No. You must remember all conscious beings are made in the image of God, which means they have at least awareness and existence (being) . These are not qualities that can be destroyed.
They have eternal separation because they have dismissed knowledge, knowledge of other being and knowledge of God, so they are not part of the spiritual community.
Those that are evil end up in hell or if you want to say âdamnedâ, but they have done it to themselves. It is not God dunnit.
Sorry, thatâs incorrect. There is no law, scriptural or otherwise, that mandates they canât be.
1 Like
IMO it is hard to believe that Jesus actually said this. To me it looks like someone made it up. Just because someone is a brother or sister doesnât make them innocent of wrong doing. And for a person to be angry, at least a humane person, they would have been wrong or dealt out some card of injustice. So it makes no sense to be thrown into hell fire for getting angry when wronged or possibly violated etc.
Who isnât evil? And who damns those that are? They torture themselves forever and ever for dying unshriven of masturbation at 17? Or are they just annihilate themselves after they condemn themselves for that on the beach at the Lake of Fire?
Right. So what else looks to you like it was made up and what doesnât? How do you decide?
1 Like
Who are the unsaved? And what would spiritual annihilation feel and look like? Forever and ever. Iâd be there with everyone Iâve ever loved so thatâs all right. How would I notice that Iâd been spiritually annihilated? Compared with now? And what would I be missing out on in Godâs presence and glory and power? Whatever the last two are in particular. Not that He can be very powerful if He canât fix people.
People are not all evil. Humanity is made up of two types of human beings. One is humane and the other inhumane.
The inhumane are the evil. They have deadened their conscience and thus also have no empathy, no love. As a result of this action they can treat others as objects to be used, abused, exploited etc. So it is not a matter of any sin, and in any case the sins that they are doing are outright transgressions. They donât admit to wrong doing they have no remorse and they surely donât seek to make any amends. So there is no forgiveness.
The humane may sin but that is a far cry different. They have a conscience, they have empathy and love and when they have done some wrong action, they at the very least have a bad conscience.
The inhumane, by their own actions, have damned themselves.
1 Like
How did they deaden their conscience? Only psychopaths have no empathy and thatâs not their fault. Who are these evil people that you know?
You say so many unreasonable and obviously wrong things like this (sometimes contradicting yourself in the next sentence) that it is making it very hard to have any kind of serious discussion with you. 99.99999999% of people in the world would say that we lose awareness â for it is demonstrable and a daily experience that we lose awareness.
Obviously you are wrong about awareness, and the question of existence is complicated by a number of things like the question of the existence of what in particular you are talking about (clearly our physical bodies and minds can be destroyed) and the fact that there is no absolute time over everything (so it is unreasonable to say there are no times when we do not exist). According to Paul in 1 Cor 15 the resurrected spiritual body is imperishable. I do not think the spirit can be destroyed by external forces and I do not believe that Matthew 10:28 is talking of God as a soul destroying monster. Nor do I believe in spiritual euthanasia. But I do believe that we can destroy ourselves.
Some is easy to discard because the author has no credibility in my eyes. So for instance Paulâs writings. for the following reasons:
- He was inhumane to start with. You canât hold another personâs coat and look on and possibly even cheer while the mate is stoning someone else, Stephen in this case, to death if you have any feelings for another. And the reason that Stephen was part of the early church as a break away from Judaism wonât count in Paulâs favor.
- When the disciples saw him preaching they were shocked because they knew he was no good.
- The whole affair about Ananias and his wife Saphira dropping dead for lying supposedly to Holy Ghost when they were talking to Peter. Yes, they withheld information, which amounted to lying but the whole affair is extremely sus. IMO this was done to scare the community that Paul was head of and scare them into total submission. However it was also done to put the fear of God into Peter too. I will explain how this is done at the end.
- Paul had major disagreement with Peter about several matters and much of this was about Gentiles and customs. So why? I believe that this was because Paul was not there to preach for the same reasons as Peter.
