No Hell and everyone gets saved

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:57 pm

The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

by Shirina Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:17 am

I could never get over how worship seemed to be the key to salvation according to mainstream Christianity. Believing in God, worshiping God, and making God the center of your life was how one walked through the pearly gates. That has always baffled me. Why would such a powerful and wise entity need - even demand - our love and worship? Not only does this trait smack of narcissism but also megalomania ... which are not traits I would want my God to have. After all, we are taught that we don't end up in Hell because we do bad things; we're all sinners, after all, so doing bad things is par for the course. No, we are sent to Hell for not repenting, and saying sorry to the people you've hurt is not good enough. It has to be penitence to God. We are sent to Hell for not believing - or for believing in a different God. As the cherry on top, blasphemy is the only unforgivable sin! Of all the heinous, unspeakable acts of brutality Man can inflict on his fellow Man, blasphemy is the only sin God will not forgive.

If you add all of this up ... and there's plenty more ... we have a very egocentric God! Something isn't right, but believers tend to look the other way or, worse still, acknowledge it and then rationalize it away. These traits are not the hallmark of a perfect being. In fact, they represent some of the worst traits found in humanity.

Either the real God is completely different than the one people worship - or there is no God at all. And if there is a God, that God has little or no interest in humanity given that the world isn't awash in miracles. So yes, I agree, the idea of Hell is ludicrous, especially eternal damnation.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:00 am

I'm not here today and gone tomorrow,
I'm here today and gone tonight!

If we're not right about Salvation or eternal damnation, return here for a full refund.

by JP Cusick Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:40 pm

Shirina wrote:I could never get over how worship seemed to be the key to salvation according to mainstream Christianity. Believing in God, worshiping God, and making God the center of your life was how one walked through the pearly gates. That has always baffled me. Why would such a powerful and wise entity need - even demand - our love and worship? Not only does this trait smack of narcissism but also megalomania ... which are not traits I would want my God to have. After all, we are taught that we don't end up in Hell because we do bad things; we're all sinners, after all, so doing bad things is par for the course. No, we are sent to Hell for not repenting, and saying sorry to the people you've hurt is not good enough. It has to be penitence to God. We are sent to Hell for not believing - or for believing in a different God. As the cherry on top, blasphemy is the only unforgivable sin! Of all the heinous, unspeakable acts of brutality Man can inflict on his fellow Man, blasphemy is the only sin God will not forgive.

If you add all of this up ... and there's plenty more ... we have a very egocentric God! Something isn't right, but believers tend to look the other way or, worse still, acknowledge it and then rationalize it away. These traits are not the hallmark of a perfect being. In fact, they represent some of the worst traits found in humanity.

Either the real God is completely different than the one people worship - or there is no God at all. And if there is a God, that God has little or no interest in humanity given that the world isn't awash in miracles. So yes, I agree, the idea of Hell is ludicrous, especially eternal damnation.

That is so very well said, and true.

It is so very enlightened, and sincere.

That you have my compliments and my cheers.

by astra Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:24 pm

The village I was born in had two edifices for the Church of Scotland, the Old and the New.
The minister in the Old Kirk was from the Islands - a REAL Bible Thumper! He had me and the rest of class trembling one time when he took end of term sermon - boy he went for it! You know as well as I do that when you are 14 years old, you #1 know it all, #2 are indestructible, #3 have a right to what ever you desire! (OK maybe you bypassed that bit!) Even the old ladies on leaving were known to say that they did not know where they wanted to go as and when - - - - - after his sermons.

The minister in the New Church was the opposite - non confrontational and very complementary. He did get in trouble with the parish when he lickened some of his parisioners to those mentioned in Burns' poem "To a Louse" What transpired was that some "New Church" parisioners joined the Old Kirk Congregation, to be challenged by our Bible Thumper if they "Couldna tak' the truth?"
Religion got very intresting for a time, as the two combatants smote each other and the congregations, who just sat and took it! Link

by trevorw2539 Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:03 pm

JP Cusick wrote:The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

Luke 16?

by trevorw2539 Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:18 pm

JP Cusick wrote:The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

1 Corinthians 3:15. Paul is writing to Christians. Assuming the readers have accepted Christ, as Paul does, the reader is 'saved'. It is any of his worthless acts (building) that will be burnt up while the builder will be safe through his initial acceptance (foundation) of Christ.

I have my own doubts about 'Hell' but that does not alter Paul's interpretation in his writings.

by Shirina Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:01 pm

In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

What's interesting here is the use of the word "Hades" rather than "Hell" as the name for this place of torment. The Bible is merely a amalgamation of beliefs taken from just about every conceivable culture including Egypt, Sumeria, and even paganism. Is this to say that the Greeks managed to get everything wrong except for the concept of Hades? In fact, Hades was not a place, but a god! In a religion so keen on proclaiming Jehovah as the one and only God, even suggesting such a name like Hades would be tantamount to blasphemy. Yet there it is. Incidentally, it is Greek mythology that binds us to the notion of Heaven and Hell; the realm of Hades was a place to go where one is judged, and then the soul is blessed or cursed. Then the soul is either transferred to Elysium (Heaven) or Tartarus (Hell). Sound familiar? It should. The Bible simply plagiarized the the concept straight from Greek mythology.

