A question of honesty

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think it was the same question, I was hanging on divegeester and bbarr's coattails. Science fiction is the genre that most allows these ideas to be explored, concepts like "realer than real" don't easily fit into a romantic comedy. The reason I mentioned the Iain M Banks version of heaven is that it has the "leaving behind" component. It's a device to confirm that what I understood by your statement corresponds with your conception.

I think it was the same question, I was hanging on divegeester and bbarr's coattails.

I don't think bbars question went to the point I believe divegeester and FMF were trying to make. I can't prove this because their questions only seemed to point back to what they believe God will or will not do.

bbars question on the other hand was very specific and easy to address, and it's possible he is unaware of how dive and FMF will question a belief in hell or why anyone would suffer eternal torment, which by the way are two different arguments... is dive contesting the existence of hell, or is he contesting the concept of eternal torment, or is this a package deal and he's questioning all of it? It's difficult for me to get a fix on his various positions since they all seem to originate from the same question. So when I see him or FMF asking why anyone in heaven wouldn't feel anguish over a loved one going to hell, I don't automatically assume they are talking about the 'mechanics' of how that works.

Originally posted by FMF
For the purpose of these recent discussions on the morality of such cruel and violent vengeance, I got the concept of eternal torture from sonship, and during weeks and weeks of discussing it, he has not once questioned this terminology, and nor did you when divegeester asked you if you thought he deserved to be tortured, and neither has Grampy Bobby on the numerous occasions he has been confronted about it.

I am pretty sure I did mention in the past that I believed it was "torment" and not "torture". However, you are right that in these most recent discussions this is the first time I mentioned it.

I began to think that perhaps it would be good for our discussions on this subject to understand just what we are talking about. Is it "eternal torture" or "everlasting torment" that we disagree on? I don't believe they mean the same thing.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So when I see him or FMF asking why anyone in heaven wouldn't feel anguish over a loved one going to hell, I don't automatically assume they are talking about the 'mechanics' of how that works.

One attempt to get you to answer was this question on page 28: "How would this natural and understandable anguish at the thought of loved ones being tortured be eliminated?"

Originally posted by lemon lime
So when I see him or FMF asking why anyone in heaven wouldn't feel anguish over a loved one going to hell, I don't automatically assume they are talking about the 'mechanics' of how that works.

This was another attempt to get you to the answer the question, also on page 28: " What could have happened to your humanity ~ as previously manifested in your love and dedication for loved ones, like a spouse or your children ~ that the horror in realizing that these loved ones were being tortured for eternity could be dismissed as being "all that crap", as you put it, and that lifelong love and dedication for loved ones could be extinguished by fear. What kind of "heaven" is this where this stuff is supposedly going on?"

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am pretty sure I did mention in the past that I believed it was "torment" and not "torture". However, you are right that in these most recent discussions this is the first time I mentioned it.

I began to think that perhaps it would be good for our discussions on this subject to understand just what we are talking about. Is it "eternal torture" or "everlasting torment" that we disagree on? I don't believe they mean the same thing.

We are debating the content of your imagination. So just say whatever you want.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So when I see him or FMF asking why anyone in heaven wouldn't feel anguish over a loved one going to hell, I don't automatically assume they are talking about the 'mechanics' of how that works.

Here was an attempt on page 29 to get you to answer the question: "How is the compassion and loyalty for loved ones, that in great part defined who you were during your lifetime, extinguished in "heaven"?"

Originally posted by FMF
We are debating the content of your imagination. So just say whatever you want.

In my imagination there is no torture in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone for you guys, but only torment and anguish. However, I am not that much concerned about that since I plan to be in Heaven with Christ, who loves me in spite of my faults. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
In my imagination there is no torture in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone for you guys, but only torment and anguish. However, I am not that much concerned about that since I plan to be in Heaven with Christ, who loves me in spite of my faults. 😏

You suggested on this thread that divegeester deserved to be burnt alive for all eternity for believing something different from you. In your imagination, is being burnt alive for all eternity "only torment and anguish" and somehow not torture?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I think it was the same question, I was hanging on divegeester and bbarr's coattails.

