Does the idea of a Lake of Fire (Hell) really make any sense?

[TheDude]

On 5/23/2021 at 2:55 AM, WalterP said:

Dude,

 

Thank you for your replies.

 

I agree that I have to decide for myself what I think is right.

 

For me, what is right needs to be more than one of many equally implausible and highly subjective interpretations of an ancient book.

 

It needs to be firmly rooted in what we can objectively test, measure and observe.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.  

Your thought process is perfectly reasonable to me.  I'd like to continue this particular conversation in another thread since going into an in depth explanation using science about why I believe there is some kind of higher power (or powers) seems really off topic for this one.  It's getting late, but another day this week I might log in and make a new thread specifically to talk about that subject.

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, TheDude said:

Your thought process is perfectly reasonable to me.  I'd like to continue this particular conversation in another thread since going into an in depth explanation using science about why I believe there is some kind of higher power (or powers) seems really off topic for this one.  It's getting late, but another day this week I might log in and make a new thread specifically to talk about that subject.

 

That sounds good, Dude.

 

I look forward to it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

23 hours ago, TheDude said:

Now let's assume for a moment that the Bible is true (as I of course believe the original signatures to be).  God called prophets in the past.  Why wouldn't he do so today?  There's nothing in the Bible that says those days are over.  If he still does, then those who have the benefit of direct inspiration from God would be in a position of proper interpretation.  From context, I am gathering that you used to be a Seventh-day Adventist, and if I recall correctly, their denomination believes that Ellen White was a prophet, so at least they've got that one attribute about their church that seems aligned with the scriptures.  Most other Christian denominations don't have that going for them.

 

Having said that, the problem is, how do you identify who's actually a prophet?  Did she bear good "fruit" as Jesus said a true prophet should?  Did she make prophecies that undeniably came true close to when she made them, as Moses seems to indicate a true prophet should?  I have no idea, but it's an interesting enough thought that I might just look into it.  Now, to to my understanding, Seventh-day Adventists seem to be in disharmony with Paul's teachings regarding food and the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17, which given how integral they are to their beliefs, it makes me question White's validity

 

She's obviously invalid. Take a look at a preview: 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

22 hours ago, TheDude said:

From that point forward, I had no idea how to handle the verses in the Bible that seemed like an expression of monolatry, but I knew that I belonged to Jesus.  I'm sure sharing that story could result in mockery, and if that's what people want to do, it's up to them.

 

Maybe so, but everyone here once believed in jesus and went through struggles like you have gone through. It's just that myself and others ventured onward a bit further than where you've taken it so far. That is one of the only differences between us. I went through a pretty extensive look backwards at christian origins and the origins of judaism myself. At times, feeling confused about what I was finding. Wondering about the YHWH situation. Figuring out that it was most likely a pagan deity originally. And all of the associated pantheon issues. But at times I entertained the idea that there might be something more to it. 

 

22 hours ago, TheDude said:

Years later, I discovered the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and recognized that what I knew of the scriptures was not in disharmony with the nature of God.  So I disagree with the conclusion in the video where the narrator states that because ancient Judaism gave birth to modern Christianity (and Islam), and because, in his view, ancient Judaism evolved from polytheism (which he described as a "bad roots"), then modern Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all false.  I disagree for a few reasons:

1. His statement is an genetic fallacy.  To defend the traditional Christian perspective, it's possible that monotheism was the original belief system, and that that ancient Judaism had become corrupted by contact with polytheistic cultures (as the Israelites had left Egypt when they became their own nation), and that over time, that corruption was worked out through the arrival of a succession of many prophets and Christ himself.
2. My own belief is that the ancient Judaism's monolatry doesn't represent bad roots at all.  The lesser deities described in the Bible are sons of God who were entrusted with temporary stewardship of various nations.  They were either beings who had ascended after death (which I don't believe), or beings who hadn't yet taken on human form.  When Christ took human form and died for mankind's salvation, because his will is perfectly aligned with his Father's (John 17:21), their kingdom is slowly expanding from the descendants of Jacob to include all of humankind that are adopted by Christ through faith.  This seems to concur with Psalm 82:8:

 

Believe it or not, I do understand why you went that direction. You were facing the polytheistic roots of judaism and trying to make sense of it. The mormon ideas sort of embrace those polytheistic roots and try and offer a solution that allows you to remain within the scope of believer status to some degree, which, you apparently want to identify with. 

