tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post6689699346556183419..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: My Views on Hell and SalvationJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6493179473790008052010-01-14T12:42:56.392-08:002010-01-14T12:42:56.392-08:00Metacrock, your arguments that Hell does not exist...Metacrock, your arguments that Hell does not exist could equally well prove that Heaven does not exist.<br /><br /><b>It doesn't, as such! I don't believe there's a literal city of real streets of gold up in the sky. <br /><br />now let's get this right, I did nto say Hell doesn't exist. I said it's a mateaphor for spiritual death, and it's not eternal conscious torment. that doesnt' mean it doesn't exist as anything. I advanced the opinion that it's annihilation, which just my understanding of it.<br /><br />so with heaven, heaven is not a city in the clouds it's a metaphor for spiritual life, whatever that is. I think it's some connection of eternal bliss in God but I don't know exactly what that means.</b><br /><br />You rely rather heavily on the Old Testament, even though it is supposedly superseded by the New Testament. <br /><br /><b>I don't know why you would say that. I don't think I used a single verse from it. I said Hell is not in the OT, that seems pretty crucial, but hardly being heavily dependent upon it. <br /><br />the OT being superseded by the NT would not pertain to this issue because the nature of the metaphysical set up should be essentially the same.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />There isn't much of a conception of an afterlife there -- if any at all. The author of Ecclesiastes seems to think that our consciousness will end at physical death, while King Saul had the witch of Endor channel the ghost of the prophet Samuel.<br /><br /><br /><b>As you say there is no clear sense. Perhaps our consciousness does end. I don't think so becuase Paul and Jesus both seem indicate that it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it goes a city with streets of gold. <br /><br />The per-Christian Hebrew and middle eastern view was that of Sheol, or "the pit." It was not total cessation of existence but it wasn't a full blown re-enactment of life either. It was sort of a half life.<br /><br />that too is a metaphor, like a religious language. The name of the game is experience. it's all about experiencing God not words on paper.</b><br /><br />However, the New Testament does talk about an eternal torture chamber where wicked people will be sent to, <br /><br /><b><i>Always in connection with metaphorical language,hyperbole, parables or apocalyptic. So it's always in symbolic language.</i></b><br /><br /><br /><br />and it's hard to get around that if the NT supersedes the OT. The closest thing to Heaven it mentions is the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation.<br /><br /><b>It's a metaphor: it's all about experiencing God not words on paper. you have to have the experience.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45334664401588611442010-01-14T08:07:55.137-08:002010-01-14T08:07:55.137-08:00Metacrock, your arguments that Hell does not exist...Metacrock, your arguments that Hell does not exist could equally well prove that Heaven does not exist.<br /><br />You rely rather heavily on the Old Testament, even though it is supposedly superseded by the New Testament. There isn't much of a conception of an afterlife there -- if any at all. The author of Ecclesiastes seems to think that our consciousness will end at physical death, while King Saul had the witch of Endor channel the ghost of the prophet Samuel.<br /><br />However, the New Testament does talk about an eternal torture chamber where wicked people will be sent to, and it's hard to get around that if the NT supersedes the OT. The closest thing to Heaven it mentions is the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70315836631128682972010-01-12T17:38:52.515-08:002010-01-12T17:38:52.515-08:00Mike that's because you are learning to identi...Mike that's because you are learning to identify with the atheist ideology and label yourself as such so you see any sort of attempt to analyze them or their psychology as an attack.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84620424167324910202010-01-12T17:17:28.883-08:002010-01-12T17:17:28.883-08:00"God didn't push us out into the current ...<i>"God didn't push us out into the current where there's a waterfall; sin did that. God wanted us to stay safe with Him beside the still waters."</i><br /><br />I was preparing a reply all about free will and currents and trout swimming upstream bit it felt like the metaphor was getting a bit labored so I think I'll just leave it...;-) Let's just say I fully realize that there are consequences for our actions, but I think there is a tendency here to absolve God of responsibility for His alleged actions.<br /><br /><i>"Hermit, you seem to think it's all about what you believe, as if right and wrong had nothing to do with it. But to be in relationship with God is to be in relationship with life and love, and not to be, is not."</i><br /><br />It's not all about what I believe, it's about what I see as the implications of what Metacrock is proposing.