Here’s a question for anyone who believes in the existence of HELL:

[seeds]

As you already KNOW I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing,...

Why in the world do you assume that I know (or even care) whether you believe or disbelieve anything?

But I do NOT assume absolutely any thing like this at all. I was NOT even thinking, let alone talking, about absolutely any thing like this at all.

You clearly assumed that I “already know” that you neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

What I was saying, and meaning, IS; I am just stating that I do NOT 'believe' any thing at all here, EVEN THOUGH I can SEE that you are waiting for a hell-'believing' human being. I was just making it CLEAR to you, and the readers, that I am NOT a hell-'believing' ANY thing. That was all I was saying, and meaning, by that part of my response.

[......]

By the way, to me, 'hell' is a PROVABLE FACT, and NOT just some thing, which is believed to be true.

As was fully expected, you are going to contort the meanings of your statements and attempt to draw me into another one of your black holes of endless labyrinthian word mazes and never actually provide any useful information.

I knew I was going to regret this.

(Where’s that little girl from the movie “The Ring” when you need her; the one who crawls from a monitor and deals with the person on the other side of the screen? )

I’m just kidding you, ken, and I’m sure that you mean well.

However, if you think that your attempt to convince “us humans” that you are actually “channeling” the intelligence of the universe is anything other than your own little version of New Age flimflam 101,...

(on a par with the likes of Darryl Anka, who claims to channel an entity from the future called Bashar, or J. Z. Knight, who claims to channel a 35,000-year-old being called Ramtha, or Esther Hicks who claims to channel a group entity called Abraham)

...then your source of “universal intelligence” is not very reliable.

And it’s not that so-called “channelers” (be they sincerely deluded believers, or purposeful con artists) don’t provide the occasional nugget of wisdom here and there, it’s just that some of us have been around long enough to see and understand what’s really going on.
_______

[surreptitious57]

Okay but what does the function of the brain actually mean ?

And how how EXACTLY in what way does this function relate to how the brain thinks ?

What does the word your actually refer to in relation to your mind ?

But you and I do SEE things on just about completely opposing views and perspectives in regards to these matters

The function of the brain pertains to how it operates electrochemically with regard to the firing of neurons and the processing of thoughts

The my in my mind refers to the physical brain and / or its function which is mine and mine only because everything in my body is mine

Human beings see things differently because no two think exactly the same all of the time which is a consequence of free will

Once again we have two just about completely opposing views regarding things here

So what are your answers to your own questions then ? And if yours are different to mine then does that mean that mine are wrong ?

You have probably answered them multiple times already but I cannot fully remember them so you will have to refresh my memory

[seeds]

The function of the brain pertains to how it operates electrochemically with regard to the firing of neurons and the processing of thoughts

The my in my mind refers to the physical brain and / or its function which is mine and mine only because everything in my body is mine

Human beings see things differently because no two think exactly the same all of the time which is a consequence of free will

Once again we have two just about completely opposing views regarding things here

So what are your answers to your own questions then ? And if yours are different to mine then does that mean that mine are wrong ?

You have probably answered them multiple times already but I cannot fully remember them so you will have to refresh my memory

surreptitious57, I would greatly appreciate it if you would have the courtesy to not lead this thread off into a direction that has nothing to do with the OP question.

If you want to get into an off-topic discussion with Age about something you’ve been debating with him elsewhere, then please create a new thread in the appropriate forum (perhaps in the Philosophy of Mind forum).

Thank you.
_______

[Age]

As you already KNOW I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing,...

Why in the world do you assume that I know (or even care) whether you believe or disbelieve anything?

But I do NOT assume absolutely any thing like this at all. I was NOT even thinking, let alone talking, about absolutely any thing like this at all.

You clearly assumed that I “already know” that you neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

Yes that is right. I was assuming that you already knew this, which is a very foolish mistake of mine. So, I apologize.

To answer your first question; I assumed this because I thought we had chatted before and you were already aware of this. I never assumed you cared. I was just making the point that because you were seeking someone who believed hell exists, I was just making it clear to you that although I neither believe nor disbelieve hell exists, I KNOW how hell exists.