 

1) The evidence doesn't gel with your first assertion. There is not evidence of monotheistic religion being corrupted with polytheism. The evidence runs in the opposite way. The bible was crafted to try and read as though a monotheism had always been there and textual criticism has ended that in the modern academic sense. And that's what the video is outlining. Common knowledge when you leave the believer bias perspectives. 

 

2) You may "believe" that, but again, that's not where the evidence leads. You strike me as someone who has it within you to be an objective minded thinker. Many people are objective thinkers who just happen to be mixed up in issues of cognitive dissonance, for religious reasons.

 

Again, myself and many others here are guilty of the same. This isn't to single out and pick on you. We get it. We've been there. But we did something that you don't seem to have done yet. Which is to take it all the way back to the beginning and try thinking it through again. Carefully, one step at a time. 

 

I don't any evidence you doing that yet. You mentioned going through a bad spell, but there's no indication that during that time you ever did what myself many others have done. 

 

It comes down presuppositions. And presuppositional claims. Assumptions that are mostly unwarranted. At the very base of anything you could possibly say to me is a foundation stone of presupposition and assumption. And from those "roots" everything you have to say arises. But let's look at the "roots," shall we? 

 

Are you game to deep dive into this issue all the way down? 

[TheDude]

20 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

That sounds good, Dude.

 

I look forward to it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

To discuss this topic, I've created a new thread called "Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that complex life evolved on its own? Is an alternative explanation offered by LDS belief reasonable?".

[TheDude]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

It's just that myself and others ventured onward a bit further than where you've taken it so far.

Perhaps.  I'm not sure though.  I've only expressed a small part of my thought processes that had me arrive to the conclusion that Latter-Day Saint doctrine is correct.  Part of my reasoning process was based upon an analysis of the scriptures.  Part of my reasoning process was as a result of my increasing understanding of science, flawed though it certainly is.

 

Interestingly, both of these areas presented significant issues for my faith in Christianity, and if it weren't for my personal spiritual experiences that reinforced my faith in a creator and specifically in Christ, I probably would have lost faith entirely.  Discovering Latter-day Saint doctrine, and my subsequent attempts to prove it to be incorrect, though with an open mind, is what allowed me to qualm my doubts that resulted from my issues with obvious monolatry in the scriptures and my meager scientific knowledge.

 

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

She's obviously invalid. Take a look at a preview:

Oh, snap.  It's nearly 50 minutes long...    From what I've heard so far at a little under 7 minutes, I have a hunch that it's a slam-video produced by Evangelicals to discredit Seventh Day Adventism, so it's hard for me to see it as a reliable source of information.  I wouldn't interview Caiaphas to learn about Jesus, so I don't think it's fair for me to learn about Seventh Day Adventism from hostile Evangelicals.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The mormon ideas sort of embrace those polytheistic roots and try and offer a solution that allows you to remain within the scope of believer status to some degree, which, you apparently want to identify with. 

Correct.  Again, I can't deny my own spiritual experiences (which understandably everyone else can) and I can't deny that our existing scientific knowledge, to the extent that I am aware, doesn't explain how complex life can arise from non-life.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I don't any evidence you doing that yet. You mentioned going through a bad spell, but there's no indication that during that time you ever did what myself many others have done.

I'm trying to keep the conversation at least tangentially related to the original topic.  If I were to mention everything I've considered, we'd get pretty far afield.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But let's look at the "roots," shall we? 

 

Are you game to deep dive into this issue all the way down? 

Sure.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Are you game to deep dive into this issue all the way down

 

Already working up another debate?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, TheDude said:

I've only expressed a small part of my thought processes that had me arrive to the conclusion that Latter-Day Saint doctrine is correct.

 

Really? LDS? Their doctrine? Joseph Smith, angels with gold tablets a couple hundred years ago. And all that? That sounds correct? How about the people on the sun and moon. Have they found them yet? Lmao   I'm sorry. Its just LDS is so far out there its funny to hear someone say in a rational discussion that they have it right. Hell half the ritual stuff is borrowed from the masons. 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, TheDude said:

Perhaps.  I'm not sure though.  I've only expressed a small part of my thought processes that had me arrive to the conclusion that Latter-Day Saint doctrine is correct.  Part of my reasoning process was based upon an analysis of the scriptures.  Part of my reasoning process was as a result of my increasing understanding of science, flawed though it certainly is.

