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

[seeds]

BUT, EXACTLY as the clarifying question was posed, to you (underlining mine):
'Where in the bible does it state you must first die to enter hell or heaven?

Apparently, Sunday school 101 is required here.

No, the Bible does not have a verse in it that reads:

“...byeth the wayeth, thou must physically die before thou can enter into heaven or hell...”

No, they (the Biblical writers) relied on the (apparently foolish) assumption that humans are at least intelligent enough to infer certain meanings from the Bible’s passages.

For example, what is it about the Biblical assertion...

“...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...”

...that is so hard to interpret?

For all of you heathens who do not seem to have the slightest clue about Christianity...

...the whole bloody premise of the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is based on Jesus having to DIE on the cross...

(in a sacrificial offering to remove the sins of others)

...before he could then be resurrected from DEATH in order to ascend into Heaven...

(which, allegedly, is a transcendent context of reality called the “Kingdom of God”)

...where he (the post DEATH Jesus) is preparing mansions for all those who agreed to the terms of his sacrifice and accepted him as their personal savior – all while they were still physically alive (as in not DEAD yet) back on earth.

And when will they inherit these mansions?

After they DIE, and have been judged worthy of the reward.

All of which is simply meant to give humans the hope that the death of the corporeal body does not necessarily mean the death of the incorporeal soul.

Now, with all of that being said...

(and no doubt in a futile effort to keep your channeled entity from further twisting and misconstruing the intent of this thread)

...let us try to clear up the problem of where you first got it all wrong.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Again, in an effort to clear up the problem of where you first misconstrued the intent of the OP, let’s recall one of our earlier exchanges:

...so I do NOT believe in hell.

If such is the case, then the OP question is not directed at you.

I think you may have FORGOTTEN your OWN opening post.

Would you classify 'me' as a, so called, "lurker" or not?

If no, then how do 'you' define the word 'lurker'?

The very first line in the opening post reads as follows:

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

In which case, the word “lurkers” in that line was intended to be a direct reference to any “Christians or Muslims” who might be lurking out there.

I’m talking about the ones who believe in and adhere to the general conceptions of heaven and hell as set-forth in their corresponding religions (and that includes any tangential interpretations).

And the point is that the OP was not directed at every Tom, Dick, Harry, Henrietta, or channeled Hintman who has an opinion on the concepts of Heaven and Hell.

Now, of course, anyone and everyone is certainly welcome to express their opinion on the subject as long as they don’t try to muck-up the original intent of the thread (like you are doing).

And no, the original intent of the thread was not meant to maliciously ridicule anyone (as you so caustically tried to accuse me of doing); it was meant to ridicule the mythological nonsense handed down to us from the past.

Again, it was meant to make them look deeper into the bizarre and ridiculous implications of what it is they believe - as was clearly portrayed in the cartoon I created and uploaded...

And just in case the dialogue in the caption bubbles is too small or blurry to read, then here is a rundown of what is being said:

Little girl: “Please help me daddy, they’re hurting me! Please daddy, help me!”

Dad: “Sorry punkin, but daddy’s in heaven now and heaven wouldn’t be ‘perfect’ if I had to worry about you....Besides, we told you what would happen if you didn’t believe in ‘our’ concept of God....By the way, how’s your grandma doing?...Oh never mind, why should I care?...I’m in heaven.”

God: “After she has suffered a billion years of unspeakable burning agony, she’ll be sorry she ignored me....I will then continue her torture throughout all eternity....Does anyone doubt the fairness of my judgment?”

1st angel: “Your fairness and mercy are without equal.”

2nd angel: “In the name of love she’s getting exactly what she deserves.”

And, of course, beneath the daughter and the demons is not Satan, but God; the creator and sustainer of all realities - including Hell.

And no, Mr. Hintman, I personally do not believe that anything being portrayed in that cartoon is actually true.

I am merely pointing out to, again, Christians and Muslims just how horribly absurd reality would actually be if their religion’s standard conceptions of Heaven and Hell were indeed accurate.

Now I am quickly running out of Pampers here, but let’s try to clean up yet another one of your messes...