What I was saying, and meaning, IS; I am just stating that I do NOT 'believe' any thing at all here, EVEN THOUGH I can SEE that you are waiting for a hell-'believing' human being. I was just making it CLEAR to you, and the readers, that I am NOT a hell-'believing' ANY thing. That was all I was saying, and meaning, by that part of my response.

[......]

By the way, to me, 'hell' is a PROVABLE FACT, and NOT just some thing, which is believed to be true.

As was fully expected, you are going to contort the meanings of your statements and attempt to draw me into another one of your black holes of endless labyrinthian word mazes and never actually provide any useful information.

I knew I was going to regret this.

But why do you assume that this is going to happen?

Where have I supposedly "contorted' the meanings of my statements?

(Where’s that little girl from the movie “The Ring” when you need her; the one who crawls from a monitor and deals with the person on the other side of the screen? )

I’m just kidding you, ken, and I’m sure that you mean well.

However, if you think that your attempt to convince “us humans” that you are actually “channeling” the intelligence of the universe is anything other than your own little version of New Age flimflam 101,...

What are you on about now?

I have NEVER even remotely suggested that I actually "channel" the intelligence of the Universe. Someone else made that claim, and, of course, "shit like that sticks'. Instead of people actually investigating and finding out what the Truth IS, as usual they just believe whatever they want to believe is true.

If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.

However, if you just want to BELIEVE that 'hell' does NOT exist, then keep BELIEVING what you do, and so remain completely CLOSED to anything opposing your OWN BELIEF.

The intention of your opening post was clear. I, however, was giving you the benefit of the doubt in your supposed seeking of someone who BELIEVES 'hell' exists. My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning, but if I am still NOT the one you are looking for, then so be it.

(on a par with the likes of Darryl Anka, who claims to channel an entity from the future called Bashar, or J. Z. Knight, who claims to channel a 35,000-year-old being called Ramtha, or Esther Hicks who claims to channel a group entity called Abraham)

...then your source of “universal intelligence” is not very reliable.

WHERE have I ever stated that I "channel" ANY thing, let alone "channel universal intelligence"?

Have I ever said any thing like this, or is this just the conclusion that you have arrived at already? Have you done one shred of investigation or clarifying in regards to this? Or, did you just assume that it was true, and now believe that it is true?

And it’s not that so-called “channelers” (be they sincerely deluded believers, or purposeful con artists) don’t provide the occasional nugget of wisdom here and there, it’s just that some of us have been around long enough to see and understand what’s really going on.
_______

"What's really going on". LOL

EVERY thing I say can and will be backed up and supported with empirical EVIDENCE and PROOF, or with sound, valid arguments.

[Age]

The function of the brain pertains to how it operates electrochemically with regard to the firing of neurons and the processing of thoughts

The my in my mind refers to the physical brain and / or its function which is mine and mine only because everything in my body is mine

Human beings see things differently because no two think exactly the same all of the time which is a consequence of free will

Once again we have two just about completely opposing views regarding things here

So what are your answers to your own questions then ?

Finally, thank you.

My answer to my first and second question is; I would NOT say such a thing in the first place. That was what you said, so only you can clarify what that means.

And, my answer to the third question is; The word 'your' does NOT actually refer to any thing in relation the the word 'Mind'. This is because there is NO 'your' relative to the 'Mind', from my perspective.

And if yours are different to mine then does that mean that mine are wrong ?

NO. But if yours can NOT be argued soundly and validly, do NOT fit in with EVERY thing else perfectly, nor can be proven with empirical evidence, then that would make them NOT EXACTLY right.

You have probably answered them multiple times already but I cannot fully remember them so you will have to refresh my memory

If I recall correctly, I have NEVER answered questions like that previously. As far as I remember you are the first one to put questions like this to me. Even though I ask to be questioned, AND to be challenged, this very rarely happens, which still surprises me somewhat considering this is meant to be a 'philosophy' forum.

[Age]

Once again we have two just about completely opposing views regarding things here

So what are your answers to your own questions then ? And if yours are different to mine then does that mean that mine are wrong ?

You have probably answered them multiple times already but I cannot fully remember them so you will have to refresh my memory

surreptitious57, I would greatly appreciate it if you would have the courtesy to not lead this thread off into a direction that has nothing to do with the OP question.

If you want to get into an off-topic discussion with Age about something you’ve been debating with him elsewhere, then please create a new thread in the appropriate forum (perhaps in the Philosophy of Mind forum).

