Eternal Damnation

[Gori the Grey]

Embodiment of justice.

That's not a complete sentence. Did you mean to say that God finds it just to punish people for doing things that don't upset him?

 

[Unicorny]

to

If God can only create imperfect things, then I guess we needn't expect his Word to be perfect.

Though infinities are confusing. To me, it's 'obvious' that there are more stars than galaxies, but my mathematical friends insist it just ain't necessarily so. You'd think God could also create something 'lesser' while still having the creation be 'infinite'. Like stars and galaxies.

Word of God is not created but spoken by God, i.e. it must also be perfect.

Infinity does not exist in our universe,

That's not a complete sentence. Did you mean to say that God finds it just to punish people for doing things that don't upset him?

This is a complete sentence. God being the embodiment of justice will punish anyone for "upsetting", vandalizing, tormenting, either your soul or others. By rejecting and disbelieving in God, you're destroying your soul and dooming yourself to eternal Hell as well as sinning against the infinite statue of God which by itself justifies said punishment.

God does not get upset over a trifle atheist's rejection. A trivial being with 0 relevancy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Doesn't matter Crackerbox. In this thread we stipulate that God Is Infinite.

Within this stipulation I assert nothing. I humbly agree. We can either depart the stipulation, or we can adhere to it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we actually don't know if infinities don't exist. We're still looking for disproof.

You should know that the difference between 'spoken' and 'created' isn't obvious. Colloquially, the spoken message is thought of as being created by the speaker. That said, I guess as long as the Word was spread through fallible sources, we needn't expect the copy we get to be perfect.

 

[Crackerbox]

Doesn't matter Crackerbox. In this thread we stipulate that God Is Infinite.

Within this stipulation I assert nothing. I humbly agree. We can either depart the stipulation, or we can adhere to it.

So then a Deist God has infinite phallus? Or is it phalli, but I digress?

The point is, without a sacred text to know what is being communicated about eternal damnation, then it can be whatever unicorny says is the Word of God. As such, he/she is a prophet, and I can't imagine there's anything to debate.

It's like some kind of secret hidden knowlege and hence why I guessed it had something to do with Gnosticism.

Every spiritual system I've ever encountered had sacred texts to communicate ideas. As Deism is founded on the idea of rationalism, then without a mechanism to communicate and codify ideas, then it's seemingly gibberish that is whatever unicorny says it is.

If Deism is about rationalism, then does the smartest imperfect human on the planet who is an adherent of Deism determine what the Word of God truly means?

If Damnation is Eternal, and then we don't accept Deism and we weren't critical thinkers and we're condemned to an eternal damnation, then since Eternity means all time, then wouldn't we be punished before we were born? If X marks the spot on my lifespan at which I am not longer incorporated in my body, and I then enter the afterlife, is that point on from my death then Eternity? If the latter, then when everyone dies, then is Eternity reset yet again?

 

[El_Machinae]

Isn't that a selection effect? Of course you're only going to be exposed to spiritual systems that have a way of being communicated?

 

[Gori the Grey]

God does not get upset over a trifle atheist's rejection. A trivial being with 0 relevancy.

Upset enough to bother damning him to eternal torment, though, it would seem.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, I have a sacred text Crackerbox. I'm less convinced of the status that warrants the term prophet than I am of the name of God.

We can depart the premises if you want. We can dictate that God has limits. Thus dictated that which exists outside of God and that which exists in rejection of God is a pretty good frontrunner for the definition of Hell. But that does require a subinfinite God. You can have an infinite God with parts of God that reject the whole, and that could be Hell, but then that Hell would exist only insofar as the rejection.

 

[Crackerbox]

Isn't that a selection effect? Of course you're only going to be exposed to spiritual systems that have a way of being communicated?

It would seem that since every Word of God that has been written down is imperfect, and so by defintion it can't be written down, and so the Word of God is unknown, then how the heck would you know what the Word of God was?

