Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Rosenritter]

I've always wondered, if the apostles kept falling asleep, how did they know what Jesus said in his praying??????????

They were told later what to write. Either by Jesus in person or by the Holy Spirit. Either one works. Peter says that the scriptures are written by the Holy Ghost, but Jesus did spend a lot of time with them as well.

 

[Rosenritter]

My former comments hold,...I did not deny that God can inspire souls to hear his 'voice' and/or 'write', but that the reception and later renditions of the original hearing or writings can further undergo distortion, changes and corruption to varying degrees.

I've also shared elsewhere that I dont hold to the doctrine of 'infallibility' for the Bible, since I see it as wholly 'unnecessary' to believe such, and still accept inspiration and guidance from what the book may contain. We would say again,....saying something is 'biblical' gives no credence to it necessarily, but to assign it some assumed or conventional significance, it might only provide a context for varying views such as we see in our discussion here.

The topic question is not "is the bible legitimate" but "is eternal conscious torment biblical." This topic is for those who accept the Bible as authoritative, or who at least can accept that premise for the sake of argument. It is on this understanding that we have shown that "eternal conscious torment" is against the scripture, and the revealed character of God and Christ.

While I appreciate that it is fair to challenge assumptions, and even the integrity of scripture or the inspiration of the canon is fair game, I would never separate myself from the sharp sword of the Word itself when dealing with the monstrosity calling itself "Eternal Conscious Torment" nor would I want the strength of the argument weakened by dilution with a flawed "we need to rewrite the scripture to make it the way we want" argument.

 

[Rosenritter]

The fact still remains, which was my initial observation, that any 'translation' into another language introduces DISTORTION to some degree of the original language. The english translations of hebrew and greek we have do their best to 'approximate' an equivalent word-symbol for the original, of course,...but such introduces variables and modifications of the meaning-sense and contextual tone of the passage. Again, just an observation,.....I dont give a book the status of 'innerrant', 'perfect' or 'infallible' because only 'God' by definition would hold to such a description, but even that is 'questionable' because man is putting his own 'terms' and 'qualifications' on everything.

Or the translation to another language might add more clarity than was in the original text. You seem to forget that God remains an actor in this, he chooses which nations rise and fall, and he has the ability to shape language as well as to confound. Your argument that language can only degrade forgets about God entirely.

 

[freelight]

God is not left out..........

God is not left out..........

Or the translation to another language might add more clarity than was in the original text. You seem to forget that God remains an actor in this, he chooses which nations rise and fall, and he has the ability to shape language as well as to confound. Your argument that language can only degrade forgets about God entirely.

Not necessarily....since I posit God as that Infinite Intelligence that certainly interfaces all dimensions of consciousness and can still inspire, expand, reveal and clarify words, values and meanings. God is the sole source of such. I never posited otherwise, since God is the one core-reality source no matter what descriptions are assumed.

That being said, you'd have to prove when and where a translated english word is a better word equivalent than the original one first inspired. This is not true in all cases and has made for faulty translations in particular cases, especially regarding ECT....the subject at hand.

And still as I noted, ECT can be dismissed by reason, logic and conscience alone, apart from any religious writings on the subject.

Parading the word 'biblical' is still indefinitive in my book, since anyone can assume the label for anything, and that label is arbitrary, and maybe even self-serving, granted any bias involved. (And still the word does NOT authenticate anything as 'true'). I just reject insanity, and that clears a good deal of pop-theology from the get-go.

I understand most of the translation problems and have expounded my own opinions regarding them previously here. I've just gotten more skeptical and resolute with my 'theology' and enjoying a new edge on it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Not necessarily....since I posit God as that Infinite Intelligence that certainly interfaces all dimensions of consciousness and can still inspire, expand, reveal and clarify words, values and meanings. God is the sole source of such. I never posited otherwise, since God is the one core-reality source no matter what descriptions are assumed.

That being said, you'd have to prove when and where a translated english word is a better word equivalent than the original one first inspired. This is not true in all cases and has made for faulty translations in particular cases, especially regarding ECT....the subject at hand.

And still as I noted, ECT can be dismissed by reason, logic and conscience alone, apart from any religious writings on the subject.

