are
Deists who don't believe in Jesus. And lots of other theists who don't
believe in Jesus. And even among Christians there are a whole lot of
people who don't believe in the "Original Sin" that Jesus is supposed
to be the "cure" for.
bpuharic
>>
>> Hey. It is Satan that argues he and his followers are better then
>> mankind. Why should they not be held to a higher standard?
>>
>> Did you read the book of Job?
>>
>> Or Enoch? The jublies? cave of treasures?
>>
>> The entire reason Satan tempted that silly couple in the garden is he
>> was trying to show God man was inferior.
>
>And to point out his sinful nature. To convince God that Job was deep
>down, unworthy of God's love.
>
>One of my favorite Old testament Bible passages.
i always thought it showed god as a ruthless, mercenary bastard who
was willing to toss a loyal human being to the wolves merely for his
own aggrandizement.
bpuharic
>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>> That raises the question, as pointed out by Greg G., of the fallen
>> angels. They started in heaven, but were sent to hell. Problem for
>> Christian theology, or just different rules for humans and angels?
>
>I will have to get to you on that one, John.
>Very interesting question indeed.
>
when i was an xtian, i just thought the angels were held to higher
standards because they KNEW god, rather than having faith in him. so
if they rejected him, they knew what they were doing...
Inez
A "twink" is a young gay man, or perhaps a certain type of young gay
man, I'm not sure. Apparently I am a lesbian for knowing this.
Will in New Haven
After following this thread for all these posts I find myself in
complete agreement with you on this point.
--
Will in New Haven
haiku jones
Except of course that Satan had nothing to do with it.
It was that most wiley of creatures, the serpent.
Scripture is unmistakeably clear on this point. To
claim otherwise is to be as ignorant as those who claim
Eve ate an "apple".
If it *was* Satan, and not the serpent, then God was a
complete buffoon for punishing the serpent (and all its
offspring; God had some real anger management issues
back in those days) -- God would have been a wicked
tyrant for punishing the serpent for something that
Satan had actually done, and which the serpent had
nothing to do with.
>
> Then he tried again with Job and failed. Poor Job's
> children were murdered yet he still stayed true to
> God ---showing Satan man is worthy.
Yeah, God did win that collegial little bar bet, didn't
He? Anyone reading the text with a clear head can see
that Satan at that point, far from being the monstrous
fountain of all that is evil, was more like one of
God's buddies. They chat amicably a bit, and then God
gets all hot to show off just how far one of his
creations can be abused without breaking. They make
their little bet, and in the end God wins -- of course,
actual people and actual animals die, and die horribly,
but hey -- this was GOD, right?
The most interesting point is where Job ask God,
perfectly reasonably, something he has every right in
the world to do -- "why?" -- and God proceeds to duck
the question, giving Job something that boils down to
"Because I can".
"As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They
kill us for their sport"
-- Shakespeare, "King Lear"
"What high immortals do in mirth is life and death
on Middle Earth"
-- Auden, "Under Which Lyre"
Haiku Jones
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you retarded John?
You asked:
"Why is this choice possible only once?"
I replied:
God asks us to forgive 7x's seventy. Why would he not do the same
Well. If he wants us lowely humans to forgive 7x70 why would he not
forgive the Angels and let them have more then a single choice?
I think all that evolution stuff has rotted your brain.
All-Seeing-I
Wow. What ever you have been smoking, please. Pass it over
John Harshman
> Are you retarded John?
>
> You asked:
> "Why is this choice possible only once?"
>
> I replied:
> God asks us to forgive 7x's seventy. Why would he not do the same
>
> Well. If he wants us lowely humans to forgive 7x70 why would he not
> forgive the Angels and let them have more then a single choice?
But you're now arguing against your original claim. How do you expect me
to make sense of that? You said the angels made their choice already,
which implies they don't get seconds. I asked why that was, and you
responded with a reversal of that claim; apparently the angels get 77
choices instead of just one.
> I think all that evolution stuff has rotted your brain.
Hey, I'm not the one who can't keep my story straight.
haiku jones
Oh, not a thing. Just reading what's there on the
page, accepting it for what it says, and not allowing
weasly Sunday-school re-interpretations to get
between me and the Word.
Haiku Jones
> Pass it over
All-seeing-I
They have made a choice.
