No Hell and everyone gets saved

First topic message reminder :

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.

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.

JP Cusick wrote: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.

Like I said, Exodus 20:5 has God saying himself that "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God ..."

In Nahum 1:2 of the Hebrew Bible, it says, "The Lord is a jealous and vengeful God; the Lord is vengeful and strong in wrath."

In Jeremiah 50:21, it says, "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them as I have commanded you," says the Lord. "Let the battlecry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction."

Matthew 10:34-36, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Zephaniah 3:6-10, "I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy."

And there's plenty more where that came from. To say that there is no malice to be found within these words is to turn a blind eye from objective truth. What you mistake for "malice" inside of me is actually disgust. It is disgusting that anyone would worship such a despicable being, disgusting that anyone can read the flagrant immorality of this supposed "loving" God and still be able to rationalize it all away.

As for the she-bears, Elijah didn't do that all on his own. He cursed those children, and remember, Elijah was one of God's prophets. You claim that this is a lesson in what happens when immense power is given to a human, but I don't see that and for two reasons. First, Elijah's power came through God, thus, God was the one who actually "conjured" the two she-bears, NOT Elijah. Elijah simply directed the power, but God is the one who exercised it. Secondly, what happened to Elijah after this incident? Yeah ... nothing. If there is a lesson to be learned here, then where, exactly, are the consequences of abusing power? God didn't say so much as "boo" in response to killing those children; God did not punish Elijah, God did not chastise Elijah, in fact, God completely ignored the incident. All morality tales lay out the consequences of immorality in quite clear (and often harsh) detail. I'm not seeing that here.

Shirina wrote: What you mistake for "malice" inside of me is actually disgust. It is disgusting that anyone would worship such a despicable being, disgusting that anyone can read the flagrant immorality of this supposed "loving" God and still be able to rationalize it all away.

Call it disgust or call it malice but it is still projected from your self into the scripture and it blinds your self to the reality, and as such there is no way for me to communicate with you except to repeatedly challenge your unjust and dysfunctional perspective.

And I have no intention of doing that.

JP Cusick wrote:

Shirina wrote: What you mistake for "malice" inside of me is actually disgust. It is disgusting that anyone would worship such a despicable being, disgusting that anyone can read the flagrant immorality of this supposed "loving" God and still be able to rationalize it all away.

Call it disgust or call it malice but it is still projected from your self into the scripture and it blinds your self to the reality, and as such there is no way for me to communicate with you except to repeatedly challenge your unjust and dysfunctional perspective.

And I have no intention of doing that.

So you can't communicate with someone unless they agree with your blind belief, you may want to think about that statement.

Then again, you may not... 

JP Cusick wrote:Call it disgust or call it malice but it is still projected from your self into the scripture and it blinds your self to the reality, and as such there is no way for me to communicate with you except to repeatedly challenge your unjust and dysfunctional perspective.

Rubbish.

You're "communicating" just fine with other members of this forum and they're saying essentially the same things I have.

Plus there remains those bizarre accusations that you threw at me in one of the other threads on this board, accusations which I addressed and to which you have pointedly not responded.

Thus if you think I'm fooled by your very abrupt cessation of discussion with me hinging upon my so-called "blindness," you must think I am hopelessly naive.

Bellatori wrote:

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?  

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.

Cusick is out of his gourd.... 

Shirina wrote:... you must think I am hopelessly naive.

Not naive but just hopelessly stubborn.

But you are still my favorite stubborn person in the whole world.

JP Cusick wrote:

Shirina wrote: What you mistake for "malice" inside of me is actually disgust. It is disgusting that anyone would worship such a despicable being, disgusting that anyone can read the flagrant immorality of this supposed "loving" God and still be able to rationalize it all away.

Call it disgust or call it malice but it is still projected from your self into the scripture and it blinds your self to the reality, and as such there is no way for me to communicate with you except to repeatedly challenge your unjust and dysfunctional perspective.

And I have no intention of doing that.

