Does the Afterlife have a literal Hell? (different, proof, bible)

[MysticPhD]

Hell is an irrational concept, especially Dante's eternal torment version. No rational mind could ever embrace or accept the idea of such pointless and endless torment for ANY reason. It also makes no sense to bemoan our fate in this physical world based on the abilities and attributes of our physical bodies and brain. We had nothing to do with what we were born with. Our physical body and its capabilities were determined by DNA and related processes in the protein foldup in the womb. We have no input or control over our inherited physical attributes only their use in this physical world.

For the afterlife, I believe we ARE in control of the attributes and abilities (character) that we are forming for our embryo spiritual body and this WILL determine our capabilities and fate in the spirit world. We will be responsible for our spiritual body and its features (character) because our conscious life here is forming it every single second of our life. I suspect the greatest amount of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" will be about our lousy job of forming our spiritual body and capabilities for the afterlife. I only hope I will be reborn as Spirit with at least a reasonably decent spiritual body. But If I avoid being a spiritual cripple or a spiritual miscarriage, I will consider myself fortunate. YMMV.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

I’m glad you understand the Bible is a story of redemption. I’m pleasantly surprised!

keep it real jimmie ...

Its easy for me to separate nonsense from reasonable.

a story to learn from is way different from pushing a dude died and rise-ed for our sins. and the notion of eternal hell is just flat stupid.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

keep it real jimmie ...

Its easy for me to separate nonsense from reasonable.

a story to learn from is way different from pushing a dude died and rise-ed for our sins. and the notion of eternal hell is just flat stupid.

To each his own.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

To each his own.

no, its not to each his own. Teaching to a dude literally died and rise-ed for our sins is dangerous to people around it.

it counters commonsense, reason, and understanding. In 2019.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

no, its not to each his own. Teaching to a dude literally died and rise-ed for our sins is dangerous to people around it.

it counters commonsense, reason, and understanding. In 2019.

How does the work of Christ make less sense in 2019 than 1919?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

How does the work of Christ make less sense in 2019 than 1919?

First you'd have to define what you're talking about in re the "work of christ".

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

First you'd have to define what you're talking about in re the "work of christ".

See post #424.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

See post #424.

Apparently my request was too difficult for you. Never mind.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by snj90

God determined it.

The link I previously posted shows that the Bible authenticates itself.

So the very thing he told you not to do (use the bible as evidence) you did!

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

How does the work of Christ make less sense in 2019 than 1919?

For one thing, we know the Bible to be less trustworthy today than we knew in 1919.

Originally Posted by snj90

God determined it.



Because consciousness absolutely cannot arise from material processes. Otherwise we'd be philosophical zombies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

The question of substance dualism has been discussed to utter exhaustion by a poster (Gaylenwoof) who has a masters' degree in Philosophy. And I have to say that the Chalmers 'Thought experiment' did not convince.

The problem was that the Zombie was a mental construct to be required to be an exact replica of the human - except lacking sensory experience. So why was it? There was no reason why other than to make the thought experiment work. One red herring turned out to be that (like an android) it hadn't evolved, or grown. It lacked 'experience' and evolved instinct, but that wasn't the argument - it was that it lacked sensory experience. But as an exact replica - why didn't it have it?

Because this faculty had been removed for no reason other than to make the 'experiment' work.

Another red herring was that our senosry experience is not that of another person's. This is true, but irrelevant. Since we share genetic coding the supposition is that we (and our mechanisms) work the same way rather than differently, and even if they worked differently does not mean that they can't have material origins. In fact evolution of life indicates evolution of consciousness and of instinct and the evolution of sensory experience as well.

All the cells and atoms in your body are being constantly replaced. But you retain your soul. Not only that, but you have a unique soul that entered into existence in what would otherwise be a totally arbitrary manner. Why weren't you born 100 years prior to your date of birth? Why weren't you born as someone else? I ask you the same question you asked: who would determine that?

Mate, you can replace every part of your car with an identical new part -so is it the same car? Of course. So it has a soul? You are confusing the retention of mental patterns (experiences, memories, even instinctive behaviour -patterns), with a 'soul'.

And the point about I happen to be me and not someone, some -place or some -time else, it utterly irrelevant. Everone had to be who, when and where they were. Sheer chance. demonstrably.

The link I previously posted shows that the Bible authenticates itself. https://christinprophecy.org/article...he-scriptures/

Bible prophecy is shown to be a crock.
Tyre was not destroyed - except for a few years. It still exists today.
Babylon was not destroyed. It was a capital city till Sassanid Persian times.
The evidence is that the massacre of innocents never happened - so that prophecy is false.
The 'prophecies' of the death of Judas (Matthew and Acts) are cobbled together from mangled bits of OT. No way they can be real prophecy.
The 'prophecy' of Caiaphas (of all people) in John is purely the speculations of the writer. And not very convincing one either. That 'one man should die for the people' has on the face of it a perfectly valid point - if they don't the Romans would obliterate Judea and the Jobs of the high Priests. To claim it as a prophecy of the church is overdrawn speculation.
'Prophecy' is not proof of the Bible, but of how unreliable it is.

I hardly need address the claims of 'science in the Bible' let alone the YE Creationist claims in that article.

God as a first cause is absolutely necessary. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/self-existent-god/

In fact, increasingly, it is looking like it is not only Not necessary, but a complex intelligent being (without substance and totally omnipotent as well) without any origin of its' own is far less likely, scientifically, philosophically, logically and intuitively.

Flew (whom they cited in that article) was convinced of a god having to have originated life. That did not make a Christian of him, but it made him a theist.

He was convinced by the Irreducible complexity Theory of Michael Behe. This was shown to be flawed in time and i believe that Flew realised that he'd been fooled. He didn't live long enough to see Behe's I/C hypothesis totally exposed as a Fraud and Not -science at the Dover trial.