It is also of note to realize that Hades (or Hell) is mentioned as a place of fiery torment only once in the entire Bible, and that is in Luke 16. Now, for a concept so important to "fire and brimstone" type preachers, one would naturally think that Hades or Hell would be a central topic of the Bible. It isn't. Just like the Anti-Christ is only mentioned a handful of times, modern preachers have twisted Christianity to revolve itself around concepts given the scantest mention in holy texts. Hell, the Anti-Christ, and the Rapture barely rank as footnotes and yet the entire structure of Christianity is focused on these tiny, even insignificant points - points that were plagiarized from the cultures of others.

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:30 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:

Luke 16?

Luke 16, linked HERE, is just a parable, much like Jesus referred to people as sheep and Himself as a "door" as it is not meant to be taken as literally.

If Jesus actually meant that we had better believe in Him and do exactly as He commands or else He will burn each one of us in some immortal Hell then He certainly never came straight out and said that, and He had no right not to properly and factually tell us such a thing if that is what He has in store for us sinners - but no.

And if Hell were real then both Adam and Eve have been long burning in that Hell just for the sin of eating the forbidden fruit, along with Egypt's Pharaoh and other people burning, so what if our original parents of humanity are being tortured and are we to accept that as okay and fine and call it love as in love thy enemy - no.

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:03 am

In one of the apocryphal texts - I'd have to look up exactly which one - it is written than Hell is merely a place where souls go to be cleansed of their sin. Like with many other belief systems, this cleansing is painful but temporary. Once the cleansing is complete, the souls are brought to Heaven to live with the Lord like any other good and pious citizen. Of course, Men - ordinary human beings - sat around and decided which of these books were canon and which were not as if they had the authority or the credentials to decide which books were the Word of God. However, in one of the rejected texts, the nature of Hell was revealed. But the Church was worried that people would simply live sinful lives and pay the fine (so to speak) knowing they would go to Heaven. They couldn't have that, so that bit of information was conveniently removed. Who really knows what religion is even supposed to be about these days so heavily has it been tinkered with throughout the ages.

Of course, on occasion I have referred to the Bible as "A Prude's Guide to Bronze Age Sex" since that seems to be what modern Christians focus on.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:37 am

Heaven and Hell. Otherwise described as Carrot and Stick.

by Charlatan Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:20 pm

So where id the concept of hell come from? I guess that they must have been visited by spirits that claim this? Where would someone come up with that idea?

Not forgiving others is fruit of unforgiveness, and when someone shows unforgiveness, they are also not forgiven. Why must we be forgiven? Why should we be forgiven? There is no easy way into heaven, only the loving shall venture there.

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:34 pm

Charlatan wrote:

So where id the concept of hell come from? I guess that they must have been visited by spirits that claim this? Where would someone come up with that idea?

The idea and concept of a "Hell" appears to have originated into Christianity from the old Greek religion because the Bible's New Testament is written in Greek, and "Hades" is the root word for the hell.

Hades link here = New World Encyclopedia - Hades.

Charlatan wrote:

Not forgiving others is fruit of unforgiveness, and when someone shows unforgiveness, they are also not forgiven. Why must we be forgiven? Why should we be forgiven? There is no easy way into heaven, only the loving shall venture there.

Being "forgiven" is only for those that want it, because it is not a requirement of salvation, and by being and staying unforgiven we can keep it as our own cross to carry.

The Bible says that God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, and that means enemies - as in NOT friends or forgiven, as like if one is forgiven and changed into a friend then that is loving thy friend and not loving thy enemy.

We can not change an "enemy" into a friend and then love thy friend who use to be thy enemy - no.

So it is NOT just the loving who get saved - no, it is all us dirty rotten sinners who get saved, and rightly so.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:46 pm

it is all us dirty rotten sinners who get saved

From what?

by Charlatan Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:45 pm

oftenwrong wrote: it is all us dirty rotten sinners who get saved

From what?

Now that is a good question!

by Guest Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:50 am

oftenwrong wrote:
it is all us dirty rotten sinners who get saved

From what?

Charlatan wrote:
Now that is a good question!

Here’s a good answer, from Jesus:

But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him; and he will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep on the right, and the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.”

Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

The King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me.”

Then he will also say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels,

For I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.”

Then they themselves also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of you?”

Then he will answer them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew Chapter 25 Verses 31-46

Any who wish to discuss Jesus’ words (as opposed to any others’ words), I’m goo to go.

by JP Cusick Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:36 am

oftenwrong wrote:

it is all us dirty rotten sinners who get saved

From what?

That is an excellent question, and the answer is that people needed to be saved from death.