Thank you.
_______

Just so you are aware; I do NOT do 'debate'.

[seeds]

WHERE have I ever stated that I "channel" ANY thing, let alone "channel universal intelligence"?

Have I ever said any thing like this, or is this just the conclusion that you have arrived at already? Have you done one shred of investigation or clarifying in regards to this? Or, did you just assume that it was true, and now believe that it is true?

You do not need to come right out and state that you are channeling something. And that’s because, remarkably, almost to this very day - three years ago...

(in the thread titled “How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?”)

...you presented yourself (through ken) as a channeled entity - as was made obvious in the following quotes:

...Human beings come to KNOW Me when they have been prepared and thus ready to.

...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things...

Clearly, those are two shreds of the incriminating evidence you were asking for...

...(of which you will no doubt try to make some kind of meaning-denying excuses for).

Now I am not trying to be rude or mean-spirited in what I am about to say. However, in your conversation with Lacewing, you stated the following:

I have ONLY 'hinted' at what I have to say. I have NEVER given you ANY thing.

And that is precisely the problem with your entire (approximately) four years of posting on this forum.

By your own admission, you have almost never given us anything but “hints” (what Lacewing called “noise”) at what you have to say.

You have never given us anything that demonstrates to us that you are in possession of anything other than the most common and rudimentary elements of metaphysical knowledge.

And because of that, no one here (except, perhaps, surreptitious57) has the time or patience to try and tease out of you your “hinted at” deep knowledge of reality by asking you “clarifying questions” that, based on what you have shown us thus far, may only result in the discovery that you are nothing more than a philosophical neophyte when it comes to these lofty issues.

And the point is that if you are truly here with the intent of learning how to communicate better (as you so often insist), then stop beating around the bush by “hinting” at what you allegedly know about life and reality,...

(or any given topic that you decide to intrude upon)

...and lay it out for us in precise and unambiguous statements of facts that we can analyze and evaluate.

And as one simple example of what I am getting at, instead of you phrasing a statement about heaven and hell like this...

See, thee Truth IS, heaven and hell are REAL, so called, "destinations" of the human 'soul'. BUT, what is needed FIRST is 'knowledge' of what 'heaven', 'hell', and 'human soul' REALLY ARE, in order to be able to FULLY understand ALL-OF-THIS.

...which is in the form of one of your “hints” that imply that you yourself know what heaven, hell, and the soul really are.

Instead, just openly present, as succinctly as you can, exactly what your “knowledge” of what heaven, hell, and the soul really are.

No more hints, no more beating around the bush, no more expecting us to tease it out of you. Just present your knowledge of heaven, hell, and the soul as you understand them to be, and then allow us to judge the value of your information.

The bottom line is, ken/Age, that from this moment on, if all you can do in your posts is present nothing but “hints” to what you really have to say, then you will be proving to everyone here that you simply do not have anything of any worth or substance to offer us.
_______

[Stach77]

In the beginning of my reply I confess, that i did not read every single post carefully.
I am trying respond to the first, opening post, understanding the first clarification with the wikipidia quote about hell. It is so, because in the last posts i saw phrases like 'brain functions' and so on, and i consider them not related and too distanced from main question.

Introductory remarks: I was raised as a catholic, and technically i am one. Right now i am a seminarian (that is, i am studying to be a caholic priest). Realistically speaking i shifted away from faith and as for today i see myself more like at a starting point of belief. For the reasons of classification i can call myself an agnostic with deistic tendencies. I am still in the seminary because of different reasons (see my post in the section for the personal introduction) I will reply basing myself on the catholic teaching, because if i would have faith, i would follow this description as true.

Technical remarks: 1. Catholics do not believe dogmatically in limbo (or rather: the magisterium of the Catholic Church does not teach, that such a place exists. Relevant document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... ts_en.html)

Response (responses):

With that in mind, the question is: would you, Christian or Muslim,...

(or anyone else who believes in the existence of the heaven/hell scenario)

...be willing to relinquish your eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

In other words,...

(at least in terms of this hypothetical situation)

...if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?