<br /><br /><i>"But here's the thing-- Metacrock never said you weren't in relationship with God. God knows where your heart is, we don't. You may be seeking the Good with all your heart, but for one reason or another can't equate that with what you think God is. But you can't seem to hear Metacrock saying that, even though he *has* said that."</i><br /><br />I hear it, I just don't agree with it. I'm not seeking God. I am seeking love, but love is love, not God. It's a part of our humanity and I think that proposing something called "God" here actually puts a barrier between us and that love. Does for me anyway.<br /><br />I would suggest that when you and other believers say God" you are talking about something more than love; you're talking about something which has consciousness and intention and the capacity to act on its own independently of us. <br /><br /><i>"But what you are saying, over and over, is that any theist who is not a universalist is evil-- because in believing there's a way to be saved that a person must choose, we are implying that some will not so choose and won't be saved-- and thinking it's possible for someone to not be saved is evil."</i><br /><br />Now whose words are being twisted? When have I said anything about believers being evil? This is judgement YOU are making, not me... <br /><br /><i>"I really don't see what the difference is between you accusing our beliefs of being evil, and you getting angry because you believe Christians say your beliefs are evil."</i><br /><br />I challenge you to find an instance in this or any other discussion I've been involved in here in which I say that anyone's beliefs are evil. I'm just pointing out what I see as the implications of some of those beliefs; if you are uncomfortable with those implications then I guess you have something to think about.<br /><br />I do get a little irritated when believers who tell me that I'm evil, or that I desire death, or that I have no moral standards etc. etc. but I only get really angry when someone calls me a "fucking idiot" or something similar...not that anyone here would do something like that...;-)<br /><br />On the other hand, I just think belief in God is unnecessary, misguided at worst but not that its' evil. <br /><br /><i>"Please try to hear what Metacrock is actually saying, and stop accusing him of saying what you only think he's saying."</i><br /><br />What he has actually said (here and in other places) is that atheists (which would be me) are death seekers who desire annihilation and want to be separated from all that goodness and love you were just talking about. Nothing could be farther from the truth.<br /><br />This is the heart of my objection here; things like love and goodness and justice are human qualities and when you start turning them into something bigger than humanity it seems to me that humanity can sometimes get lost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37719349782605238642010-01-12T14:05:16.632-08:002010-01-12T14:05:16.632-08:00Metacrock: you are not entitled. you are not a lit...Metacrock: you are not entitled. you are not a little prince God doesn't owe you anything. God does not have ot measure up to your standards. you must measure up to his.<br /><br />Me: So you have the fundie view that God is a cosmic autocrat who is always right but not really benevolent.<br /><br /><b>those are not the only two choices Loren.</b><br /><br />Greta Christina once blogged about how many Xians believe that God is not all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent at the same time.<br /><br />Ritualistic sects act as if they have to go through a lot of trouble to get God's attention, thus acting as if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but not omniscient.<br /><br />Fundie sects act as if God is omnipotent and omniscient but not omnibenevolent.<br /><br />Liberal sects act as if God is a sympathetic mid-level bureaucrat who can't do a whole lot, as if God is omniscient and omnibenevolent but not omnipotent.<br /><br /><b>we experience God at a level beyond our understanding. We have to translate that into cultural constructs and filter them through constructs to translate them, just to talk about them. So they are going to be different for different people because people are in different places and different construct have different values to different people.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-23614648312968155652010-01-12T11:16:01.666-08:002010-01-12T11:16:01.666-08:00Metacrock: you are not entitled. you are not a lit...Metacrock: <i>you are not entitled. you are not a little prince God doesn't owe you anything. God does not have ot measure up to your standards. you must measure up to his.</i><br /><br />Me: So you have the fundie view that God is a cosmic autocrat who is always right but not really benevolent.<br /><br />Greta Christina once blogged about how many Xians believe that God is not all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent at the same time.<br /><br />Ritualistic sects act as if they have to go through a lot of trouble to get God's attention, thus acting as if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but not omniscient.