Hi JP,

Let's try to take the emotion out of this and look at it rationally.

You contend in your OP that "God is love, [...] and God does not hurt people".

Shirina quotes Jeremiah 50:21 "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them as I have commanded you," says the Lord. "Let the battlecry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction."

How do you reconcile these two statements?  In Jeremiah 50:21 God is being judgemental and advocates killing and destruction. It seems to me that this is not loving, and is hurting people.  If I'm wrong, could you please explain why.

Sam Hunter wrote:Hi JP,

Let's try to take the emotion out of this and look at it rationally.

You contend in your OP that "God is love, [...] and God does not hurt people".

Shirina quotes Jeremiah 50:21 "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them as I have commanded you," says the Lord. "Let the battlecry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction."

How do you reconcile these two statements?  In Jeremiah 50:21 God is being judgemental and advocates killing and destruction. It seems to me that this is not loving, and is hurting people.  If I'm wrong, could you please explain why.

I thank you for this question as it is challenging and not emotional as I like that.

Of course if we evaluate that text with some per-supposition or malice then the understanding of it changes too.

My understanding is that we must judge that text by the realities which we know more certainly today.

As in World War II the Allies bombed Nazi Germany with massive killings and destruction, as we did that to Japan too, including 2 atomic bombs onto Japan, and yet we today see this massive warfare of WWII as justified and even as righteous.

For myself I see God on the side of the Allies and so I too see that our WWII was indeed justified and righteous.

So we need to give that same judgement to God in the Bible, as in the Bible where God orders them to warfare then it must have been as justified and as righteous back then as it is when done in the 20th century.

As such I say if anyone wants to condemn God for wrongdoing there, then they must also condemn the UK and the USA for our same wrongdoing in WWII.

According to the Bible God is very concerned about wars, and yes God does judge, and I believe the Bible tells us that God decides who wins and who loses any war.

Also I corrected my wording to that God might hurt people but God has no malice intent that I know of.

JP Cusick wrote:For myself I see God on the side of the Allies and so I too see that our WWII was indeed justified and righteous.

Both the Japanese and Germans were exceptionally cruel. Yes, warfare itself can be cruel, but the Holocaust, for instance, or the Rape of Nanking went above and beyond the call of cruelty.

Can we really be certain that Merathaim and Pekod (wherever they were) deserved the same destruction?

In addition, the Allies did not have the goal of "completely destroying" the Germans or the Japanese. The Allies merely wanted a surrender and a cessation of hostilities. However, God has commanded, more than once, that enemies be completely wiped out. In other words, a limited genocide. Here's what happened to the Midianites:

Numbers 31:17-18 --- Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Here we have three separate atrocities taking place: 1) the murdering of children 2) murdering everyone but female virgins and 3) kidnapping.

The Allies didn't do that except for, perhaps, the Soviets ... but if you really want to compare God's army with Stalin's Red Army, well, my point would be made for me.

And in Sihon, we have Deuteronomy 2:34 -- And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

So we have even more gratuitous butchery, including children -- again.

Guess what happens in Og. Yeah, you guessed it:

Deuteronomy 3:6 -- And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Then there's Deuteronomy 21:10-13 -- When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

So nice that we women are merely prizes to be won, trophies, war booty, treasure to be found in a chest like mere pretty baubles. It's nice that the women get a say-so in whether we would want to marry the creeps who just came into my city and killed my husband, my brothers, my male children.

The Bible is filled with this kind of stuff ... and I cannot believe, refuse to believe that there is no malice here. I'm sorry, but when you aim to completely destroy entire cities, including the children, that's a sign of rage. Even the Soviets were enraged when they committed atrocities against German civilians; they were out for vengeance. Stalin actually said to the troops, "Only the unborn are innocent." So if we want to compare the actions of the Israelites, commanded by God, to the Soviet Red Army during WWII, the similarities are remarkable. And yet ... even the Soviets didn't kill everyone nor did they kidnap virgins and drag them back to Russia to be forcefully married to their captors.