I don't think bbars question went to the point I believe divegeester and FMF were trying to make. I can't prove this because their questions only seemed to point back to what they believe God will or will not do.

bbars question on the other hand was v ...[text shortened]... to hell, I don't automatically assume they are talking about the 'mechanics' of how that works.

My reading of the earlier posts was that they were the same question. It's possible that bbarr's intention was more straightforward, as divegeester is basically arguing that Hell, at least in the medieval sense, doesn't exist. I generally think that unless you have serious reason to believe someone is trying to construct some sort of strawman argument it's not worth doing anything other than take their post at face value. A well thought out argument should be robust against that kind of game anyway.

As an aside, if heaven is realer than real and Hell is in a sense its antithesis, would Hell therefore be less real than real?

Originally posted by FMF
This was another attempt to get you to the answer the question, also on page 28: [b]" What could have happened to your humanity ~ as previously manifested in your love and dedication for loved ones, like a spouse or your children ~ that the horror in realizing that these loved ones were being tortured for eternity could be dismissed as being "all that crap", as ...[text shortened]... xtinguished by fear. What kind of "heaven" is this where this stuff is supposedly going on?"[/b]

What kind of "heaven" is this where this stuff is supposedly going on?

The only ones I'm aware of here (I haven't read the entire thread) who thought this might supposedly be going on were you and divegeester. So I naturally assumed it was a rhetorical question and part of your ongoing disagreement with Biblical teaching.

I can understand how you might think this would 'supposedly' happen, in heaven, where no one will suffer anguish over anything (consider the logic of your question). But if someone professes to believe in the God of the Bible, and decides for himself what he will believe or not believe, then I have to wonder if maybe he can only deal with feel-good doctrine... and the doctrine he doesn't like is unacceptable to him.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only ones I'm aware of here (I haven't read the entire thread) who thought this might supposedly be going on were you and divegeester. So I naturally assumed it was a rhetorical question and part of your ongoing disagreement with Biblical teaching.

My questions were triggered by the incoherent nature of your take on morality and psychology and sought an explanation as to how you think such a change could occur. How you can somehow think this was not about 'mechanics' of "heaven" is unclear. They were not in any shape or form rhetorical questions and it's odd that you'd suggest as much.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can understand how you might think this would 'supposedly' happen, in heaven, where no one will suffer anguish over anything (consider the logic of your question).

Just saying that a book says "no one will suffer anguish over anything" does not explain how your whole identity, personhood, spirit and moral integrity could be so altered so as to take lifelong love and dedication for others, rooted in a Christian life, and turn their being tortured for eternity into something you could (and did) dismiss as being "all that crap". The logic of my question is perfectly fine.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My reading of the earlier posts was that they were the same question. It's possible that bbarr's intention was more straightforward, as divegeester is basically arguing that Hell, at least in the medieval sense, doesn't exist. I generally think that unless you have serious reason to believe someone is trying to construct some sort of strawman argument ...[text shortened]... er than real and Hell is in a sense its antithesis, would Hell therefore be less real than real?

As an aside, if heaven is realer than real and Hell is in a sense its antithesis, would Hell therefore be less real than real?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'antithesis', but no. Both would seem equally real. As in I really enjoy being here, or I really don't want to be here. I believe the sense of realness would be same, only much more extreme than anything we can experience now. It's how you would feel about being in either place that would different.

Originally posted by FMF
Just saying that a book says "no one will suffer anguish over anything" does not explain [b]how your whole identity, personhood, spirit and moral integrity could be so altered so as to take lifelong love and dedication for others, rooted in a Christian life, and turn their being tortured for eternity into something you could (and did) dismiss as being "all that crap". The logic of my question is perfectly fine.[/b]

The logic of my question is perfectly fine.

I'm sure it is for you, but I don't see why you want to argue a point based on scripture that can't be found in scripture... unless perhaps you don't mind poisoning the well before inviting us to drink from it?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm sure it is [a logical question] for you, but I don't see why you want to argue a point based on scripture that can't be found in scripture... unless perhaps you don't mind poisoning the well before inviting us to drink from it?

The issue is whether or not what you profess to believe has any coherence in terms of morality and psychology. If your life-defining love, compassion, devotion are somehow extinguished, are you still ~ for all intents and purposes ~ "you" when you arrive in "heaven"? If so, how so? What exactly is left of "you"?