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

[Age]

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

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

You’re not understanding this properly, Dubious.

The new paradigm doesn’t need to be true.

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

A couple of examples of “old paradigm” nonsense:

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

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

We can do better.
_______

I don't believe I'm as misunderstanding as you think. For example I agree that the old belief in heaven and hell or Jesus having to die for out sins is pure garbage.

How can a BELIEF in some thing, itself, be, so called, "garbage"?

One either BELIEVES in some thing, or they do NOT.

BELIEF, itself, in ANY thing, is absurd, ESPECIALLY if one is also going to INSIST that there is NO actual absolute truth.

If one is going to BELIEVE some thing is true but also INSIST that it could NOT be absolutely true, then WHY BELIEVE it is true, in the first place?

Now, what is, so called, "garbage", or WRONG, is the INTERPRETATION, itself, of heaven and hell, or of "jesus", or of absolutely ANY thing else.

If some one wants to BELIEVE some thing is true or not, then that is completely of their own choosing. BELIEVING in some thing is NOT "garbage" or WRONG in and of its own self, as the very reason WHY they CHOOSE to BELIEVE that 'thing' (whatever it is) is totally understandable and reasonable. However, what is actually "garbage" or WRONG is the INTERPRETATIONS of things, which are written, said, or observed. For example, just about EVERY 'INTERPRETATION' of 'heaven' and 'hell' is just "garbage", or just plain WRONG.

Someone having to die for our sins I think is an especially reprehensible doctrine.

YET, IF I was to ask clarifying questions in regards to things like; What is a 'sin' EXACTLY, How did that one 'die', and then how did that one supposedly 'come back', or What is exactly meant by 'having to die'? plus a range of other clarifying questions, then I would be very surprised if a range of perfectly fitting logical, reasonable, and sensible answers would be provided back to me. YET, people are VERY QUICK to jump to the 'conclusion' that what is being said AND MEANT is, so called, "reprehensible doctrine".

Obviously, if one can NOT yet explain what the actual "doctrine" IS, FULLY, then they do NOT understand it YET. And, if one can NOT explain what the words and terms ACTUALLY MEAN, then they do NOT YET understand the, so called, "doctrine", itself, YET.

Contrary to the above, the idea that the universe is a product of chance is not so crazy.

But are you aware that the one known as "seeds" wants to implant, in you, that the idea that the universe 'is a product of chance' is 'idiocy', and 'nonsense'?

Heaven/Hell is obviously a human invention but can any person know for certain that the universe isn't a product of a chance collision of events? We also can't discount the possibility of it existing as just another infinitesimal within a multiverse manifold.

That you equate hard core materialists under the heading of idiocy makes no sense to me. One doesn't have to be hard core about it but to mostly exclude it from any future paradigm will cause any such newly designed representation to be foreshortened rather quickly.

And, thus the very reason WHY replacing the 'old' lies, with just more 'new' lies, is a completely and utterly ridiculous, absurd, illogical, unsound, nonsensical, AND unreasonable thing to do.

I suggest; Why NOT just LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND what thee One and only actual Truth IS, instead?

This way what replaces the 'old' will just be what IS True, AND 'new'.

Nihilism at this juncture may become its own paradigm, one we are likely to live with for a long time before the human psyche manages to erect new perspectives guiding consciousness to a more advanced, meaning inclusive, Weltanschauung.

But you're right when you say it doesn't have to be true and is not likely to be no matter how brilliantly it may have arranged itself to find a home in our cranium.

But what IS ACTUALLY happening and occurring only has to be LOOKED AT and OBSERVED, 'how it ACTUALLY IS' - thee Truth, for 'It' to find a home in human's craniums.

It only has to serve as a temporary psychological truth whose value will be retained until it starts to erode diminishing its viability.

So, am I still not understanding this properly?

[Age]

I don't believe I'm as misunderstanding as you think. For example I agree that the old belief in heaven and hell or Jesus having to die for out sins is pure garbage. Someone having to die for our sins I think is an especially reprehensible doctrine.

Well, perhaps not “pure” garbage, because from the perspective of Buddhist doctrines, until recently, it (the religion of Christianity) certainly has acted as a pretty stable “raft” that has carried a lot of humans across the waters of earthly life.

Contrary to the above, the idea that the universe is a product of chance is not so crazy. Heaven/Hell is obviously a human invention but can any person know for certain that the universe isn't a product of a chance collision of events?