That does not mean they are closed off from forgivness. Which is what
you asked about.
Did your pops wank off in a flower pot and raise a blooming idiot?
cant you read?
:P
chris thompson
If so, Nashton is a gay man for pointing it out in the first place.
Chris
chris thompson
Nope. Jubile is what the Goyim are short of if they eat a lot of
cheese blintzes.
Chris
(Please don't think that's meant as anything other than humorous!)
John Harshman
Then why can't you answer that question, rather than dropping little
hints whose meaning only you know? But in fact that's not the question I
asked. I asked "why only once?" because that's what your previous
statements had implied. I realize you have no idea what the implications
of what you say may be, so I'll try to make allowances. But you try to
make sense.
John Harshman
All-seeing-I
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or in this case,
the one.
That is a concept that has been around long before the star trek
writers used it.
Job understood that and it is what kept his trust in God firm even
after losing his children.
Job assisted God to clearly show Satan he was wrong about mankind.
What most people over look is Satan was God's most trusted, most
beautiful, most intelligent creation. Satan was THE ad infinitum
highest Angel until he became arrogant and led a rebellion. (Eziekiel)
Was God suppose to abandon Satan without allowing him a chance to
understand and repent? have you ever done something and latter
discovered you were wrong?
Job played an unfortunate but necessary part in God's grand plan to
try and bring Satan back into the fold.
Wouldn't you allow one of your children every opprotunity to change, --
to learn?
Desertphile
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:25:59 -0500, Roaming Rider wrote
> (in article
> <7908dcdb-d0b4-48af...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
> [snip sillyness]
>
> And here I was thinking that his biggest mistake was arriving when he did.
> After all, if he'd come today he could have reached a whole nation. Israel in
> 4 BC had no mass communication.
> Don't you get me wrong, now...
Hell, Jesus wasn't even born a Christian, or even an American, the
poor bastard. I wash my hands of him....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Roaming Rider wrote:
> > On 15 Dec, 15:39, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Roaming Rider wrote:
> >>> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> >>> very attractive to some.
> >>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> >>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> >>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
> >>> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> >>> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> >>> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> >>> sentenced to eternal Hell.
> >>> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> >>> eternal Hell.
> >>> Do you follow the logic?
> >> No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
> >> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
> > Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
> Not according to Christian theology you dim-witted nut-job.
Well that sucks. What if people in Heaven get tired of it and want
to go to Hell for a vacation?
Desertphile
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Nashton wrote:
> > Roaming Rider wrote:
> >> On 15 Dec, 15:39, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> Roaming Rider wrote:
> >>>> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> >>>> very attractive to some.
> >>>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> >>>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> >>>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
> >>>> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> >>>> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> >>>> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> >>>> sentenced to eternal Hell.
> >>>> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> >>>> eternal Hell.
> >>>> Do you follow the logic?
> >>> No. And I think there's a good reason for that. You assume that a person
> >>> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
> >> Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
> > Not according to Christian theology you dim-witted nut-job.
> That raises the question, as pointed out by Greg G., of the fallen
> angels. They started in heaven, but were sent to hell. Problem for
> Christian theology, or just different rules for humans and angels?
Yeah, Dante Alighieri would get a huge laugh at Christians these
days taking his poetry as gospel. The second author of Isaiah
confused the planet Venus with an angel, and Christians made a god
(Satan) out of it. FUNNY!
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Hey. It is Satan that argues he and his followers are better then
> mankind. Why should they not be held to a higher standard?
Dante Alighieri was writing fiction, shit-for-brains.
> Did you read the book of Job?
Satan does not appear anywhere in the Book of Job: a satan does.
> Or Enoch? The jublies? cave of treasures?
It's fiction, retard.
> The entire reason Satan tempted that silly couple in the garden is he
> was trying to show god man was inferior.
No where in the Bible does the Christian god Satan show up in
Eden.
> Then he tried again with Job and failed. Poor Job's children were
> murdered yet he still stayed true to god ---showing Satan man is
> worthy.
Read the myth again, shit stain. The satan (one of the sons of one
of the gods) bet the war god Yahweh that Job would abandon Yahweh
if everything was taken from Job. The son of the god lost the bet:
it had nothing at all to do with "showing man is worthy."
Sheeeish.