<br /><br />Fundie sects act as if God is omnipotent and omniscient but not omnibenevolent.<br /><br />Liberal sects act as if God is a sympathetic mid-level bureaucrat who can't do a whole lot, as if God is omniscient and omnibenevolent but not omnipotent.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69952496178743705832010-01-11T22:50:04.886-08:002010-01-11T22:50:04.886-08:00God didn't push us out into the current where ...God didn't push us out into the current where there's a waterfall; sin did that. God wanted us to stay safe with Him beside the still waters. <br /><br />Hermit, you seem to think it's all about what you believe, as if right and wrong had nothing to do with it. But to be in relationship with God is to be in relationship with life and love, and not to be, is not. And not-life is death, and not-love is sin. But here's the thing-- Metacrock never said you weren't in relationship with God. God knows where your heart is, we don't. You may be seeking the Good with all your heart, but for one reason or another can't equate that with what you think God is. But you can't seem to hear Metacrock saying that, even though he *has* said that. <br /><br />But what you are saying, over and over, is that any theist who is not a universalist is evil-- because in believing there's a way to be saved that a person must choose, we are implying that some will not so choose and won't be saved-- and thinking it's possible for someone to not be saved is evil. This is going too far. It is *respect* for humanity, for human choice, that leads us to think God won't force people into relationship with God.<br /><br />What appears to be the case is that you think believing in God and salvation is hateful and evil. I really don't see what the difference is between you accusing our beliefs of being evil, and you getting angry because you believe Christians say your beliefs are evil.<br /><br />We're not evil just for believing, and you're not evil just for not believing. Ok?<br /><br />Please try to hear what Metacrock is actually saying, and stop accusing him of saying what you only think he's saying.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19971245939472303242010-01-11T20:17:22.976-08:002010-01-11T20:17:22.976-08:00"
that's silly to put it in those kind of...<i>"<br />that's silly to put it in those kind of terms."</i><br /><br />well, it's your analogy, don't blame me..;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-76005999308936907852010-01-11T17:19:54.118-08:002010-01-11T17:19:54.118-08:00But according to you God's the one who put us ...But according to you God's the one who put us in the river and pushed out into the current above a waterfall in the first place. You can't give Him credit for that and that absolve Him of responsibility for the outcome. Leaving people to die when you could save them (even if they don't see the danger; even if they don't want to be saved) is still a punishment for their failure to see.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's silly to put it in those kind of terms.<br /><br />you are not entitled. you are not a little prince God doesn't owe you anything. God does not have ot measure up to your standards. you must measure up to his.<br /><br />But why do you choose to look at something that is beyond our understanding in a light that makes it totally unflattering? the only reason anyone would do that is to put an ideological spin on it.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21472457599164604552010-01-11T17:18:11.724-08:002010-01-11T17:18:11.724-08:00hermit I zapped your post about the links on athei...hermit I zapped your post about the links on atheist watch I choose the links on my blog not you got it?I can read, I know what it says. I don't need your input on that.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86352836380764278442010-01-11T09:20:52.387-08:002010-01-11T09:20:52.387-08:00Let's look at this punishment idea:
"But...Let's look at this punishment idea:<br /><br /><i>"But I do not see it as a punishment. It's like we are headed for a waterfall. We going down the river and its peaceful in a our little boat and don't realize there's a huge falls we are moving toward. God is on the bank saying "look out!" Not God's fault if we go over."</i><br /><br />But according to you God's the one who put us in the river and pushed out into the current above a waterfall in the first place. You can't give Him credit for that and that absolve Him of responsibility for the outcome. Leaving people to die when you could save them (even if they don't see the danger; even if they don't want to be saved) is still a punishment for their failure to see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54649246779125330422010-01-11T09:16:07.027-08:002010-01-11T09:16:07.027-08:00"I didn't say anything about atheist. I s...<i>"I didn't say anything about atheist. I said one hates God, I didn't' say if one is an atheist."</i><br /><br />You say it right here in this post Joe:<br /><br /><i>"another way to understand it, atheist want to cease existing. that's the thing they choose to believe will happen."