I dare not reproduce them here, but if you have the time and patience, then please read my arguments against chance in my “What is Gravity” thread, beginning with the post that contains the Earth/Sun picture – viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784

Now, of course, we’re all just speculating here, and I am certainly not suggesting that I can’t be wrong, but if you can provide me with some truly logical (plausible, well thought-out) counter arguments to what I proposed in the two conjoined posts in that other thread, then I’m listening.

But all you really proposed in those two conjoined posts is that you are in 'awe' of the precision of the Universe and of how It evolves.

Now, obviously, if a person is in 'awe' of some thing, then that is NOT evidence NOR proof that that thing did not just happen by chance.

Or, were you proposing some thing else there?

We also can't discount the possibility of it existing as just another infinitesimal within a multiverse manifold.

You mean the way that you seem to vehemently discount the possibility of a transcendent context of reality or an afterlife?

Furthermore, in regards to the multiverse theory, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a description of what a sunless, planetless, lifeless universe would even be, or why it exists, or why it should even be called a “universe” in the first place.

Care to give it a shot?

Clearly, neither the chance hypothesis nor the intelligence hypothesis can be proven or disproven by anyone, hence the need for a new paradigm where both can live together in a relative state of peace.

A, relatively, 'new' explanation can already be given, and it is one which is very easy and simple to explain, and understand.

That you equate hard core materialists under the heading of idiocy makes no sense to me.

I was proposing that the “chance hypothesis” was idiotic, not the materialists themselves. You know; hate the sin, but love the sinner.[/quote]

And, WHY EXACTLY is the "chance hypothesis" idiotic, to you?

Also, you propose that there was an 'initial' bang, which leaves me wondering, What then do you propose could have created this bang?

One doesn't have to be hard core about it but to mostly exclude it from any future paradigm will cause any such newly designed representation to be foreshortened rather quickly.

Again, would that be in the same way you prefer to exclude transcendence from the representation?

Moreover (and ironically), the theory of God that I have been incessantly promoting for the last 50 years, fully embraces the idea (even mandates it) that humans should continue to believe that the universe could indeed be a product of chance. (I know, the guy is nuts, right? )

Now, this sounds like PERFECT SENSE, well to me anyway, (except for the 'believe' word).

Remaining OPEN that ALL-OF-THIS could have come by chance will promoting what you think is true is the way to go and some thing that I would LOVE to hear.

So, what is 'your' theory of God, which you would like to share with the readers now?

Nihilism at this juncture may become its own paradigm, one we are likely to live with for a long time before the human psyche manages to erect new perspectives guiding consciousness to a more advanced, meaning inclusive, Weltanschauung.

I can pretty much guarantee that almost no one, except for the aforementioned (transcendence rejecting) materialists, will be satisfied with a nihilistic Weltanschauung.

Look, I get it that any thought or mention of the possibility that a transcendent intelligence could be responsible for the creation of the universe, pins the needle on your “cringe-o-meter.”

To me, thee 'transcendent Intelligence' plays an EQUAL part with 'matter' in the continual CREATION of the Universe, Itself.

Nevertheless, is there literally no room for any form of compromise in your world view with respect to transcendence? And if there is, then what would it require for you to be more open to such ideas?

If you find that answer, then please let me know also.

Learning how to get a closed person to become more open again, is just about the last thing necessary for thee 'transcendent Intelligence' to REVEAL Its True Self.

But you're right when you say it doesn't have to be true and is not likely to be no matter how brilliantly it may have arranged itself to find a home in our cranium. It only has to serve as a temporary psychological truth whose value will be retained until it starts to erode diminishing its viability.

“...a temporary psychological truth...”

In other words, a new and temporary “raft” (paradigm) that might be able to accommodate everyone - something that will be abandoned on the shore of death.

So, am I still not understanding this properly?

No, as per your usual intelligent analysis and summation of certain issues, you nailed that last part fairly well...

...(especially where you said “you’re right” ).
_______

[Sculptor]

I don't believe I'm as misunderstanding as you think. For example I agree that the old belief in heaven and hell or Jesus having to die for out sins is pure garbage. Someone having to die for our sins I think is an especially reprehensible doctrine.

Well, perhaps not “pure” garbage, because from the perspective of Buddhist doctrines, until recently, it (the religion of Christianity) certainly has acted as a pretty stable “raft” that has carried a lot of humans across the waters of earthly life.