Desertphile
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > The entire reason Satan tempted that silly couple in the garden is he
> > was trying to show God man was inferior.
> And to point out his sinful nature. To convince god that Job was deep
> down, unworthy of god's love.
According to the Bible, that god is nor worthy of love, nor was
that god even capable of love.
> One of my favorite Old testament Bible passages.
Yes, of course it is: the entire Book of Job is ugly, immoral,
despicable, repugnant, and vile, and clearly written by a fiend
form the lowest depths of Hell: it therefore stands to reason that
it would appear to you.
SortingItOut
Does this opportunity remain for eternity?
All-seeing-I
They are north of Egypt under the desert. A place called "Dudael" Put
there and bound by the Arch Angel Raphel under orders from God. Which
could be considered a type of "hell" i suppose.
The Angels that left their proper places (Jude 1:7) were bound and
sent to the desert. Actually under the desert in upper Egypt . That is
why the goat is symbolically sent into the desert. The place is known
as "Dudael"
Leviticus 16:8-10: "and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one
lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. 9And Aaron shall
present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a
sin offering; 10but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be
presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may
be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel."
The Azazel goat was to atone for the wicked deeds of 'Uzza and
'Azzael, the leaders of the rebellious angesl in the time of Enoch
just before the flood. The Day of Atonement is still a ritual today.
Azazel was one of the chief Grigor, who married mortal women. Same
story is told in Genesis 6:2-4
In between taking advantage of our women, the 200 rebel angels spent
their time imparting heavenly secrets to those who had ears to listen.
All the good stuff like war, how to make weapons, etc. The resulting
behavior resulted in the flood.
Their children (the giants) were caused to go insane and to turn on
each other and kill each other. But a few did not die. After much time
man's behavior got so bad that God was sorry he had even made us. So
he decided to destroy everything with a flood. Everything. Including
the Angels that rebelled.
Azazel's fate is foretold near the end of 1 Enoch 2:8, where God says,
�On the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. The
whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by
Azazel: "to him ascribe all sin."So man may be off the hook as far as
eternal damnation for his part in corrupting the earth goes, but not
for his individual choices.
Wikipedia has a fairly accurate synposis of the events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel
The stories are from Enoch 1 Book of Tobit, which is found in
Catholic Orthodox
Bible, Apocalypse of Abraham, gospels according to the Essenes and
various other Etheopian texts and midrash traditions. The persins
mention them, even the Indians.
The Watchers of Kurdistan (and others) are also an interesting bunch.
Apparently the watchers were a world wide phenomenon. (which is
supported by the sumerian texts)
Ya can't have this much written on one topic from so many places
without there being some kind of truth to it even though the stories
may have been somewhat distorted over time. (thats my opinion)
Hopefully once the gospel is heard by every man woman and child Jesus
will return as promised and undo the mess they left behind. Which is
better then having no hope at all. Like an ape. :D
R. Baldwin
48af-bd8b-0...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> The concept of eternal Hell is really stupid, even if the thought is
> very attractive to some.
>
> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
>
> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> sentenced to eternal Hell.
>
> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> eternal Hell.
>
> Do you follow the logic?
>
> Anyone want to prove this?
>
> PS. There is still some time before 2010 will commence after which I
> will get a new type of work, leading to less time posting here, so I
> still can post some more posts. Which is good and have been fun so
> far, in my view. DS.
>
> /RR
>
It seems a rather silly exercise. I don't know of any Christian sect, or
any other sect, holding the view that serious bad luck will lead to being
sent to eternal Hell.
Roaming Rider
> Roaming Rider <interested.reade...@live.se> wrote in news:7908dcdb-d0b4-
> 48af-bd8b-0e4b4cfaf...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
From what I know of the real world today, it is, to me, easy to see
that luck/bad luck plays a part in religious conviction (which matters
in Christianity).
For example, genes control some of your behaviour and thus religious
conviction, as far as I know. Can't you have bad luck with your genes,
in your view?
Upbringing and parents play a part in your religious conviction, as
far as I know. Can't you have bad luck and be brought up with the
wrong parents?
In every day life, most get friends, some at random. A Christian may
be convinced from an atheist friend to give up religion. Can't you
have bad luck in meeting the wrong people, compared to people who meet
the right people all the time and are thus not tried the same way in
their faith?