How is this Word of God being communicated except in dribs and drabs in this single forum topic? Seems like a weird way to commnuicate a spiritual system.

 

[Crackerbox]

Oh, I have a sacred text Crackerbox. I'm less convinced of the status that warrants the term prophet than I am of the name of God.

We can depart the premises if you want. We can dictate that God has limits. Thus dictated that which exists outside of God and that which exists in rejection of God is a pretty good frontrunner for the definition of Hell. But that does require a subinfinite God. You can have an infinite God with parts of God that reject the whole, and that could be Hell, but then that Hell would exist only insofar as the rejection.

Send me a copy of the Word of God then please. If I get the imperfect copy, then I may end up not believing and end up in eternal torment.

EDIT: If I am a deist, and I refuse to cling to some written text by definition, then Deism is whatever I say it is. It's an imperfect being forcing God to be what I want and choose to believe. That's immensely amusing. The servant threw off the shackles, I guess. And no one can condemn me to eternal damnation, for they can't possess the perfect Word of God, it's mine alone, or they're wrong just because I say it is so.

It's bananas. How can anyone ever be condemned in Deism? If I say my version of Deism is correct, not yours, then in my Deism there is not eternal damnation. We don't need to have a vote, poll, or discussion, because I know it by my megabrain.

 

[Farm Boy]

If I could give you a perfect copy of the Word of God, perhaps then I would be a prophet Crackerbox. Despite my inability to encapsulate the entirety of the definition of prophet, I can tell you I do not rise to that level.

 

[Crackerbox]

If I could give you a perfect copy of the Word of God, perhaps then I would be a prophet Crackerbox. Despite my inability to encapsulate the entirety of the definition of prophet, I can tell you I do not rise to that level.

Since I alone determine the Word of God if I am a Deist, for I cannot believe anyone one else knows it, for they are imperfect and all written sacred texts are imperfect, then since God is infinite, and infinitely rational, then since his imperfect creation cannot know the Word of God, no one is condemned as God is infinitely rational and hence won't apply an eternal torment on humanity for what they can never know, and even if they did, it wouldn't be rational to apply an infinite punishement for a finite life of flawed knowledge of God and the Word of God.

Infinite Reason would lead to Infinite Justice and in my Eternity, no punishement would ever be necessary. And since God is passionless, only a rational creative force, who cares not, then that apathy alone would indicate no need to impose a punishment whatsoever.

 

[Farm Boy]

Since I alone determine the Word of God if I am a Deist, for I cannot believe anyone one else knows it, for they are imperfect and all written sacred texts are imperfect, then since God is infinite, and infinitely rational, then since his imperfect creation cannot know the Word of God, no one is condemned as God is infinitely rational and hence won't apply an eternal torment on humanity for what they can never know, and even if they did, it wouldn't be rational to apply an infinite punishement for a finite life of flawed knowledge of God and the Word of God.

Infinite Reason would lead to Infinite Justice and in my Eternity, no punishement would ever be necessary. And since God is passionless, only a rational creative force, who cares not, then that apathy alone would indicate no need to impose a punishment whatsoever.

Careful, you seem heady with the realization that Thou Art. Surely this is a cause for much rejoicing(H--------h!), but be wary lest you seek to Take Up The Throne. Thou art not The Only.

 

[Crackerbox]

Careful, you seem heady with the realization that Thou Art. Surely this is a cause for much rejoicing(H--------h!), but be wary lest you seek to Take Up The Throne. Thou art not The Only.

It's ridiculous.

It's the kind of benign blah purposeless spirituality without consequences and the individual becomes the sole arbiter of the outcome.

It's not that Deism is silly. It's the idea of a system without codification of ideas, especially one that's based upon Reason, has no reference based upon history. Even Jefferson had his Bible.

Each person deciding themselves what is Truth can't ever be Truth because we're not that smart on our own, even if we're Stephen Hawking, we're just frail flesh.