Look carefully seeds, that you asked two different questions due to a small change, which actually changes a lot.
Q1. Would i be willing to: relinquish your [my] eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

Answering bare question as it stands: To be 100% sincere i would like to, but probably i would not do it, since a prospect of never ending suffering in hell it would horrify me, and certain bliss in heaven would deprive me off the feeling of guilt. So in this circumstance, rather not

Answering it with a catholic presuppositions: Rather yes, since it is 'God who is love' who judges man (CCC 678-679 https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1W.HTM) and the main (or even the only) criteria of the judgment is love to: God and your neighbor. (Matthew 22:36-40, previous link). If i sacrifice myself because of the love for the other, there is a big chance, that God will save me as well. Christ said that: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13).

Q2. "if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?"

The underlined part makes a difference: It says, that I will sacrifice mine and other person's life for another one. This one I would surely not do, since i would be putting at stake someone else's life.

Still, such a situation has no place in the Catholic faith and dogma, so it is just an interesting moral-brain teaser.

[seeds]

_______

Thank you for your response, Stach77 (and welcome to the forum ).

With that in mind, the question is: would you, Christian or Muslim,...

(or anyone else who believes in the existence of the heaven/hell scenario)

...be willing to relinquish your eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

In other words,...

(at least in terms of this hypothetical situation)

...if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?

Response (responses):

Look carefully seeds, that you asked two different questions due to a small change, which actually changes a lot.

Q1. Would i be willing to: relinquish your [my] eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

Answering bare question as it stands: To be 100% sincere i would like to, but probably i would not do it, since a prospect of never ending suffering in hell it would horrify me, and certain bliss in heaven would deprive me off the feeling of guilt. So in this circumstance, rather not

First of all, under the terms of the scenario I proposed, at no time would you ever have to face the prospect of suffering in hell. So I don’t understand why you would include that in your response.

And secondly, regarding the bliss of heaven somehow relieving you of the feeling of guilt, for one thing, there is no reason for you to feel any “guilt” in the first place, for you aren’t the one administering the torture to your loved one, it is God who is doing it.

If anything, it is God and Jesus who should be experiencing guilt, yet for some inexplicable reason, Christian dogma portrays them as being nothing less than demonic in nature, for it is they who have created and sustain a dimension of eternal torture and suffering that they could eliminate in an instant.

The bottom line is that I am merely asking the believers in hell, that if they had the opportunity to do what Jesus supposedly did – sacrifice their life out of love and for the redemption of another soul from the torture of hell, would they do it?

If the answer is no, then I question their worthiness to be in heaven in the first place.

Q2. "if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?"

The underlined part makes a difference: It says, that I will sacrifice mine and other person's life for another one. This one I would surely not do, since i would be putting at stake someone else's life.

We're only talking about the erasure of two souls here - you and your suffering loved one. The way you worded your reply implies a third person. And seeing how your loved one is allegedly writhing in a horrific state of unimaginable pain and agony that is meant to continue forever and ever, then I’m pretty sure that they...

(perhaps your mom, or your sister or brother, or even your own child, for example)

...would be extremely grateful to you for putting an end to their suffering. Indeed, erasure from life would be a mercy and a blessing for them.

Did you not see the insanity of it all in the cartoon I uploaded?

Still, such a situation has no place in the Catholic faith and dogma, so it is just an interesting moral-brain teaser.

I disagree, for it most assuredly has a place in any religious system that proposes the existence of a heaven and a hell.

Now none of this is meant to dissuade anyone from believing that God exists. It is just meant to highlight the absurdity of thinking that the Creator of the unfathomable order and beauty of the universe would be some kind of insanely evil fiend.
_______

[Age]

WHERE have I ever stated that I "channel" ANY thing, let alone "channel universal intelligence"?

Have I ever said any thing like this, or is this just the conclusion that you have arrived at already? Have you done one shred of investigation or clarifying in regards to this? Or, did you just assume that it was true, and now believe that it is true?

You do not need to come right out and state that you are channeling something. And that’s because, remarkably, almost to this very day - three years ago...

Why do you propose that this is 'remarkable'?

Could this be, remarkably, because of some not yet known, to you, source has caused this to occur?

(in the thread titled “How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?”)

...you presented yourself (through ken) as a channeled entity - as was made obvious in the following quotes:

LOL saying "obvious" BUT NEVER actually asking any clarifying question nor making any actual investigation at all prior to this supposed "obvious" ASSUMPTION you have made here.