You may have the bad luck to be in a serious car accident. Then you
curse God and lose faith. Compare it with someone who has the good
luck not to be tried in life.
etc.
BTW, What happens to people who lose faith in Jesus Christ in Heaven?
What if if they do not believe any more in religion, for some reason,
they quit being Christian? Are they judged and cast out or not? After
all Jesus Christ said he would judge living and dead. Dead should be
those that are in Heaven, among others (I don't want to think about
some people's fate...), I suppose. Thus you can be continously judged
in Heaven, and sentenced (what is the point of judging if there is no
sentence), I suppose.
/RR
Burkhard
Nope. He asked if there is a possibility of recidivism
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 15, 7:23�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:07:21 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> i always thought it showed god as a ruthless, mercenary bastard who
>> was willing to toss a loyal human being to the wolves merely for his
>> own aggrandizement
>
>
>
>The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or in this case,
>the one.
>
>That is a concept that has been around long before the star trek
>writers used it.
>
>Job understood that and it is what kept his trust in God firm even
>after losing his children.
ah. so it's OK to abuse, degrade and debase someone if the results are
OK.
situational ethics...the ends justify the means. god, it seems,
approves of them all
>
>Was God suppose to abandon Satan without allowing him a chance to
>understand and repent? have you ever done something and latter
>discovered you were wrong?
wasn't that tolstoy's dilemma? would it be OK to torture a small child
to death if the result was world peace?
seems god would say yes.
>
>Job played an unfortunate but necessary part in God's grand plan to
>try and bring Satan back into the fold.
>
>Wouldn't you allow one of your children every opprotunity to change, --
>to learn?
when god tortured job, it wasnt for job's benefit. apparently it was
for ours. i don't think the lesson was a good one. as i said, it seems
god's a ruthless bastard
>
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Wikipedia has a fairly accurate synposis of the events:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel
>
>The stories are from Enoch 1 Book of Tobit, which is found in
>Catholic Orthodox
>Bible, Apocalypse of Abraham, gospels according to the Essenes and
>various other Etheopian texts and midrash traditions. The persins
>mention them, even the Indians.
>
>The Watchers of Kurdistan (and others) are also an interesting bunch.
>Apparently the watchers were a world wide phenomenon. (which is
>supported by the sumerian texts)
>
>Ya can't have this much written on one topic from so many places
>without there being some kind of truth to it even though the stories
>may have been somewhat distorted over time. (thats my opinion)
i love it. 'some kind of truth'. whatever that 'truth' is...no one
knows. it leads nowhere. but, according to the creationsits, it means
science is false.
because of 'some kind of truth'.
>
Nick Keighley
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > After the final battle there is going to be a new heaven and a new
> > earth.
>
> > There may have been sin in the first heaven, but there will not be in
> > the second. That is the entire point of our existance
>
> > The angels made their choice already. The ones that rebelled with
> > their free-will got the boot.
it all sounds a bit ill-organised. Perhaps we should sack Jehova and
put someone competent in charge.
> > Now each of us has to make the same
> > choice in a world corrupted by those that got the boot.
>
> Why is this choice possible only once? What makes it impossible for
> anyone to change his/her/its mind?
I assume it's some sort of "Stepford Wife" process. The selected ones
become perfect. Sounds dull to me.
All-seeing-I
I never expected those with a simple mind to understand.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You should consider prozac
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 7:08�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> > > That raises the question, as pointed out by Greg G., of the fallen
> > > angels. They started in heaven, but were sent to hell. Problem for
> > > Christian theology, or just different rules for humans and angels?
> > I will have to get to you on that one, John.
> > Very interesting question indeed.
> They are north of Egypt under the desert. A place called "Dudael" Put
> there and bound by the Arch Angel Raphel under orders from god.
Appears mental.
Greg G.
> Greg G. wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 11:47 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Roaming Rider wrote:
> >>> On 15 Dec, 15:39, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Roaming Rider wrote:
> >>>>> very attractive to some.
> >>>>> Assume that all live forever in an afterlife.
> >>>>> Assume that serious bad luck can happen.
> >>>>> Assume that serious bad luck will lead to being sent to eternal Hell.
