josephine-yes to accept that others have their own beliefs that are different from oneself is the way to avoid "arguing". however, there will always be opposing views-its human nature.

Again I was not debating Honxa but stating my personal opinion for why there exists "opposing views".

accepting that others believe what they believe and that is opposing to what you believe does not relieve the opposing views, meaning it does not bring the desired result of all having the same belief, therefore no opposing beliefs.

your way of resolving the opposition is to accept that others who believe differently than you is ok-

im simply pointing out that opposing views will always exist-its not right-its not wrong-it simply is

sky thats awesome that you are able to support someone who share your view of reality-

In disagreement with your statement: The 'issue' which you clearly raised was traditional Judeo-Christian notions about the "wrath" of "God".


IMO, this 'issue' cannot be logically re-solved by glibly ex-changing one 'label' (Hell) for another (Hades) by way of Biblical restranslation. From my treatise:

This final, because then absolutely irremediable, ‘loss’ is what is referenced as the ‘second death’ in The Book of Revelation, which, notwithstanding the fact that the author distorts the truth by conflating the personage of Jesus with The Entity of Life (a/k/a Christ) as well as by projecting all anti‑Christ ‘wrongdoing’ to be the work of a singularly evil, mythological Satan – alas, ‘channeled’ material cannot help but be conceptually ‘shaped’ and emotionally ‘colored’ by the belief-set of the ‘channeler’! – nevertheless appropriately, I think, places the phenomenon referenced in reincarnational perspective, to wit: “I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast [the ‘beast’, of course, just being gross selfishness], neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand [obviously, designating more than a single lifetime of] years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the ‘second death’ hath no power, but they shall be [i.e., they shall reincarnate as] priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan [to wit: the ‘spirit’ of unmitigated self*ishness] shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth … to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they [the huge number of grossly selfish people you see running rampant all over the world today!] went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city.” (Revelation 20:4-9)

While I’m at it, in relation to the eschatological ‘vision’ described in said book, let me also add that, given the horribleness of the horrors and the miserableness of the miseries that ‘deceived’ (by selfishness) people spawn, it is more than understandable why folks would reactively feel and fantasize that perpetrators in said regards should and will not just be annihilated but additionally suffer the most hellish :smile: kinds of torture imaginable in retribution, by way of the above-referenced ‘second death’ (following their bodies’ physical one), as grimly portrayed for instance in: “And fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. … And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:9-15)

An equally grotesque, clearly retribution projecting fantasy that grossly selfish and consequently hateful deniers of their and others’ communality with all Life will suffer the worst imaginable fate – albeit in this case, with said ‘fate’ ever-continuing to spiral ‘downward’ without end, which leaves the issue of what ultimately ‘happens’ to such souls schematically unresolved – is documented in Ch.16 of The Bhagavad Gita, to wit: “Puffed up by power and inordinate conceit, swayed by lust and wrath, these wicked people hate Me Who am within them, as I am within all. Those who thus hate Me, who are cruel, the dregs of mankind, I condemn them to a continuous, miserable and godless rebirth. So reborn, they spend life after life, enveloped in delusion. And they never reach Me, … but degenerate into still lower forms of life.” Both this and the above-described ‘final judgment’ scenario are clearly negative‑emotion ‘loaded’ and thematically vengeful. Such negativity and punitiveness are not ‘in accord’ with Jesus’ vision and teaching (presented and discussed in the preceding chapter) that Love and Joy constitute Life’s universal Source ‘code’, to wit, that ‘God’ is a beneficently-inclined ‘Father’, from which all Life springs, however.