Contrary to the above, the idea that the universe is a product of chance is not so crazy. Heaven/Hell is obviously a human invention but can any person know for certain that the universe isn't a product of a chance collision of events?

I dare not reproduce them here, but if you have the time and patience, then please read my arguments against chance in my “What is Gravity” thread, beginning with the post that contains the Earth/Sun picture – viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784

Now, of course, we’re all just speculating here, and I am certainly not suggesting that I can’t be wrong, but if you can provide me with some truly logical (plausible, well thought-out) counter arguments to what I proposed in the two conjoined posts in that other thread, then I’m listening.

But all you really proposed in those two conjoined posts is that you are in 'awe' of the precision of the Universe and of how It evolves.

Now, obviously, if a person is in 'awe' of some thing, then that is NOT evidence NOR proof that that thing did not just happen by chance.

Or, were you proposing some thing else there?

We also can't discount the possibility of it existing as just another infinitesimal within a multiverse manifold.

You mean the way that you seem to vehemently discount the possibility of a transcendent context of reality or an afterlife?

Furthermore, in regards to the multiverse theory, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a description of what a sunless, planetless, lifeless universe would even be, or why it exists, or why it should even be called a “universe” in the first place.

Care to give it a shot?

Clearly, neither the chance hypothesis nor the intelligence hypothesis can be proven or disproven by anyone, hence the need for a new paradigm where both can live together in a relative state of peace.

A, relatively, 'new' explanation can already be given, and it is one which is very easy and simple to explain, and understand.

That you equate hard core materialists under the heading of idiocy makes no sense to me.

I was proposing that the “chance hypothesis” was idiotic, not the materialists themselves. You know; hate the sin, but love the sinner.

And, WHY EXACTLY is the "chance hypothesis" idiotic, to you?

Also, you propose that there was an 'initial' bang, which leaves me wondering, What then do you propose could have created this bang?

One doesn't have to be hard core about it but to mostly exclude it from any future paradigm will cause any such newly designed representation to be foreshortened rather quickly.

Again, would that be in the same way you prefer to exclude transcendence from the representation?

Moreover (and ironically), the theory of God that I have been incessantly promoting for the last 50 years, fully embraces the idea (even mandates it) that humans should continue to believe that the universe could indeed be a product of chance. (I know, the guy is nuts, right? )

Now, this sounds like PERFECT SENSE, well to me anyway, (except for the 'believe' word).

Remaining OPEN that ALL-OF-THIS could have come by chance will promoting what you think is true is the way to go and some thing that I would LOVE to hear.

So, what is 'your' theory of God, which you would like to share with the readers now?

Nihilism at this juncture may become its own paradigm, one we are likely to live with for a long time before the human psyche manages to erect new perspectives guiding consciousness to a more advanced, meaning inclusive, Weltanschauung.

I can pretty much guarantee that almost no one, except for the aforementioned (transcendence rejecting) materialists, will be satisfied with a nihilistic Weltanschauung.

Look, I get it that any thought or mention of the possibility that a transcendent intelligence could be responsible for the creation of the universe, pins the needle on your “cringe-o-meter.”

To me, thee 'transcendent Intelligence' plays an EQUAL part with 'matter' in the continual CREATION of the Universe, Itself.

Nevertheless, is there literally no room for any form of compromise in your world view with respect to transcendence? And if there is, then what would it require for you to be more open to such ideas?

If you find that answer, then please let me know also.

Learning how to get a closed person to become more open again, is just about the last thing necessary for thee 'transcendent Intelligence' to REVEAL Its True Self.

But you're right when you say it doesn't have to be true and is not likely to be no matter how brilliantly it may have arranged itself to find a home in our cranium. It only has to serve as a temporary psychological truth whose value will be retained until it starts to erode diminishing its viability.

“...a temporary psychological truth...”

In other words, a new and temporary “raft” (paradigm) that might be able to accommodate everyone - something that will be abandoned on the shore of death.

So, am I still not understanding this properly?

No, as per your usual intelligent analysis and summation of certain issues, you nailed that last part fairly well...

...(especially where you said “you’re right” ).
_______

[/quote]
What has ANY of this to do with "Hell"?

[Age]

Well, perhaps not “pure” garbage, because from the perspective of Buddhist doctrines, until recently, it (the religion of Christianity) certainly has acted as a pretty stable “raft” that has carried a lot of humans across the waters of earthly life.