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Like I said, I’m running out of Pampers here, but in keeping with the theme of dealing with your misinterpretations of my intent, let’s address your most recent diaper bomb:

Thank you [attophishpi] for courageously demonstrating precisely what all those who claim to be a “Christian” should be demonstrating.

This is one of the most idiotic and illogical ideas that I have heard of.

If a person who loves only "another" one, then they supposedly "should" 'sacrifice' them 'self' so that one dear to them could live eternally without suffering, then OBVIOUSLY if they loved the one that sacrificed for them, then they would now be 'suffering' severely, eternally, for knowing that the one that was dear to them, sacrificed them self and is now suffering eternally.

I am not surprised, but it appears as though you are completely incapable of understanding the simplest of premises in what is a mere “imaginary” thought experiment based on the implications of certain “mythological” beliefs.

You completely missed the fact that neither of the (two) participants in the imaginary transaction will no longer even exist after the deal is closed.

In other words, they will not be “trading places” in the way that you have so egregiously misconstrued the OP.

No, they will both be permanently erased from the “Book of Life,” thus creating a situation wherein neither suffering nor joy will be experienced by either of them – just pure and utter non-existence for both.

If you had made the slightest effort to understand the premise of, again, this hypothetical thought experiment, then you would have saved us all from having to wade through your unwarranted and non sequiturial blatherings.

WHY do "others" get asked to clarify, yet I rarely do, if ever?

Because you have proven over and over and over again that your idea of "clarification" is to draw someone into an endless labyrinthian maze of word games that never yield anything of any substance.
_______

[attofishpi]

...but also that you did not seem to understand (or simply chose to ignore) this:

Now just in case you are trying to make the point that some horrible situation one might experience while on earth can be described as hellish in nature, then we’re not talking about the same thing.

No. I did answer it (HELL) as:-
Well, it depends. If God is torturing you, as it did with me, usually for 3 month stints. Indeed, when it tortures you to the point where you suicide, and unfortunately wake up in bed the next morning wondering whether indeed, you are still WHERE? HELL.

If you require HELL to also include burning in ACTUAL fire, then sure, it ain't the same thing. You need to understand something about God and the buy bull - much of it is parables projecting warnings, guidance and even hope. The burning I have endure is in the name of LOVE = I burn for love, whilst being teased about it. To explain that further it too personal, so I'll leave it at that.

So why is that not hell?

[Sculptor]

Thank you, Sculptor.

And other than creating a lot of wind while exhibiting the depth and degree of one’s insanity, it’s highly unlikely that any of us in this forum (this asylum rec room) ever achieves anything that we set out to achieve.

I suppose so.
I'm happy with a longer post I made yesterday about the difference between "amoral" and "immoral"; and between Darwin's concepts of Domestic Selection against Natural Selection.
Sadly the target was Skeptic who lost no time attacking from a position of ignorance and accused me of "special pleading".

Yes, you made some good points there.

However, your main mistake was in assuming that Skepdick is capable of being reasoned with.
_______

You can only try.
Thankfully other may read it too.

[Lacewing]

If God is torturing you, as it did with me, usually for 3 month stints. Indeed, when it tortures you to the point where you suicide, and unfortunately wake up in bed the next morning wondering whether indeed, you are still WHERE? HELL.

So, is this "god" idea for blaming things on? Blaming your experience on? Maybe you're just a bit askew -- off balance -- and you don't need to create a god to blame, nor a sage to save you? Maybe you're being challenged to master balance for yourself, without external influences?

The burning I have endure is in the name of LOVE = I burn for love, whilst being teased about it. To explain that further it too personal, so I'll leave it at that.

So why is that not hell?

Instead of questing... have you tried being. Instead of questing, or suffering, for love... have you tried BEING love? No gods or sages needed.

[Atla]

Being terrorized by one's own psychopathic split personality is pretty much hell, only way out is to kill it or at least weaken it, and then reintegrate the remnants

[Skepdick]

Thank you, Sculptor.

And other than creating a lot of wind while exhibiting the depth and degree of one’s insanity, it’s highly unlikely that any of us in this forum (this asylum rec room) ever achieves anything that we set out to achieve.