...Human beings come to KNOW Me when they have been prepared and thus ready to.

And you are presenting yourself (through any name) as an assuming entity - which bases THEIR OWN conclusions on NOTHING but what you ASSUME, and now BELIEF is true.

IF you ever wanted to investigate and clarify, then you would ALREADY KNOW that what I said there has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with channeling at all.

When you are able to answer the question 'Who am 'I'?', then 'you' to will be able to say; 'Human beings come to KNOW Me when they have been prepared and thus ready to. That is; When 'you', human beings, have been prepared and thus ready to, then you will be able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and correctly, also. And then, you will discover and SEE how there is NO channeling going on here at all. Until then, you will remain an assuming, and believing, human being, who has not yet been prepared and thus not yet ready to, logically, KNOW, and answer the question, who am 'I'? JUST YET.

...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things...

Clearly, those are two shreds of the incriminating evidence you were asking for...

The first one IS NOT evidence.

While,

This second one IS.

So, thank you. That was what I was asking for in my simple Truly OPEN clarifying questions.

...(of which you will no doubt try to make some kind of meaning-denying excuses for).

What are you talking about now?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED I just asked you four very SIMPLE and Truly OPEN clarifying questions. Were you, once more, PRE-SUMING I was saying some thing in those four questions, other than just asking them, from a Truly OPEN perspective, for clarity?

Now I am not trying to be rude or mean-spirited in what I am about to say. However, in your conversation with Lacewing, you stated the following:

I have ONLY 'hinted' at what I have to say. I have NEVER given you ANY thing.

And that is precisely the problem with your entire (approximately) four years of posting on this forum.

By your own admission, you have almost never given us anything but “hints” (what Lacewing called “noise”) at what you have to say.

And what is the so called "problem" with this?

If anyone had taken the time to read what I have actually been (consistently) saying for (approximately) four years of posting on this forum, then they would have seen that; If you want to be able to SEE and KNOW thee actual Truth of things, then do NOT assume NOR believe ANY thing whatsoever. And, if you want to KNOW what I have to say, and Truly mean, then just show some interest, be inquisitive, and just ask me clarifying questions.

Also, and by the way, just not providing hints I do NOT see as "noise" at all. What I SEE as "noise" is distracting on purpose through words, or untruths told through words.

I am NOT in this forum to express what I have to say, that is for another arena. I am just here looking for those who are still much very young child like, in that they are Truly OPEN and thus still very much inquisitive and wondering creatures. Obviously, if one is NOT that much inquisitive anymore, then they must already knows things, and therefore they really do NOT want to learn much more anyway. Also, if one is NOT prepared to be Truly Honest with ME, then they are not yet prepared thus nor are they ready to have me be Truly Honest with them.

Only when one has been prepared and thus is ready to KNOW 'Who 'I' am", thy Self, only then 'I' will REVEAL thy 'Self', to them.

You have never given us anything that demonstrates to us that you are in possession of anything other than the most common and rudimentary elements of metaphysical knowledge.

Yes.

I have also rarely been asked any very specific clarifying questions in which I could give very specific answers to.

See, I am in NO rush at all to express what it is that I WILL, one day, anyway. There is NO use speaking to an audience who will NOT listen anyway.

Oh, and by the way, what could 'I' have actually given 'you' that demonstrates to 'you' that 'i' am in possession of anything other than the most common and rudimentary elements of metaphysical knowledge?

And because of that, no one here (except, perhaps, surreptitious57) has the time or patience to try and tease out of you your “hinted at” deep knowledge of reality by asking you “clarifying questions” that, based on what you have shown us thus far, may only result in the discovery that you are nothing more than a philosophical neophyte when it comes to these lofty issues.

"may only" being the operative words here.

You are basing ALL OF THIS on "may only".

Now, imagine if this ASSUMPTION was turned around and these words were " will actually result", then the clarifying questions would be firing at ME non stop.

By the way, considering many philosophical discussions or issues have NOT been resolved for thousands upon thousands of years, then just maybe a complete new-comer was what was really needed. Obviously EVERY old way of looking at, seeing, and discussing philosophical, or so called "lofty" issues has NOT worked, hitherto.