To die is the evil, as each person is valuable, and each person is a child (son or daughter) of God, so death is a sin against God.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

Since God is the Father or Creator of humanity, then if God did not save all of His children then God would be the sinner.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:12 pm

I love it when retards try to apply human morality to God...it just shows how clueless they truly are.

God is, if you believe in Him, the absolute and ultimate authority for what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the universe....if He says "Do what I tell your or your punishment is a burning hell", then it's His absolute right to do so. It is not "sinful" or "evil".

As an atheist, it's really not my problem...however, it's always fun to see the clueless try to make sense of their own rationalizations.

by Shirina Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:56 pm

As an atheist, it's really not my problem...however, it's always fun to see the clueless try to make sense of their own rationalizations.

What you're describing is the God of Randomness. The "I'll do what I please when I please to whomever I please" God. You're talking about the God that creates beings and then kills them or tortures them - kind of reminds me of my idiot cousin who would buy mice from the pet store and then torture them to death. But you're missing the point entirely. It's not about whether God can, should, or would do anything he wants. It's this ridiculous belief that God is the God of Love, the embodiment of all that is good, just, and right in the universe. I get a little peeved when a being that has the sociopathic tendencies to literally and eternally torment sentient beings is ascribed such ridiculous attributes. God is NOT love, and as I indicated in an earlier post, the God Christians worship is false because any "God of Love" would not demand a blood sacrifice to himself (Christ), much less all of the other meaningless claptrap people believe in regards to the OT.

But ... even though you're missing the point, YOUR point is still wrong, at least from a believer's point of view. Most believers claim we get our morality from God. Well, there you go. End of argument. We're not assigning "human morality" to God, but rather, the other way around. Given God's penchant for genocide, Hitler should be sainted if not deified, for being the most god-like of us all.

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:37 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

I love it when (censored) try to apply human morality to God...it just shows how clueless they truly are.

God is, if you believe in Him, the absolute and ultimate authority for what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the universe....if He says "Do what I tell your or your punishment is a burning hell", then it's His absolute right to do so. It is not "sinful" or "evil".

As an atheist, it's really not my problem...however, it's always fun to see the clueless try to make sense of their own rationalizations.

Actually "human morality" is the only kind of morality.

So if human morality were not applied to God then the God would not have any morality.

And I do not see how you can claim to be an "Atheist" and then claim that God is this and God is that and God has to be so and so, etc, as those claims of yours makes so you are not an Atheist.

I like Atheism but I also believe in a real God and I do not agree with your Atheist claims about the God.

So to believe in God does not mean we have to take God as the "absolute authority" about right and wrong, as my understanding is that God expects each of us to use our own conscience and to judge right from wrong accordingly.

And if you look at the opening post of this thread then I declare with certainty that God and the Bible does NOT tell of any "hell" so burning souls in a hell is NOT some absolute right of any such God - as you claim.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:01 pm

I can have an exhaustive knowledge of Christianity without actually believing in it. Having spent 20+ years in a fundamental Christian environment, I'm not just guessing at what "Christians" are like and how they think.

I get plenty of laughs reading that people think that they have "rights" which God may or may not be violating. If you believe in God, you have NO rights beyond what He gives you...do what He says or be punished. The idea that God would be constrained by "human rights" and not violating them is so ludicrous that only the truly insane would think it rationale.

This is the problem with people who claim to be "Christians"....they really, truly don't believe in the God of their faith. If people truly believed that there was a God who'd hold them accoutable for their actions in this life, they'd certainly act quite differently.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:01 pm

Happy Thanksgiving, Shirina...

by Shirina Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:24 pm

The idea that God would be constrained by "human rights" and not violating them is so ludicrous that only the truly insane would think it rationale.

It's not unreasonable at all. The reason is because of how Christians define God. For instance, God is defined as being perfect. But what does that mean, exactly? If you ask any Christian on the street, he/she will likely tell you that God is "perfectly" loving, "perfectly" just, "perfectly" compassionate.

Okay ... but there is a problem here. God is limited by His own perfection. In other words, God cannot act imperfectly even if He wished to - and wishing to would, in itself, be a mark of imperfection.

It gets even worse. God is also described by just about every Christian as being omniscient, and there are plenty of scriptures that bear this out. Omniscient in this case means God knows everything, and since God is also eternal, it means God has ALWAYS known everything. This, in turn, means that God knows your ultimate fate, and has always known even before you were born, even before you were created. Therefore, creating a human being who, in God's eyes, was damned to Hell from the very beginning is hardly fair, just, loving, or compassionate. It's akin to hiring someone who was preordained to fail, then punishing the worker for failing. Well duh! You knew what was going to happen, so whose fault was it - really!

This logic is irrefutable, Oz, and despite the best efforts of Christians to weasel out of it, I have never seen anyone successfully offer up a counter argument. God is either what Christians describe him as, which means my logic applies. Or God isn't what Christians claim him to be, so what in blazes are they worshiping? Or are they merely worshiping a construct of human wishful thinking? As an atheist - yourself included - one would HAVE to admit that God is a figment of our imaginations, and that means, like it or not, we really can ascribe human morality to God because God himself is a human construct. This is proven beyond doubt when one observes the logical inconsistencies with God being all-powerful and all-knowing. Since humanity is often an illogical species, it only stands to reason that their God would be equally as illogical.

And he is.

by Shirina Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:25 pm

Happy Thanksgiving, Shirina...

You too, Oz. Hope you have a good time getting fat on turkey and watching football LOL! That's what happens at my family's home. Eat the turkey then fall asleep on the couch during the game.

by JP Cusick Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:40 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

I can have an exhaustive knowledge of Christianity without actually believing in it. Having spent 20+ years in a fundamental Christian environment, I'm not just guessing at what "Christians" are like and how they think.

I get plenty of laughs reading that people think that they have "rights" which God may or may not be violating. If you believe in God, you have NO rights beyond what He gives you...do what He says or be punished. The idea that God would be constrained by "human rights" and not violating them is so ludicrous that only the truly insane would think it rationale.

This is the problem with people who claim to be "Christians"....they really, truly don't believe in the God of their faith. If people truly believed that there was a God who'd hold them accountable for their actions in this life, they'd certainly act quite differently.

You are making a huge error here by viewing your "20+ years in a fundamental Christian environment" as a true representation of the Bible or of Jesus or of the Gospel and it was NOT and it still is not.

That you would reject the Christianity of the world's Christians is understandable and even righteous, but to base your Atheism or a rejection of God based on that "fundamental Christian environment" makes your basis as flawed and unsound.

I myself accept Christ but not Christianity, and I say the many Atheist beliefs have far more truths then does most Christians beliefs.

You are severely mistaken to believe that God does not respect human rights, and note particularly Jesus saying to "feed the hungry, clothe naked, visit those in prison" per Matthew 25:44-45

My belief based on my finding is that God being a creator means an inventor, as the Bible tells that God created the Angels but then the Angels rebelled and that plan fell apart, so later God created humanity and that plan too fell apart as Adam and Eve doomed us all, and later with the flood God destroyed people because His creation had again failed, and even sending Jesus Christ the people rejected Him as that was another reality gone sour.

The thing here is that humanity is a very powerful and sophisticated invention, so that we are not just little insignificant persons.

It is like humanity created the Space Shuttle, and it was the smartest and most complicated invention that humans could possible create at that time, so the Creators did not want the Space Shuttle to blow up once or to burn up on another occasion, and when those sad things did happen then the human creators and inventors cried and felt awful as their great invention went wrong.

We humans in the image of God being creators and inventors - then humanity is a super complicated invention and our creator God has invested a huge part of Himself into His creation, and so God is not absolute because we in humanity have our own separate controls.

Of course that is unorthodox, but since we all know that the orthodox teaching are wrong, then the truth is to be found in the unorthodox.

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:04 pm

I have a few questions for you, Mr. Cusick as it would appear we may be on opposite sides in this particular discussion.

I myself accept Christ but not Christianity, and I say the many Atheist beliefs have far more truths then does most Christians beliefs.

Here you claim that you reject Christianity yet, in the next paragraph you claim to believe in angels and the story of Adam and Eve. What you have done is do what all Christians do - interpret the Bible so that it suits you. For me, I am agnostic about god (depending on how god is defined) but an atheist about religion. The fables and stories in the Bible are part and parcel of religion. One can find nuggets of wisdom from Christ's teachings, but the Old Testament, IMO, is filled with nothing but quaint little metaphors plagiarized from other cultures and spun with a Hebrew and/or Arabic slant. I just find it hard to imagine anyone in this day and age believing in forbidden fruit, talking snakes, etc. There are thousands of old wives tales that explain our natural world through the use of folklore (rather than science). The common folkloric "thunder is really angels bowling in heaven" is a widely known example - but only a child actually believes that.

Therefore, hearing about how the snake was created when God took away the serpent's feet as punishment for Satan's deception, or how childbirth was made painful as punishment for Eve's disobedience, well, they have that same folkloric ring. I also find it interesting how just about every entity involved in the Adam and Eve story was punished - except for Adam. The male in the story is portrayed as a victim of a woman's wiles and therefore, males were not punished with some generational penalty like painful childbirth. No, this isn't because religion is inherently sexist (even though it is), but rather because there was really nothing about the male that needed explaining. Men do not have any issues specific to men that required a folkloric explanation for.

So I suppose the question is - do you truly reject Christianity as a religion? Or do you merely reject the mainstream ideas of said religion and have simply tweaked it a little bit?

and so God is not absolute because we in humanity have our own separate controls.

Does this mean you believe that God is not omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible?

by JP Cusick Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:06 pm

Shirina wrote:

I have a few questions for you, Mr. Cusick as it would appear we may be on opposite sides in this particular discussion.

