vanilla - I assume when you say it’s “true” that you mean the first definition of “true”- "Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous ?
And, how exactly can we determine that your unverifiable claims about an afterlife and the conditions applied to it are “consistent with fact or reality?” How can we determine that your claims are not false or erroneous?
Oh, faith? I thought so.
It’s a tired old argument.
Mars
Vanilla. I beg you to reconsider your agreement. Just to refresh your memory, here is what you agreed with:
That establishes the Bible as the standard of truth. But I tell you that the same Jesus Whom you say is the Way is also the Truth. Jesus will not lose any of His God-ness if the Bible contains a mistake. But if Jesus is not God, then the Bible is worthless.
When we are on the desert island, this is what I will tell you: Jesus is God. God is love. Leave your mind closed, if you wish. But please do not close your heart.
Yes, he knew.
They may have bene stupid enough to think they could defeat Him.
Why did He create man then?
Because if he stopped fighting, he still wouldn’t win.
Too much hate and ego I’m guessing.
Ok, even if we to assume that cristianity has it right over the other religions, which one is Jesus’ way?
The Greek Orthodox?
The Catholic?
The Lutherian?
The 7th Day 2:25 PM Advent With Purple Stripes?
**
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m trying to keep my mind open here.
You are doing a good job of making me think on these things, and doing it in a not-nasty manner.
God go with you, Mr. Lib.
Ok, let’s play along with that “old covenant/new covenant” stuff, just for fun.
Why are you (Jersey) or H24, or vanilla posting on this board given what the New Testament says about women speaking or teaching about religious matters:
I also wonder if you think that women who don’t have children can go to Heaven, since Timothy goes on to specify that as the criterion for a woman’s salvation:
Sounds to me like if you want to live by the “new covenant,” you’re supposed to keep your mouth shut and have babies-- or is Timothy wrong?
That middle paragraph which is bolded is my reponse to what lib said. I’m not that computer savvy, so I dunno how that happened.
I repeat, the middle paragraph of bolding was my words.
I got your message, Vanilla, and thank you! 
Make no mistake. Whoever believes that the Bible may not be added to, contradicted, or taken away from — that person believes that the Bible is the Truth. The One Whom the Bible points to loves everyone.
“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.” John 3:34
I think we should back up a tick and recognize that none of this stuff about Satan rebelling, or a war for Heaven is in the Bible, but I’m interested in the more abstract question of why God created evil.
If God created something that he knew would be evil, then he, himself, created evil.
If God does not want evil (or satan) to exist, then he has but only to will it away and it is gone. What need is there of a “battle?”
So evil was created, and is sustained, only by the will of God and nothing else.
Why?
IMHO, he wants humans to choose.
Theres nothign to choose between if Satan has been dispatched already-though IMHO he will be.
Forgive me for butting in, Diogenes, but I’d like to share my point of view on this with you, and yet I don’t want to hijack your thread forty ways from Sunday. Should I respond here? Open another thread? Just shut the hell up? Or what?
A couple of points to those who are quoting the bible about Hell.
In the OT, “Hell” (Sheol) was not a place of punishment, it was where the dead hung out - similar to the Hades of the Greeks.
If I remember my bible correctly, those who are not saved by the final trump are destroyed completely, so eternal life is only for the saved.
Modern Christian theology (fundamentalists aside) defines Heaven and Hell as relationships with God, not places. Just as Mephistopholes said in “Faust” - “Why this is Hell, nor am I ever out of it.” A torture chamber can be heaven, a paradise can be hell - it’s your attitude that counts.
As to Diogenes original question: I’ve had the same one. There have definitely been times when eternal rest seemed far preferable to the alternative. Heaven, as conceived in the Middle Ages, seems like spending your existence stroking the Big Guy’s ego. While I doubt He would actually want that (you’d think that even He would get bored of the same song over and over), what <b>do</b> you do for eternity?
Go ahead, Lib. I just meant my OP to be a starting point for a discussion of concepts of the afterlife. I had a feeling we would end up discussing the whole Paradise Lost scenario, and the paradoxes that arose from it. Anyway, I’m the one who asked the questions about God creating evil, so it would be sort of churlish for me to cry “hijack” if somebody answers them. By all means, give me your input.