 

Maybe you can elaborate?

 

5 hours ago, TheDude said:

Oh, snap.  It's nearly 50 minutes long...    From what I've heard so far at a little under 7 minutes, I have a hunch that it's a slam-video produced by Evangelicals to discredit Seventh Day Adventism, so it's hard for me to see it as a reliable source of information.  I wouldn't interview Caiaphas to learn about Jesus, so I don't think it's fair for me to learn about Seventh Day Adventism from hostile Evangelicals.

 

 

It's former Adventist preachers who were basically kicked out of the church. Who moved on. The author of "White Washed" is interviewed. He outlines a few of the most obvious false prophecies that he covers in his book. There are many. You can follow citation and read what she's written and claimed. What it amounts to is that she was false and it was evident from the late 19th century. Nevertheless, here we are now with a large organization still operating today. Regardless of the facts on the table. 

 

But I need to point something out. You are trying to think objectively in the above quote. But you most certainly do not apply such an objective approach to the bible itself. I suspect that you may think that you do. But if you try and demonstrate to me what you think is an objective analysis of the bible, it won't turn out to be very objective at all. And I'd like to see you try. 

 

5 hours ago, TheDude said:

Correct.  Again, I can't deny my own spiritual experiences (which understandably everyone else can) and I can't deny that our existing scientific knowledge, to the extent that I am aware, doesn't explain how complex life can arise from non-life.

 

I've been reading about and experimenting with synchronicity. How we tend to direct and shape our own realities and experiences. I've looked past organized religions in general to the deeper mystical issues founding the religions and so called 'spiritual experiences.' I have them too, as a non theist. People who subscribe to a particular mythological tradition tend to have their mystical experiences tailored to the mythological characters that they hold within their minds. But when I say I've gone past a lot of this, that's what it amounts to. Things line up for me in seemingly divine ways on a weekly basis. As if I were a devout, pious believer. But I am not. I've just learned the deeper issues surrounding what I think religious people are doing with their own minds, consciousness, and awareness, while from the perspective of absent religious belief. 

 

Your scientific reasoning is flawed, I don't mean to pick on you. But it looks like you haven't understood yet how to put the issue into perspective. Whether or not science at this moment can tell you how life or complex life arose, doesn't mean much of anything against the fact that bible can not tell you that either in any literal or direct sense. You haven't understand the situation yet by your line of reasoning. 

 

And I'd like to continue discussing it with you because you've come here. You chose to post on this ex christian forum so I'll take that as an open door to go there and get into what I see as flawed in your current reasoning. Remember, I'm just trying to be helpful. And equally, if you think I'm flawed please show me where and try and explain. I will listen.

 

But I have a lot of experience under my belt in these areas. I've been out of the church for 30 years. And debating religion pretty much the entire time. First to myself within my own mind, then on the internet with any takers. 

 

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Already working up another debate?

 

Maybe he could take over for LuthAMF where he left off in the Genesis 1:1 debate? 

 

 

Things ended a little rocky with LuthAMF. Would you feel comfortable trying to further the argument for Genesis being true, literal, and historical??? 

 

That's probably the best way to get into taking it back to "the roots." You can see the ground we've covered and jump in if you think you can do a better job than LuthAMF.

[TheDude]

14 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Things ended a little rocky with LuthAMF. Would you feel comfortable trying to further the argument for Genesis being true, literal, and historical???

You're asking me to take a position that I don't agree with.  While I do believe that much of Genesis is a historical record, I also recognize that it's filled with allegory and unscientific descriptions.  If you want to create another thread for a discussion about Genesis (because it's very off topic), I am happy to contribute.  However, because I am not a 7-day creationist, it would not be appropriate for me to pick up where someone else left off.

 

Now, how the heck do you embed a thread like you've done in the image below?

[Joshpantera]

24 minutes ago, TheDude said:

Now, how the heck do you embed a thread like you've done in the image below?

 

Copy and paste the link:

 

 

We can take up the Genesis discussion there.