I suppose so.
I'm happy with a longer post I made yesterday about the difference between "amoral" and "immoral"; and between Darwin's concepts of Domestic Selection against Natural Selection.
Sadly the target was Skeptic who lost no time attacking from a position of ignorance and accused me of "special pleading".

Yes, you made some good points there.

However, your main mistake was in assuming that Skepdick is capable of being reasoned with.
_______

You can only try.
Thankfully other may read it too.

Once you learn how to reason, you'll find it's trivial to reason with me.

Until then, you'll keep insisting I am "unreasonable" when you are the one doing the special pleading.

Everything that happens in nature is natural. To exclude humans from nature is to abandon the reference frame from which you asserted your premise.

You've switched perspectives mid-thought and you can't even tell.

[Sculptor]

Being terrorized by one's own psychopathic split personality is pretty much hell, only way out is to kill it or at least weaken it, and then reintegrate the remnants

At least you are never alone.

[Age]

Then you are NOT for TURNING.

SO, why make a fuss about it.

But I am NOT making a "fuss". I am expressing the views I have.

Just because 'you' perceive "another" is making a "fuss", this does NOT make 'it' a 'fuss' to the "other".

Why is there the continual name calling, and attacking, of 'me'?

Why is there such a HATRED and RIDICULING of 'me' when I am just express my views?

Just because 'you' perceive "another" is making out to be hating, ridculing, name calling and attacking on 'you' - this does NOT make 'it' a making out to be hating, ridculing,name calling and attacking to the "other". I am simply expressing the views I have.


.

'you', "dontaskme" wrote:
"Any such identification with ones thoughts and ideas such as heaven and hell existing for the human being believed to be true and real... is 100% proof you really DO NOT have any understanding of the Nondual nature of reality. You will not like being told that, but so be it.And is why you will continue to spout the most laughable load of totally pure baloney known to man here on this forum forever and ever until you die, never really knowing what an unuseful idiot you really are, but despair not, you are not alone."

So, sure 'you' are expressing your views, but as I was asking 'you', you appear to be expressing them in a ridiculing, name calling, and attacking of 'me' personally, manner.

If you want to attack the views I express, then that is GREAT. I have been asking for this and I would dearly LOVE to SEE this. As I continually say I LOVE to be questioned AND challenged on THE VIEWS I express. But, why turn your views onto the ''person', them self, and judge and/or ridicule the person, them self, from your perspective of things, instead of THE VIEWS only?

As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED, by YOUR VIEWS, which are CLEARLY WRITTEN, 'you' are actually SHOWING your hatred, ridiculing, name calling, and/or attacking of the "other", them self, and NOT the 'views' of "another", them self.

[Age]

Are there two of you? One that knows and One that does not know?

Yes. 'I' KNOW, whereas 'you' do NOT YET KNOW.

Oh I see, I get what you are saying...you are saying ..The I there know, but the I here does not yet know until it does know.

This could NOT be further from thee Truth.

HOW MANY TIMES do I have to explain that there is ONLY One 'I'?

When will this ever be comprehended AND understood?

To me, there is ONLY One 'I', and there are as many 'you' as there are human beings. The one known as "age" is a 'you'.

There is NO 'I' there and an 'I' here. Surely, 'you', "dontaskme", of the NONDUALITY faith and belief would surely KNOW this, ALREADY, correct?

Oh kaaaay!

I will, once again, suggest that 'you' CLARIFY, BEFORE you 'jump to a conclusion'.

'I' was asking 'you' what 'your' view IS, in regards to what you said.

But the 'you' do NOT YET KNOW... So why bother asking this 'you' do NOT YET KNOW what it's view IS?

OF COURSE 'you' KNOW what your view IS. BUT, just as OBVIOUS is 'your view' might NOT be aligned with the Truth of things view, YET. Surely this does NOT need pointing out to 'you', human beings? Or, does it?

Is there any one of 'you', human beings, who is under some illusion that your own personal view of things MUST ALREADY BE aligned 100% with thee One and ONLY actual Truth of things, and there is NO room for error or of change in your own personal view of things?