I dare not reproduce them here, but if you have the time and patience, then please read my arguments against chance in my “What is Gravity” thread, beginning with the post that contains the Earth/Sun picture – viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784

Now, of course, we’re all just speculating here, and I am certainly not suggesting that I can’t be wrong, but if you can provide me with some truly logical (plausible, well thought-out) counter arguments to what I proposed in the two conjoined posts in that other thread, then I’m listening.

But all you really proposed in those two conjoined posts is that you are in 'awe' of the precision of the Universe and of how It evolves.

Now, obviously, if a person is in 'awe' of some thing, then that is NOT evidence NOR proof that that thing did not just happen by chance.

Or, were you proposing some thing else there?

You mean the way that you seem to vehemently discount the possibility of a transcendent context of reality or an afterlife?

Furthermore, in regards to the multiverse theory, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a description of what a sunless, planetless, lifeless universe would even be, or why it exists, or why it should even be called a “universe” in the first place.

Care to give it a shot?

Clearly, neither the chance hypothesis nor the intelligence hypothesis can be proven or disproven by anyone, hence the need for a new paradigm where both can live together in a relative state of peace.

A, relatively, 'new' explanation can already be given, and it is one which is very easy and simple to explain, and understand.

That you equate hard core materialists under the heading of idiocy makes no sense to me.

I was proposing that the “chance hypothesis” was idiotic, not the materialists themselves. You know; hate the sin, but love the sinner.

And, WHY EXACTLY is the "chance hypothesis" idiotic, to you?

Also, you propose that there was an 'initial' bang, which leaves me wondering, What then do you propose could have created this bang?

One doesn't have to be hard core about it but to mostly exclude it from any future paradigm will cause any such newly designed representation to be foreshortened rather quickly.

Again, would that be in the same way you prefer to exclude transcendence from the representation?

Moreover (and ironically), the theory of God that I have been incessantly promoting for the last 50 years, fully embraces the idea (even mandates it) that humans should continue to believe that the universe could indeed be a product of chance. (I know, the guy is nuts, right? )

Now, this sounds like PERFECT SENSE, well to me anyway, (except for the 'believe' word).

Remaining OPEN that ALL-OF-THIS could have come by chance will promoting what you think is true is the way to go and some thing that I would LOVE to hear.

So, what is 'your' theory of God, which you would like to share with the readers now?

Nihilism at this juncture may become its own paradigm, one we are likely to live with for a long time before the human psyche manages to erect new perspectives guiding consciousness to a more advanced, meaning inclusive, Weltanschauung.

I can pretty much guarantee that almost no one, except for the aforementioned (transcendence rejecting) materialists, will be satisfied with a nihilistic Weltanschauung.

Look, I get it that any thought or mention of the possibility that a transcendent intelligence could be responsible for the creation of the universe, pins the needle on your “cringe-o-meter.”

To me, thee 'transcendent Intelligence' plays an EQUAL part with 'matter' in the continual CREATION of the Universe, Itself.

Nevertheless, is there literally no room for any form of compromise in your world view with respect to transcendence? And if there is, then what would it require for you to be more open to such ideas?

If you find that answer, then please let me know also.

Learning how to get a closed person to become more open again, is just about the last thing necessary for thee 'transcendent Intelligence' to REVEAL Its True Self.

But you're right when you say it doesn't have to be true and is not likely to be no matter how brilliantly it may have arranged itself to find a home in our cranium. It only has to serve as a temporary psychological truth whose value will be retained until it starts to erode diminishing its viability.

“...a temporary psychological truth...”

In other words, a new and temporary “raft” (paradigm) that might be able to accommodate everyone - something that will be abandoned on the shore of death.

So, am I still not understanding this properly?

No, as per your usual intelligent analysis and summation of certain issues, you nailed that last part fairly well...

...(especially where you said “you’re right” ).
_______

What has ANY of this to do with "Hell"?
[/quote]

Did your post on the "hell" in "norway" have ANY thing to do with "Hell"?

Also, are you asking "dubious", "seeds", or "age" this question?

[Sculptor]

But all you really proposed in those two conjoined posts is that you are in 'awe' of the precision of the Universe and of how It evolves.

Now, obviously, if a person is in 'awe' of some thing, then that is NOT evidence NOR proof that that thing did not just happen by chance.

Or, were you proposing some thing else there?