Here you claim that you reject Christianity yet, in the next paragraph you claim to believe in angels and the story of Adam and Eve. What you have done is do what all Christians do - interpret the Bible so that it suits you. For me, I am agnostic about god (depending on how god is defined) but an atheist about religion. The fables and stories in the Bible are part and parcel of religion. One can find nuggets of wisdom from Christ's teachings, but the Old Testament, IMO, is filled with nothing but quaint little metaphors plagiarized from other cultures and spun with a Hebrew and/or Arabic slant. I just find it hard to imagine anyone in this day and age believing in forbidden fruit, talking snakes, etc. There are thousands of old wives tales that explain our natural world through the use of folklore (rather than science). The common folkloric "thunder is really angels bowling in heaven" is a widely known example - but only a child actually believes that.

Therefore, hearing about how the snake was created when God took away the serpent's feet as punishment for Satan's deception, or how childbirth was made painful as punishment for Eve's disobedience, well, they have that same folkloric ring. I also find it interesting how just about every entity involved in the Adam and Eve story was punished - except for Adam. The male in the story is portrayed as a victim of a woman's wiles and therefore, males were not punished with some generational penalty like painful childbirth. No, this isn't because religion is inherently sexist (even though it is), but rather because there was really nothing about the male that needed explaining. Men do not have any issues specific to men that required a folkloric explanation for.

So I suppose the question is - do you truly reject Christianity as a religion? Or do you merely reject the mainstream ideas of said religion and have simply tweaked it a little bit?

I really do far more than tweak or stretch Christianity as I take it very far out of the mainstream ideas, and I do this because my research took me out there, and mine is correct.

As like I do say I do believe in Angels and ghost and spirits of assorted persuasions, but my definition of such things is far different than that of accepted religious claims. As like "Angel" means a type of life form and it does not mean the pretty white winged Angels of Christmas ideals - no, as in some Angels are known to kill people and others have attitude problems while others are unknown, and the word Angel only means messenger so they call them selves as the Messengers (or equivalent in Hebrew language). If we do meet some alien form of life as from Mars then we might call them as Martians and expect them to be little green men, but they would not call them selves by our terminology, and so "Angels" is just our inaccurate name for a strange sort of life form. Much like the name "God" is also very inaccurate terminology.

I do not take the Bible as literal or as the word of God or as infallible, even if it can be termed as "inspired", and I do know the Bible is full of fantasy and fables and some parts just rubbish, but we can distinguish the better parts and accurate parts of the Bible from the nonsense parts, and I have learned how to do that very effectively.

The "Garden of Eden" along with Adam and Eve are not to be taken as literal history but it is not to be discarded as nonsense either.

For me I try to discuss things on the level of the other person, so some one with the childish ideas of like "just believe and be saved" then my discussions become far more limited, while you are obviously far more sophisticated then many if not most other people.

I had never heard it interpreted that the serpent lost its feet in that exchange but I find that amusing. My own interpretation includes that a serpent does not necessarily mean a snake as it can mean some thing else.

My own study of the Bible is largely based on what we call as Modern Biblical scholarly Criticism, link HERE, and an example is given by the NIV between Mark 16:8 and verse 9 link HERE, as it declares = [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] This kind of criticism is now known in every part of the Bible as we now have the stuff exposed.

According to the professional scholars the earliest and original book of the Bible is called as the "J source" (the J referring to Yahweh source as in German the J is pronounced as a Y), link HERE. That "J source" is the original book of the Bible and it begins at the second half of the sentence in Genesis 2:4, link HERE, where the name of Yahweh is first used. And they give evidence that that original "book of J" was written by a Woman and they are probably correct given the evidence. The first chapter of Genesis 1:1 through that Genesis 2:4b was added on later by the Jewish scribes while they were in Babylonian captivity many centuries later (the 12th century BCE), which is why Genesis 1 is full of Babylonian religious influence.

Some stories in the Bible as like Jonah being swallowed by a fish and the book of Daniel and many reports concerning King David are fictional as like they were children fables, link = Titus 1:14, as like our stories today of "Jack and the beanstalk" or "King Author of the round table", as they are kids' stories which were not to be taken as literal truth.

Shirina wrote:

Does this mean you believe that God is not omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible?

Correct, the thing we call as God is super powerful yes, but it is not omniscient, omnipotent, or infallible.

And in fact the Bible does not teach nor say any of those things, while instead the Bible repeatedly declares otherwise.

by Shirina Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:00 pm

As like I do say I do believe in Angels and ghost and spirits of assorted persuasions, but my definition of such things is far different than that of accepted religious claims.

As do I, especially since I lived in a haunted house throughout my adolescence, and hundreds of people have had experiences there over the years. I tend to see things through secular eyes, however, and simply acknowledge the existence of other dimensions, other realities, and other possibilities many of which have already been proven to exist through theoretical physics, advanced cosmology, and mathematics I could never hope to understand. For that reason, I cannot dismiss the possibility of "life after death," for the Great Veil has yet to have a true explorer who came back with a journal detailing his experiences.