And the point is that if you are truly here with the intent of learning how to communicate better (as you so often insist), then stop beating around the bush by “hinting” at what you allegedly know about life and reality,...

Okay. What is it that you want to discover, learn, know, and/or understand?

(or any given topic that you decide to intrude upon)

...and lay it out for us in precise and unambiguous statements of facts that we can analyze and evaluate.

This is the part that I am wanting to learn how to do better.

See, words by their very nature can be ambiguous in and of themselves, so how does a person KNOW, for sure, which definition and meaning is being used with EVERY word?

And as one simple example of what I am getting at, instead of you phrasing a statement about heaven and hell like this...

See, thee Truth IS, heaven and hell are REAL, so called, "destinations" of the human 'soul'. BUT, what is needed FIRST is 'knowledge' of what 'heaven', 'hell', and 'human soul' REALLY ARE, in order to be able to FULLY understand ALL-OF-THIS.

...which is in the form of one of your “hints” that imply that you yourself know what heaven, hell, and the soul really are.

Well at least this appears to be getting well understood.

Instead, just openly present, as succinctly as you can, exactly what your “knowledge” of what heaven, hell, and the soul really are.

But to WHO?

NO one has SHOWN any interest at all in hearing, let alone knowing, what my view is.

You BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'heaven' and 'hell' are NOT even possible, which you are TOTALLY FREE to believe.

And besides these, I certainly do NOT want to impose my views on ANY one, and, especially not on ANY one who already believes that they KNOW what the truth is.

No more hints, no more beating around the bush, no more expecting us to tease it out of you.

But I am NOT 'expecting' you to. I have just suggested that if you want to Truly KNOW what "another" is actually meaning in what they are saying, then clarification, without assumptions nor beliefs is what is needed.

But, obviously, one has to have some interest, in the beginning, in order to KNOW "another", or more correctly know what "another" is actually saying, AND MEANING, in what they say.

Just present your knowledge of heaven, hell, and the soul as you understand them to be, and then allow us to judge the value of your information.

Explain to me ANY version you like of the 'heaven', 'hell', and/or 'soul' that you have heard before, and then I WILL tell how they fit in with the 'real world' view. That is, if it can.

The bottom line is, ken/Age, that from this moment on, if all you can do in your posts is present nothing but “hints” to what you really have to say, then you will be proving to everyone here that you simply do not have anything of any worth or substance to offer us.
_______

See, one of the reasons I have for defer what I have to say, is because a lot of it hinges on people FULLY understanding just HOW the Mind and the brain work. And, by just explaining this, through what I really have to say, people do not, generally, just accept things without actual evidence or proof. So, the more people here, in this forum, make the ASSUMPTION that I simply do not have anything of any worth nor substance to offer, the ones in this forum, then to EVERY one else, NOT here, when this is being written, I have the actual proof needed to back up and support my claim about just HOW the Mind and the brain work.

What a few people, here in this forum, "see" and believe as being me, supposedly, proving some thing, "others" will actually SEE is the very evidence AND proof of how it is the brain, through the belief-system, which is what fools ALL people to "see" things, which are NOT actually there/here. And, they will SEE HOW it is actually the Mind, which is what is able to, (sit back and observe, as they say,) decipher ALL-OF-THIS, and SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee actual Truth IS.

Oh, and by the way, do NOT forget that you started this thread in order to seek out those, who you wanted to ridicule and humiliate them about, in relation to their views on 'heaven' and 'hell' being actual, real and true. Well HERE I AM, 'one of those'. So, since you began this thread, then it would be rude of me to tell you that you are WRONG, when I have not yet shown you the decency to explain FULLY how and why 'heaven' and 'hell' are NOT true and right.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, somewhat, how and why EVERY one so far has forsaken a life in 'heaven' for those already in 'hell'.

[Dontaskme]

What a few people, here in this forum, "see" and believe as being me, supposedly, proving some thing, "others" will actually SEE is the very evidence AND proof of how it is the brain, through the belief-system, which is what fools ALL people to "see" things, which are NOT actually there/here. And, they will SEE HOW it is actually the Mind, which is what is able to, (sit back and observe, as they say,) decipher ALL-OF-THIS, and SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee actual Truth IS.




I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, somewhat, how and why EVERY one so far has forsaken a life in 'heaven' for those already in 'hell'.

