Hell is theologically impossible if God is omnipotent.

[absolutely]

unfortunately hells appear to be the fun ways of super egos that mean to profit from truth contradictions to its freedom kind that refuse to consider else freedom rights, so for god a way to live their existence in the glory of truth free one, and abuse that chance endlessly it is all crap
it is not useful for anything on the contrary it just increase pretenses life so kill existence true rights more

but hells are going to happen since it is truth decisions but that gods make it worse for rights and heaven to wrong they know well
truth know better but it cant act relatively while gods love to do that and take advantage more of being and moving wrong

[Greatest I am]

I call God Love. Do what thy love. How does one sin? When they act against love, pacifism, faith, etc.

To call God love is to insult love.

Love is expressed by works and deeds.
All God does in scriptures is kill.

Love never kills.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Omnipotence is theologically impossible. The attributes of God are impossible.

No argument.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The concept of Hell (Gehenna) already existed by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written. Presumably the Church did not yet exist. If anything the author of the Book of Revelation made matters worse by claiming that the sinners would be thrown into a lake of fire.

It depends on which church you mean, and where you are in their evolving history. For example:

]

For sure.
Hell and Satan have evolved over time as you showed quite well.
You are right in that the Jews did not have such a place.
Unfortunately, the Christians did not agree and reversed much of what the Jews believed.

It seems from the links in this one, that Christians hate the others so much that they refuse to listen to the pastors and priests who do not believe in that immoral construct and will change church to follow that disgusting view.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....ove-the-sinner

Regards
DL

[kx000]

To call God love is to insult love.

Love is expressed by works and deeds.
All God does in scriptures is kill.

Love never kills.

Regards
DL

I love you, I'd die for you. Certainly, I'd kill for you.

Do you love scripture? I don't. I love parts of them, so only parts of them are godly. I wonder if WE all love the same things about them.

[Greatest I am]

unfortunately hells appear to be the fun ways of super egos that mean to profit from truth contradictions to its freedom kind that refuse to consider else freedom rights, so for god a way to live their existence in the glory of truth free one, and abuse that chance endlessly it is all crap
it is not useful for anything on the contrary it just increase pretenses life so kill existence true rights more

but hells are going to happen since it is truth decisions but that gods make it worse for rights and heaven to wrong they know well
truth know better but it cant act relatively while gods love to do that and take advantage more of being and moving wrong

Hard to dither you out but I think I agree.

Regards
DL

[absolutely]

love is appreciating superiority, while the more the appreciator is true the more it would know that anything objective is superior as how truth is objective superiority

evil is god that appreciate inferiority and keep seeking ways to prove and justify that inferiors have values beyond objective superiority

[Greatest I am]

I love you, I'd die for you. Certainly, I'd kill for you.

Do you love scripture? I don't. I love parts of them, so only parts of them are godly. I wonder if WE all love the same things about them.

That would depend on your morality.

This is man's guide or what seems to come naturally to some extent and you will note that it is centered on others while God's first laws are centered on his own sorry ass.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

What does that tell you of God and his self-love?

Regards
DL

[DaS Energy]

Hello Greatest I Am,

Your question "Why then would the Church invent the concept of hell?" Churches are instititions of man created to garner wealth for the office holders. Church people needed a reason for people to beleive in what they say rather than that written in the Bible. Churches at one time ran a pay for redemption scheme, the greater the payment the greater the redemption. However what is even more offensive is that Christian churches are the worlds greatest child abusers. The psychological damage to a five year child being taught they face being cremated alive forever is not only sick its pure evil!

[RoccoR]

Greatest I am, spidergoat, et al,

First, let me say is that I am Agnostic or maybe a Pantheist. So this is not an argument for or against the concept.

Omnipotence is theologically impossible. The attributes of God are impossible.

No argument.

(COMMENT)

Actually, science and philosophy can neither prove - or - disprove the existence of a Supreme Being (SB) (AKA: God). The closest that one comes to a sound philosophical argument is that made by Thomas Aquinas in the Theory of First Motion.

The ability for man to grasp any aspect of the infinite, particularly as it relates to God Powers (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence), is limited in the human capacity to rationally imagine what it would mean to have such attributes and the sight to invision the scope and nature of such a Being. It is simply beyond the mental ability of man (truly mind-boggling). Most of humanity doesn't have the capacity to comprehend how large a Googolplexian (http://www.googolplexian.com/) is; let alone a Googolplexian Squared, or a Googolplexian to the Googolplexian Power. The "God" concept implies a Being without limit in any regard. Which is what would be needed if this theoretical Being was responsible for creating the universe.