A, relatively, 'new' explanation can already be given, and it is one which is very easy and simple to explain, and understand.


I was proposing that the “chance hypothesis” was idiotic, not the materialists themselves. You know; hate the sin, but love the sinner.

And, WHY EXACTLY is the "chance hypothesis" idiotic, to you?

Also, you propose that there was an 'initial' bang, which leaves me wondering, What then do you propose could have created this bang?

Again, would that be in the same way you prefer to exclude transcendence from the representation?

Moreover (and ironically), the theory of God that I have been incessantly promoting for the last 50 years, fully embraces the idea (even mandates it) that humans should continue to believe that the universe could indeed be a product of chance. (I know, the guy is nuts, right? )

Now, this sounds like PERFECT SENSE, well to me anyway, (except for the 'believe' word).

Remaining OPEN that ALL-OF-THIS could have come by chance will promoting what you think is true is the way to go and some thing that I would LOVE to hear.

So, what is 'your' theory of God, which you would like to share with the readers now?

I can pretty much guarantee that almost no one, except for the aforementioned (transcendence rejecting) materialists, will be satisfied with a nihilistic Weltanschauung.

Look, I get it that any thought or mention of the possibility that a transcendent intelligence could be responsible for the creation of the universe, pins the needle on your “cringe-o-meter.”

To me, thee 'transcendent Intelligence' plays an EQUAL part with 'matter' in the continual CREATION of the Universe, Itself.

Nevertheless, is there literally no room for any form of compromise in your world view with respect to transcendence? And if there is, then what would it require for you to be more open to such ideas?

If you find that answer, then please let me know also.

Learning how to get a closed person to become more open again, is just about the last thing necessary for thee 'transcendent Intelligence' to REVEAL Its True Self.

“...a temporary psychological truth...”

In other words, a new and temporary “raft” (paradigm) that might be able to accommodate everyone - something that will be abandoned on the shore of death.


No, as per your usual intelligent analysis and summation of certain issues, you nailed that last part fairly well...

...(especially where you said “you’re right” ).
_______

What has ANY of this to do with "Hell"?

Did your post on the "hell" in "norway" have ANY thing to do with "Hell"?

Also, are you asking "dubious", "seeds", or "age" this question?
[/quote]
Yes, my post had something to do with hell. The ONLY hell that has been defined on this thread.
I am asking YOU.
I am also asking you; why are you completely incapable of answering ANY questions?

[Age]

And, WHY EXACTLY is the "chance hypothesis" idiotic, to you?

Also, you propose that there was an 'initial' bang, which leaves me wondering, What then do you propose could have created this bang?



Now, this sounds like PERFECT SENSE, well to me anyway, (except for the 'believe' word).

Remaining OPEN that ALL-OF-THIS could have come by chance will promoting what you think is true is the way to go and some thing that I would LOVE to hear.

So, what is 'your' theory of God, which you would like to share with the readers now?



To me, thee 'transcendent Intelligence' plays an EQUAL part with 'matter' in the continual CREATION of the Universe, Itself.



If you find that answer, then please let me know also.

Learning how to get a closed person to become more open again, is just about the last thing necessary for thee 'transcendent Intelligence' to REVEAL Its True Self.

What has ANY of this to do with "Hell"?

Did your post on the "hell" in "norway" have ANY thing to do with "Hell"?

Also, are you asking "dubious", "seeds", or "age" this question?

Yes, my post had something to do with hell. The ONLY hell that has been defined on this thread.[/quote]

'I' HAVE ALSO defined 'hell', partly. So, that 'hell' in "norway" is NOT the ONLY 'hell' that has been defined on this thread.

I am asking YOU.

If NONE of 'this' had ANY thing to do with "Hell", then NONE of this had ANY thing to do with "Hell". That is MY answer.

Does EVERY reply you make in EVERY thread you reply in have SOME thing to do with the thread title itself?

If no, then WHY question what three of us were talking about has to do with "Hell"?

Also, WHY ask me only? Why NOT ask the other two as well?

I am also asking you; why are you completely incapable of answering ANY questions?

I am NOT completely incapable of answering ANY question. If you provide the question/s, which you propose I have NOT answered or are NOT capable of answering, then I will answer them.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN above is I was just CLARIFYING whether you were asking 'me' or the "others" or all three of 'us'.

Also, and be forewarned, because I do NOT like to assume ANY thing, I might ask you a series of clarifying questions, in regards to your question/s, BEFORE I actually answer your question/s.