And my previous paragraph segues into the original topic of this thread. I have looked at and heard many accounts of the phenomenon known as Near Death Experience (NDE), but is the name of this phenomenon true? Or is it a misnomer? After all, was the person only nearly dead or was he literally and truly dead? Knowing this makes a big difference when analyzing it. However, large numbers of NDE experiencers have reported seeing their loved ones waiting for him/her at the end of a tunnel of light. Yet no one has ever come back from such an experience and said, "My grandma wasn't there because she was an atheist" or "no one was there for me because the rest of my family were devout hindus." In fact, no one has reported a conspicuous absence of loved one(s) and apparently everyone who should have been there was, in fact, present. It would seem to vindicate the belief that there is no hell and no eternal torment reserved for non-believers.

I read your link and noticed at the bottom of one of the articles a criticism was waged against your method of Biblical interpretation. According to what was written, some people feel that your method is "outdated." How would you respond to such criticism?

My own interpretation includes that a serpent does not necessarily mean a snake as it can mean some thing else.

I have always interpreted a serpent as a lizard or even a dragon of sorts. More modern depictions always portray the offending "serpent" as already being a snake, but that is only because modernity has broadened the definition of a serpent to include just about all reptiles, including dragons.

Correct, the thing we call as God is super powerful yes, but it is not omniscient, omnipotent, or infallible.

An interesting and very rare take on God. It could (and should) be asked, then, if you think this being is truly "God" and is this entity truly deserving of the title based on how most of us perceive divinity? Worshiping an imperfect being, regardless of its raw power, seems a thorough waste of time. What you describe sounds more like a highly advanced and perhaps innately powerful extraterrestrial entity rather than an eternal God.

And in fact the Bible does not teach nor say any of those things, while instead the Bible repeatedly declares otherwise.

Hmm, I'm fairly certain the Bible does claim God's omniscience and other superlative descriptions. For instance 1 John 3:19-20 and Psalm 139:4 give an account of God's omniscience. Matt 19:26 and Luke 1:37 shows God's omnipotence. Matt 5:48 talks about God's perfection. I would be interested to hear your interpretation of these passages.

by astra Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:32 pm

God is never malicious, but he can be capricious

Albert Einstein

by whitbyforklift Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:19 pm

I would imagine you guys believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well?

by JP Cusick Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:00 pm

Shirina wrote:

As do I, especially since I lived in a haunted house throughout my adolescence, and hundreds of people have had experiences there over the years. I tend to see things through secular eyes, however, and simply acknowledge the existence of other dimensions, other realities, and other possibilities many of which have already been proven to exist through theoretical physics, advanced cosmology, and mathematics I could never hope to understand. For that reason, I cannot dismiss the possibility of "life after death," for the Great Veil has yet to have a true explorer who came back with a journal detailing his experiences.

This was my own predicament in that I first knew about ghost and spirits and demons from my childhood onward, so this was a big help in motivating me to research the subject including reading the Bible. As such I did not study or research things like the Bible based on any religious doctrine but to seek explanations of such spirits or ghost outside of the Bible in real life.

The existence of spirits or ghost has never impressed upon me the idea of life after death because I do not see the spirits or ghost as being human souls floating around, but they do give me a real perception of a God because spirit life is a strong proof of a God or the possibility of such. I have other proofs of God as like prophesy, and things like the "Big Bang" is a proof of the Bible's creation day.

Shirina wrote:

And my previous paragraph segues into the original topic of this thread. I have looked at and heard many accounts of the phenomenon known as Near Death Experience (NDE), but is the name of this phenomenon true? Or is it a misnomer? After all, was the person only nearly dead or was he literally and truly dead? Knowing this makes a big difference when analyzing it. However, large numbers of NDE experiencers have reported seeing their loved ones waiting for him/her at the end of a tunnel of light. Yet no one has ever come back from such an experience and said, "My grandma wasn't there because she was an atheist" or "no one was there for me because the rest of my family were devout hindus." In fact, no one has reported a conspicuous absence of loved one(s) and apparently everyone who should have been there was, in fact, present. It would seem to vindicate the belief that there is no hell and no eternal torment reserved for non-believers.

I have big doubts about near death claims or coming back to life claims, but I do not doubt their stories or their honesty or even their perception.

The Bible teaches that there is to be some later resurrection and that resurrection is to be the coming back to life, and the claims of an immortal soul living after death is Christian nonsense that does not come from the Bible or from any other credible religious text throughout every other religion. Of course that is me using the scriptures as the authority in this regard while I do testify myself that some of the ghost or spirits either knew the deceased persons or else there is some other connection so I do not know such as for certain.

I say we need more research into spirits and ghost, but the people coming back to life is not the place for me to place my doctrine onto.

Shirina wrote:

I read your link and noticed at the bottom of one of the articles a criticism was waged against your method of Biblical interpretation. According to what was written, some people feel that your method is "outdated." How would you respond to such criticism?

I say it is a peculiar thing that we find the best of truths from our enemies.