JP Cusick wrote: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.

Oh come on... you have to be kidding. Take off the blinkers.  

In what universe   is killing the first born and act of love? What? Was he lonely in heaven that he needed extra company? Was slaughtering the young people because they teased an old man about his baldness an act of warmth and fellowship because tearing the heads off babies is a great correctional strategy?

Get real.  

Jeeze Louise... unbelievable.

The thing that bothers me most about the religious obsession with the whole heaven / hell, salvation / damnation thing is that it's ignoring what I consider to be the most important thing, i.e. everyone is only here for a short time and they should make the most of it. Not worry about what's going to happen after you die (which is likely to be nothing anyway).

Shirina wrote:
The Bible is filled with this kind of stuff ... and I cannot believe, refuse to believe that there is no malice here. I'm sorry, but when you aim to completely destroy entire cities, including the children, that's a sign of rage. Even the Soviets were enraged when they committed atrocities against German civilians;

This kind of comment is what shuts you down, as you refuse to believe anything outside of your own malicious projections and your own malice intent.

Stop your refusing and then you might see the light.

So do you also see "rage" with the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan? or of course you only see rage and malice with God? Because the 2 atomic bombs destroyed entire cities, including the children and civilians who were not combatants.

And you are criticizing the Soviet for being troubled by the atrocities of that brutal war, and yet in truth that is a compliment to the Soviets as they were not blind to the realities, but I never hear of any similar outrage from or about the USA or UK atrocities of warfare as like fire bombing Germany or Japan or Italy too committed in that war.

You are quick to condemn God and the Soviets and anyone not of your own side, and that is what we call as being self-righteous.
 

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

Bellatori wrote:

JP Cusick wrote: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.

Oh come on... you have to be kidding. Take off the blinkers.

In what universe  is killing the first born and act of love? What? Was he lonely in heaven that he needed extra company? Was slaughtering the young people because they teased an old man about his baldness an act of warmth and fellowship because tearing the heads off babies is a great correctional strategy?

Get real.

Jeeze Louise... unbelievable.

I did not call it an act of love, but now I guess mercy killing can be viewed as an act of love. What I did say say was that God acts with justice and righteousness, but now let us add love too.

He could have killed them all instead of just the first-born, so that could be viewed as wholesome restraint, and such restraint as that is not known to be a human characteristic.

Plus - as already said - it was the old man who killed the children, and God is not to be blamed for what us people do - except when you have your own malice intent against God.

Cusick says: "He could have killed them all instead of just the first-born, so that could be viewed as wholesome restraint, and such restraint as that is not known to be a human characteristic."

Oh yes - the compassionate act of a kind and loving god.

Dan Fante wrote:The thing that bothers me most about the religious obsession with the whole heaven / hell, salvation / damnation thing is that it's ignoring what I consider to be the most important thing, i.e. everyone is only here for a short time and they should make the most of it. Not worry about what's going to happen after you die (which is likely to be nothing anyway).

For me I actually agree with all of this, as I am not orthodox.

In fact that was the point and the subject of this thread.

There is no "hell" and every person gets saved.

We need to take care of our life now in this lifetime because after death there is nothing to worry about.

Bearman wrote:Cusick says: "He could have killed them all instead of just the first-born, so that could be viewed as wholesome restraint, and such restraint as that is not known to be a human characteristic."

Oh yes - the compassionate act of a kind and loving god.

I expect that you are like most people and you really have no idea as to what compassion, kindness or loving really mean.

As like in the distorted human mentality then physical force and violence are seen as strength while compassion and love are seen as weakness.

That human kind of love means that a person or the God must be passive and docile and no-conflict and always doing "goodness" and happiness - well no.

The difference between real love and hate is the intention, as in love has no malice while hatred has malice intent.

Both love and hate are emotions for humans, but they have a higher meaning to God (as we are told in scriptures).