and

To reinforce the logic of this, let me first emphasize the significance of something which tends to be underappreciated by still psychospiritually immature Love and Joy seekers, sharers and bequeathers as a result of their continuing to be susceptible to being ‘tempted’ by and (so) over‑subscribing to a ‘carnal’, i.e, body based, pleasure-desirous and pain‑aversive calculus. ‘Succeeding’ (in the sense of experiencing what one ‘likes’ and not experiencing what one ‘dislikes’) in said regard does not (not in and of itself at least) lead to folks becoming unself*ishly (and hence holistically, or Cosmically) loving and joyful or incline them to synergically engage with and creatively augment such sort of soul development in others. I’m sure you see this to be true in the cases of many ‘successful’ (in ‘world*ly’ terms, that is) people around you. What’s more – and this is something that merits even greater concern because of the ‘negative’ consequences that stem from people en masse aiming to ‘succeed’ so – those who primarily seek and support others’ seeking to maximize personal pleasure‑n-gain and corollarily minimize personal pain-and-loss experience(s) actually end up diminishing the chances that they and those they thus support will develop in a communion‑with-Life actualizing direction. Why? Because such ‘focus’ leads to them and such others being ‘blindly’ negligent and unconscionably usurpatory in relation to other co-related aspects of The Flow of Life which are therefore not appropriately recognized as also being important and so not befittingly (in terms of what is necessary and desirable for said other concomitants to be co-functional) related to.

There have been countless major and minor instances of such negligence and usurpation by temperospatially oriented, immediate-local pleasure and pain ‘geared’ folks (believers in ‘eternal life’ included!) over the course of history which you have probably heard and read about, as well as many I’m sure you’ve personally experienced or at least witnessed in the context of your present lifetime, some (because of your own psychospiritual immaturities) undoubtedly even perpetrated by yourself. In macroscopic consequence, as a result of large and increasing numbers of people and the organizations they subscribe to basically being pleasure-pain principle driven to feed off of and serve to amplify the growth of unsustainable (because conglomerately selfish!) socioeconomic pyramid schemes which consume and pollute more than they contribute to and nurture, they cumulatively end up drastically degrading and disrupting, the systemic health and well‑functioning of the Living Matrix, which they for the most part just give ‘lip service’ to, that is our physiosocial ‘home’. As is clearly the case confronting us here now, notwithstanding the inherent munificence of Life’s Flow and the generous contributions and services which have historically been made and provided and continue to be made and provided by a growing number of holistically Love and Joy oriented people in It, waves of social and ecosystemic decay and destruction then metastatically ripple andmrichochet around our planet and climax in devastating catastrophes as the ‘negative’ effects of such mainly pleasure-desirous-n-pain-aversive choices repercussively reinforce one another in exponential escalation.

Such denouements, which periodically decimate the ranks of a dominant but still mostly selfishly motivated species, have historically often been projected to be expressions of the ‘wrath’ of a God who ‘judges’ the bulk of humanity to be inexcusably ‘sinful’ and ‘deserving’ of severe ‘punishment’ because of its, for the most part, not appropriately ‘heeding’ and ‘obeying’ His ‘edicts’ and ‘commandments’, not ‘paying’ sufficient ‘homage’ to Him, etc. But, as what I’ve said in this chapter should make clear, such devastation is just the cumulative result of many souls collectively ‘losing their balance’ and so ‘stumbling’ and ‘falling’, and (so) ‘hurting’ themselves and others around them as a group, because they haven’t yet developed to the point where they holistically understand and embrace, and so don’t conscientiously act ‘in accord’ with, the fact that they and others, including every aspect of their planetary environment, are not really ‘individually’ separate aspects of Life, but integral part-expressions of The Life of a Cosmically Unitary, self‑and-other inclusive Being!

Why does the New King James Bible use Hades instead of Hell which is used in older King James versions? As previously mentioned, the older King James Bibles did have some serious flaws. Revisions were done to the King James Bibles to correct those problems. Changing Hell to Hades is one of those changes.

This whole issue resolves around the doctrine of Hell. It appears that thru poor translations, etc., doctrines were introduced that should have not been in the Bible in the first place. When the New King James Bible and some other Bibles have tried to correct these doctrinal issues, some people have resisted the changes instead of applauding the corrections.

I agree, there will always be opposing views in this world. We can discuss, listening to other points of view, put our own forward. Agree to differ, then move on. Sometimes things can be swayed slightly one way or the other, sometimes greatly, but most of the time not :smile: . Then we can get on with our own lives and business. This is on forum matters :biggrin:. More difficult in real life faced with real life issues. Maybe we could practice getting along on the forum first :tongue: :smile:

Desired result? Of getting ones way isn't always going to happen. Another thing we can try and learn to live with. Certainly is a hard one that. I'm working on it!