[Age]

See, I just do NOT accept what is said and written by ANY one. I like to see if they can actually explain what they are saying. If they can do this is a sound, logically reasoned way or with a sound, valid argument, then I WILL accept and agree with what they are saying. Until then I like to CLARIFY FIRST what the "other" is ACTUALLY saying, and thus ACTUALLY MEANING.

But, if they can NOT explain NOR clarify what they are actually saying and meaning, then so be it. There is nothing lost, well for me anyway.

But nobody actually gives a fuck whether 'you' there accepts what this 'you' do NOT YET KNOW here ..is saying.

You have COMPLETELY MISSED the point that I was making, ONCE AGAIN.

I do NOT accept ANY view UNTIL actual PROOF is provided for that view, either through empirical evidence or through sound, logical reasoning.

And, if you do not give a, so called, "fuck" whether another accepts your views, then WHY express them?

Also, are 'you', "dontaskme", absolutely sure that "nobody actually gives a fuck" whether 'I' accepts their views or not?

'you', human beings, appear to express your views in such a way that makes it look like 'you' REALLY do care about having your views accepted by "others". In fact, philosophy forums are littered with this apparent form of view expressing.

And since this 'you' there doesn't give a flying fuck either when no clarification comes from the 'you' do NOT YET KNOW here ...then nothing lost, well for 'you' there AND for 'you' do NOT YET KNOW here... anyway. So what was the actual point of this pointless conversation anyway, I forgot?

.

This conversation became Truly pointless when 'you' started ASSUMING that 'I' was saying and meaning some thing, which I was TOTALLY NOT, and especially when you started BELIEVING that your own ASSUMPTION was true, right, and correct. If, as I continue allude to, IF you had CLARIFIED first, then you would have discovered what thee actual Truth IS, and then this conversation would NOT have spiraled down the completely pointless path.

[Age]

BUT, EXACTLY as the clarifying question was posed, to you (underlining mine):
'Where in the bible does it state you must first die to enter hell or heaven?

Apparently, Sunday school 101 is required here.

No, the Bible does not have a verse in it that reads:

“...byeth the wayeth, thou must physically die before thou can enter into heaven or hell...”

No, they (the Biblical writers) relied on the (apparently foolish) assumption that humans are at least intelligent enough to infer certain meanings from the Bible’s passages.

Well 'you', "seeds", are PRIME EVIDENCE of this, as it is 'you' who actually BELIEVES that you have inferred the one and only true and correct certain meaning, from the passages of the bible.

Are 'you' even remotely aware that different people infer different meanings, from different passages, and words?

For example, 'you' could infer from that statement some thing COMPLETELY different from what 'I' have actually meant.

For example, what is it about the Biblical assertion...

“...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...”

...that is so hard to interpret?

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING hard about 'interpreting' itself. But what is ALSO ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS is two people can have two completely different interpretations.

Just like 'you' and 'I' have TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 'interpretations' of that passage. So, the next question IS; How do we decipher which one has the True, or more truer, 'interpretation'?

I KNOW HOW, but do 'you' KNOW HOW?

For all of you heathens who do not seem to have the slightest clue about Christianity...

LOL Yet 'you', "seeds", supposedly, do?

YET it is 'you' who is saying that 'heaven' and 'hell' in christian, biblical, or religious terms is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, correct?

If this is correct, then this would infer that it is 'you' who does NOT have the slightest clue about, so called, "christianity".

...the whole bloody premise of the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is based on Jesus having to DIE on the cross...

Do NOT forget that this is 'YOUR' 'interpretation' of things. Also, do NOT forget 'YOUR' 'interpretation' of 'DYING' might NOT be THEE INTENDED meaning NOR message, which 'you' are 'interpreting'.

OBVIOUSLY, if the, so called, "whole bloody premise" does NOT make any sense to 'you', then that is a SURE SIGN that 'your' 'interpretation' of what the 'premise' actually IS could well and Truly just be PLAIN WRONG.