Parading the word 'biblical' is still indefinitive in my book, since anyone can assume the label for anything, and that label is arbitrary, and maybe even self-serving, granted any bias involved. (And still the word does NOT authenticate anything as 'true'). I just reject insanity, and that clears a good deal of pop-theology from the get-go.

I understand most of the translation problems and have expounded my own opinions regarding them previously here. I've just gotten more skeptical and resolute with my 'theology' and enjoying a new edge on it.

I've seen a few places where the translation does seem more natural in English.

Luke 11:51
“From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”

Malachi 4:2
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

These are small examples, but even if they do not qualify as hard proof (and how could one provide hard proof?) they are at least interesting.

The listing of the prophets which Jesus listed chronologically is also all inclusive "from A to Z" in the first instance. Breathtaking? Perhaps not. But in the second example, if you read the passage aloud to someone, they know you are talking about the SON of Righteousness. That play on words only reveals itself once the Hebrew was translated to English, and it's quite appropriate as the passage is about the return of Christ to establish his reign. With the New Testament, we know the Messiah is the Son.

Count that as just interesting if you will, the more practical matter is how translation relates to the thread topic. The KJV translation has no difficulties in this regard.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, "Hell" is Biblical, but it has been misrepresented by church leaders, for their own agenda. Three Greek words have been translated as "hell" even though they are not all the same ("Hades," "Gehenna," and "Tartarus"). "Hades" is always mankind's common grave. "Gehenna" is something else....a burning dump outside Jerusalem that symbolizes complete deterioration (nothingness). "Tartarus" is mentioned only once, at 2 Peter 2:4, and is not a place but a darkened spiritual condition.

Yet all of these words are translated as "hell."

I agree that "Hell" the way it is taught today by the clergy of most churches is not true. None of those Greek words refer to a place that literally burns, to gobble up wicked people and roast them forever. The whole concept of torturing people without end is untrue, and it is sadistic and blasphemous to accuse God of creating a place like that.

KR, what is "the second death" in Revelation 20:14?

If the "first" death is separation of body and soul/spirit, then what must the "second" death be?

The Greek is very clear:

The second death is the lake of fire. Now, where the Bible says:

Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. - Revelation 20:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation20:14&version=NKJV

I used to think that "this" meant that the casting of Death and Hades into the lake of fire was the second death. I thought that it was an action.

Upon reading the Greek however, it's pretty obvious that the second death is the lake of fire itself.

----

What happens when someone finds and has a relationship with God. Are they miserable? or are they content?

If someone hates God, do you think they would be happier to spend eternity with Him or without Him?

Without Him, obviously. Or do you think God is a sadist, or mentally ill, forcing someone to live with Him for eternity who doesn't want to?

So, if someone hates God, and would rather be apart from Him for eternity, don't you think they would be the opposite of the one who finds peace that passes all understanding through Christ (Philipians 4:7)? Would they not be miserable without God?

----

Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? No, we see very clearly that He does not:

Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ - Ezekiel 33:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel33:11&version=NKJV

Now, if God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but He also cannot allow sin to enter into His presence, and He will not force those who hate and reject Him to be with Him for all of eternity, and that those who reject Him tend to be miserable, why then do you think that God is the one doing the torturing when He casts those who reject Him into the Lake of Fire, when He is giving them exactly what they want?

It would be blasphemous to call Him a sadistic God, as He is not the one who causes those who have rejected Him to suffer in the Lake of Fire. The "fire" describes the kind of pain that the unrepentant will have for the rest of eternity. Their suffering will be as if they were being held in an eternal furnace. They will not have physical bodies, but because pain is not physical, it will be the spiritual pain caused by knowing that tthey will never again have the opportunity to have a relationship with their God. And they would rather have that pain than the relationship with their Creator.

Do you know the phrase, "misery loves company"? If God were to allow those who hate Him into Heaven, they would turn Heaven into Hell for those who love Him and do want to be with Him.

--------

Therefore Girgashites are not literal people

The Bible disagrees with you. The Girgashites (or Girgasites) are descendants of Canaan.

Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth;the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite; - Genesis 10:15-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis10:15-16&version=NKJV

Canaan begot Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth;the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite; - 1 Chronicles 1:13-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Chronicles1:13-14&version=NKJV

They were inhabitants of the land of Canaan.