The opposite of love is to lust, because real love is outgoing concern while lust is incoming desire, and lust means more than just sex, as we lust for money, power, position, and lust after just about anything.

The opposite of hate is to encourage.

JP Cusick wrote:I expect that you are like most people and you really have no idea as to what compassion, kindness or loving really mean.

Do you know what the expression "arrogant, patronising git" means? It should cross your mind every time you look in a mirror.  

Jeez Louise... what a div... duh!

There is no "hell" and every person gets saved. We need to take care of our life now in this lifetime because after death there is nothing to worry about. wrote:JP Cusick

Sigh, any evidence for this, and please don't waste my time quoting scripture or stating blithely that you know it's true, EVIDENCE. 

This kind of comment is what shuts you down, as you refuse to believe anything outside of your own malicious projections and your own malice intent. wrote:JP Cusick

MALICIOUS INTENT!!! 

And her posts are infinitely more intelligible, with cogent reasoning, and balanced objectivity than the drivel you're posting.

So do you also see "rage" with the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan? wrote:JP Cusick

Jesus wept, not this old chestnut, have you any idea what the Japanese had been doing for the decade prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Try Googling the "Rape of Nanking" in 1937 the Japanese army was let loose on the civilian population of the then capital of China, they killed in cold blood almost quarter of a million unarmed civilians, and even conservative estimates put the number of rapes at around 80,000. It is irrefutably one of the most barbaric war crimes in modern history. Your all around ignorance is truly astonishing, you must be trolling?

Bellatori wrote:Jeez Louise... what a div... duh!

http://jpcusickrunsagain.com/


Edit: He's not trolling.

Booky?

Well, if that is really him and he is running for a responsible position in government, I think he should be psychologically tested to prove he is sane. Delusional people should in no way be allowed to hold office. Look how you dodged that bullet, Sarah Palin, who was itching to get her grubby little paws on the Big Red Button to annihilate any non-Americans. The Republican Christian Right Moral Majority Tea Partiers are ruining America.

Booky, grow some nice vegetables in your garden and leave politics to reasonable people please?

AW wrote:

Bellatori wrote:Jeez Louise... what a div... duh!

http://jpcusickrunsagain.com/


Edit: He's not trolling.

He's simply parroting the quotes from that idiots blog, unless we believe he's the real JP Cusick of course.  

Bellatori wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I expect that you are like most people and you really have no idea as to what compassion, kindness or loving really mean.

Do you know what the expression "arrogant, patronising git" means? It should cross your mind every time you look in a mirror.  

Jeez Louise... what a div... duh!

I too have lost all patience with this trolling idiot JP Cusick. Where are all the intelligent theists, with their complex and profound ontological arguments?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:unless we believe he's the real JP Cusick of course

He isn't REAL!!??  Surely!!

I expect that you are like most people and you really have no idea as to what compassion, kindness or loving really mean. As like in the distorted human mentality then physical force and violence are seen as strength while compassion and love are seen as weakness. wrote:JP Cusick

That's rich coming from an idiot who thinks infanticide of every male first-born child in an entire country was justifiable, let alone from a being with limitless power who could have freed the Israelites simply by wishing it so.

The difference between real love and hate is the intention, as in love has no malice while hatred has malice intent. wrote:]JP Cusick

For the love of christ the phrase is malicious intent, not malice intent.

Both love and hate are emotions for humans, but they have a higher meaning to God (as we are told in scriptures). wrote:JP Cusick

That'll be the same scripture that claimed a 7 day creation, and a geocentric universe. You'll forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by it's record for getting facts correct.

The opposite of love is to lust, The opposite of hate is to encourage. wrote:JP Cusick

You don't live within throwing distance of a dictionary do you?

Okay folks, I'm going to have to ask you all to settle down. We enjoy civil debate here, but if it degenerates into name calling, that's when posts start to get deleted. We don't go nuts every time someone throws an insult, but when it starts to become an "all the time" thing, we begin to frown on it. Yeah, debate is frustrating -- trust me, I know. But let's keep cool heads, 'k folks? Thanks in advance.