I knew that link had the negative critique but it tells many other things which I wanted to be told.

I expected you as I expect anyone to use your own judgement for that link which apparently you did. Otherwise I had no better link to post for that particular information.

Biblical Criticism being called "outdated" is a strange kind of oxymoron, since the Bible is far older then is the criticism, link HERE.

And it is an interesting note that the real reason that we have the Bible today is because of the conflicts and hostilities between the Christians and the Jews and the Muslims, because each one of them forced the other to maintain the records within a reasonable order, because each of the enemies would have had grounds to denounce the other accordingly if they tampered with the text.

Often times I have found the best of truths from people trying to claim some thing far different then that truth.

Shirina wrote:

An interesting and very rare take on God. It could (and should) be asked, then, if you think this being is truly "God" and is this entity truly deserving of the title based on how most of us perceive divinity? Worshiping an imperfect being, regardless of its raw power, seems a thorough waste of time. What you describe sounds more like a highly advanced and perhaps innately powerful extraterrestrial entity rather than an eternal God.

I agree that what I am declaring is a strange way of viewing the God thing, but upon research on top of research it always comes out this way.

The very word "God" is an English word which essentially means an idol, as in statues and icons as the God, and the Hebrew Bible has extremely different words for the thing we so casually and incorrectly call as God.

Even the idea of "worship" is a terminology from idolatry, as in worshiping idols, while the real God (entity) of the Bible tells us to obey commandments and to live by principles and NOT to bow down in worship.

Jesus said this = "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." KJV, link = Mark 7:5-9

As to the God thing being perhaps an "innately powerful extraterrestrial entity" then that does fit into the Biblical descriptions, but I myself can not declare that much with certainty. Jesus said a strange thing here = "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." As in 2000 years ago to say that He comes from another "world" gives a new or different meaning to such a claim in today's world.

Shirina wrote:

Hmm, I'm fairly certain the Bible does claim God's omniscience and other superlative descriptions. For instance 1 John 3:19-20 and Psalm 139:4 give an account of God's omniscience. Matt 19:26 and Luke 1:37 shows God's omnipotence. Matt 5:48 talks about God's perfection. I would be interested to hear your interpretation of these passages.

1 John 3:19-20: It is saying that God knows all things as in all right from wrong things and NOT that God is peeking into a person's heart. And we too know the hearts of many other people by the way they talk and how they act, but we are not really peeking inside of their hearts or their souls. Many people know exactly what it is like to be on the Moon or onto Mars without ever going there. So God knowing all things does not need to be interpreted so extensively or absolute. It also says in that verse that we condemn ourselves while God does not.

Psalm 139: The same here as above, that God (Yahweh) knowing everything does not mean He is reading the person's mind. And the book of Psalms are said to have just been old Synagog songs, and the Psalms are said to be prophesies ONLY about the coming Savior / Messiah and NOT about every individual person, and it does not say omniscient or omnipotent.

Matthew 19:23-30 and Luke 1:37: As they both say "nothing is impossible" for God then that also means that it is not yet done, and it is not prophesied as it is not done yet, so it means with some due work and effort THEN then God can get stuff done. And I do declare that we can find the exact same thing said by science, in that nothing is impossible for science if we just have the time to work it out. Neither God nor science are claiming omniscient or omnipotent or infallibility in their same claim. Also shown in that link text is that God can save everyone - verses 25-26.

Matthew 5:43-48: This one I like best, because the word "perfect" has a perfect meaning, which is that the correct meaning of perfect is to be correctly useful or full of use. As in if a hammer is needed and the hammer used does the job then it is a perfect hammer because it fulfilled its purpose. If a car is to deliver its passengers from point A over to point B and it fulfills that usage then that was a perfect car. A perfect television set means it worked perfectly as a TV. In that passage Jesus explains that God is "perfect" because He loves His enemies, as in Jesus explains the criteria and then shows how we and God fulfills it accordingly. Plus those verses 43-48 is a demonstration that there is no such place as a hell and every person will be saved because God perfectly loves His enemies.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:57 am

JP Cusick wrote:The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

Dante Alighieri disagreed with you, as have quite a few "expert" theologians.

That aside are you claiming that Hitler, Satlin, or Pol Pot have as much chance of salvation as anyone else as long as they believed in god?

Personally I find that notion repulsive.

In the extremely unlikely event I lose my marbles and start believing in ancient superstitions, then I'd be very disappointed on receiving my reward to find Fred West there.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:18 am

JP Cusick wrote: ...
1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.
2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.
3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.
...

Does that not depend on what hell is for? You should try reading Inferno by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle (not Dante Smile

) which might give you pause for thought.

JP Cusick wrote: ... and God does not hurt people, ...

You have read the Old Testament haven't you? How about a history of the Roman Catholic Church?

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:23 am

JP Cusick wrote: ...
Correct, the thing we call as God is super powerful yes, but it is not omniscient, omnipotent, or infallible....

