A Divine Revelation Of Hell

[Ouroboros]

Really? Then how can anyone learn, teach, reach a conclusion, or even just discuss anything amidst the confusion? If people say something based on something they don't believe, then conversation has lost its usefullness. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary clutter to me.

I see.

 

Have you ever talked to a Pagan about their religion? Well, sorry, you can't from now on, because you have to believe the Pagan religion to talk about it.

 

And also I must assume that you agree to Atheism. Right?

Without you believing that Atheism is true and valid you can't argue against it. Correct?

So why aren't you an Atheist?

 

What's funny is that you can, without a problem, argue based on rhetorical and hypothetical thoughts, while you can't for the life of it give anyone else the same benefits. That's double standard my friend.

[Ouroboros]

This lady has so many theological errors that this book cannot be believed. I cannot say what her motive is but I suspect it's good ole fashion greed. But what I can't understand is that from what I see of some of the comments here, you guys don't believe her yet you fault God because of what she said. Now THAT isn't logical. You either believe her and fault God, or you don't believe her and keep silent on God. (I love these blue smiley guys)

 

Good points, I think.

 

-CC in MA

Not really. anyone can talk in hypothetical terms (at least the smart ones). If it's too confusing for some, then I guess they don't have the smarts for it.

 

One can argue in a context where certain assumptions are made for the argument to reach a conclusion. The conclusion might be that the assumption was false. That's part of logic to argue this way.

 

For instance:

P1) let's assume invisible pink unicorns exist

P2) nothing can be invisible and pink at the same time

C) invisible pink unicorns do not exist

 

Now, I made an assumption in premise 1 which the conclusion show was false. So which is it, God must exist because I'm talking about him, or God is an assumption for the sake of the argument?

[Mythra]

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

[currentchristian]

Yeah, but what I said was the general MO of the members here. Just because some people speak as though they think he exists, does not mean they think he exists.

 

Really? Then how can anyone learn, teach, reach a conclusion, or even just discuss anything amidst the confusion? If people say something based on something they don't believe, then conversation has lost its usefullness. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary clutter to me.

Not really. I do it for your benefit. To make the discussions work a bit easier for folks like yourself I found it was easier to speak as if this god exists. After all you join the board and say "God this" and "God that" but in reality you should say "YHWH this" or "The xian god" since you haven't shown to me that your god is THE SINGULAR GOD. But I know the game, having been xian, and so I play along for your benefit. Not to condescend or patronize but to simply keep things moving a little more smoothly.

 

When a topic such as this one comes along we speak of it in the same way. Why shouldn't we? The author of the book says that jesus came along and took her to hell for 40 days. Okay. That's the premise. Why shouldn't we discuss that premise at its face value? Reading the text of her book shows, that if it's true, then the whole thing is beyond ridiculous (whatever that might be).

 

However, all that aside, you called me out indirectly. I called jesus stupid. He is. He is in this book. You don't like that so you discount the book...but maybe it's real? You can't discount her revelation for no reason other than you don't like her theology. The Jews dislike your revealed theology and you expect them to embrace it. Others dislike the Mormon revealed theology and they want others to embrace it. And on it goes.

 

If you read my post you'd know why I called jesus stupid. It's the same reason the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is stupid in the bible. They die. Go to "hell." They're there for a length of time. They want to prevent people they know from joining in their fate. The stories diverge at this point. In this book the man wants to go back to warn his people but in the bible the rich man wants Lazarus to return on his behalf (a more selfless act really). Both are denied. They are told if the people that are alive won't believe the writings of someone else (the prophets/crazy lady) then they wouldn't believe someone who was dead and returned. You don't believe the crazy lady telling of hell but cerainly had she died some known way that made the news, been dead in a morgue (not in some 3rd world country but in a 1st world high quality verifiable first rate morgue) and at her burial, after they had embalmed her so she had no blood and all that, they heard a noise and had to open the coffin and she was alive again and told this exact same story. You WOULD be more inclined to believe it. Theological problems and all.

 

Jesus was stupid because the dead returning to life trumps a lame book every time. It proves the power of the resurrection. It proves the power of progressive revelation. It proves the afterlife. It proves the power of God. Words on a page reveal nothing more than people have the ability to write fiction...and this book is just one more to add to the xian pile that started 2000 years ago. Just like those someone might get something from it...you didn't.