Furthermore, WHY ask ME only what, three of 'us' were talking about, has to do with "Hell"? Why NOT ask the other two as well?

[Sculptor]

If NONE of 'this' had ANY thing to do with "Hell", then NONE of this had ANY thing to do with "Hell". That is MY answer.

I am also asking you; why are you completely incapable of answering ANY questions?

I am NOT completely incapable of answering ANY question. If you provide the question/s, which you propose I have NOT answered or are NOT capable of answering, then I will answer them.

So what the fuck is hell?

[Dontaskme]

So what the fuck is hell?

It's an empty word perceived by an empty mind, interpreted as an empty perspective of reality by an empty unknown knowing.

[seeds]

_______

It’s a madhouse – A MADHOUSE I TELL YOU !!!.....no, not hell, this forum – a place where all of us patients gather in its rec room to participate in the group therapy process that reveals to each other (and the world) our own particular form of insanity.

(Unfortunately, some of us keep forgetting to take our meds.)

The “real” Hell, on the other hand (at least from the Christian/Islamic perspective), is simply a mythological fantasy devised by humans to frighten other humans into accepting a particular (money generating) remedy for avoiding it.

(Btw, if anyone here is expecting a straight answer from the “Hintman,” it ain't gonna happen.)
_______

[Sculptor]

So what the fuck is hell?

It's an empty word perceived by an empty mind, interpreted as an empty perspective of reality by an empty unknown knowing.

Yes, I think I agree,
Except for two things.
1) I was not asking you, and so you are not responding by context and 2), were it not for my suspicion that you possibly consider most things fit that description.

[Sculptor]

_______
The “real” Hell, on the other hand (at least from the Christian/Islamic perspective), is simply a mythological fantasy devised by humans to frighten other humans into accepting a particular (money generating) remedy for avoiding it.

I seem to recall that you started this bloody thread? Y?N?
Thanks for answering my question. However I did not ask you.
And given your answer I am puzzled that you started the thread. I suppose you were hoping to lay an elephant trap for unsuspecting theists???
For what it is worth I agree with your summation.
And think it pretty finny that the closet theists on the forum have been too scared to define hell themselves.
I hope you have achieved what you set out to achieve with this thread.
LOL

[Dontaskme]

So what the fuck is hell?

It's an empty word perceived by an empty mind, interpreted as an empty perspective of reality by an empty unknown knowing.

Yes, I think I agree.

Excellent, so there you go, you already knew the answer to your own question, you just needed a little reminding of the answer.

[Sculptor]

It's an empty word perceived by an empty mind, interpreted as an empty perspective of reality by an empty unknown knowing.

Yes, I think I agree.

Excellent, so there you go, you already knew the answer to your own question, you just needed a little reminding of the answer.

It should be obvious to, even you, that when you are trying to have a discussion with someone you need to know what THEY think the topic is about.
The fact that you and I might agree on a definition of hell does not contribute to my discussion with others on the matter

[Dontaskme]

The fact that you and I might agree on a definition of hell does not contribute to my discussion with others on the matter

That's very true indeed.

[seeds]

The “real” Hell, on the other hand (at least from the Christian/Islamic perspective), is simply a mythological fantasy devised by humans to frighten other humans into accepting a particular (money generating) remedy for avoiding it.

Thanks for answering my question. However I did not ask you.

Yes, I understand that you were asking Age/ken (aka, the “Hintman” – see this post, here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29689&start=60#p461532), which is why I warned that any hope of pinning him down for a unambiguous answer to pretty much anything whatsoever, is a waste of time.

Keep in mind that when you are talking to the “Hintman,” you are actually talking to a channeled entity who stated that he (or it, or whatever) is using the human called Age/ken to convey information to the world in the same way he says he used ancient humans to produce the Bible. See the following quote:

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

You can see that quote in its proper context in the post that the above link will take you to.

And given your answer I am puzzled that you started the thread. I suppose you were hoping to lay an elephant trap for unsuspecting theists???

The main purpose of the thread is to force people to look deeper into exactly what it is they believe.

In which case, if it is a trap to point out the dark and twisted implications of a belief system, then so be it.

For what it is worth I agree with your summation.
And think it pretty finny that the closet theists on the forum have been too scared to define hell themselves.
I hope you have achieved what you set out to achieve with this thread.
LOL

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.
_______