Now, if you want to stay FIXED and HOLD your 'interpretations' of what the meanings of the words used in religious text is the One and ONLY interpretation, then that is fine. Go right ahead and remain FIXED and CLOSED. But, just REMEMBER 'your' 'interpretation' just might NOT be the true, right, and correct one. But, of course, if you BELIEVE 'your' 'interpretation' is the true, right, and correct ONE, then feel FREE to BELIEVE this, and carry on the way that you are now.

By the way, MY 'interpretation' of those words make PURE SENSE in relation with MY 'interpretation' of ALL of the other words used in "christian", biblical, and/or religious texts. That is; in relation to HOW EXACTLY a Truly peaceful, or heavenly world, or life can and WILL come-to-be HERE, on earth, AFTER the DEATH of this 'life', or what is sometimes known as, in thee 'after-life'.

(in a sacrificial offering to remove the sins of others)

...before he could then be resurrected from DEATH in order to ascend into Heaven...

(which, allegedly, is a transcendent context of reality called the “Kingdom of God”)

...where he (the post DEATH Jesus) is preparing mansions for all those who agreed to the terms of his sacrifice and accepted him as their personal savior – all while they were still physically alive (as in not DEAD yet) back on earth.

YES, this ALL makes PERFECT SENSE, well to Me, anyway.

And when will they inherit these mansions?

After they DIE, and have been judged worthy of the reward.

All of which is simply meant to give humans the hope that the death of the corporeal body does not necessarily mean the death of the incorporeal soul.

Now, with all of that being said...

(and no doubt in a futile effort to keep your channeled entity from further twisting and misconstruing the intent of this thread)

But the intent of this thread was for you to find those who BELIEVE in 'hell' and/or 'heaven' so that you could discredit them in front of an audience, so that you could "feel better" about and in your own 'self'.

'you', OBVIOUSLY, were NEVER going to give "them" a chance to put their views forward, with you LOOKING AT THEM from any OPEN or inquisitive perspective. Your whole intention, of this thread, was to REMAIN STEADFAST in your own personal views/interpretations and LAUGH AT "others" and their views in your attempt at putting them, literally, down, to their death.

...let us try to clear up the problem of where you first got it all wrong.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Could it be possible that you have gotten it wrong somewhere along the line?

Or, is this WHOLE SITUATION my fault, and, so called, "problem", because I "first got it ALL wrong"?

You started this thread for a CLEAR INTENTION. So, OBVIOUSLY, any one with a different view/interpretation of 'yours' has "got it ALL wrong".

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Again, in an effort to clear up the problem of where you first misconstrued the intent of the OP, let’s recall one of our earlier exchanges:

Why not just EXPLAIN what the 'intent of the opening post' just IS, instead of doing this, which is obviously just 'YOUR' 'interpretation' of what I have said, which 'you' OBVIOUSLY could have misconstrued, your 'self'?

If you just EXPRESSED the True intent of your opening post, then that would be ALL that is needed here now.

...so I do NOT believe in hell.

If such is the case, then the OP question is not directed at you.

I think you may have FORGOTTEN your OWN opening post.

Would you classify 'me' as a, so called, "lurker" or not?

If no, then how do 'you' define the word 'lurker'?

The very first line in the opening post reads as follows:

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

In which case, the word “lurkers” in that line was intended to be a direct reference to any “Christians or Muslims” who might be lurking out there.[/quote]

Well, I suggest if you wanted "christian" or "muslim" lurkers ONLY, then you be CLEAR about this and write this ONLY. But you did use the word 'some' in relation to the word 'lurkers' and you did NOT, DIRECTLY, reference the work 'lurkers' to any particular thing.

What happens if there is ANOTHER TYPE of 'lurker' who BELIEVES in 'hell'? Would you be interested in that, so called, "lurker"? Which is EXACTLY how I read AND interpreted 'your' wording.

By the way, I have ALREADY CLARIFIED what I meant by the word BELIEVE here. See, I KNOW 'hell', AND 'heaven', which is a far stronger version than just I BELIEVE 'hell' (and/or 'heaven'). Therefore, if you are SERIOUSLY looking for 'some lurkers' in relation to 'hell', then I suggest that I am thee One 'you' are LOOKING FOR.

