Theological terrorists

[Windwalker]

So Jesus Christ, who warned people of Hell and died to redeem people from Hell, was a "victim of fear, a fearmonger" and the chief of all fearmongers?

Not everyone believe hell is a literal place where the God of Love sends people for endless tortures because they disappointed him, and now it's time for payback. Hell is a metaphor for our own sense of fear and isolation from God here in this life, which if we don't move beyond will follow us to the next.

It's not a place God creates for people, nor a place God sends us to. It's a condition or state of mind that is "like", or "as if" it were torture, compared to the Freedom of Love. Hell is Fear. Love if Freedom. God is Love, not fear. Love is incapable of inflicting torture upon others. That is not Love. That is Fear and Hatred.

Those who preach God sends people to hell, preach a God of Fear. Those who imagine God that way, imagine from their own fear and guilt and shame. But that God is not real. That God does not exist, except in the mind of those who live with Fear.

 

[Thief]

What's your goal here, son? If you are just announcing a list of stuff you believe, Congrats. If you are trying to get me to take you seriously, you are going in the wrong direction.

if you can't ....or won't.....take the discussion seriously

that's on you

not me

 

[ppp]

Not everyone believe hell is a literal place where the God of Love sends people for endless tortures because they disappointed him, and now it's time for payback. Hell is a metaphor for our own sense of fear and isolation from God here in this life, which if we don't move beyond will follow us to the next.

It's not a place God creates for people, nor a place God sends us to. It's a condition or state of mind that is "like", or "as if" it were torture, compared to the Freedom of Love. Hell is Fear. Love if Freedom. God is Love, not fear. Love is incapable of inflicting torture upon others. That is not Love. That is Fear and Hatred.

Those who preach God sends people to hell, preach a God of Fear. Those who imagine God that way, imagine from their own fear and guilt and shame. But that God is not real. That God does not exist, except in the mind of those who live with Fear.

I am not sure there is a functional difference between the conventional conception of hell, and your version. If a person does not believe that a god or afterlife exists, or that such has any relevance, what does your doctrine (if that is the right word) say about that person's disposition in the afterlife?

 

[ppp]

if you can't ....or won't.....take the discussion seriously

that's on you

not me

Yep. In the same way that do not take flat earthers seriously. That is on me, and I am okay with that.

 

[Thief]

do not take flat earthers seriously.

neither do I

but guess what.....my granddad was

 

[firedragon]

Bahaollah implored Allah to give "terrible" punishment to people who did not accept his existence or the mission of Bahaollah

I am curious to know which Bahai scripture attributed to Bahaullah says that. Please quote.

 

[Windwalker]

I am not sure there is a functional difference between the conventional conception of hell, and your version. If a person does not believe that a god or afterlife exists, or that such has any relevance, what does your doctrine (if that is the right word) say about that person's disposition in the afterlife?

Well, two things. First, one is an external force. Hell considered as a "place" that God sends bad people, is external to the individual. In my example of hell as a metaphor, it is an internal "state", not and external "place".

Now as far as someone believing in God or the afterlife and such, is irrelevant. As I said, comparatively speaking, the state of separation, or disconnection, or dissociation with the Divine Reality, is by comparison to Freedom within that, a state of hell, or suffering. Buddhism speaks of suffering, to say pretty much the same thing as the metaphor of hell in Christian language. Suffering is a state of being, not an external reality. Suffering is different than pain. Suffering is what we do to ourselves.

Anyone, believer or non-believer alike can live in "hell" or that state of suffering. And either and both can be released from that, regardless of what they mentally, or conceptually "think" about God or an afterlife. Theology is not Freedom. Freedom is Freedom. Freedom for suffering, or "salvation from hell", is the same thing: Enlightenment.

 

[ppp]

Well, two things. First, one is an external force. Hell considered as a "place" that God sends bad people, is external to the individual. In my example of hell as a metaphor, it is an internal "state", not and external "place".

Now as far as someone believing in God or the afterlife and such, is irrelevant. As I said, comparatively speaking, the state of separation, or disconnection, or dissociation with the Divine Reality, is by comparison to Freedom within that, a state of hell, or suffering. Buddhism speaks of suffering, to say pretty much the same thing as the metaphor of hell in Christian language. Suffering is a state of being, not an external reality. Suffering is different than pain. Suffering is what we do to ourselves.

Anyone, believer or non-believer alike can live in "hell" or that state of suffering. And either and both can be released from that, regardless of what they mentally, or conceptually "think" about God or an afterlife. Theology is not Freedom. Freedom is Freedom. Freedom for suffering, or "salvation from hell", is the same thing: Enlightenment.

If we are talking about Christianity - and in this particular thread context I think that we are - then one's disposition post-death does matter. If, in Christianity, one must believe in God in order to not be in either a hell-state or a hell-place, then there is no functional difference between the two conceptions of Hell, or the god that created the cosmos. So, are you talking about Christianity, or are you talking abut something else?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You understand Firedragn, I am not a Bahai. I ead what Bahais post here or from Wikipedia. Perhaps our Bahai members can better help you there. If I get it easily, I will also quote it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Within religion, the leaders just have to make something up, attribute it to "God" and then everyone is expected to listen/obey. Those that do not obey suffer social consequences like ostracization, or even being dragged out of church services. There is no "ACTUAL WORK" being done in any religion whose edicts come down from a deity to actually verify that those edicts come from a true and real source. NONE. Not one single speck of actual work in reality. The very best you have are thought exercise and philosophical meanderings. So go ahead and keep rolling on the floor... it is most certainly a better use of your time than practicing your religion at least. Freaking daffy.

100% wrong. The evidence is all around.

I then actually wrote a reply I have now deleted, as really, there is naught I can say to your comment that you would listen to.

But if I again ROFLOL, maybe one day you may look to a more balanced stance.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

All the threats that the pophets / sons / messengers / manifestations (Bahaollah implored Allah to give "terrible" punishment to people who did not accept his existence or the mission of Bahaollah - 'Allah's punishment is terrible' or something like that) / mahdis and their books mention are imaginary. There is no evidence - 'empty words' as you said.
Well, that is true. I never forget God, I implore people to discard their superstitions. The laws that one needs to respect are those of the government of one's country or society.

A thing to consider, is that may be, the punishment is within those thoughts.

Remotness from God is the biggest punishment humanity faces, a punishment that we choose for ourselves.

It is that remoteness that blinds us to what we can be and becomes our eternal hell.

Regards Tony

 

[Windwalker]

If we are talking about Christianity - and in this particular thread context I think that we are - then one's disposition post-death does matter. If, in Christianity, one must believe in God in order to not be in either a hell-state or a hell-place, then there is no functional difference between the two conceptions of Hell, or the god that created the cosmos. So, are you talking about Christianity, or are you talking abut something else?

The Christian concept of God certainly can be understood the way I am speaking. It may not be the most commonly spoken of view of the Divine, but it certainly does exist within it. What is taught in Sunday School, is not the the measure of the breadth, height, and depth of understanding God within Christianity. Those are really more "introductory" or "training wheels" ways to begin to approach an understanding of the Divine. Christianity can certainly go beyond that, and does for those wishing to understand more than a literalist, externalized God interpretation.

"Post-death" is really irrelevant. "Eternal life", can easily be understood as the timeless present. It is about "this life", not after one dies. IMO, after one dies is meaningless. What you are in the moment is the only meaning. And if someone postpones, or better stated avoids facing Reality in this life, they won't have it in the next, in whatever form that takes. I view Life, as one thing, not just the animation of our present biological form.

Now as far as "believing in God in order to not be in a hell-state", I disagree. Beliefs are conceptual. They are thoughts, and ideas. What we "think" is irrelevant to having a connection with Reality. That connection is based upon our presence of being. It is a connection with our subjective self with the world, and who we authentically are. Thoughts and ideas come and go, change and evolve, like the leaves on a tree in the course of a season of growth. But the roots and the trunk is our connection. Those just deepen and strengthen. Being rooted and grounded, is not a matter of our conceptual minds. That is a matter of our being itself, or to use a Christian metaphor here, our "soul".

An atheist can have just as much connection with Reality as a believer in a particular deity form can. In fact, the greatest depths occur when we are able to move beyond even our religious ideas and beliefs. The great Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said paradoxically, "I pray God make me free from God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". That means, drop your beliefs. They get in the way. In this sense, a spiritual atheist, may actually be in a position of greater advantage, because he has already deconstructed religious beliefs. But if he imposes a "scientific belief" instead as ultimate Truth, then he is disadvantaged the same as the ardent "believer" in religious views.

Functionally, these different understandings of hell are very different. The traditionalist view which images hell as a "place" makes it external to oneself. The metaphoric view of hell makes it internal or subjective to ones experience. To look outside oneself to find oneself, is doomed to failure. To look within, is the path to Awakening. All traditions teach this, once you move beyond the externalized God.

 

[ppp]

The Christian concept of God certainly can be understood the way I am speaking. It may not be the most commonly spoken of view of the Divine, but it certainly does exist within it. What is taught in Sunday School, is not the the measure of the breadth, height, and depth of understanding God within Christianity. Those are really more "introductory" or "training wheels" ways to begin to approach an understanding of the Divine. Christianity can certainly go beyond that, and does for those wishing to understand more than a literalist, externalized God interpretation.

"Post-death" is really irrelevant. "Eternal life", can easily be understood as the timeless present. It is about "this life", not after one dies. IMO, after one dies is meaningless. What you are in the moment is the only meaning. And if someone postpones, or better stated avoids facing Reality in this life, they won't have it in the next, in whatever form that takes. I view Life, as one thing, not just the animation of our present biological form.

Now as far as "believing in God in order to not be in a hell-state", I disagree. Beliefs are conceptual. They are thoughts, and ideas. What we "think" is irrelevant to having a connection with Reality. That connection is based upon our presence of being. It is a connection with our subjective self with the world, and who we authentically are. Thoughts and ideas come and go, change and evolve, like the leaves on a tree in the course of a season of growth. But the roots and the trunk is our connection. Those just deepen and strengthen. Being rooted and grounded, is not a matter of our conceptual minds. That is a matter of our being itself, or to use a Christian metaphor here, our "soul".

An atheist can have just as much connection with Reality as a believer in a particular deity form can. In fact, the greatest depths occur when we are able to move beyond even our religious ideas and beliefs. The great Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said paradoxically, "I pray God make me free from God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". That means, drop your beliefs. They get in the way. In this sense, a spiritual atheist, may actually be in a position of greater advantage, because he has already deconstructed religious beliefs. But if he imposes a "scientific belief" instead as ultimate Truth, then he is disadvantaged the same as the ardent "believer" in religious views.

Functionally, these different understandings of hell are very different. The traditionalist view which images hell as a "place" makes it external to oneself. The metaphoric view of hell makes it internal or subjective to ones experience. To look outside oneself to find oneself, is doomed to failure. To look within, is the path to Awakening. All traditions teach this, once you move beyond the externalized God.

I hear what you are saying. But even with the wide spectrum of Christian beliefs, this does not seem like Christianity. It seems more like something else that is attempting to appropriate some Christian symbology and hybridize or appropriate it into itself.

 

[Windwalker]

I hear what you are saying. But even with the wide spectrum of Christian beliefs, this does not seem like Christianity. It seems more like something else that is attempting to appropriate some Christian symbology and hybridize or appropriate it into itself.

I hear people say that, but you can find these understandings throughout antiquity and beyond, in both Western and Eastern forms of Christianity. Meister Eckhart, whom I mentioned, lived between 1260 to 1328 AD. Hardly a California-style New Ager.

 

[ppp]

I hear people say that, but you can find these understandings throughout antiquity and beyond, in both Western and Eastern forms of Christianity. Meister Eckhart, whom I mentioned, lived between 1260 to 1328 AD. Hardly a California-style New Ager.

I would be very surprised if such people did not exist. People could come up with wildly divergent ideas in the 13th century. It's a hardly a new thing. That's how new religions arise.

 

[Windwalker]

I would be very surprised if such people did not exist. People could come up with wildly divergent ideas in the 13th century. It's a hardly a new thing. That's how new religions arise.

I wouldn't call these wild ideas however. I would see those as the more sophisticated, deeper understandings of faith. That those numbers are fewer, of course. That's always the case. It's like a pyramid, where the laity, or the "unwashed masses" are the most widely dispersed base that the more advanced are built upon at the highest levels. That's just a natural hierachy that occurs everywhere in nature.

What you have to look at is the consistency of what those at the higher levels, or greatest depths of understanding are saying. They are not only consistent with each other, but they are consistent with the higher more advanced stages of other faith traditions. This is the mystical level. We are not talking about nut jobs and cults of personalities, as aberrations here. We are talking about the deepest and highest levels attainable.

Now some may not like this talk of more sophisticated or advanced, but that's silliness. Someone with a 5th grade education for instance, is not as advanced knowledge-wise as someone with a Ph.D., for instance. What you are looking for is depth and consistency at those levels. Does that exist? If so, then it's not just wildly divergent views. Meister Eckhart, was and still is, extremely advanced in his insights. He leaves us in awe to this very day.

What you are looking for is depth, not divergences. Differences are not a measure of depth. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist beliefs are divergence, but have no depth at all.

 

[ppp]

I wouldn't call these wild ideas however. I would see those as the more sophisticated, deeper understandings of faith. That those numbers are fewer, of course. That's always the case. It's like a pyramid, where the laity, or the "unwashed masses" are the most widely dispersed base that the more advanced are built upon at the highest levels. That's just a natural hierachy that occurs everywhere in nature.

Everyone sees their particular view a a deeper understanding than the other guy. But this is not a measure of what you say against something real. It's a measure of how strongly you (and the members of your group) feel that you have a deeper understanding. There are no levels in evidence. Just people from different traditions all saying that they have the best levels.

The lack of falsifiability is damning.

 

[Windwalker]

Everyone sees their particular view a a deeper understanding than the other guy. But this is not a measure of what you say against something real. It's a measure of how strongly you (and the members of your group) feel that you have a deeper understanding. There are no levels in evidence. Just people from different traditions all saying that they have the best levels.

The lack of falsifiability is damning.

Is depth purely subjective? That seems your argument. I don't agree. It is objective. For instance, a Creationist who uses the Bible to justify their views of evolution, is not operating at the same levels as those using the tools of science. There is a difference of depth there, which is objectively real. But not of course to the Creationist, for the simple reason, they are not operating at the depth of modern science. That does not mean modern science is the same level as the creationist. Right?

So how does one objectively evaluate if something is more sophisticated or at a deeper level? By being at that level themselves, of course. Those who are at that level, can point to the building blocks of understanding that those higher levels are based upon. Those who are not at those levels cannot see those of course, because they lack the necessary prerequisite qualifications to even see what is exposed there.

All religious ideas are not equal. There are unsophisticated views, and there are sophisticated views. These are not meant or intended as "put downs". They are intended to point out obvious reality. A 5th grader's understanding of reality, does not begin to match the depth of a Ph.D's understanding.

If so, are you willing to say that Ken Hamm and Bill Nye's views are of equal depth? If you answer no to that, then you have no argument with what I am saying. You shouldn't say no to that. If you do, that's very curious indeed.

 

[McBell]

Is depth purely subjective? That seems your argument. I don't agree. It is objective. .

What is the unit of measure called?
How does one go about making the "objective" measurements of the said depth?

 

[ppp]

So how does one objectively evaluate if something is more sophisticated or at a deeper level? By being at that level themselves, of course. Those who are at that level, can point to the building blocks of understanding that those higher levels are based upon. Those who are not at those levels cannot see those of course, because they lack the necessary prerequisite qualifications to even see what is exposed there.

Your evaluation is just you saying stuff about what you think. How to you plan to objectively demonstrate to me
that there is anything to which to apply levels? How do you falsify your claim?

If so, are you willing to say that Ken Hamm and Bill Nye's views are of equal depth? If you answer no to that, then you have no argument with what I am saying.

You keep flinging around the words depth and level as though you have defined them. You haven't. You haven't defined what they are a measure of.

I don't take Ken Hamm's religious claims seriously because, fundamentally, he has failed to demonstrate his claims. I take scientific claims seriously when they are falsifiable and there is demonstrable and relevant evidence to support them. I don't care about "depth" or "levels". I care about reason and evidence. Please note that the conjunction is not "or".