- There is strong evidence that Paul was working for the Romans to brain-wash the Greeks and any surrounding others into submission by ideas such as love the enemy and do good to those that harm you and forgive anyone and everyone otherwise you donât go to Heaven and so on. Why? Because the Romans wanted to go down to Judea and flatten the temple and basically commit genocide, which they very nearly did. It was only that some Jews escape to other lands. If Paul hadnât done âthe jobâ for the Romans, then the Romans would have lost the Eastern Provinces. After all the Greeks and Syrians were cosy with the Jews. They would have gone to their aid. There were many Hellenic Jews so there was a lot of interchange and good feelings between the Greeks and the Jews and that may also be said for the Syrians and the Egyptians.
- The âconversionâ on the road to Damascus stinks. No one gets blinded by Holy Light. He claimed not only to get blinded but scabs form on his eyeballs that supposedly fell out when he was âhealedâ. No one else in the whole history of the human kind and even animals have ever had scabs form on their eyeballs and surely not scabs that could just come off or fly off and fall on the ground. In any case, why would Jesus choose a psychopath to do his missionary work? Iâve heard arguments that Jesus/God wanted to prove himself that he made the bad man good. If this is the case then why not do that to all and sundries and save them from eternal damnation?
Paul was repeatedly âsavedâ by the Romans. Whenever there were Jews or Greeks or any one threatening him and he was in the pooh, the Romans came to his aid. They imprisoned him in mansions until the heat was gone. And they even allowed him visitors and continue writing and doing the missionary work. That shows that he was with the Romans hand in glove. The Romans wanted him because he was fluent in Greek and Hebrew, knew the Jewish scriptures, and was a Roman citizen to boot. - Paul has turned Jesus and his works and saying upside down. Jesus talked of needing to do good works, meaning to be ethical. Paul claimed that you only need to take Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you get your slate wiped clean. You know, as an activist for social justice I have met a lot of very evil people. And there is some among them that claim that they have taken Jesus as their Lord and Savior so they are saved, not only wiped clean of past deeds but anything more they do in the future. This makes a case for being evil. Why be good if you get to go to Heaven pn a free ticket being evil?
There surely are places in the main Gospels that may have been changed. It could have been done even unintentionally or out of ignorance by misunderstanding what is written in Greek and thus translating to English something that is essentially different. Greek is not easily translated into English. If we take the full modern Greek language, we have about 200 declensions to the verb. There is extremely fine meaning that can be conveyed and someone not sufficiently competent in Greek can translate in error. But the Romans also had an agenda so there would have been translations that were deliberate changes. We see this in other religions too. For instance Umar killed one thousand people, who had learnt Mohammadâs saying of by heart, committed to memory. Why wipe them out if you donât have an agenda? I am criticized by other Muslims because they want to believe that there is no corruption in the Koran but this is unrealistic given all that had happened. I doubt that there are any religious texts that are free of any and all corruption. We have to use our intelligence and ethics and judge what is written.
With regard to Ananias and Sapphira they were no doubt killed but underhanded means were used. I have seen that a heart attack can easily be created. The person is first angered or aggravated, majorly stressed for a few weeks. This means their blood pressure is high over time. I discussed the consequences with a cardiologist online and he agreed with me. The blood, especially red blood cells, screaming through the arteries will hit against the inner membrane and cause damage. The body tries to repair it up and of course cholesterol is a major ingredient. of membranes so critically needed for repairs Thus there are what are called plaques build-up. If the time the person is stressed is prolonged, then there will be damage to the cholesterol scaffolding. Then, without warning, the person is caused to feel terror. This means that the blood pressure, which is already high, shoots up to the highest level. It will mean that plaques get suddenly dislodged and as arteries move from a larger to a smaller diameter, the plague will cause a blockage down stream. The main areas that works the hardest in times of stress is the heart and in particular the coronary artery. A blockage there will deny tissue in the area to be starved of oxygen and die. This is a heart attack or cardiac infraction. The cardiologist agreed that is was possibly what happens.
How could Paul create a sudden problem of danger, enough to put the wind up Ananias and then shortly after Sapphira? The Romans! They only need to hold criminal intent to attack them. They can even stand by unseen outside and it would still work.