 

mwc

 

Good points. Just for clarification, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable. Jesus did not present it as a "based on a true story" story. The point of the parable is that some, no matter what, will never believe.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Wow. I wonder what kind of excuses they have to come up with now. Maybe something like "I didn't mean literally and physically dead, but mentally or emotionally dead. My revelation was that the boy was emotionally dead because he was afraid..."

 

I have not heard of any response from either individual. I'd like to know.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Really? Then how can anyone learn, teach, reach a conclusion, or even just discuss anything amidst the confusion? If people say something based on something they don't believe, then conversation has lost its usefullness. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary clutter to me.

I see.

 

Have you ever talked to a Pagan about their religion? Well, sorry, you can't from now on, because you have to believe the Pagan religion to talk about it.

 

And also I must assume that you agree to Atheism. Right?

Without you believing that Atheism is true and valid you can't argue against it. Correct?

So why aren't you an Atheist?

 

What's funny is that you can, without a problem, argue based on rhetorical and hypothetical thoughts, while you can't for the life of it give anyone else the same benefits. That's double standard my friend.

 

It seemed to me that what ExPagan was saying is that if the Bible is not historical, then what the Bible says God did (Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, plaques, etc.) cannot be used against God. If there was no Noah's flood, then God can't be accused of having committed genocide. If there was a Noah's flood, then we can bring an accusation against God.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

This lady has so many theological errors that this book cannot be believed. I cannot say what her motive is but I suspect it's good ole fashion greed. But what I can't understand is that from what I see of some of the comments here, you guys don't believe her yet you fault God because of what she said. Now THAT isn't logical. You either believe her and fault God, or you don't believe her and keep silent on God. (I love these blue smiley guys)

 

Good points, I think.

 

-CC in MA

Not really. anyone can talk in hypothetical terms (at least the smart ones). If it's too confusing for some, then I guess they don't have the smarts for it.

 

One can argue in a context where certain assumptions are made for the argument to reach a conclusion. The conclusion might be that the assumption was false. That's part of logic to argue this way.

 

For instance:

P1) let's assume invisible pink unicorns exist

P2) nothing can be invisible and pink at the same time

C) invisible pink unicorns do not exist

 

Now, I made an assumption in premise 1 which the conclusion show was false. So which is it, God must exist because I'm talking about him, or God is an assumption for the sake of the argument?

 

Perhaps I don't have the smarts for this. Can you tell me if this is illogical:

 

P1) The Bible is utter nonsense.

P2) The Bible portrays God as a wicked SOB.

C) God is a wicked SOB.

 

If the Bible is nonsense, it cannot be submitted to indict the concept of God, but only Bible-God. Notice I am making a distinction between "Bible-God" and "God" as a concept, a possibility. If the Bible paints a picture of a God one does not want to know, does that, therefore, exclude (non-Bible) God from existing?

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

 

Powerful argument.

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

It seemed to me that what ExPagan was saying is that if the Bible is not historical, then what the Bible says God did (Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, plaques, etc.) cannot be used against God. If there was no Noah's flood, then God can't be accused of having committed genocide. If there was a Noah's flood, then we can bring an accusation against God.

That's true, but it didn't seem to me it was what ExPagan said. We're occasionally get the argument that God must exist, since we're able to talk about him, and we can only talk about him if we also think he must exist. Which is a ridiculous argument. That's how I saw his comment. But I do see your argument, possible because you have a better way of expressing it.

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps I don't have the smarts for this.

Truly I think you do have the smarts for it.

 

Can you tell me if this is illogical:

 

P1) The Bible is utter nonsense.

P2) The Bible portrays God as a wicked SOB.

C) God is a wicked SOB.

 

If the Bible is nonsense, it cannot be submitted to indict the concept of God, but only Bible-God. Notice I am making a distinction between "Bible-God" and "God" as a concept, a possibility. If the Bible paints a picture of a God one does not want to know, does that, therefore, exclude (non-Bible) God from existing?

Very true. The conclusion would be C) Bible God is a wicked SOB. Or if one have the presupposition that God (of some kind) exists, then the conclusion would be C) The Bible doesn't portray the real God.

