Hell is theologically impossible if God is omnipotent.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No argument.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...thing-like-do-unto-others-and-love-the-sinner

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.

 

Hard to dither you out but I think I agree.

Regards
DL

 

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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...thing-like-do-unto-others-and-love-the-sinner

See them run.

Regards
DL

 

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

 

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

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ypn0y32Ac&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

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

 

hello spidergoat
how do you do that face thing

 

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.