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— . . . the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” - Genesis 15:18,21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis15:18,21&version=NKJV

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, - Deuteronomy 7:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy7:1&version=NKJV

And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites: - Joshua 3:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua3:10&version=NKJV

Then you went over the Jordan and came to Jericho. And the men of Jericho fought against you— also the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. But I delivered them into your hand. - Joshua 24:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua24:11&version=NKJV

You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give the land of the Canaanites, The Hittites, the Amorites, The Perizzites, the Jebusites, And the Girgashites — To give it to his descendants. You have performed Your words, For You are righteous. - Nehemiah 9:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah9:8&version=NKJV

This makes your next statement somewhat weaker.

but symbolism for demons and-or unclean spirits, and they always were, for they are used for teaching purposes in allegorical fashion.

The Girgashites really did exist, and they were humans. Not demons, literally or figuratively.

The one who "rightly divides" will not mix parables concerning devils and demons, (sin personified), with literal human beings:

And yet you have done just that above.

Esau is hairy, like a sa`iyr, that is a goat, a twin goat-devil, and that is why Elohim hates him. He is an allegory of the carnal old man nature. Elohim does not hate literal people or human beings, which are His own creation. Elohim loves you and hates your evil twin-goat enemy old man nature Esau-man.

First of all, "love and hate" is a Hebrew figure of speech for "love and love more." For example, in Luke 14:26, Jesus says you must hate your mother and father and love God.

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. - Luke 14:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke14:26&version=NKJV

Now, if we were to take this woodenly literally, then it would contradict "Honor your father and mother," and people who hate God would have a strong point against Him.

But seeing as "love and hate" is a figure of speech, we know that Jesus did not literally mean "hate your mother and father and love God, He meant to love God so much that it is as if you hated your parents, even though you love them.

So when we see this figure of speech elsewhere in Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3, we can see that God didn't hate Esau and love Jacob, but that He loved Jacob and Esau, but loved Jacob so much that it was as if He hated Esau.

Second of all, who are Malachi 1:3 and Romans 9:13 talking about? (Hint: it's not the individual persons Jacob and Esau)

If you guessed Jacob and Esau the two nations, Also known as Israel and Edom, the Israelites and the Edomites, you would be correct.

Look at what Malachi 1:1-5 says:

The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

“I have loved you,” says the Lord. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the Lord . “Yet Jacob I have loved;But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.”Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the Lord of hosts: “They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever.Your eyes shall see, And you shall say, ‘The Lord is magnified beyond the border of Israel.’​

- Malachi 1:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi1:1-5&version=NKJV

Now, (and I hope the formatting shows correctly) does that seem pretty clear that "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" means the two nations, and not the two individuals?

 

[Derf]

...

And still as I noted, ECT can be dismissed by reason, logic and conscience alone, apart from any religious writings on the subject.

Parading the word 'biblical' is still indefinitive in my book, since anyone can assume the label for anything, and that label is arbitrary, and maybe even self-serving, granted any bias involved. (And still the word does NOT authenticate anything as 'true'). I just reject insanity, and that clears a good deal of pop-theology from the get-go.

...

Pardon my fly-by comment, but what if, Freelight, you're the one that is insane? Then your dismissal, by your reason, your logic, and your conscience ALONE, apart from any religious writings WHATSOEVER, would be suspect, by your own admission?

And our reason and logic are most assuredly driven by our own conscience, thus your three witnesses are down to only one. I.e., you develop premises that you take as true based on your own conscience. And what drives your conscience? Is your conscience reliable? how would one tell whether his own conscience is reliable?

Isn't that what Adam and Eve did? They selected their source of truth using Satan's words over God's Word, based on the logic and reason Satan presented, even going against their first reaction (no doubt the conscience, built from memory of God's command), which they were willing to set aside to allow themselves to desire the tempting fruit. They reasoned with their conscience to develop a new conscience.
[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION], if I understand his position on this thread, is not using his own conscience as the basis of truth, but is subjecting his conscience to the words of scripture, God's Word, from what he knows and accepts of it. He and I may have differing opinions on what scripture is actually saying, but these are differences that we feel we can overcome by using a source that is greater than our own logic, reason, and conscience. You seem to have rejected that source.

Maybe you are even now being influenced by Satan, like Adam and Eve. Do you think you can tell the difference between your desires and Satan's? How?