So a bit like the president of the US of A but with fewer nukes then? Laughing

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:50 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.
Dante Alighieri disagreed with you, as have quite a few "expert" theologians.

That aside are you claiming that Hitler, Satlin, or Pol Pot have as much chance of salvation as anyone else as long as they believed in god?

Personally I find that notion repulsive.

In the extremely unlikely event I lose my marbles and start believing in ancient superstitions, then I'd be very disappointed on receiving my reward to find Fred West there.

I certainly do not like Dante and his nonsense.

Apparently lots of people find it repulsive that everyone gets saved even horrible evil people like Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, and all scoundrels, but that is the plan.

I figure that same reasoning is why people cling to the barbaric idea of a literal "Hell" simply because everyone being saved is so repulsive to the unenlightened mentality.

Actually when we take away their power and their evil then they too are just lost souls as are we all.

Plus I do not expect you or myself or anyone to believe in the "ancient superstitions" as I am referring to things far beyond that stuff.

==============================================

Bellatori wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: ... and God does not hurt people, ...
You have read the Old Testament haven't you? How about a history of the Roman Catholic Church?

I guess that I have to repent of my words there and say that yes God does hurt some people.

My point is that God does not have malice intent, much like in the extreme concept of mercy killings.

==================================

Bellatori wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: ...
Correct, the thing we call as God is super powerful yes, but it is not omniscient, omnipotent, or infallible....
So a bit like the president of the US of A but with fewer nukes then?

Perhaps God can be compared to the President of the USA, in that the President is not some Dictator or Emperor (and neither is God) as the President is restricted by many rules and laws and precedents along with a Congress and Senate and Supreme Court so the President too is not omniscient, omnipotent, or infallible.

The real God has rules and limitation with emphasis on the fact that God does not brake His own commandments.

Having nuclear weapons is a physical type of power which is really greatly different from the kind of power that belongs to the God thing.

Idea

by Shirina Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:01 pm

JP Cusick wrote:My point is that God does not have malice intent, much like in the extreme concept of mercy killings.

The Old Testament God describes himself as "jealous" and "vengeful." Many of his actions have been born of rage and malice, i.e. the Great Flood. I would also argue that God sending she-bears to rip apart 42 little children simply because the kids insulted Elijah was rather malicious. The majority of deaths caused by God were a result of people failing to worship him, i.e. those who died personally "transgressed" against God. A case in point: Cain commits murder but is allowed to live whereas those 42 kids insult one of God's prophets so they are killed. Because Cain didn't directly "transgress" against God but simply violated a law, he wasn't killed. The children, on the other hand, belittled God's prophet and, through association, belittled God, so they had to die.

God is extremely malicious and has no care about human life. That much is evident by the ease in which he destroys and murders without any apparent consistency.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:14 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Bellatori wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: ... and God does not hurt people, ...
You have read the Old Testament haven't you? How about a history of the Roman Catholic Church?
I guess that I have to repent of my words there and say that yes God does hurt some people.

My point is that God does not have malice intent, much like in the extreme concept of mercy killings.

You really have not read the old testament have you? Question

The list of vengeful and spiteful slaying of opposition is legion.

The slaying of first born...
The killing of men women and children...
How about the tearing apart of youths by bears for joking about a bald prophet?
The list goes on...

Malice?... absolutely... He makes Charles Taylor look like the Buddha.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:19 pm

Shirina wrote: ...

Snap

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:23 pm

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:My point is that God does not have malice intent, much like in the extreme concept of mercy killings.
The Old Testament God describes himself as "jealous" and "vengeful." Many of his actions have been born of rage and malice, i.e. the Great Flood. I would also argue that God sending she-bears to rip apart 42 little children simply because the kids insulted Elijah was rather malicious. The majority of deaths caused by God were a result of people failing to worship him, i.e. those who died personally "transgressed" against God. A case in point: Cain commits murder but is allowed to live whereas those 42 kids insult one of God's prophets so they are killed. Because Cain didn't directly "transgress" against God but simply violated a law, he wasn't killed. The children, on the other hand, belittled God's prophet and, through association, belittled God, so they had to die.

God is extremely malicious and has no care about human life. That much is evident by the ease in which he destroys and murders without any apparent consistency.

Honestly the malice is inside of your self, and it is you who are injecting and projecting the malice into the scriptures when there is none.

I have tried to tell you this before and I keep demonstrating how you are projecting your own negativity while you keep ignoring your own reality.

Anyway - the children being killed by the bears was not done by God but done by the power given to that prophet.

That is a huge big distinction which has another huge big meaning to it.

It is a demonstration that God can not give such power to humans because even a gifted prophet will turn such power into evil.

You blame God for what people do, because the true malice is inside of your self.

Idea

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:26 pm

Bellatori wrote:
The list of vengeful and spiteful slaying of opposition is legion.

You see malice because the malice is inside of your self, and you project your own malicious perception onto God who does not have it.

Humans are filled with violence, and we can not see clearly until we remove the evil from our self.

afraid

by Sponsored content