> >>>>> It is then a truism that it is 100% probability that serious bad luck
> >>>>> will happen to all at some time in this eternal life. Serious bad luck
> >>>>> includes being falsely charged with a law breaking that leads being
> >>>>> sentenced to eternal Hell.
> >>>>> It then follows that all but one individual will eventually be sent to
> >>>>> eternal Hell.
> >>>>> Do you follow the logic?
> >>>> in heaven can be later sent to hell, which is not Christian theology,
> >>> Do you mean that none can be sent to Hell after having entered Heaven?
> >>> If so, where in the Bible is this being stated? Does Jesus Christ say
> >>> this? No. Familiarize yourself with the Bible; after all Christian
> >>> theology has to be based on the Bible and what Jesus Christ actually
> >>> has teached. This statement of yours (or implication) is so important
> >>> that Jesus Christ obviously would make the issue clear if it was true.
> >>> Wishful thinking is wishful thinking.
> >> I believe it's implied in the concept of the judgment, which happens once.
>
> >>>> but that anyone in hell can't later be sent to heaven, which is
> >>>> Christian theology
> >>> Again, where in the Bible?
> >> Implied. But you are confused, because that's your assumption. To
> >> repeat: you assume that heaven is revocable, but hell is final. What is
> >> your basis for these assumptions?
>
> >>>> but inconsistent with your previous claims. The
> >>>> combination of assumptions creates your hell ratchet. You also make the
> >>>> non-Christian claim that one can be sent to hell on false charges. And
> >>>> even if all this is true, what keeps that one individual out of hell? Do
> >>>> you mean god?
> So now the question is whether we have any basis for supposing that
> fallen angels, or any other residents of hell, can be redeemed. We also
> must wonder whether there do exist any souls, human or angelic, with
> zero probability of falling. (If the probability for any person is
> non-zero, then as RR claims, that person will inevitably end up in hell
> eventually.)
Theologians tell us that the ability to sin is necessary for free
will. Also, the soul is where the capacity for free will exists. So,
for a soul to be able to reside in Heaven for eternity, it would have
to be stripped of its only identifiable function.
I've been told that souls would have free will in Heaven but not in
Hell. I thought that was strange that the people in Heaven would have
the ability to sin, while those in Hell would not be able to sin.
Greg G.
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:07:21 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > The entire reason Satan tempted that silly couple in the garden is he
> > > was trying to show God man was inferior.
> > And to point out his sinful nature. To convince god that Job was deep
> > down, unworthy of god's love.
>
> According to the Bible, that god is nor worthy of love, nor was
> that god even capable of love.
>
> > One of my favorite Old testament Bible passages.
>
> Yes, of course it is: the entire Book of Job is ugly, immoral,
> despicable, repugnant, and vile, and clearly written by a fiend
> form the lowest depths of Hell: it therefore stands to reason that
> it would appear to you.
It would have been written by three fiends, then. The story seems to
be two stories, one inside the other. So, there would be two authors
and an editor, at least.
TomS
<5hrhi5lf3lg9vr4sj...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
>
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:17:07 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 15, 7:08�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> > John Harshman wrote:
>
>> > > That raises the question, as pointed out by Greg G., of the fallen
>> > > angels. They started in heaven, but were sent to hell. Problem for
>> > > Christian theology, or just different rules for humans and angels?
>
>> > I will have to get to you on that one, John.
>> > Very interesting question indeed.
>
>> They are north of Egypt under the desert. A place called "Dudael" Put
>> there and bound by the Arch Angel Raphel under orders from god.
>
>Appears mental.
>
>
North of Egypt, on the maps that I see, is no desert, but the
Mediterranean Sea.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Will in New Haven
Well, an editor is by definition and without exception a fiend from
Hell. So he or she would only have to find two writers who really
needed some money, which is pretty much true by definition.
--
Will in New Haven
Greg G.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> earth.
>
> There may have been sin in the first heaven, but there will not be in
> the second. That is the entire point of our existance
>
> The angels made their choice already. The ones that rebelled with
> choice in a world corrupted by those that got the boot.
Will there be free will in the new Heaven and the new Earth? If so,
then there must be the possibiity of sin. That's how the theologians
explain the existance of sin in the first place. Free will involves
the capacity to sin. If not, then you have defenestrated all the souls
from Heaven and Earth. What is a soul without the ability to exercise
free will?