More preaching to the choir Age.

Oh for goodness sake Age, let them have their believed stories...because however the the MIND may be, the space of the Self remains ever the same.

Hey now, it would be very boring if OUR stories were all the same. You've just got to accept it Age, some stories will feature heavenly stuff, and some stories will feature hell stuff. And that's just about the whole truth of it, like it or lump it. Really, you need to stop being so resentful and rejecting one side of the human dream story in absolute favor of the other. There are always two sides to every story, and you know very well that there is just no way the story can ever be separated from the book of LIFE - exactly AS IT IS

We are the whole book Age...nothing can be done about that, but obviously you can always just skip the chapters that hurt or offend you as you sit back and observe this whole book you have written. If you've already written the story, then you've got nothing to complain about, nor do you need to explain anymore because it was all your own 'thoughts' anyway, so there's no need to get all hot and bothered, as you simply cannot undo the script once it's been scripted. But there is one solution to all of this. And that is to not write the book at all, rather, just keep your heavenly hell 'thoughts' to yourself..it's really that simple, it is.







But I don't want to come to an end wha! wha! wha! cries the man. I wanna keep talking about History, because there is nothing else I can possibly know.

[bahman]

_______

Now I realize that there aren’t many Christians or Muslims participating in this forum, nevertheless, perhaps some lurkers might chime in.

The question I am going to pose by way of a thought experiment is primarily based on the Christian belief that many (indeed, most) humans are going to end up in a literal hell of torture and suffering after death.

With that in mind, the question is: would you, Christian or Muslim,...

(or anyone else who believes in the existence of the heaven/hell scenario)

...be willing to relinquish your eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

In other words,...

(at least in terms of this hypothetical situation)

...if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?

And to extend the question a little further: would you do it for a stranger?
_______

Who said that Hell is a bad place? What if one enjoys suffering?

[seeds]

Who said that Hell is a bad place?

Pretty much every religion that offers it up as a part of their dogma.

What if one enjoys suffering?

I’m just making a ridiculous speculation here as to the nature of torture in Hell...

(ridiculous, because the idea of Hell itself is ridiculous)

...but are you suggesting that being endlessly dipped in and out of molten rock (with all of your senses intact) might be a real hoot for someone? Might it not get a little old and unenjoyable after a while...say, after the first millisecond?

I think the more pertinent question (at least in regards to Christianity) is why is the reason for any human needing to be punished eternally in Hell, based on what two mythological knuckleheads did in a mythological place called the Garden of Eden?

By that line of reasoning, some of us should be in prison right now because our great, great, great, granddads rustled cattle or robbed trains.

Furthermore, couldn't all of this have been easily avoided if, back in Eden, God had performed some routine garden pest control and sprayed the place for talking snakes?

That way, the newly created - addle-brained Eve - would not have been deftly persuaded to swipe the mythical fruit from the mythical tree to give to bone-head Adam who, apparently, was weak-willed and would do anything a pretty girl asked him to do (dang those pesky hormones).

In which case, God would have had no reason to sacrifice his son for an “original sin" (an apple-swiping caper) that never happened.

(Btw, if God surely knew that Jesus wasn’t really going to die in any literal sense, and would simply be rejoining him back in heaven, then what did God sacrifice?)

So many questions.

(Like I keep saying, it is time for a new and more logical “material/spiritual” paradigm to replace the old one.)
_______

[Dubious]

(Like I keep saying, it is time for a new and more logical “material/spiritual” paradigm to replace the old one.)
_______

Whatever that would be or become, if it again submits to some form of transcendentalism or afterlife, we're right back to square one.

[seeds]

(Like I keep saying, it is time for a new and more logical “material/spiritual” paradigm to replace the old one.)

Whatever that would be or become, if it again submits to some form of transcendentalism or afterlife, we're right back to square one.

You’re not understanding this properly, Dubious.

The new paradigm doesn’t need to be true.

It just needs to be more logical (more plausible) than the nonsense we’ve been dealing with over the last few millennia.

A couple of examples of “old paradigm” nonsense:

1. The belief in the Heaven and Hell idiocy I’ve been addressing in this thread.

2. The belief that the universe “is a product of chance” idiocy held by hardcore materialists.

We can do better.
_______