Accepting others have different views yes. I'm trying to understand how it disrupts your life knowing someone thinks differently.

"im simply pointing out that opposing views will always exist-its not right-its not wrong-it simply is" Maybe this cancels out my above question.

In case you didn't get my point (I say this because you didn't relate to it), I think it is time for humanity to grow past the 'Biblical' story-book view of "God". I think Jesus was a would-be 'reformer' in this regard, but people who remain ensconced in the 'Biblical' view (deriving from whatever translation!) continue to misunderstand his sayings. My treatise "What Did Jesus REALLY Mean?" is an attempt to place the problem in historical perspective and illuminate significant aspects of the truth about our Reality.

SOUNDS INTERESTING!

I assume you are also relating to what people perceive what is in the Bible versus what it really says. If that is the case, realizing hell was really not part of the scriptures would be a dramatic change for Christianity and our viewpoint of who Jesus really was.

I disagree. What is portrayed in The Book of Revelation (whether one thinks of and labels it as Hellish or Hades-ish) is unequivocally 'punishment' (for 'bad' peeps, that is) oriented - the whole idea of an 'evil' 'Satan' is embraced therein. Did you even read my previous excerpts?

Your analysis and conclusions in the above regard are much too magic-bullet, simplistic-cure razzle-dazzled, IMO.

You must admit, if something was mistranslated and newer versions come out (in this case the NEW King James Bible), you would go with the improved version.

As for the Book of Revelation, that is a different story. Revelation is written in symbolism. Ask yourself, if there is to be a Paradise Restored, how would it come about? What happens with the ones that do not want to change?

No I don't. 'Small' improvements don't matter to me - I 'get' (meaning I personally interpret) all the meaning I need from the KJ version which is poetically unparalleled, IMO.

IMO, the entire Biblical world-view, even Jesus's Father=>Son paradigm, 'symbolism' based - even the notion of 'Paradise' and/or its 'Restoration', which you seem to imply iare literally true, not metaphorical.

Here's my interpretation of what Jesus mean when he spoke of the next 'coming' of the 'Son of Man', for example:

Jesus’ prescient depiction of the next such ‘coming’ event, wherein those who are prepared to do so soulfully ‘wake up’ to the Whole Truth and therefore enter into and thereafter continue to consciously live in communion with the Totality of Life while others ‘fall’ by the wayside and get recyled (so to speak), to wit: “As the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. … they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:27‑30), does not mean that he will then literally flash across the sky and be seen everywhere as he ‘gloriously’ orbits the planet in person. People who are emotionally invested in worshiping Jesus himself as a super-magical genie kind of God will undoubtedly regard the explanation that follows as being unacceptably heretical, but assuming you are not one such..., let me submit that the above-quoted statement only makes real sense if one interprets it metaphorically, with “heaven” being understood as referencing the realm of consciousness and (so) “the clouds” as referencing the particularities of ideological constellations, or philosophies, within it.

“The Son of man” alludes to the corpus of human apprehension, or ‘knowing’ (often spoken of as Cosmic Consciousness) pertaining to Life as a Whole; that is, to the entirety of the living system composed by and of our creative Source (i.e. God, ‘the Father’), All That Is (i.e., The Entity of Creation, ‘the Son’, a/k/a Christ), and everyone’s relationally interfused interaction(s) therewith and therein, as postulated and discussed hitherto herein. The “lightning” that shines “out of the east … even unto the west” analogically dramatizes the way in which powerfully functional thoughts, i.e. ‘knowings’, are psychically transmitted and received and (so) spread throughout our noosphere. The overall implication, of course, being that consciousness of what the words “I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:20) super-succinctly signify will illuminatingly permeate the thinking of holistically inclined people wherever they may be located all over the world.

Do you really think that 'the Father' and 'the Son' are literal references and not 'symbolic' representations. If so, you and I have nothing further to discuss. In that case, this is (literally now!) my last attempt at communication with you.