I’m talking about the ones who believe in and adhere to the general conceptions of heaven and hell as set-forth in their corresponding religions (and that includes any tangential interpretations).

And, as I EXPLAINED ALREADY I do NOT believe ANY concepts of ANY thing. BUT, I ADHERE to the, so called, "general conceptions" of 'heaven' AND 'hell', as set-forth in their corresponding religions (and that includes any tangential interpretations), far STRONGER than probably ANY 'one' else. Therefore, and once again, if you SERIOUS about finding some one, then I am thee one for you. As I have alluded to ALREADY, I can PROVE my interpretation of 'heaven' AND 'hell'.

So, If I am NOT the 'one' who you are looking for, then who EXACTLY are you looking for?

And the point is that the OP was not directed at every Tom, Dick, Harry, Henrietta, or channeled Hintman who has an opinion on the concepts of Heaven and Hell.

LOL if YOUR VIEW on the concepts of Heaven and Hell are NOT just 'opinions', themselves, then what are they EXACTLY?

See, what you are SHOWING and REVEALING now is you are looking for people who have those same OBVIOUSLY ridiculous AND ludicrous views/opinions/interpretations of Heaven and Hell, which you have and are holding onto, so that then you can ridicule and humiliate those, who have those same views, opinions, interpretations, et cetera.

Now, of course, anyone and everyone is certainly welcome to express their opinion on the subject as long as they don’t try to muck-up the original intent of the thread (like you are doing).

This is because of what the OBVIOUS 'INTENT' of this thread actually IS.

You want to degrade, ridicule, and humiliate "others" with this thread, and 'you' CERTAINLY would NOT like that being "mucked up" in anyway, shape, nor form. Especially considering what this might REVEAL about the true 'self' known as "seeds".

And no, the original intent of the thread was not meant to maliciously ridicule anyone (as you so caustically tried to accuse me of doing); it was meant to ridicule the mythological nonsense handed down to us from the past.

Well 'you' do NOT 'need' to 'ridicule' "mythological NONSENSE". 'NONSENSE' ridicules 'itself'.

So, instead of 'you' bringing 'mythological nonsense' to the forefront, and ridiculing 'it'. Why NOT just LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct instead?

Again, it was meant to make them look deeper into the bizarre and ridiculous implications of what it is they believe - as was clearly portrayed in the cartoon I created and uploaded...

And as I alluded to, Why not your 'self' look deep into the bizarre and ridiculous implication what 'it' IS that 'you' BELIEVE?

And just in case the dialogue in the caption bubbles is too small or blurry to read, then here is a rundown of what is being said:

Little girl: “Please help me daddy, they’re hurting me! Please daddy, help me!”

Dad: “Sorry punkin, but daddy’s in heaven now and heaven wouldn’t be ‘perfect’ if I had to worry about you....Besides, we told you what would happen if you didn’t believe in ‘our’ concept of God....By the way, how’s your grandma doing?...Oh never mind, why should I care?...I’m in heaven.”

God: “After she has suffered a billion years of unspeakable burning agony, she’ll be sorry she ignored me....I will then continue her torture throughout all eternity....Does anyone doubt the fairness of my judgment?”

1st angel: “Your fairness and mercy are without equal.”

2nd angel: “In the name of love she’s getting exactly what she deserves.”

And, of course, beneath the daughter and the demons is not Satan, but God; the creator and sustainer of all realities - including Hell.

And no, Mr. Hintman, I personally do not believe that anything being portrayed in that cartoon is actually true.

SO, WHY bring farcical concepts into your dialogue?

What is the ACTUAL purpose of you doing this, especially considering when you are obviously LOOKING FOR ONLY people who BELIEVE this NONSENSE?

What is the ACTUAL REASON you are SEEKING OUT these people ONLY?

I am merely pointing out to, again, Christians and Muslims just how horribly absurd reality would actually be if their religion’s standard conceptions of Heaven and Hell were indeed accurate.