[currentchristian]

Perhaps I don't have the smarts for this.

Truly I think you do have the smarts for it.

 

Can you tell me if this is illogical:

 

P1) The Bible is utter nonsense.

P2) The Bible portrays God as a wicked SOB.

C) God is a wicked SOB.

 

If the Bible is nonsense, it cannot be submitted to indict the concept of God, but only Bible-God. Notice I am making a distinction between "Bible-God" and "God" as a concept, a possibility. If the Bible paints a picture of a God one does not want to know, does that, therefore, exclude (non-Bible) God from existing?

Very true. The conclusion would be C) Bible God is a wicked SOB. Or if one have the presupposition that God (of some kind) exists, then the conclusion would be C) The Bible doesn't portray the real God.

 

Cool. Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

[Lycorth]

What's funny is that you can, without a problem, argue based on rhetorical and hypothetical thoughts, while you can't for the life of it give anyone else the same benefits. That's double standard my friend.

 

I'll assume he just doesn't know what he's doing, but yes, he's doing precisely that.

 

When will Xians come here and try to use facts and logical arguments to back up their wild claims, not defer to emotionalism and empty rhetoric? Sadly, they don't realize that we've heard it all before and aren't impressed in the slightest.

 

Good points. Just for clarification, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable. Jesus did not present it as a "based on a true story" story. The point of the parable is that some, no matter what, will never believe.

 

I think the parable in question is just a pre-emptive strike. It's a ready-made excuse for believers to cite to explain away disbelief. The writer of this probably inserted it for that reason, believing so strongly in his/her ideas and wanting to provide ammo for use against dissenters.

[Guest ExPagan]

This lady has so many theological errors that this book cannot be believed. I cannot say what her motive is but I suspect it's good ole fashion greed. But what I can't understand is that from what I see of some of the comments here, you guys don't believe her yet you fault God because of what she said. Now THAT isn't logical. You either believe her and fault God, or you don't believe her and keep silent on God. (I love these blue smiley guys)

 

Good points, I think.

 

-CC in MA

Not really. anyone can talk in hypothetical terms (at least the smart ones). If it's too confusing for some, then I guess they don't have the smarts for it.

 

One can argue in a context where certain assumptions are made for the argument to reach a conclusion. The conclusion might be that the assumption was false. That's part of logic to argue this way.

 

For instance:

P1) let's assume invisible pink unicorns exist

P2) nothing can be invisible and pink at the same time

C) invisible pink unicorns do not exist

 

Now, I made an assumption in premise 1 which the conclusion show was false. So which is it, God must exist because I'm talking about him, or God is an assumption for the sake of the argument?

 

 

Hans Solo,

 

BTW, I just wanted clarification about the way people speak here because on one hand it seemed like they believed in God, then on the other hand it didn't. You've got to admit that for a newcomer, it would be confusing. But now I know that it was just for the sake of a smooth conversation - now I know when you speak of God as though He exists, that you really do not believe that.

 

And as for your example above, all you've done is create a straw man and knock it down. Why don't we stick to the topic instead of arugeing about argueing?

 

 

Also, for the record Hans, I was a pagan hence my name.

[Ouroboros]

BTW, I just wanted clarification about the way people speak here because on one hand it seemed like they believed in God, then on the other hand it didn't. You've got to admit that for a newcomer, it would be confusing. But now I know that it was just for the sake of a smooth conversation - now I know when you speak of God as though He exists, that you really do not believe that.

 

And as for your example above, all you've done is create a straw man and knock it down. Why don't we stick to the topic instead of arugeing about argueing?

Hmm... first you agree to what I said, then you call it a strawman? Which part is the strawman argument in my post. I'm a person that rather dislike using strawman arguments to a fellow human and would like to correct it, so please explain to me what and where I made the it.

 

Also, for the record Hans, I was a pagan hence my name.

I understand that. But by your own standards you can't ever discuss with other pagans why their belief is wrong since by your earlier statement you have to believe to argue it. But I assume from your first response (and not the second) that you do understand that is not the case.

[mwc]

Good points. Just for clarification, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable. Jesus did not present it as a "based on a true story" story. The point of the parable is that some, no matter what, will never believe.

