Thanks for posting this!
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Assuming a price needs to be paid. Lets look at that 'assumption' again.....
Assuming a price needs to be paid. Lets look at that 'assumption' again.....
This is assuming a price for anything needed to be paid.
Don't forget,....you reap what you sow,...no one can reap the penalty and suffering for your own sins, since that would abrogate the law of self-responsibility. The universal law of karma (the law of compensation) holds,....each soul suffers for their own sins. The very concept of a vicarious death or 'paying the penalty' for another persons sins, is problematic there, and on other levels.
Now a prophet, holy man/woman, or a divine being, avatar, angel, celestial, messiah, etc. can bestow certain graces, and by giving their life effect a dispensation of grace (even taken on some karma not their own),...but even with that outpouring of grace (mediation/intercession), that mediation NEVER abrogates the law of self-responsibility! You are still responsible for your own actions, and likewise experience the 'consequences' of those actions,...for such is a 'law'.
This concept of someone else dying for another's sins, is pretty vague/nebuolous really, unless you combine various old atonement theories and make some kind of logic out of it, then it leads to another concept of that one doing ALL the work for you (they alone are truly righteous, and somehow all that righteousness gets imputed to you),...still compounding a double-whammy benefit for the believer, which further leads to various OSAS spin-offs,...and free license to sin among some camps, since "hey, its all under the blood". One erroneous/mistaken concept/belief.....compounds into others like a snow-ball effect. Its an avalanche, posing as a pretty snow-man.
In any case, my previous commentary on 'blood-atonement' holds, without too much difference, unless knowledge or revelation on the subject dawns, but for now,....I see it only being some kind of symbolic/metaphorical significance, merely 'figurative', possibly corresponding to some inner gesture or psychological meaning, but whether believing in some 'blood-atonement' actually affects or transforms the soul, remains skeptical and speculative at this point. It can,...and I accept estoric/spiritual meanings and values coveyed thru figurative language, even the symbols of 'flesh' and 'blood', but again, these can be variously interpreted depending on how they are 'translated'.
So, if I were you, I'd reconsider the 'dying for sins' concept, and the popular 'spin' some religionists put on it. It could just be a 'belief' and a 'concept',...that's it. What if that's all it is. Are you courageous enough to accept that, if it were true. Could you drop those beliefs and concepts, and just let reality be what it is? Just BE. (being without no beliefs whatsoever). This direction could be real liberation. But this is another chapter,..when you are left with nothing but reality itself (this leads to the research of reality thru direct experience or knowing, by considering the nature of consciousness itself).
While I'm more of a mystic/gnostic at times, valuing personal revelation of 'God' as the proof/evidence of 'God' (its just the "I" of consciousness reflecting back to itself anyways as the prime reality),....I'm also open to challenge, research and ever question my own beliefs, tendencies, points of view, opinions on any subject...which makes me sometimes ride a more agnostic-skeptical crest on certain subjects. Some things I can know (to varying degrees), other things I do not know, or maybe cannot know! - this is that realm of 'agnosis' (no knowledge). - but I ever continue forward in the journey, learning or unlearning as I go
In-joy!
pj
Assuming a price needs to be paid. Lets look at that 'assumption' again.....
This is assuming a price for anything needed to be paid.
Don't forget,....you reap what you sow,...no one can reap the penalty and suffering for your own sins, since that would abrogate the law of self-responsibility. The universal law of karma (the law of compensation) holds,....each soul suffers for their own sins. The very concept of a vicarious death or 'paying the penalty' for another persons sins, is problematic there, and on other levels.
Now a prophet, holy man/woman, or a divine being, avatar, angel, celestial, messiah, etc. can bestow certain graces, and by giving their life effect a dispensation of grace (even taken on some karma not their own),...but even with that outpouring of grace (mediation/intercession), that mediation NEVER abrogates the law of self-responsibility! You are still responsible for your own actions, and likewise experience the 'consequences' of those actions,...for such is a 'law'.