Shirina wrote:Okay folks, I'm going to have to ask you all to settle down. We enjoy civil debate here, but if it degenerates into name calling, that's when posts start to get deleted. We don't go nuts every time someone throws an insult, but when it starts to become an "all the time" thing, we begin to frown on it. Yeah, debate is frustrating -- trust  me, I know. But let's keep cool heads, 'k folks? Thanks in advance.

Fair enough, point taken.  

JP Cusick wrote:This kind of comment is what shuts you down, as you refuse to believe anything outside of your own malicious projections and your own malice intent.

The problem here is that you seem to expect me to accept atrocious behavior and pretend that it was somehow justified or even moral -- just because it's in the Bible. This is precisely the reason why I find religion to be so dangerous. People can rationalize even the most sickening, disgusting crimes by assigning it a Biblical reference or even by simply saying, "God told me to do it."

JP Cusick wrote:Stop your refusing and then you might see the light.

I would question my own right to breath the free air of America if I ever managed to convince myself that wars of aggression that result in the premeditated murdering of children are somehow right, just, and moral.

JP Cusick wrote:So do you also see "rage" with the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan? or of course you only see rage and malice with God?

Ahh, here we go ...

First and foremost -- this is GOD we're talking about. You know, that being that is supposed to be the source of love and morality? That entity that is supposed to be perfect and omniscient? It seems to me that such a being should be held to a higher standard than, say, Hitler, Stalin, or even the UK or the USA. When this "loving" being tells his army to go on a killing rampage, how am I supposed to juxtapose atrocity with perfection? Love with wars of aggression? Intolerance with justice?

The men and women who ran the Allies AND the Axis were just human beings with all of their flaws, faults, and foibles. While yes, we can sit around being angry at their actions, they are not perfect, infinitely loving, and omniscient. I'm not going to make excuses for wartime atrocities committed by either side -- especially not in the way you're making excuses for God. Yet the difference between the two is so glaring that it should be immediately apparent to everyone. God, being all powerful and such, had an infinite number of options to resolve whatever problem that caused the Israelites to go to war. But the BEST thing this "god" could offer up was wanton murder and rape. WHY then should anyone revere, much less worship, a "god" that acts as flawed and depraved as the worst humans among us?

We don't tolerate this kind of behavior from our fellow humans, but we'll tolerate it from an infinitely loving God? A God that could resolve any problem with a snap of his fingers? For crying out loud, this being can create universes but he can't resolve a land dispute without genocide? Puh-leeese.

What really happened is that some desert wackjob heard voices in his head telling him to go murder everyone, whipped up the Israelites into a violent frenzy, and went on a rampage. All the while, the wackjob with the voices in his head promised that "god" (a.k.a. the voices) declared that this land belongs to us! There was no god ... just a seriously misguided and completely insane Israelite charismatic who managed to convince the Israelites that the land where other tribes were living belonged to them. So those other tribes had to die.

It was simple genocide. But herein lies the problem with religion. The moment you start claiming "God said this" or "God said that," then nothing, no matter how depraved or immoral it is, becomes off limits. Anything goes, and if God says go murder children, why, we'll march off and obediently start bashing infants against poles. Because God said it was okay. If this was described as it really happened, i.e. nothing more than a war over territory and land, the Israelities would be condemned as genocidal warmongers. But if you want to suddenly justify your wartime atrocities, just say, "God said so!" and it all goes away.

JP Cusick wrote:You are quick to condemn God and the Soviets and anyone not of your own side, and that is what we call as being self-righteous.

First of all, the Soviets were on "my" side, i.e. the Allies. I'm still crticizing them because their raping and pillaging of Berlin (as well as other cities) had no strategic or military value. It was merely a medieval invasion where soldiers lost all professionalism and discipline in favor of revenge and ... yeah, malice.

Second of all, I'm against any side that, as a government or as an army or as a religion, tells its forces to go out and commit acts of brutality and crimes against humanity for no strategic purpose. Of all the Allied leaders, none of them except Stalin stood up and said the aim of the war is to completely eradicate the Japanese and German people, to kill everyone, including children. That is a premeditated declaration of genocide no better than the "Final Solution." American and British forces killed children. In a total war like that, it was impossible not to. But they didn't tell their bomber pilots that their mission was to kill as many children as possible ... unlike the God of the Bible who specifically states that ALL must be killed.

Bellatori wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I expect that you are like most people and you really have no idea as to what compassion, kindness or loving really mean.

Do you know what the expression "arrogant, patronising git" means? It should cross your mind every time you look in a mirror.  

Jeez Louise... what a div... duh!

That does not really trouble me, because so long as I am being honest and sincere then arrogant and patronizing is the perspective of others.

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

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

There is no \"hell" and every person gets saved. We need to take care of our life now in this lifetime because after death there is nothing to worry about. wrote:JP Cusick

Sigh, any evidence for this, and please don't waste my time quoting scripture or stating blithely that you know it's true, EVIDENCE.

Of course I would have to quote the scriptures, because those things only come from the scriptures.

We can not prove a negative as in there is no hell, but from I can show how the "hell" is not an accurate interpretation of the scriptures.

The same with everyone getting saved, it comes from the scriptures and no where else, otherwise we all have to wait and see or not see?

Some people do not like the scriptures, but I happen to love all of the scriptures, and I like the scriptures from around the world and from all religions.


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

AW wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:unless we believe he's the real JP Cusick of course

He isn't REAL!!?? Surely!!

That is a blog taking shots at me but it is not my own website.

I did run for election here in my area, and I did well even though I lost the election, but it was some years ago and I am not running for election any more.

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

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
For the love of christ the phrase is malicious intent, not malice intent.

That was not a mistake.

I wrote "malice" because I meant malice.

The word "malicious" has more of a verb meaning while I wanted to denote the feeling as in malice.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You don't live within throwing distance of a dictionary do you?

That is a line that I see as seriously clever and my kind of funny.

I hope that I can use that line myself on some one, but I surely will not be able to give you the credit there, so I give you my cheers here and now.

JP Cusick wrote:

Dan Fante wrote:The thing that bothers me most about the religious obsession with the whole heaven / hell, salvation / damnation thing is that it's ignoring what I consider to be the most important thing, i.e. everyone is only here for a short time and they should make the most of it. Not worry about what's going to happen after you die (which is likely to be nothing anyway).

For me I actually agree with all of this, as I am not orthodox.

In fact that was the point and the subject of this thread.

There is no "hell" and every person gets saved.

We need to take care of our life now in this lifetime because after death there is nothing to worry about.

You're almost there. You just need to get round to the idea of heaven not existing too.

JP Cusick wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
For the love of christ the phrase is malicious intent, not malice intent.

That was not a mistake.

I wrote "malice" because I meant malice.

The word "malicious" has more of a verb meaning while I wanted to denote the feeling as in malice.

"Malicious" is an adjective, not a verb. Thus it is used to modify nouns such as "intent".

If you check the history of the word "malice" you will find that it has been used as both a verb and an adjective but both forms are obsolete with no citations after the 17th century for the former or the 15th for the latter. This means that your justification for trying to reintroduce the adjectival "malice" rather than use the Modern English "malicious" fails because the former has been used as a verb while the latter has not, making "malice" the one with more of a verb meaning.

If you want to use deliberately obscure words why not use the dialect adjective "maliceful"?

Source: OED 2nd edition

JP Cusick wrote:

Bearman wrote:Cusick says: "He could have killed them all instead of just the first-born, so that could be viewed as wholesome restraint, and such restraint as that is not known to be a human characteristic."

Oh yes - the compassionate act of a kind and loving god.

I expect that you are like most people and you really have no idea as to what compassion, kindness or loving really mean.

As like in the distorted human mentality then physical force and violence are seen as strength while compassion and love are seen as weakness.