 

[Rosenritter]

KR, what is "the second death" in Revelation 20:14?

If the "first" death is separation of body and soul/spirit, then what must the "second" death be?

Sometimes people forget about the resurrection between that first and second death. The second death would also be separation of the body and soul/spirit. This would be the second time they died. There's no third time.

 

[Zeke]

Pardon my fly-by comment, but what if, Freelight, you're the one that is insane? Then your dismissal, by your reason, your logic, and your conscience ALONE, apart from any religious writings WHATSOEVER, would be suspect, by your own admission?

And our reason and logic are most assuredly driven by our own conscience, thus your three witnesses are down to only one. I.e., you develop premises that you take as true based on your own conscience. And what drives your conscience? Is your conscience reliable? how would one tell whether his own conscience is reliable?

Isn't that what Adam and Eve did? They selected their source of truth using Satan's words over God's Word, based on the logic and reason Satan presented, even going against their first reaction (no doubt the conscience, built from memory of God's command), which they were willing to set aside to allow themselves to desire the tempting fruit. They reasoned with their conscience to develop a new conscience.

[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION], if I understand his position on this thread, is not using his own conscience as the basis of truth, but is subjecting his conscience to the words of scripture, God's Word, from what he knows and accepts of it. He and I may have differing opinions on what scripture is actually saying, but these are differences that we feel we can overcome by using a source that is greater than our own logic, reason, and conscience. You seem to have rejected that source.

Maybe you are even now being influenced by Satan, like Adam and Eve. Do you think you can tell the difference between your desires and Satan's? How?

Thanks for proving Freelights point, the traditional insanity being the irrational dialectic that has never experienced the inward contents of the scripture Luke 17:20-21 being the achilles heal of the third century lie you embrace.

 

[Zeke]

Alvin Boyd Kuhn lost keys to the scripture.

 

[daqq]

Alvin Boyd Kuhn lost keys to the scripture.

Indeed, but I have known the meaning of it, and have ascribed it quite often around these parts, but have also yet to find anyone else willing to believe the truth when it is plainly shown to them. "The soul that sins shall die" is a commandment, just as Ahron was told to go up into mount Hor and die, and just as Moses was told to go up into mount Nebo and die, and just as we are admonished in the Testimony of the Messiah to part our own selves asunder and destroy our own souls for the sake of the kingdom and his Testimony. Paul teaches the same when he says to mortify or put to death your "members" which are upon the earth, (land, meaning physical members of the body), just as Messiah means when he says to pluck out the offensive eye, cut off the offensive hand or foot, and so on, as Moses likewise teaches in the supernal way of Torah: soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, cut them off before they cut you off and choke out the seed of the Word from you heart. It pertains to the war within ourselves, the flesh against the Spirit, the carnal old man nature against the new inner man of the Spirit: both of them are likened to souls as well as each of our "members" which under the old way of the carnal man have "evil shepherds" ruling over them, (Zec 11:8-17).

 

[Rosenritter]

Alvin Boyd Kuhn lost keys to the scripture.

If one was ignorant of the resurrection unto eternal life, then I suppose "the soul that sinneth it shall die" might seem meaningless...

 

[Zeke]

Indeed, but I have known the meaning of it, and have ascribed it quite often around these parts, but have also yet to find anyone else willing to believe the truth when it is plainly shown to them. "The soul that sins shall die" is a commandment, just as Ahron was told to go up into mount Hor and die, and just as Moses was told to go up into mount Nebo and die, and just as we are admonished in the Testimony of the Messiah to part our own selves asunder and destroy our own souls for the sake of the kingdom and his Testimony. Paul teaches the same when he says to mortify or put to death your "members" which are upon the earth, (land, meaning physical members of the body), just as Messiah means when he says to pluck out the offensive eye, cut off the offensive hand or foot, and so on, as Moses likewise teaches in the supernal way of Torah: soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, cut them off before they cut you off and choke out the seed of the Word from you heart. It pertains to the war within ourselves, the flesh against the Spirit, the carnal old man nature against the new inner man of the Spirit: both of them are likened to souls as well as each of our "members" which under the old way of the carnal man have "evil shepherds" ruling over them, (Zec 11:8-17).