So once the end has come, when all people are one in love and one with God, there will be no need for Satan or demons. Hence the creation of the pit for Satan and demons. God sees a time when all will come to him so there will be no need to test people. The evil inclination (Satan) will disapear and will be replaced by love.
BTW, angels do not have free will. They are automotons who do God’s will, simple tools for his purpose. This includes the angels used for doing good and the angels used for doing evil. All are under the direction and control of God.
That still leaves a very big ‘WHY?’.
What’s the point?
More importantly, what’s the choice? Fundamentalism?
Wasn’t it said there would be false prophets?
As the fundies are a fairly recent sect, that would make them highly suspicious.
Yes I also believe eternal life is for the saved.
If you choose to not be saved and believe on Jesus, then you have no eternal life.
You are destroyed.
Better not to be than suffer forever outside of time in a burning hell.
I know our God would not do that to us for a few years here on earth. 0887
As you know, my first premise is “God is Love”, with love being the means of expressing goodness. So, that’s what God is: the expression of goodness. That means that goodness is His very nature. He could choose to do evil, yes, but only by choosing to destroy Himself.
He therefore did not create either goodness or evil. Goodness has always existed as an actuality. Evil has always existed as a potential.
But why were we created? God created man as an agent for His expression. Our creation as free moral agents expands God’s love beyond mere narcissism. Man actualizes evil by rejecting God, thereby shutting off the flow of goodness and stifling the spirit of God within him.
Sorry that’s so brief, but it’s a pretty simple concept that doesn’t need a lot of narrative, I don’t think. Unless, as usual, all I’ve done is manage to confuse and frustrate. 
porkchop, thanks for helping to clarify what I didn’t do a great job of explaining in all my “hell” talk.
Yes, Sheol or Hades (same place, different languages) was seen as a sort of undergroubd holding tank for souls awaiting judgement day. Some parts of Hades were worse than others (Tartarus was the worst) but, for the Jews, it was not eternal. On judgement day, the good would be granted eternal life on Earth (in a sort of restored Eden). The bad would be “cast into a fire” (i.e. utterly destroyed; obliterated).
Sometimes Hades or Sheol were just metaphors for death ( like referring to “the grave” or saying that someone is “six feet under.”)
Jesus’ statements about the Valley of Hinnon were meant to illustrate the final destruction of the soul and the body.
Not confusing at all, (to me, at least) but maybe not a traditional christian answer.
I wonder if you know how close your views are to some Eastern theologies, specifically some aspects of Vedantism and even Zen Buddhism.
In these views, love is our natural state, but we are impeded by our egos, and the passions (which all break down to fear and desire) which rule the ego. If we just let go of our egos we feel our oneness with God (however you imagine “God.” Hinduism sees all formal concepts of God as metaphorical expressions of the ultimate, unknowable Brahman) and we will be in Samadhi (Satori, Nirvana) the ultimate state of love and bliss, which is always just under the surface. It is not something which is grasped for. It is waiting only for us to let go of our egos. The metaphor of a monkey reaching into a jar for a piece of fruit is sometimes used to illustrate this. The monkey can’t get it’s hand out of the jar as long as it is grasping the fruit. All he has to do is let go of the fruit, but he is too greedy and stupid to realize this. Our egos are like the monkey.
There are many described paths or “yogas” for freeing our egos, but the key is love. Love for others is the only emotion which we can be sure is all good. Love is non-selfish. Love kills the ego. The more we love, the freer we become.
As Jesus said, it is easy to love our families, our spouses our children. It is not so easy to love our enemies, and to do so sincerely. But love our enemies we must. As long as we withhold any love at all, we feed the ego.
The ego is extremely subtle and deceptive. It is the whispering serpent which convinces us that we love because we do good things. If we give a dollar to a homeless man, the serpent tells us that we have shown love. This is an extremely easy trap to fall into. I think that this is what the Bible means when it speaks of acts, alone, not being adequate. If we do good things, but we do not love sincerely, then we are still in hell and we are still feeding the serpent. The serpent often grows fatter from good deeds than from bad ones.
I could go on and on about this, but I’ve grown far enough afield from the topic. Maybe a separate discussion of Eastern/Western commonality would be threadworthy. Let me know what you think.
Not necessary for me, but thanks.