That human kind of love means that a person or the God must be passive and docile and no-conflict and always doing "goodness" and happiness - well no.

The difference between real love and hate is the intention, as in love has no malice while hatred has malice intent.

Both love and hate are emotions for humans, but they have a higher meaning to God (as we are told in scriptures).

The opposite of love is to lust, because real love is outgoing concern while lust is incoming desire, and lust means more than just sex, as we lust for money, power, position, and lust after just about anything.

The opposite of hate is to encourage.

Jesus supposedly taught people that god was like a father. Hence the lord's prayer which starts "Our father who art in heaven...." Do you have children? Could you even contemplate killing them under any circumstances? To suggest that god, for any reason could love his children AND murder them is asinine in the extreme.

Shirina wrote:Okay folks, I'm going to have to ask you all to settle down. We enjoy civil debate here, but if it degenerates into name calling, that's when posts start to get deleted. We don't go nuts every time someone throws an insult, but when it starts to become an "all the time" thing, we begin to frown on it. Yeah, debate is frustrating -- trust  me, I know. But let's keep cool heads, 'k folks? Thanks in advance.

Thank you. I wasn't enjoying reading it and wasn't feeling inclined to participate.

JP Cusick wrote:I thank you for this question as it is challenging and not emotional as I like that.

Of course if we evaluate that text with some per-supposition or malice then the understanding of it changes too.

My understanding is that we must judge that text by the realities which we know more certainly today.

As in World War II the Allies bombed Nazi Germany with massive killings and destruction, as we did that to Japan too, including 2 atomic bombs onto Japan, and yet we today see this massive warfare of WWII as justified and even as righteous.

For myself I see God on the side of the Allies and so I too see that our WWII was indeed justified and righteous.

So we need to give that same judgement to God in the Bible, as in the Bible where God orders them to warfare then it must have been as justified and as righteous back then as it is when done in the 20th century.

As such I say if anyone wants to condemn God for wrongdoing there, then they must also condemn the UK and the USA for our same wrongdoing in WWII.

According to the Bible God is very concerned about wars, and yes God does judge, and I believe the Bible tells us that God decides who wins and who loses any war.

Also I corrected my wording to that God might hurt people but God has no malice intent that I know of.

Thanks for your reply JP.

Others have since made some of the points that I would have done and I don't need to repeat them. I'll read through everything properly and see if there's something I can add.

So we need to give that same judgement to God in the Bible, as in the Bible where God orders them to warfare then it must have been as justified and as righteous back then as it is when done in the 20th century. wrote:JP Cusick

Except the God of the Bible has always been asserted by theologians as omnipotent. So warfare or violence of any kind would be superfluous to such a being, that could do anything by simply willing it.

As such I say if anyone wants to condemn God for wrongdoing there, then they must also condemn the UK and the USA for our same wrongdoing in WWII. wrote:JP Cusivk

As an atheists it'd be silly to condemn a deity I don't accept exists because there is no evidence. Hypothetically though the obvious flaw in the logic of your claim is again that you're comparing the actions of humans to a superhuman deity that is claimed to be both omniscient and omnipotent. It's spurious reasoning because such a being would not be analogous to humans. The same god has always been claimed to be omni-benevolent as well, no such claim was or is being made for the allies in WWII.

According to the Bible God is very concerned about wars, and yes God does judge, and I believe the Bible tells us that God decides who wins and who loses any war. wrote:JP Cusick

Again this is an absurdly illogical claim for a deity claimed to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Also I corrected my wording to that God might hurt people but God has no malice intent that I know of. wrote:JP Cusick

Since you can't logically know the mind of an omniscient being you can make no empirically verifiable claims about whether it harbours malicious intent. If even a small part of the OT were true though it would be absurd to claim otherwise.