Gen 33:1-20, Gen 27:39-40, John 1:17, Hebrews 5:7, 1John 4:18 Galatians 4:20-28, we agree on the allegorical tome of the letter, the master messiah being something we have to receive is one I no longer except , we are that master messiah which starts out as a state of ignorance bowing to things of this exoteric world Galatians 4:1, We go through states 1Cor 15:44-45, the former times Luke 15:13 ALIVE, The latter times Luke Romans 7:9-10, Luke 15:14-16 HELL/Death, the appointed TIME Luke 15:17 arrives you remember John 3:3, from where you came John 3:13, Philippians 2:6, Luke 15:32, John 17:5, HEAVEN Luke 17:20-21 etc......depending on which state we are in determines how we interpret the letter 2Cor 3:6.

 

[Zeke]

If one was ignorant of the resurrection unto eternal life, then I suppose "the soul that sinneth it shall die" might seem meaningless...

You can't kill life, the Divine wears all the mask you perceive as good and evil so when we condemn we are doing it to our self the only awareness you know, and that is called I AM. The letter can kill you metaphorically if you stay in that state which is fear based like this thread, which is eternal but you can transcend that mentality Philippians 2:5.

 

[Derf]

Thanks for proving Freelights point, the traditional insanity being the irrational dialectic that has never experienced the inward contents of the scripture Luke 17:20-21 being the achilles heal of the third century lie you embrace.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Derf]

You can't kill life,

Actually, life is the only thing you can kill.

 

[Rosenritter]

You can't kill life, the Divine wears all the mask you perceive as good and evil so when we condemn we are doing it to our self the only awareness you know, and that is called I AM. The letter can kill you metaphorically if you stay in that state which is fear based like this thread, which is eternal but you can transcend that mentality Philippians 2:5.

Of course you can kill life. That's what the word "kill" means.

Deu 32:39 KJV
(39) See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Besides this, the gift of eternal life would have no meaning if death were not the alternative.

Luk 12:4-5 KJV
(4) And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
(5) But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Mat 10:28 KJV
(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This two passages together also give a demonstration that destruction of both soul and body in hell encompasses being killed and completely destroyed in fire.

As for reflecting on the "eternal conscious torment" question, the gospel of Luke places "kill" before "cast into hell." That might be significant.

 

[freelight]

Figurative language.......

Figurative language.......

Actually, life is the only thing you can kill.

Perhaps a deeper contemplation of the allegorical or figurative meaning of the words 'life' and 'death' are in due order,...as espoused at least by the writer Alvin Boyd Kuhn. His treatise 'lost key to the scritpures' here (an excerpt shared earlier) expounds on this further. This is within the context of the discussion, for it posits a figurative meaning behind these 'words' used in scripture, therefore consideration of such is appropriate to the discussion.

In a world of duality, relativity and contrast....'life' and 'death' are relative. Only 'God' abides as the undergirding, eternal, infinite ABSOLUTE reality, while all 'else' is but a creative play of 'light' and 'shadow',...'life' and 'death'...some fragmentation or relating contrast within mind.

While we speculate about a soul 'dying', or what condition 'death' might be (or if such could be described in varying degrees or finality)....it remains that 'God' is the sole universal LIFE.

If an individual ray from the Great central sun, could die or disintegrate....it still goes back to Universal Source Energy, absorbed back into the One Spirit. So,...we can assume alot of things about a soul 'dying', or if it can continue on with the life and energy of God within it, keeping its personality or individuality extant,...eternally progressing and transforming into the perfect image and likeness of its eternal parent. So, there is alot to consider beyond the usual traditional beliefs and how 'terms' are defined, even if you slap on the term 'biblical' to them, which I've formerly stated is about as good as a 'literary device' in creative fiction to bolster the believability of something. Saying something is biblical can only mean something to the one assuming it, and even then its credibility is questionable, since that 'assumption' must further be put thru the intellectual scrutiny of reason, logic, conscience, spiritual intelligence,...and on-going revelation. But to some, even these are questionable.