True enough. But I doubt any philosophy will ever get a 100% conversion and the author knew this too. But they needed a grand statement and thus not even a dead person returning would convince you. It must not because no one really cared when a different Lazarus returned or when all those dead saints started roaming the earth. The Greco/Roman stories never bothered to move anyone either (people returning from the dead was the "in" thing in their, what we might call "romance," novels of the same time period). I take that back. I guess it eventually convinced people it was possible.

 

People take the story quite literally though. A "sneak peek" into the underworld before jesus descended and loosed those that were in Paradise (the Bosom of Abraham).

 

My point is that if you have verified dead people the world over (not just "near death" crap but many days dead without blood) that all come back and report the SAME stories then people WILL start listening. Not 100% but I can promise a lot higher conversion rates than whatever they are now...and I think there would be greater unity as well. This is over the current "holy texts" and most definitely above these lame books claiming to be "visions" of the great beyond (religious or "psychic" or whatever). But that's just me thinking aloud again.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Good points. Just for clarification, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable. Jesus did not present it as a "based on a true story" story. The point of the parable is that some, no matter what, will never believe.

True enough. People take the story quite literally though. A "sneak peek" into the underworld before jesus descended and loosed those that were in Paradise (the Bosom of Abraham).

 

My point is that if you have verified dead people the world over (not just "near death" crap but many days dead without blood) that all come back and report the SAME stories then people WILL start listening. Not 100% but I can promise a lot higher conversion rates than whatever they are now...and I think there would be greater unity as well. This is over the current "holy texts" and most definitely above these lame books claiming to be "visions" of the great beyond (religious or "psychic" or whatever). But that's just me thinking aloud again.

 

mwc

 

Hello, mwc. I think you are right that if we had dozens the world over, verified dead as a doornail (as Dickens' Jacob Marley was), coming back with tales of life beyond, we'd have a "great awakening" on our hands. I wonder, how many would it take making this claim, before we all believed in life after this one?

 

I'm suddenly reminded of the prophecy in Revelation: "And I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life."

 

Yikes.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

I'm suddenly reminded of the prophecy in Revelation: "And I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life."

I want to say that refers to Vespasian, who finally took control in the year of the four Caesars, and his son Titus but I could be wrong. I wasn't expecting a reference to Revelation. Either way, a "prophecy" that's said and done a couple thousand years ago really isn't a big issue for us I don't think.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

...

 

I want to say that refers to Vespasian, who finally took control in the year of the four Caesars, and his son Titus but I could be wrong. I wasn't expecting a reference to Revelation. Either way, a "prophecy" that's said and done a couple thousand years ago really isn't a big issue for us I don't think.

 

mwc

 

So you're a Preterist, huh?

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

So you're a Preterist, huh?

Yeah...that's me alright.

 

Seriously though. I think the whole text of Revelation is very complicated and is likely made up of multiple earlier Jewish texts with some xian interpolations but mainly xian "bookends" added. The early portion where the letter just breaks into the "vision" is so abrupt and that part of the vision is very Jewish. The "war is heaven" is easily a metaphor for the battle on the Temple Mount (compare to Josephus). Things like that can take a lot of time if you dig into the text. It's really out of place in this silly book thread though.

 

mwc

[Sparrow]

I stumbled upon this site tonight.

 

"Hear the eyewitness testimony on the True Existence of Hell. Mary Katherine Baxter was chosen b

 

...

TEXT

...

 

Here's the link. If you just read the first 2 chapters, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

Divine Revelation of Hell

 

Dang!!!

 

The only thing I'm sore about is that I didn't think of this.

 

Just put a picture jesus holding an american flag on the cover and take it to the mid west and you would have sold by the truck load!!!!

 

Spatz

[The Sage Nabooru]

Just put a picture jesus holding an american flag on the cover and take it to the mid west and you would have sold by the truck load!!!!

 

When I worked at the nursing home, an old lady who died had on her wall, a painting, of JFK and John Paul II, walking in a field together, baskets hanging on their arms, sowing seeds. I'm sure there were several thousand in existence at some point, and I'm sure that they sold like hot cakes. I'm actually kind of sad now that her family took it.....I would've wanted to keep it myself, as an interesting conversation piece.

 

Anyway, ya know, hell isn't mentioned in the Old Testament. That's probably been brought up before in this thread, but I thought I'd remind you all.