Sheldon, so JP consider's god to be the ref of some kind in war's, and decide's who is going to win it. Yet he say's in an early post that a) he only believe's part's of the bible. b) he believe's lot's of religion's c) yet there is only one god that he refer's to? d)yet he is not a christian etc as he has no belief's? now what does that actually make him?

stu wrote:Sheldon, so JP consider's god to be the ref of some kind in war's, and decide's who is going to win it. Yet he say's in an early post that a) he only believe's part's of the bible. b) he believe's lot's of religion's c) yet there is only one god that he refer's to? d)yet he is not a christian etc as he has no belief's? now what does that actually make him?

It's uncanny how much he reminds of Slade, the same vague unevidenced wishy washy nonsense, and never so much as a sniff of evidence, just endless opinion. The sad thing is he seems to be unaware that there is a difference between subjective opinion and empirical evidence, and what's worse he doesn't know what actually constitutes empirical evidence. His relentless denial of any evidence or facts no matter how compelling, if they contradict his world-view. He dismissed the video evidence showing Muslim women being violently abused as propaganda, and Slade did precisely the same thing when I posted them on Amazon, ignoring the fact they'd been picked up by most of teh major news networks, uncanny.

Exactly Sheldon, like I told you on the other thread, that I had seen it on the news. Now he must have too must he not? is there a usa word for empirical?. Maybe the understanding is being lost across the atlantic, but Shirina understands it well enough does she not? maybe she should stand for election as she is far more intellegent.

Dan Fante wrote:You're almost there. You just need to get round to the idea of heaven not existing too.

Yes of course there is no Heaven, as the Bible simply referred to the heavens, as like outer-space being the heavens.

I do tell people about there is no heaven or hell, but people really do not care about any Heaven, as their only concern is burning the people whom they do not like, and trying not to get their self sent into the burning hell.

Since heaven is meaningless to virtually everyone - then I see no reason to give it any meaning either by contradicting it.


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

Norm Deplume wrote:
"Malicious" is an adjective, not a verb. Thus it is used to modify nouns such as "intent".

Source: OED 2nd edition

All people have the option of using any word they can in any way that expresses the communication.

We can even make-up words just to suit what we mean to say.

As such I used the word the way that I myself judged to be fitting and appropriate.

FYI.

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

Bearman wrote:Jesus supposedly taught people that god was like a father. Hence the lord's prayer which starts "Our father who art in heaven...."

That is very accurate that Jesus referred to God as "Father", and in fact the name of "Yahweh" means "male-creator" which is the same as Father.

So it is an interesting speculation as to whether Jesus might have said "Yahweh" in Hebrew which was translated into the New Testament Greek as "Father" or did Jesus speak either of those in the Aramaic which He is believed to have spoken. And if Jesus really did speak Aramaic as the evidence strongly suggest then Jesus might have used the name of Allah too.

Bearman wrote:
Do you have children? Could you even contemplate killing them under any circumstances? To suggest that god, for any reason could love his children AND murder them is xxx in the extreme.

We do know that humans kill our children very often, and many times we kill children for righteous reason as is recorded in history, and other times kill children for very evil reasons too.

The Bible actually tells us specifically that God ordered children killed as included in the flood with Noah's Arc, and again God ordered the children along with the adults to be killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, and of course those notorious times where God told the armies to kill every man, woman and child, so yes God can love the children and still kill them as like a mercy killing.

I simply reject the idea that God is committing murder when He kills, because murder implies malice and injustice which is contrary to God, while killing is really a normal reality for all life on the planet earth.

 

JP, which year did noah's flood happen? could you please tell me. 1025bc or when?

JP Cusick wrote:

Norm Deplume wrote:
"Malicious" is an adjective, not a verb. Thus it is used to modify nouns such as "intent".

Source: OED 2nd edition

All people have the option of using any word they can in any way that expresses the communication.

We can even make-up words just to suit what we mean to say.

As such I used the word the way that I myself judged to be fitting and appropriate.

FYI.

Can I ask you to explain precisely what you mean here. I cannot tell whether you are making up new meanings.

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'


You seem to be modelling yourself on a character in a children's book.