Look, there's all manner of beautiful ideas, but that doesn't mean they're valid. And to create an assumption of eternal damnation from some sense of subjective entitlement when I say it's a consequence of God's attribute of Infinity, well it's illogical for all of the reasons I mentioned. Infinity doesn't translate to infinite punishment. It could means infinite joy, love, peace, enlightenment, whatever.

I don't get the OP at all, but if someone wants to choose eternal damnation due to Free Will, that person can't be dissuaded when they assume they have all the answers to the Word of God.

Spirituality in human history has been a collaborative process of meditation upon ideas, the longing of the heart, and communicated in an oral and written tradition.

Deism seems like an enormous leap without a sacred inspired text when by admission the adherents have nothing to go on, and so where's any sense of authority?

 

[Arakhor]

The current corrupted and tampered form of the "Bible" is full of internal contradiction, errors, and the likes.

Why not take your 'ample evidence' of Biblical corruption to the Theologian thread and have the chap who's paid to do that sort of thing consider your claims? Given that you didn't mention the Bible in the first post, even in this thread you can't throw that line around and expect people not to ignore it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think if you shake it out, it won't be the Bible that's corrupted, but Jesus's message and story. Most people already acknowledge we have an imperfect copy of THAT. It's just that Christians believe our copy is 'good enough'. The Muslim faith insists it is insufficient

 

[Borachio]

Each person deciding themselves what is Truth can't ever be Truth because we're not that smart on our own, even if we're Stephen Hawking, we're just frail flesh.

I don't know what to make of this statement.

On first view, I'd say it's certainly true that the truth exists independent of what I think the truth is.

But very quickly we're into self-contradictory territory. I've just "decided" that the truth exists independently of what I think, haven't I?

On the other hand, I agree with the fundamental point that we don't, and cannot, know what the truth is. We can only ever hazard guesses at it.

I think this is a good stance to take as it should make us slightly less dogmatic about everything.

And yet, Mr Box, you give the impression of being extremely dogmatic indeed. Are you aware of this? Or perhaps my impression is mistaken.

 

[Crackerbox]

I don't know what to make of this statement.

On first view, I'd say it's certainly true that the truth exists independent of what I think the truth is.

But very quickly we're into self-contradictory territory. I've just "decided" that the truth exists independently of what I think, haven't I?

On the other hand, I agree with the fundamental point that we don't, and cannot, know what the truth is. We can only ever hazard guesses at it.

I think this is a good stance to take as it should make us slightly less dogmatic about everything.

And yet, Mr Box, you give the impression of being extremely dogmatic indeed. Are you aware of this? Or perhaps my impression is mistaken.

Whatever I think can be only truth, not Truth. Whatever my analysis or ideas has a little "t" because I'm not the Supreme Deity.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. I Corinthians 13:12

But even though imperfect we can sense the Truth. If Humanity couldn't sense the Truth, then life would be pure anarchy in which the strongest would simply lord over another and impose their truth on the hapless and powerless around them.

The inner longings of the heart by faith lead Humanity past innate ideas, compare and contrast that with experience, learning from intellectuals (as well as bozos) and we cherry pick what we like, justify it logically or by faith (for we are led by the heart as well as the mind). Sometimes we integrate these ideas for we define not only our longings but our reason as what makes us alive (spirit). We might even say that this truth is what makes us human beings.

But this isn't Truth until these personal ideas stand the test of time. Lots of ideas came along and then were discard. We communicated orally and through the written word, and there comes along a corpus of ideas that fall into categories. But these are human ideas, and so an enlightened person has to think, "Well, is it really true? Is it valid compared to the way people live and does it have meaning?"

One person can't impose the Truth on the world. We can personally impose truth on our lives, see if it's in accordance to lives, and lots of these little truths get discarded. We realize by contemplation that we were immature in our reason or our faith, and so alter those truths.