To a particular mind, It comes down to what makes most sense at any given time, within a given sphere of knowledge or understanding, and thats about it, so thats why there are so many variables in play. I'm just as comfortable in accepting 'agnosis' (no knowledge) as well as some faint glimmer of 'intuitive knowing' ('gnosis) simultaneously on these matters, since only that which is actually infinite, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent....KNOWS all. - anything less than that, only has a distortion, fragmentation or individualized form of original knowledge. So, at best, you as a spiritual seeker have to consider all aspects and dimensions of the conversation at hand, and still you may not know, but can only come to possible or most probable assumptions about 'life' and 'death'.

 

[Derf]

Perhaps a deeper contemplation of the allegorical or figurative meaning of the words 'life' and 'death' are in due order,...as espoused at least by the writer Alvin Boyd Kuhn. His treatise 'lost key to the scritpures' here (an excerpt shared earlier) expounds on this further. This is within the context of the discussion, for it posits a figurative meaning behind these 'words' used in scripture, therefore consideration of such is appropriate to the discussion.

In a world of duality, relativity and contrast....'life' and 'death' are relative. Only 'God' abides as the undergirding, eternal, infinite ABSOLUTE reality, while all 'else' is but a creative play of 'light' and 'shadow',...'life' and 'death'...some fragmentation or relating contrast within mind.

While we speculate about a soul 'dying', or what condition 'death' might be (or if such could be described in varying degrees or finality)....it remains that 'God' is the sole universal LIFE.

If an individual ray from the Great central sun, could die or disintegrate....it still goes back to Universal Source Energy, absorbed back into the One Spirit. So,...we can assume alot of things about a soul 'dying', or if it can continue on with the life and energy of God within it, keeping its personality or individuality extant,...eternally progressing and transforming into the perfect image and likeness of its eternal parent. So, there is alot to consider beyond the usual traditional beliefs and how 'terms' are defined, even if you slap on the term 'biblical' to them, which I've formerly stated is about as good as a 'literary device' in creative fiction to bolster the believability of something. Saying something is biblical can only mean something to the one assuming it, and even then its credibility is questionable, since that 'assumption' must further be put thru the intellectual scrutiny of reason, logic, conscience, spiritual intelligence,...and on-going revelation. But to some, even these are questionable.

To a particular mind, It comes down to what makes most sense at any given time, within a given sphere of knowledge or understanding, and thats about it, so thats why there are so many variables in play. I'm just as comfortable in accepting 'agnosis' (no knowledge) as well as some faint glimmer of 'intuitive knowing' ('gnosis) simultaneously on these matters, since only that which is actually infinite, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent....KNOWS all. - anything less than that, only has a distortion, fragmentation or individualized form of original knowledge. So, at best, you as a spiritual seeker have to consider all aspects and dimensions of the conversation at hand, and still you may not know, but can only come to possible or most probable assumptions about 'life' and 'death'.

I suppose all of that is necessary to counteract the real meaning of a word. But it seems like it's an obfuscation rather than a clarification. Nice try, though!

 

[freelight]

Cherry pickers Inc........

Cherry pickers Inc........

I suppose all of that is necessary to counteract the real meaning of a word. But it seems like it's an obfuscation rather than a clarification. Nice try, though!

This is old hat,...hashed it out in many commentaries here already - now one can jump on the merry-go-round again, but to save dizziness........

If you find 'terms' that make sense to you (all relative by the way, 'life' and 'death'), by all means have fun with them, but as far as finding any real meaning or value in those 'terms', thats another story. On a literal level, its all just more 'alphabet soup'

'Karma' still holds no matter what world you live in, as long as any aspect of life or consciousness is 'conditional' by thought, words and actions, and thats just a universal fact of 'karma', sugar coat or re-define the term anyway you choose. All existence is but a phase, modulation or individual mode, function or expression of 'consciousness',..thats it. You're better off I think studying the entire gamut of psychical research and Spiritualist text and spirit-communications from the past few centuries, NDE and Afterlife research to get a better grasp on the total subject and implications involved than just using one archaic and limited religious book (confined within a cult-ural-context), assuming that book is the 'end all' & 'be all' of revelation, when I propose it is not, neither indeed can be, since there is on-going progressive revelation. My former thread on 'NDE's and the Afterlife' bore this out years ago here. - I've seen too much to encapsulate the total of reality to just a 'biblical' context, because infinity and knowledge itself cannot be so contained or limited thereby.

So,...play in any section of the cherry orchard you like (knock yourself out),...you're still picking cherries :angel: