The strange concept of eternal hell suffering.

[monavis]

@Mickiel

I hold no interest in changing anyones mind, and I have listed plenty of proof, your mind is just conditioned not to see it as proof. In fact your mind is conditioned not to see it. Consciousness is proof of God, and stunning proof of him. Consciousness cannot derive from an unknown big bang explosion in space, such explosions destroy things, not create living things. Consciousness can only come from consciousness, it cannot arrive from miracle self creating matter. Stellar evidence of God. Do I hold a need to bang that evidence into someone’s head, absolutely not, people are free to believe whatever they wish, I do not believe in " Evangelism", or trying to convince anyone of God’s existence.

Consciousness can only be birthed by consciousness, and it cannot be birthed by imaginary matter and chemicals that supposedly came from some explosion in nothing space. Life came from life, it did not crawl out from under a self created rock that somehow eventually created an animal which eventually walked upright and through some miracle luck, developed a thinking brain. We are not continuous with the Idiot hierarchy of speechless apes!

This does not prove it or anything was from God, it is your personal belief which is your right, but there is no proof that anything came from God or a God. What you write is not evidence, and proves nothing except that you believe it!

[monavis]

@Mickiel

Cite, I’ll give you the best cite on Consciousness that I know of in life, " The Julian Jaynes Society." I’ll go better than that, get Dr. Jaynes book, " The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral mind." The best work on consciousness I ever read. I don’t agree with everything Jaynes believes.

That is believing in Jaynes who was or is a human, your belief is in him!

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

If you don’t agree with it, and if it was nothing to do with the topic of the OP, why bring it up?

Well I agree, but you like cites and I have just learned how to cut and paste on my computer. So if you would endulge me just a few times; its like playing with a new toy.

We talked about this before.

"Jesus mentioned HELL 2x, 3x, 4x, or 5 times as much as HEAVEN"?

[Mickiel]

@monavis

That is believing in Jaynes who was or is a human, your belief is in him!

I don’t believe in Jaynes or agree with everything he wrote. I agree with much of his views on consciousness, but we are nowhere near each other in beliefs in general. I think he is an Atheist, I am a Theist.

[Musicat]

@Mickiel

Some interesting theory’s about the flood; I don’t agree with much of it, but its of interest.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/category/Flood.aspx

Here’s a good reason why that site is not a good, scientific source of information:

To set the stage, we should acknowledge that the earliest chapters of Genesis are written from God’s perspective, not man’s. They relate things that only He could have known, and reflect His “whole Earth” perspective, one going far beyond the geographic boundaries of ancient Mesopotamia. For example, how could any human being possibly know the order of creation—including such an illogical thing as light being created as an entity BEFORE the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:3–5, 14–19)—except by divine revelation? Or, how could humanity discern that the entire universe was originally constrained within a ball of water, and God separated the “waters below” (which would become the Earth) by an expanse (the atmosphere and outer space) which was then bounded by more water (Gen. 1:6–8)? Short of claiming the whole narrative is just a fanciful story, an option not open to the true Christian, it is inconceivable that any but the Lord Himself could report such things** in the factual style in which they are presented. The literary style of Genesis is historical prose narrative, not poetry filled with figures of speech, and we must honestly embrace the exegetical limitations this reality imposes upon understanding the text.

(bolding mine)

So if you start with the premise that Genesis was written by a supernatural being, no amount of contradictory facts will change your mind. That’s not the way science works. A sober look at the tale suggests it really is a fanciful story.

I suggest ignoring that site. Quoting it for cites only makes you look foolish.

[Mickiel]

@Musicat

Here’s a good reason why that site is not a good, scientific source of information:

To set the stage, we should acknowledge that the earliest chapters of Genesis are written from God’s perspective, not man’s. They relate things that only He could have known, and reflect His “whole Earth” perspective, one going far beyond the geographic boundaries of ancient Mesopotamia. For example, how could any human being possibly know the order of creation—including such an illogical thing as light being created as an entity BEFORE the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:3–5, 14–19)—except by divine revelation? Or, how could humanity discern that the entire universe was originally constrained within a ball of water, and God separated the “waters below” (which would become the Earth) by an expanse (the atmosphere and outer space) which was then bounded by more water (Gen. 1:6–8)? Short of claiming the whole narrative is just a fanciful story, an option not open to the true Christian, it is inconceivable that any but the Lord Himself could report such things** in the factual style in which they are presented. The literary style of Genesis is historical prose narrative, not poetry filled with figures of speech, and we must honestly embrace the exegetical limitations this reality imposes upon understanding the text.

(bolding mine)

So if you start with the premise that Genesis was written by a supernatural being, no amount of contradictory facts will change your mind. That’s not the way science works. A sober look at the tale suggests it really is a fanciful story.

I suggest ignoring that site. Quoting it for cites only makes you look foolish.

They are off on the flood, but they have plenty of areas that are significant information on biblical archaeology; I suggest the cite for those interested in biblical archaeology.

[Mickiel]

@Mickiel

I don’t believe in Jaynes or agree with everything he wrote. I agree with much of his views on consciousness, but we are nowhere near each other in beliefs in general. I think he is an Atheist, I am a Theist.

Jaynes was an Atheist, but I think his work on consciousness was brilliant.

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article813.html

[Czarcasm]

Getting back on topic, I think the concept of an eternal Hell is silly…but no more silly than an eternal Heaven or an all-powerful eternal god.

[hotflungwok]

Would a masochist enjoy hell?

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

Getting back on topic, I think the concept of an eternal Hell is silly…but no more silly than an eternal Heaven or an all-powerful eternal god.

In the bible description of eternal heaven, it is not described as a place way out in etereal space somewhere, it will be right here on earth. The bible says God will recreate the earth and set his throne right down on it, and rule from there from then on. So heaven will be on earth; we all have lived on earth however long we have, I have for 58 years, its no silly thing for me to imagine living on it forever. Because even if God and Heaven is not real, when you die you will be forever in this earth anyway; so it depends on how one uses their conscious belief and examines the facts.

And I personally believe that God will open up the entire Universe for us to explore and live in, and we will have eternity to see what he has created out there and prepared just for us.

And I am not the one who took this thread off topic, but I have tried to accomidate all inquirys.

[Czarcasm]

Etereal space?

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

Etereal space?

Yes, imaginary fantasy island , way off in the land of nothing. We Theist view Heaven as real, because we understand that Heaven IS Our Universe, will be our Universe, with earth as the center of it. I think God will open up ALL of the Universe and beyond to us, and were going to have a ball exploring just the vastness of it; and we will have the time to do it.

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

Getting back on topic, I think the concept of an eternal Hell is silly…but no more silly than an eternal Heaven or an all-powerful eternal god.

These scientist would disagree with you, in their minds, God is a real concept.

List of Christians in science and technology

[BrainGlutton]

@Mickiel

. . . and I have listed plenty of proof, your mind is just conditioned not to see it as proof.

The projection . . . it burns . . .

[BrainGlutton]

@Mickiel

These scientist would disagree with you, in their minds, God is a real concept.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

Of course God is a real concept. So is Harry Potter.

[Mickiel]

@BrainGlutton

Of course God is a real concept. So is Harry Potter.

Yes, but the concept of God means more, sells more, has survived longer than any other concept;

and it out sells Harry Potter by a long shot!

http://visual.ly/top-10-most-read-books-world

[hotflungwok]

@Mickiel

Yes, but the concept of God means more, sells more, has survived longer than any other concept;

and it out sells Harry Potter by a long shot!

http://visual.ly/top-10-most-read-books-world

If by ‘God’ you mean the Christian God then you’re very wrong. There are plenty of concepts that have been around for much longer, gods as well. The Egyptian gods off the top of my head.

[Marley23]

@Mickiel

Yes, but the concept of God means more, sells more, has survived longer than any other concept;

He’s trying to point out that the statements “God is real” and “the concept of God is real” mean different things. Everybody agrees the concept of God exists. That doesn’t mean there’s an actual God.

[Mickiel]

@hotflungwok

If by ‘God’ you mean the Christian God then you’re very wrong. There are plenty of concepts that have been around for much longer, gods as well. The Egyptian gods off the top of my head.

I don’t mean the Christian god, I am not Christian, and God is not either.

[Mickiel]

@Marley23

He’s trying to point out that the statements “God is real” and “the concept of God is real” mean different things. Everybody agrees the concept of God exists. That doesn’t mean there’s an actual God.

It does not mean it to you, it does mean it to me. The " Concept" preceeds the " Realness." One leads to the other and cannot exist without the other; there is no seperation.