This concept of someone else dying for another's sins, is pretty vague/nebuolous really, unless you combine various old atonement theories and make some kind of logic out of it, then it leads to another concept of that one doing ALL the work for you (they alone are truly righteous, and somehow all that righteousness gets imputed to you),...still compounding a double-whammy benefit for the believer, which further leads to various OSAS spin-offs,...and free license to sin among some camps, since "hey, its all under the blood". One erroneous/mistaken concept/belief.....compounds into others like a snow-ball effect. Its an avalanche, posing as a pretty snow-man.
In any case, my previous commentary on 'blood-atonement' holds, without too much difference, unless knowledge or revelation on the subject dawns, but for now,....I see it only being some kind of symbolic/metaphorical significance, merely 'figurative', possibly corresponding to some inner gesture or psychological meaning, but whether believing in some 'blood-atonement' actually affects or transforms the soul, remains skeptical and speculative at this point. It can,...and I accept estoric/spiritual meanings and values coveyed thru figurative language, even the symbols of 'flesh' and 'blood', but again, these can be variously interpreted depending on how they are 'translated'.
So, if I were you, I'd reconsider the 'dying for sins' concept, and the popular 'spin' some religionists put on it. It could just be a 'belief' and a 'concept',...that's it. What if that's all it is. Are you courageous enough to accept that, if it were true. Could you drop those beliefs and concepts, and just let reality be what it is? Just BE. (being without no beliefs whatsoever). This direction could be real liberation. But this is another chapter,..when you are left with nothing but reality itself (this leads to the research of reality thru direct experience or knowing, by considering the nature of consciousness itself).
While I'm more of a mystic/gnostic at times, valuing personal revelation of 'God' as the proof/evidence of 'God' (its just the "I" of consciousness reflecting back to itself anyways as the prime reality),....I'm also open to challenge, research and ever question my own beliefs, tendencies, points of view, opinions on any subject...which makes me sometimes ride a more agnostic-skeptical crest on certain subjects. Some things I can know (to varying degrees), other things I do not know, or maybe cannot know! - this is that realm of 'agnosis' (no knowledge). - but I ever continue forward in the journey, learning or unlearning as I go
In-joy!
pj
Zeke
Well-known member
Yet the planet is built on the physical death of one species to sustain another, and the conscience of plants is taken for granted that they don't feel or have a life force to be concerned with morally, the conviction maybe noble but is it really a higher position than one who has eaten the flesh of an animal verses the flesh of a plant?
The northern tribes subsisted on animal protein mostly, yet the diverse diets of many tribes in the lower latitudes varied according to the seasons, the ability to be a total veg was limited, yet to me being thankful for either source is the key instead of being religious about one being more moral than the other, yet these type of moral platitudes have no limit to the egocentric minds of man needing to look down on someone from their position of moral superiority.
The scapegoating, revenge fantasies and the overt cruelty within every human being produces religions that have theologies of eternal punishment.
It's not what Jesus preached, but since most traditional Christians show no urge to actually take him seriously and follow his teachings, things will continue to remain as they are.
It's not what Jesus preached, but since most traditional Christians show no urge to actually take him seriously and follow his teachings, things will continue to remain as they are.
eye for an eye -
not 2 eyes, 2 arms, a leg an eternity of pain for a tooth
not 2 eyes, 2 arms, a leg an eternity of pain for a tooth
If the penaly to be paid is eternal conscious torment, then Jesus didn't pay THAT penalty. He died on the cross, He wasn't eternally consciously tormented on the cross. The penalty that Jesus paid for us on the cross is death. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
Whoever believes in Him shall not perish but will have eternal life. (John 3:16b)
Do not forget the tongue, that evil little member, like a little horn ruler speaking marvelous things against those tabernacled in the heavens and the Tabernacle of God:
James 3:5-8 KJV
5. Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
6. And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
7. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
8. But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
If you refuse to cut off your tongue and cast him from you, (Mid-Acts or not) then you are poisoned and your whole body is defiled by your tongue because it is an unruly evil that no man can tame! Therefore anyone who takes all of the Bible literally but refuses to cut off his or her own tongue gets hell fire conscious torment forever because that non-believer loves his or her tongue more than God! There it is right there! The Bible says so! :crackup:
If any children read this please know it was only said tongue in cheek! :devil:
The scripture you gave does not actually say that they will get conscious torment forever. It actually says "set on fire by hell (Gehenna)". Things that are set on fire get destroyed by that fire, not tormented alive forever by that fire. James even compares this to a small fire that consumes a large forest. A forest is not "tormented" by a forest fire. A forest is consumed by a forest fire, the forest is destroyed by the fire.