BUT, as I have been POINTING OUT, 'your' OWN opinion/interpretation of that, so called, "standard" is just PLAIN NONSENSE, FARCICAL, and WRONG, to begin with.

Unless, of course, you STILL BELIEVE that your OWN 'interpretation' is the true, right, and correct one.

Now I am quickly running out of Pampers here, but let’s try to clean up yet another one of your messes...

(Continued in next post)
_______

You can 'try' as much as you like. But, I suggest you CLARIFY FIRST what I have actually MEANT, BEFORE 'trying to', so call, "clean up", what is actually NOT even here.

I ALSO suggest 'you' CLEAN UP your OWN 'mess' BEFORE 'you' 'try' and clean up "others", so called, "mess".

If you are the 'one' providing a NONSENSICAL version/interpretation of some thing like 'heaven' and 'hell', then that is OBVIOUSLY of your own doing, and is therefore your OWN 'mess'.

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Like I said, I’m running out of Pampers here, but in keeping with the theme of dealing with your misinterpretations of my intent, let’s address your most recent diaper bomb:

Thank you [attophishpi] for courageously demonstrating precisely what all those who claim to be a “Christian” should be demonstrating.

This is one of the most idiotic and illogical ideas that I have heard of.

If a person who loves only "another" one, then they supposedly "should" 'sacrifice' them 'self' so that one dear to them could live eternally without suffering, then OBVIOUSLY if they loved the one that sacrificed for them, then they would now be 'suffering' severely, eternally, for knowing that the one that was dear to them, sacrificed them self and is now suffering eternally.

I am not surprised, but it appears as though you are completely incapable of understanding the simplest of premises in what is a mere “imaginary” thought experiment based on the implications of certain “mythological” beliefs.

But it is not the case that I am completely incapable of understanding. It is the OBVIOUS case that I misunderstood what was being said, because I did NOT look at it as properly and as fully as I should have.

You completely missed the fact that neither of the (two) participants in the imaginary transaction will no longer even exist after the deal is closed.

Yes I did MISS that.

In other words, they will not be “trading places” in the way that you have so egregiously misconstrued the OP.

As I said I MISSED that.

When I saw the word 'sacrifice' I thought there would, literally, be some sort of 'sacrifice' having to be made. So, I then OBVIOUSLY MISTAKENLY read the rest of the sentence ASSUMING there would be some sort of 'sacrifice' made. This, in turn, led me to NOT read the sentence properly and correctly.

So, it turns out that in fact NO actual 'sacrifice' has to be made.

No, they will both be permanently erased from the “Book of Life,” thus creating a situation wherein neither suffering nor joy will be experienced by either of them – just pure and utter non-existence for both.

BUT, the concept of 'heaven' and 'hell' in religious texts has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on what one person will experience for eternity. So, there is NO situation wherein either suffering nor joy will be experienced by either of them. This is so egregiously misconstrued from what the meaning of 'heaven' and 'hell' actually IS, which seems to keep getting overlooked.

If you had made the slightest effort to understand the premise of, again, this hypothetical thought experiment, then you would have saved us all from having to wade through your unwarranted and non sequiturial blatherings.

And, as I have been saying all along if 'you', human beings STOP doing the exact same thing, that is; making ASSUMPTIONS, BEFORE 'you' CLARIFY, then 'you' would have saved 'us' all from having to wade through ALL of the unwarranted, unwanted, and non sequitur blatherings, which 'you', human beings, have been going on for thousands upon thousands of years now, and continue to go on with now in the days of when this is being written.

Therefore, let my PRIME EXAMPLE case of just HOW making ASSUMPTIONS, BEFORE CLARIFYING, is the TOTALLY WRONG thing to do and the TOTALLY WRONG way to go, and also, use my PRIME EXAMPLE as ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF of just how much 'mess' can be and actually IS created through ASSUMING before clarifying.

WHY do "others" get asked to clarify, yet I rarely do, if ever?

Because you have proven over and over and over again that your idea of "clarification" is to draw someone into an endless labyrinthian maze of word games that never yield anything of any substance.
_______

Really?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.