Psychopaths are inhumane. The psychiatric profession is trying to make a case for them but it holds no water, just like all the rest of their fiction. Donât forget psychiatrists trash the personâs life issues (and there is the NIH in the US screaming about this) then they made up the science. The chemical imbalances is fiction and they have been caught out. And finally they diagnose and prescribe on the fiction. So they know full well that without the inhumane there are no customers.
According to my late husband, who finally admitted he was a psychopath and evil as he also said, after 24 years of marriage: A person deadens their conscience by first doing harm to others, animal and humans, and feeling nothing, being indifferent. Then when they can do harm and feel pleasure at seeing the harm they have done and the pain and suffering of the other, their conscience is dead.
I believe that this is a spiritual disconnect. Love is really a spiritual connection between conscious beings, which is why we normally have a conscience and why we feel empathy for another person or animal that is suffering and want to help them.
When my husband finally came out of the closet, he told me about how inhumane people operate and who they are and how they are networked. Their circle of friends, he said, are their partners in crime. He told me a lot of things over about a three or four year period before he deteriorated. He came under attack for talking and worse still for talking to the enemy, me. I had forced him to talk and there were reasons I was able to do that.
I strongly suspect that he was killed for talking but I donât have enough evidence to prove it. However they then turned on me, especially as I am working to get the information to humane people. I have been attacked by a horde with relatives involved for more than 20 years now, since about 1998.
Once a person knows what they are up against they can overcome all the problems, most of which end up as medical problems. So I started a Youtube channel to explain all that I learnt both from my late husband and from the attacks on me, which I have been able to overcome. My name is kyrani Eade and this is my main series on The Underlying Conditions of Disease in which I discuss the underhanded foul game play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxUl19yZU0&list=PL0vGp6lNGae1V9U4CmtAI0qAuxWZ2DzEg
Sorry Ani99, I forgot - itâs me age - that you have suffered terribly. I hope you have people you can share this with who might be able to suggest ways of moving forward.
2 Likes
Those who refused to be saved by the grace of God.
I get with what you are saying, God is powerful enough to save those people if He wanted to but the issue is free will, God the Father wanting people to come to Him in a genuine loving manner at their own free will.
Who are these people? How many? What proportion of your acquaintance? And how do they become aware of whatever that is? I.e. what is it?
So He doesnât want to save them. Why does God require a genuine loving manner to Himself? How? What is free will?
Again I understand your frustration as I myself am wrestling with these questions and seeking into the issue. I myself am confounded with the love and grace of God and the issue of any sort of damnation. It truly bothers me and it is a thing that I have been looking into and trying to remedy. I will be open, honest and humble in saying that at this point I am grasping for straws in trying to make sense of any sort of âhellâ or place of separation outside of God while trying to reconcile the love and grace of God we see in Jesus Christ. I know the gospels say that we are saved but from what and how and to whom this applies is a thing that I am trying to look into. All that I know is that this ultimate reconciliation is given unto us by Jesus Christ and Christ alone by the finished work of the cross and resurrection.
1 Like
The like is me Sealkin. Your courageous vulnerable honesty deserves nothing but respect. Let go and let God : )
1 Like
One issue is free will but that is not the only issue. The big issue is ethics and love. Does the person freely will to tread the Path of Righteousness? Or does the person freely will to tread the evil path? This is a testing ground and we have the freedom to go one way or the other.
When reading this is what seems to stand out to me.
Christ came to pay our debt and to give to grant eternal life those who are his people. The reason why he paid our debt and and give us eternal life is because the wages of sin is death and without Christ thatâs what we get.
Hell is the lake of fire and the lake of fire is a metaphor for the second death. It says the second death is what hell is.
The wicked and righteous are both resurrected and those whose name are found in the book gets cast into hell and for a second time. The second death carries the eternal punishment of never being reversed.
For me itâs not that hard to see that in Christ because it was something he said he came to do. Defeat his fatherâs enemies.