Thus, that is when "faith" or "belief" comes into play. But not science.

Most Respectfully,
R

[spidergoat]

Actually you are wrong. Those attributes are meaningless. This doesn't point to a realm outside of logic, since the laws of logic are self-evident.

Maybe this will help.

[absolutely]

if infinite is one god then how could he enjoy finite livings to clearly mean that humans cant b else then finite? and if infinite is impotent quality justification then finite existence refute it

[spidergoat]

Say something intelligent and then I will refute it if I feel it necessary.

[Greatest I am]

Hello Greatest I Am,

Your question "Why then would the Church invent the concept of hell?" Churches are instititions of man created to garner wealth for the office holders. Church people needed a reason for people to beleive in what they say rather than that written in the Bible. Churches at one time ran a pay for redemption scheme, the greater the payment the greater the redemption. However what is even more offensive is that Christian churches are the worlds greatest child abusers. The psychological damage to a five year child being taught they face being cremated alive forever is not only sick its pure evil!

You see 20/20.

I agree that a hell would be pure evil yet believers love to hate the others so much that they demand it.

They know it as well yet ignore love for that hate.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....ove-the-sinner

See them run.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am, spidergoat, et al,

First, let me say is that I am Agnostic or maybe a Pantheist. So this is not an argument for or against the concept.


(COMMENT)

Actually, science and philosophy can neither prove - or - disprove the existence of a Supreme Being (SB) (AKA: God). The closest that one comes to a sound philosophical argument is that made by Thomas Aquinas in the Theory of First Motion.

The ability for man to grasp any aspect of the infinite, particularly as it relates to God Powers (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence), is limited in the human capacity to rationally imagine what it would mean to have such attributes and the sight to invision the scope and nature of such a Being. It is simply beyond the mental ability of man (truly mind-boggling). Most of humanity doesn't have the capacity to comprehend how large a Googolplexian (http://www.googolplexian.com/) is; let alone a Googolplexian Squared, or a Googolplexian to the Googolplexian Power. The "God" concept implies a Being without limit in any regard. Which is what would be needed if this theoretical Being was responsible for creating the universe.

Thus, that is when "faith" or "belief" comes into play. But not science.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes. Faith in the incomprehensible and unknowable that believers somehow know and comprehend.

What is that telling you of those of faith?

Perhaps Martin Luther had it right but what a way to go through life.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther


Just for the pot.

“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.”
Martin Luther


“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther

Regards
DL

[lightgigantic]

Hell is theologically impossible if God is omnipotent.

Definition of omnipotent. ----- Having virtually unlimited authority or influence.

Definition of influence. ---- The act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command. The power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways: sway. IOW, unlimited powers of persuasion.
-------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
----------------------------------------------------

When we die, believers believe that we will face a God who is said to have infinite persuasive powers and influence on the conditions of our consciousness. This power would overwhelm any reluctance for any non-believers who were not sure of God’s existence before death. For the first time, this is when full disclosure answers all questions that have prevented non-believers from believing in God.

All then would come to repentance and be saved.

Given this theology, hell would become a construct without purpose or inhabitants.

That would make Bishop Spong correct in his view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Why then would the Church invent the concept of hell?

By doing so, the Church ignores God’s omnipotence and causes God to back slide from his position of master of all time and space, to the master of just some. He would not be master of those in hell. It can be argued that God could destroy those souls but that just makes him a destroyer and not master which is his ultimate goal or intent for all souls.

Do you recognize the huge power of God’s persuasive powers that would negate or deal with any objection that the non-believer would have for his non-belief?

Do you recognize that none would choose hell and that it is therefore not required and that God would not cause his back slide by creating it?

Regards
DL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE_TWhzG-p0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism

An exceptional effort on this occasion.
Congratulations.
You've bested your previous records for trolling on other forums.

[Greatest I am]

An exceptional effort on this occasion.
Congratulations.
You've bested your previous records for trolling on other forums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ypn...eature=related

Regards
DL

[Syne]

Just more of the same old nonsense from GIA. Ignoring free agency, as always.

[spacecadet]

hello spidergoat
how do you do that face thing

[spacecadet]

hello dl
i was in catholic boarding school. they encoraged us to study comparitive religions. that habit has led me to study all types of religions and thus i dont take sides too much. some interesting "agnostic" concepts are via Simon Magus [magnus?] . some theosophical material is by Bailey "treatise on white magic" . both deal with the concept of God, but as usual just another doctrine. too much doctrine all around. doctrine of religion. doctrine of law. it leads to wars, arguements etc. its sressful.