Going through hell before we get to heaven

[luecy7]

I think our karmic debt is to simply die. The scriptures say the wages of sin are death. Punishment has little or nothing to do with it. If you have been following my posts, you would understand that. Jesus was born of a woman, thus he had to die like us. It's that simple.

So you recite that the wages of sin is death, but then suggest that the sin of Jesus was to be born of a woman. Interesting thought. Sort of like saying it was his fault for living here. You say that Jesus died like you, but from your words it does not sound like you would be willing to die like Jesus.

It's up to us whether we choose life over destruction.

I submit that it is further up to us to choose whether to allow others to have the choice of whether we live or die.

I could care less what you recognize about my views, Luecy. They are what they are. I make no apologies for them. You don't agree with them and that's fine. Disagree.

I believe you said that you would love to hear the board members view of what hell is. I am not shaping my view for the purpose of agreement, nor disagreement. Seeing a different viewpoint, I think it is good to state and explore it.

The truth is that we don't know with certainty. We do know that this world can be a place of suffering and torment for many people, though.

You say 'we' as if everyone must be like you. Do you include Jesus in your 'we', and teach that Jesus did NOT know with certainty? Or, do you include the next victim of a crime in your 'we', and teach that the victim must know that their world is about to become a place of suffering and torment? I find that people have a different frame of reference, and a different degree of knowing with certainty.

 

[radarmark]

Interesting concept "knowing with certainty". Different frame of reference, I understand this. Differing degrees of knowing, I get that, too.

If "knowing with certainty" means being able to have absolute, irrefutable proof that what one claims to know is true. But I know that the absolute, irrefutable proof is possible only for tautologies and arithmetic trivia. And I believe that truth is a fuzzy, fuzzy concept.

Jesus was a great and wonderful Rabbi, but I find it difficult to believe that he (or even G_d can know with certainty in the way you mean it). Insightful, instinctual, spiritual, intuitive, pan-experiential... all of those I can handle. But knowing (in the sense of human thought and human belief) nope, knowing like truth has hair (not like black holes which can have no hair).

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I believe you said that you would love to hear the board members view of what hell is. I am not shaping my view for the purpose of agreement, nor disagreement. Seeing a different viewpoint, I think it is good to state and explore it.

You do seem to go out of your way to criticise and ridicule Gatekeepers view of hell. Which I don't think is the point of the thread and ridicule isn't the point of this forum.

I don't understand Luecy, you always talk about the importance of relationships in your believes. But at the same time you go all out on a lot of people here. I don't see how that would lead to any good, relationship-wise, but resentment and frustration.

 

[luecy7]

Interesting concept "knowing with certainty". Different frame of reference, I understand this. Differing degrees of knowing, I get that, too.

If "knowing with certainty" means being able to have absolute, irrefutable proof that what one claims to know is true. But I know that the absolute, irrefutable proof is possible only for tautologies and arithmetic trivia. And I believe that truth is a fuzzy, fuzzy concept.

If that case is true for the person who says, 'We', then the use of the word 'We' has been a fuzzy manufactured lie, which was my point. See the irony? 'We the people' is a well defended lie: conjecture, an extrapolation, a manufactured fuzzy falsehood, as it states knowing something about others which has not really been measured.

Jesus was a great and wonderful Rabbi, but I find it difficult to believe that he (or even G_d can know with certainty in the way you mean it). Insightful, instinctual, spiritual, intuitive, pan-experiential... all of those I can handle. But knowing (in the sense of human thought and human belief) nope, knowing like truth has hair (not like black holes which can have no hair).

I am certainly no Einstein, but I have been in similar shoes and I imagine every parent has. "Do not press the red button, bad things will happen." "The only way to learn is to press the button. You can not know without a doubt that bad things will happen." < Presses red button >.

 

[radarmark]

Your first statement is fallacious, where is the "we" you extrapolate?

The second point makes no sense to me either. What you seem to be saying is that past experience is all we have to rely on. That is interesting, but based on past experience, while I can guess what is going to happen (and may do so quite accurately), the next experience may be different. Also, things like deductive logic and mathematical proofs are not based on experience but reasoning from first principles.

The issue is that what "we" (there I used it) have an idea that Truth exists out there in the real world to be plucked from some tree of truth. I am just saying it is not that simple.

 

[IowaGuy]

I obviously believe in rebirth.

Gate - I know you self-identify as a Christian (I'm not trying to label you, just trying to understand your perspective). Is there any biblical scripture that you have utilized to inform your belief in physical rebirth?

 

[luecy7]

Your first statement is fallacious, where is the "we" you extrapolate?

I did not extrapolate it, I read it:

The truth is that we don't know with certainty. We do know that this world can be a place of suffering and torment for many people, though.

In my time I have used the word 'we', and if there was not a measurement of input from the others that I included in that 'we', then I have most certainly conjectured and lied. Without interaction, doing the same experiment, or doing the same lifestyle, I would personally be manufacturing conjecture as to what others may know or not know.

What you seem to be saying is that past experience is all we have to rely on.

No, in fact I was speaking against that perspective. Lets do a thought experiment, and surmise the extent of God's knowledge. Who made the button? Who knows what it will do? Who can know what you are going to do, besides maybe God? There are hopefully some you can rely on, and you can even rely on someone who is not yet reliable even though you full well know it.

That is interesting, but based on past experience, while I can guess what is going to happen (and may do so quite accurately), the next experience may be different. Also, things like deductive logic and mathematical proofs are not based on experience but reasoning from first principles.

At some level the reasoning, logic, experience, and proofs hold something constant. While a human may not have the power to hold something constant, I believe you agree with me that some things have been made, thus far, very constant. If I open up a physics book it reports some measured constants.

The issue is that what "we" (there I used it) have an idea that Truth exists out there in the real world to be plucked from some tree of truth. I am just saying it is not that simple.

I do not find Truth to be that way, and I find it is not that simple, so I agree: not that simple.

When I speak of different viewpoints, perspectives, frames of reference, or degrees of certainty, I include a non-human perspective, and even a non-physical perspective too.

 

[luecy7]

You do seem to go out of your way to criticise and ridicule Gatekeepers view of hell. Which I don't think is the point of the thread and ridicule isn't the point of this forum.

If I were you, I would reconsider the ownership of a belief. I do not believe Gatekeeper has said anywhere that he has manufactured his view of heaven or hell. If he did, then I submit that it would be his, and not Christian.

You are welcome to praise or rag on the viewpoints that I express all you want, because I regard them as viewpoints that should be challenged, and sometimes ridiculed. What if I came here and said that it was good to rape women, and then decried anyone that spoke against my belief? From my perspective if I did that, I would be a bit of a hypocrite.

As I read it, Gatekeeper had a few words for his cuz's beliefs, and I did have a few words for the beliefs that Gatekeeper expressed. Not out of spite, out of interest. If someone drops the racquet and stops hitting the balls, I am happy to stop returning or serving them. I enjoy playing a bit of tennis... who said we can't all win? If anyone says my volley is foul, I am content to not play. I can be kept exceedingly busy elsewhere.

I don't understand Luecy, you always talk about the importance of relationships in your believes. But at the same time you go all out on a lot of people here. I don't see how that would lead to any good, relationship-wise, but resentment and frustration.

To my knowledge, I do not have a relationship with yourself or Gatekeeper. You are correct, I do value and I have spoken about the importance of relationships. In my best relationships I similarly talk about religion, politics, behavior, and the viewpoints of my family, friends, co-workers, or anyone that I interact with. You don't? 'We' do it at the dinner table, in a car, over the internet, in bed, at work, and even in a foreign country. I further appreciate it when others challenge, rebuke, or praise my beliefs and behavior. I can tell you this: I have met with a few who don't, and I often see relationships that are broken, mangled, and destroyed. You can't force a relationship, but if you hold your tongue to keep one, then the currents will come and blow it away.

I value the teaching of the venerable author in the Blue Man Group, which essentially stated that people tend to frequent an internet cafe to message with the people who are not there, yet to not interact with the people that they went there to drink coffee with. I am afraid that is very true. So I try to make foreign relationships based on my personal relationships, and personal relationships based on my relationship with foreigners. In case you are confused: just because we have exchanged words does not mean we have a relationship, and in my relationships we rest assuredly do exchange a wide flavor of words.

 

[radarmark]

Thanks for the explanation LUECY, and I apologize for mis-reading.

 

[Peacegiver]

Yes, and you will not get out until you say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

I come to you with peace in the name of the Lord my Father.

The kingdom of God is at hand.

The Lord who sent me says this;

"Walk in my presence and be blameless."

"Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of the earth, for I am God; there is no other!
By myself I swear, uttering my just decree and my unalterable word: To me every knee shall bend; by me every tongue shall swear,
Saying, Only in the Lord are just deeds and power.
In the Lord shall be the vindication and the glory of all the descendants of Israel."

"Call upon me and I will answer you, I will show you great things beyond the reach of your knowledge."

"My chosen ones shall inherit the land my servants shall dwell there."

"My servants shall be called by another name
By which he will be blessed on whom a blessing is invoked in the land; He who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth; For the hardships of the past shall be forgotten, and hidden from my eyes."

Those are not my words but the words of the Lord who sent me. I came down from heaven to do His will not my own.
Anyone who hears my words and has faith in the Lord who sent me possesses eternal life, they do not come under condemnation but have passed from death to life.

I am the resurrection and the One who lives. Anyone who believes in me even though he died he will come to life and anyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Luecy, a lot of people feel there are dos, don'ts and grey areas. If you ever feel that people take offence with what you say it might be because they feel you are aggressive, saying things a way that could be said another way out of respect for your fellow man. You also appear to take offence by the way I use the word relationship, I use the word in the context that all humans have relationship with everyone they interact with. I also now I know that you use it in a more precise definition, it might help me understand what you want to say in the future.

 

[luecy7]

Luecy, a lot of people feel there are dos, don'ts and grey areas. If you ever feel that people take offence with what you say it might be because they feel you are aggressive, saying things a way that could be said another way out of respect for your fellow man. You also appear to take offence by the way I use the word relationship, I use the word in the context that all humans have relationship with everyone they interact with. I also now I know that you use it in a more precise definition, it might help me understand what you want to say in the future.

False. I have used the word 'interact' to be more than an exchange of words. If you use the word 'interact' to be an exchange of words, then I regard a relationship to be more than an interaction. I am a human, so your context of 'all humans' does not truly encompass 'all humans'. If you regard an exchange of words to comprise a relationship, then I regard your relationships to be full of trigger words. As I once told a friend, "It is quicksand... get out why you can." He laughed, it went over her head, and we walked on. I am known to knowingly venture into an accoustic minefield, and I have certainly been accused of tripping someone else's mines, and I have most certainly set a few off.

If I have been offended by anything that anyone has ever said, then I have my own trigger words and I am in error of trying to control the speech of others. If that were the case then I would be committing an offense. If someone tries to moderate or control the speech of others, in my view they have committed an offense. Regardless of what I say, it does not mean that I am offended. Regardless of what someone else says, I do not necessarily regard them as being offended. I am exchanging words to help reveal and learn, nothing more. I am not trying to control your emotion, or your life, against your will. If a person has the programming of their own control loops, in their pursuit to control others, then they have likely developed their own trigger words. I regard such a person a serious hypocrite if they fault anyone for tripping their trigger words, because they laid their mines and invited others to go speaking in their garden. It has never been my intention to control someone with their trigger words, though you may accuse me of it. It is my intention to give them control, to honestly show them their trigger words. In my closest relationships, we play with trigger words and learn from them. If I tailor my speech, it is to make it honest for your context, in your language.

You seem to suggest that the way you use a word like 'relationship' is a trigger for me. You could say that 'we', 'relationship', 'faith', 'love', 'truth', 'meditate', etc... are my trigger words, but those words are perhaps the most often spoken on this forum. Are they banned? I use those words and I respond to those words, but I can also very easily ignore them. As a person uses any words, it helps to reveal what they think, and as I use words it helps to reveal what I think. I am happy to reveal, and I am happy to reveal in my relationships. With an exchange of words it is never my intention, and I consider it impossible, to control what another person thinks and believes. Are you trying to control what I think and believe?

I know why Gatekeeper may not be happy. I was not trying to make him happy, and I was not trying to make him angry. I was trying to be honest. As you use the terms, 'all humans', and 'everyone'... are you being honest with me?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'll just end this by saying that you don't seem to be interested in what I mean but more interested in you own voice. There's no exchange here, so good day.

Also: 'we', 'relationship', 'faith', 'love', 'truth' and 'meditate'!

 

[luecy7]

I'll just end this by saying that you don't seem to be interested in what I mean but more interested in you own voice. There's no exchange here, so good day.

Also: 'we', 'relationship', 'faith', 'love', 'truth' and 'meditate'!

Sorry you are unhappy. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Gate - I know you self-identify as a Christian (I'm not trying to label you, just trying to understand your perspective). Is there any biblical scripture that you have utilized to inform your belief in physical rebirth?

Indirectly, Jesus alludes to the rebirth of Elijah as John the baptist. Directly, Jesus says we must be born again to enter the kingdom. To me this implies two things ... Like Elijah we can be reborn on earth, or we can be reborn in heaven. The determining factor rests in how prepared we are for the kingdom.

Our willingness to live through the Spirit (love) of God in our present life will determine whether or not we are able to enter the kingdom, or be reborn back into this world for further preparation. Our faithfulness to the will of God, which is to simply love one another, will decide our fate in our next life. That's how I understand it anyway.

 

[Gatekeeper]

So you recite that the wages of sin is death, but then suggest that the sin of Jesus was to be born of a woman. Interesting thought. Sort of like saying it was his fault for living here. You say that Jesus died like you, but from your words it does not sound like you would be willing to die like Jesus.

Jesus humbled himself and chose to be born on earth. He never sinned according to the scriptures. He was sent to save us. He came to free us from all that destroys. He came to show us the way, the truth, and the life through the life he himself lived. His desire was to fulfill God's will. He never faltered in his love for us.

I submit that it is further up to us to choose whether to allow others to have the choice of whether we live or die.

I think in some cases, others force their will upon our own. Look at the death Jesus endured. He could have left his disciples to fend for themselves, or he could do what he did and turn himself over to the soldiers.

I believe you said that you would love to hear the board members view of what hell is. I am not shaping my view for the purpose of agreement, nor disagreement. Seeing a different viewpoint, I think it is good to state and explore it.

Sure

You say 'we' as if everyone must be like you. Do you include Jesus in your 'we', and teach that Jesus did NOT know with certainty? Or, do you include the next victim of a crime in your 'we', and teach that the victim must know that their world is about to become a place of suffering and torment? I find that people have a different frame of reference, and a different degree of knowing with certainty.

I think what happens after death is unknown for us. Jesus was privy to information the rest of us are not privy to, however. The best we can do is speculate, explore, and try to understand the best we are able. If it makes you happy, I can quit using the term we from here on out. Maybe you don't recognize the suffering in this world. I myself suffered for many years. Today, I've been blessed with a very good and pleasant life. I'm continually learning how to better my self and my life by living according to God's will. That's not to say that I won't endure further hardship, but my attitude is as such that I am better prepared to deal with it.

 

[luecy7]

If it makes you happy, I can quit using the term we from here on out.

I appreciate those who think, do, and speak honestly per the golden rule.

Today, I've been blessed with a very good and pleasant life. I'm continually learning how to better my self and my life by living according to God's will.

I recall a person who claimed to be a Christian and walked around pronouncing that he was blessed. I would respond, "Are you going to be a blessing today?" It was often very distant from his mind and his actions.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I appreciate those who think, do, and speak honestly per the golden rule.


I recall a person who claimed to be a Christian and walked around pronouncing that he was blessed. I would respond, "Are you going to be a blessing today?" It was often very distant from his mind and his actions.

That's the beauty of walking in and living through love. Not only are those who know love blessed, they inevitably become a blessing to others also. Actions speak louder than words of course, which is why I think love is more than a warm fuzzy to be felt. It is likewise a way of life.

 

[luecy7]

That's the beauty of walking in and living through love. Not only are those who know love blessed, they inevitably become a blessing to others also.

Let me try your theory: "That's the beauty of walking in and living through money. Not only are those who know and have money blessed, they inevitably become a blessing to others also." All I did was a word substitute. The word 'sin' fits even better. Have you heard the term, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" You get to judge what 'love' and 'beauty' are. You spoke of someone forcing their will upon another person, but you deny your own responsibility and willful choice as you use the word 'inevitable'.

Actions speak louder than words of course, which is why I think love is more than a warm fuzzy to be felt. It is likewise a way of life.

Somehow I do not think it was warm and fuzzy up on the cross.

 

[radarmark]

Ah, but the benefits of love to the lover are not questioned, right, Luecy?

I see no "forcing of will" in GK's remarks. It's just that those of us who really do try to live in love (both receiving and giving) believe that “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Love may not conquer all, but it would seem to be an emulation of the L-rd, and since the L-rd is, indeed, architect of the universe, it is a good chance that (unless the L-rd loses) love is inevitably a blessing.

I believe GK is closer to the L-rd's intention than some of you think.