</i><br /><br />That's a direct quote; I'm not twisting your words at all. If you don't want to be held accountable for comments like that don't make them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24477004964349252332010-01-11T08:54:58.385-08:002010-01-11T08:54:58.385-08:00But I don't wish to be apart from Being; I jus...But I don't wish to be apart from Being; I just don't believe that Being is God. I don't believe in divine revelation in the Bible, so telling me that's the basis for believing there is a consequence for this isn't very convincing to me. I don't see any natural, logical reason for there to be such a dire consequence for simply not believing.<br /><br /><b>what did I did I say about that? did I say you go to hell for believing wrong? what did I say about that? can you read the words this time?<br /><br />you seem to be under the misapprehension that you created yourself and on one had the right to put any obligations on you.</b><br /><br />Being an atheist is not a matter of hating God or not wanting to experience life as fully as possible. So why do you keep insisting that atheists desire destruction?<br /><br /><br /><b>I didn't say anything about atheist. I said one hates God, I didn't' say if one is an atheist.</b><br /><br />You complain that I'm being insulting and misrepresenting when you're pushing a despicable idea like that? Do you really not see how dangerous and dehumanizing this "atheists want to die anyway" idea is?<br /><br /><b>where did I say that? This is a true case of animal farm. you are chaning my words, and you are doing it every time. that is just part of how atheists cannot pay fair. you can't deal with my ideas the way I make them you have to change them to your own straw man that you can beat.<br /><br />look back back at what you said:<br /><br /><br />Me: it's not about beleiving, we don't go tot hell for believing the wrong the thing we all have wrong ideas."<br /><br />You: "you are saying we go to hell for the wrong ideas."<br /><br />Me: anyone who is seperating himself from God<br /><br />You: You said atheists do this.<br /><br />every single time you quote me wrong. now why should I not think you are doing it on purpose. you must have no reading comprehension at all.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66313030168978160772010-01-11T08:34:23.605-08:002010-01-11T08:34:23.605-08:00But I don't wish to be apart from Being; I jus...But I don't wish to be apart from Being; I just don't believe that Being is God. I don't believe in divine revelation in the Bible, so telling me that's the basis for believing there is a consequence for this isn't very convincing to me. I don't see any natural, logical reason for there to be such a dire consequence for simply not believing.<br /><br />Being an atheist is not a matter of hating God or not wanting to experience life as fully as possible. So why do you keep insisting that atheists desire destruction?<br /><br />You complain that I'm being insulting and misrepresenting when you're pushing a despicable idea like that? Do you really not see how dangerous and dehumanizing this "atheists want to die anyway" idea is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56476357554733023412010-01-11T08:01:59.510-08:002010-01-11T08:01:59.510-08:00I see no reason for the consequence of not seeking...I see no reason for the consequence of not seeking God to be cessation of existence; this is just you r own personal desire to see something bad happen to people who don't think the way you do.<br /><br /><b>see now that's the sort of personal insult that got you banned. You are clearly trying to destory what I'm doing. you are not tryign tpersaude on the issues but to riducle me as a person.<br /><br />Obviously that's just what i think I said that. If you had reading comprehension skills of the gumption to actually read what i said you would find that exactly what I say. Of course I don't know but this is what thin duh what else would it be?<br /><br />I have good reasons for thinking and I've pointed out what they are, divine revelation; the NT over and over again speaks of the "destruction of the soul." so that seems like a pretty good clue.<br /><br />word used for "destruction" means to completely and utterly destroy something, to cease to be.<br /><br />second reason, God is being itself to be is to be a creature of God so to hate God and wish to be apart from God is to wish to be apart from being.<br /><br />can't you understand things?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75351265467515340292010-01-11T07:39:06.711-08:002010-01-11T07:39:06.711-08:00Telling us that atheists actually desire annihilat...Telling us that atheists actually desire annihilation is a way of dehumanizing us, whether you consciously intend it that way or not.<br /><br />Believing and accepting that something will happen and are not the same as desiring or seeking that thing.<br /><br />I see no reason for the consequence of not seeking God to be cessation of existence; this is just you r own personal desire to see something bad happen to people who don't think the way you do. To me it looks every bit as ugly at it's heart as the fundy's hellfire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com