Perhaps that is why I stated that it was only said "tongue in cheek"? (meaning I still have my tongue even though I said what I did; but perhaps better stated, it was said with a grain of salt, or with some flavor to it,
). Neither are the words "eternal conscious torment" found anywhere in the scripture now called canon but rather in other books, pulpits, sermons, and places like this; where your soul is at risk if you do not believe what someone else tells you they learned in church.PS ~ If the tongue is set on fire by Hell or Gehenna then where exactly is Hell or Gehenna literally speaking? Sounds to me like it is somewhere below the throat: perhaps the belly? I know some people who when they open their mouths it is like opening the well of the abyss: the sun and the air about them is darkened by thick black smoke as if from the great iron furnace of Egypt. Then come forth the locusts of their doctrines, (which are legion). :chuckle:
Perhaps that is why I stated that it was only said "tongue in cheek"? (meaning I still have my tongue even though I said what I did; but perhaps better stated, it was said with a grain of salt, or with some flavor to it,
PS ~ If the tongue is set on fire by Hell or Gehenna then where exactly is Hell or Gehenna literally speaking? Sounds to me like it is somewhere below the throat: perhaps the belly? I know some people who when they open their mouths it is like opening the well of the abyss: the sun and the air about them is darkened by thick black smoke as if from the great iron furnace of Egypt. Then come forth the locusts of their doctrines, (which are legion). :chuckle:
All good points, thanks. I am so used to correcting people who claim to see eternal conscious torment in a verse when it isn't there, that it has become automatic.
I disagree, a loving God would protect His children (we are not His child merely by existing but through Christ) from those who do not honor Him or others.
Also the very word used to signify eternal life, also is used for eternal punishment. So it has to mean the same thing, eternal, everlasting, forever.
Don't forget that if a person is annihilated, that too is an eternal, everlasting, forever punishment. You must be alive forever in order to have eternal life. You do not have to be alive forever in order to be dead forever, to undergo the punishment that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 calls "eternal destruction".
Also, God is more than able to "protect his children" without resorting to eternal torture.
true. logical - Father God isn't into keeping folks alive and tortured for eternity - if that's somebody's idea of God's Plan it's wrong - then again, if somebody truly deserves that according to God's Will, Amen. so be it, even me -
This says otherwise:
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name."
Now explain how something that has been annihilated, is tormented forever. You have to be alive to suffer torment. That verse blows your theory.
That verse doesn't even say that the wicked will be tormented alive forever. What it actually says is "the SMOKE of their torment will rise forever". IT is quote easy to explain. They are tormented by their destruction, and then the smoke from that destruction rises forever.
So I don't believe that something that has been annihilated is tormented forever. In fact, I believe the opposite, that something that has been annihilated CANNOT experience torment forever.
According to the Bible, the end of the wicked is destruction, and the wicked will be no more. Now it is up to you to explain exactly how something that has been destroyed and is no more can be tortured alive forever. That alone blows your theory.
You need to show where it says they are annihilated. Its not up to me to work with your false premise.
Check this out:
Revelation 20:10 Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Day and night, forever and ever. Same word used that is used for forever in other places.
even that can be interpreted - as you typed -
their torment will rise forever. it never says they will live forever in torment - it will always be known to God and possibly the saved. again, no rest for those who worship the beast and take the mark can be literal also, yet may mean - while alive/conscience with ability to feel. absurd
Sure, but then the question arises, "Is eternal torture according to God's Will?"
According to the Bible, it is not God's will that any should perish (note the wording, it doesn't say "be eternally tortured") but all should come to repentance. It is not God's will that any perish (much less be tortured alive for all eternity) but it is His will that all repent and receive eternal life. But we know that since people have free will, some will refuse to repent. It is not God's will that these should perish, He would rather have them repent, but they will perish since they have rejected God.
So we know from the Bible that neither eternal torture nor death is what God would prefer to have happen, but we also know from the Bible that some will refuse to repent and they will perish.