But to ever think we got it all correct is bananas. I don't have all the answers. I look to a sacred text of the Word of God, and believe by faith (my heart) that this is correct. Then I look to the present day believers of that faith system who apply reason to the sacred text. Then we compare the traditional ideas of what Truth means within that faith system. It's faith, reason, and tradition that determine what are glimmers of the Truth.

To make a leap that some how by personal reason alone I can determine what is Truth is absurd. It's but one aspect of my being. To determine the validity of my faith, I can't just go on what my heart tells me. My heart may be a bag of festering pus due to my experiences, either the ones I chose to experience, or the ones imposed upon me as a child. Hearts alone can't determine truth. We could be extremely unhealthy people after all.

The worst possible way imagineable would be to assume that something is Truth merely because of personal ability. How many people are walking around, perfectly enlightened beings whose life is in noble accordance to their hearts and minds to be forged into unity for the totality of their being (their soul). Precious few are like that. Even when we read about admirable people, we see they have feet of clay, right? We're reminded that they were immensely flawed and only got a tiny sliver of their noble ideas in a book by biased biographers.

So for some of us, we choose through Free Will to believe in a sacred system based on supernatural ideas, timeless ones inspired by God, and we lend our belief to that, but always are analyzing and considering where we don't understand.

As soon as you think you're perfectly enlightened...surely you've lost the Way. The original post is weak and leaps to conclusions, but we all have some inner yearning to communicate our flawed ideas. There's probably a frustrated writer behind 10% of forum posters, but only a tiny subset of that would think they know it all.

Prostheltizing for Deism or for Christianity or for Islam by making a faux topic to hook people...well I think that's the kookiest thing one can do. It's a weak way to communicate ideas versus talking to someone in person. We can't convert someone to our ideas this way by rational argument, nor convince them to lend their belief to our spiritual system.

Let people by Free Will choose as God has ordained. Jesus saves not I.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know why you keep talking of deism to me, Mr. Crackers, I'm operating on the stipulations for the thread. If you think the stipulations are bunk rather than interesting to dig around in, isn't there a "create new thread" button or something along those lines which we could use to converse? I still like ya'lls brains. They're still fun to roll around in.

 

[Crackerbox]

I don't know why you keep talking of deism to me, Mr. Crackers, I'm operating on the stipulations for the thread. If you think the stipulations are bunk rather than interesting to dig around in, isn't there a "create new thread" button or something along those lines which we could use to converse? I still like ya'lls brains. They're still fun to roll around in.

I agree that these are ideas that have been proposed, and I'm criticizing the conclusions from those ideas. None of us have to cede our Free Will and agree to the validity of those ideas. That's slavery not debate.

Apparently the OP is a Deist, and what I'm criticizing is anyone who thinks they're a prophet who then makes up a spiritual system based upon his claim to authority to determine the Word of God.

If some Deist thinks that they're all prophets of God who can offer revelation about the Word of God, well consider that everyone is not rational, but pretty screwed up as the main conclusion when talking to other human beings. They're not enlightened but selfish, shallow, and closed minded for the most part.

When I read yet another topic on eternal damnation, what immediately comes to mind is an intinerant street preacher, who instead of considering the revelation from sacred writings of the Nature of God as the Embodiment of Love, instead they focus on something Jesus spoke about less than 3% of the time. The bulk of Jesus' message was on Love and Grace. It was about forgiveness of our actions, not condemnation of those actions. Jesus said that we were to love one another as a sign that we are loved and so by grace and practical action we overwhelmingly would NOT be eternally damned.

Even if you agree that a Supreme Being is Infinite, that attribute alone doesn't offer any conclusions. Infinitely what? Infinitely Cruel? I doubt it. Give birth to trillions of human beings to eternally torment them? How bizarre. I guess some people come to the conclusion that a Supreme Being is like a cannibalistic sadistic barbeque-driven insane Subjugator. What a weird paradigm!