 

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Hell, and even though Wiki does have is faults I do find that generally speaking its articles are well-edited and good sources of information. When you read the entry it really drives home for you, how cruel the fundy Christian hell is. Even in Islam, hell isn't held to be neccessarily eternal. Only in Christianity is it assumed that everyone deserves and will probably go to hell for all eternity, and to cinch that point, even if you follow the Ten Commandments and don't technically sin, you'll still burn for "original sin" - being born human.

 

(By the way, the Wiki article has a very interesting picture regarding Dante's trip with Virgil through the underworld. I guess you have to have some kind of gay encounter before you'll be admitted in even for a visit.)

[currentchristian]

...

 

(By the way, the Wiki article has a very interesting picture regarding Dante's trip with Virgil through the underworld. I guess you have to have some kind of gay encounter before you'll be admitted in even for a visit.)

 

Dante's infernal Inferno has done more to inform the church's view of hellfire than the Bible has ever done. Quite unfortunate. Here are two interesting multi-media links to the regions of Dante's Inferno. I think I'll be in the 7th level:

 

http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/utopia/index2.html

 

http://web.eku.edu/flash/inferno/

 

-CC in MA

[xild]

This lady has so many theological errors that this book cannot be believed. I cannot say what her motive is but I suspect it's good ole fashion greed. But what I can't understand is that from what I see of some of the comments here, you guys don't believe her yet you fault God because of what she said. Now THAT isn't logical. You either believe her and fault God, or you don't believe her and keep silent on God. (I love these blue smiley guys)

 

The problem is, if there is a God, does he/she need you to defend him/her?

[xild]

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

 

This has always been my position.

 

At my Grandfather's funeral I asked how it was that my entire family wasn't going mad at the thought he was at that moment in torment.

 

Great quote.

[xild]

I stumbled upon this site tonight.

 

"Hear the eyewitness testimony on the True Existence of Hell. Mary Katherine Baxter was chosen by God to let the world know of the REALITY of Hell. Jesus Christ appeared to Mary Baxter on 40 consecutive nights and took Mary on a tour of Hell and Heaven. She walked, with Jesus, through the horrors of Hell and talked with many people. Jesus showed her what happens to souls when they die and what happens to the unbelievers and Servants of God who do not obey there calling."

 

 

This woman has wrote a book about her experiences of going to heaven and hell with god. You can read the text on the site and it's also available for download in mp3. I started listening to her, and I just do not understand this.

 

I don't understand how a seemingly normal healthy person can have these visions or whatever they are. If I were hearing voices in my head, I would go to a dr. What is this woman suffering from that would make her believe she spent 40 nights with god walking through heaven and hell?

 

If I still believed in god or jesus, after reading/listening to this woman's story, I would certainly rethink my whole belief system. If, and we know this isn't true, but IF it were, how anyone, much less a loving god allow this to happen???

 

Here's the link. If you just read the first 2 chapters, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

Divine Revelation of Hell

 

I am really enjoying this forum. I spent yesterday on one entire thread and this morning reading this moron's little story on Hell. I'm wondering how long this rot has been out since it seems like a movie they had us watch in church way back in the early 70s ...worms and everlasting body included....

 

The morbid fascination with sin and surface types of torment would be an easy diagnosis, don't you think, in a psychological setting? I'll ask my friend for the dx on this nutcase. The story itself is as cheesy as they come.

 

You have your plain old unbelieving man, just burning in a pit, the cancer ridden old woman who died angry, the teenager who thought she had "plenty of time" (remember that song?) and died in a wreck, the backslidden preacher who stole from the church, the hussy homewrecker who actually was THE cause of the homes coming apart (through no fault of the men), the back-stabbing church-going woman--always the woman-never the men...and then!

 

jumping forward to the preacher!

 

preachers get tortured by little demons who stab them through little holes in their coffin--or wait, excuse me, who thrust spears--taking shifts while wearing black robes...oh dear god help me! I can't go on and describe how the sex crimes--I mean sins--get extra special attention by this nitwit.

 

I found myself thinking, is this for real? Could she really think anyone was going to actually believe this crap? Does anyone believe it?

 

More importantly, does she truly believe in Jesus? And if so, does she know what a mockery she is making of her diety?