tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1821626455426629918.post2388355431214400139..comments2023-11-07T17:44:00.649-08:00Comments on Building Bridges of Oneness: Can One Religion Fit All? by Emily VanLaeysEmily VanLaeyshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926437084636415151noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1821626455426629918.post-28516626528183105752018-12-10T12:12:37.117-08:002018-12-10T12:12:37.117-08:00A Seventh-Day Adventist pastor explained it like t...A Seventh-Day Adventist pastor explained it like this: Eventually everyone we love will be Saved. So we will all be together in Heaven. The people whom nobody cares about, and did not try to be good, will fade away. They won't actively suffer in Hell forever; instead, they will just fade away to nothing, or dissipate (like water evaporating away, or like dust being scatterred).<br /><br />A Supreme Being would not condemn an individual to infinite torment for whatever the individual did in a finite lifespan. A God who _would_ condemn people to infinite torment would be a God to be _feared_ but not a God to be _loved_. Ultimately we have to decide what kind of God would be truly a Supreme Being worthy of our devotion.<br /><br />A story was written about it. I no longer have the reference. It was likely in a Science Fiction and Fantasy anthology of short stories. In the story, a liquor store owner was shot to death in a robbery of the store. An angel showed him around Heaven. Then the angel took him down to Hell and said, This is where you belong. (The tour of Heaven was merely to let him know what he was missing.) Hell was a dreary place but actually livable. After a couple of hundred years down there, the man demanded to speak with God, and this was granted. The man asked why he'd been condemned to Hell. God said the man had had an impure thought about a young woman and also the man had cursed once. God said (in effect) that was it and no second chances; the man was in Hell to stay forever, and there was nothing to be done about it. All this was delivered cavalierly by a God more interested in getting back to his Heavenly bliss with his companions up there. The man was outraged and said so. The man said to God: If that's the kind of God you are, then I'd rather be in Hell than be in your Heaven! And so the story ended. The man continued to be in Hell and did as well as he could with his life (or afterlife) down there. I agree with that man. The choice we have is: what kind of God would it be, that we would want to be in that God's Heaven?<br /><br />Or something like that.JLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384172932437530263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1821626455426629918.post-4123848218684093292011-08-19T15:47:43.430-07:002011-08-19T15:47:43.430-07:00Listen to the Alanis Morisette song "Still&qu...Listen to the Alanis Morisette song "Still"- it suddenly occurred to me that this is about the unconditional love of God. Also her song, "That I would be Good," is an amazing song- despite my faults and my foibles, I could still be loved- its very moving.Diana Friedellhttp://www.tuningin-tuningup.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1821626455426629918.post-48651894854010868422011-01-23T13:31:55.423-08:002011-01-23T13:31:55.423-08:00Emily, like you I believe there is a frameworK whi...Emily, like you I believe there is a frameworK which can and does comfortably hold a whole range of different belief structures, including the mainstream monotheistic religions, polytheistic religions like Hinduism, as well aS science/materialism.<br /><br />For isntance, here's a "scientific take" on the the three omni's: <a href="http://cosmic-rapture.blogspot.com/2008/08/delude-this-richard-dawkins.html" rel="nofollow">omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence</a><br /><br />I believe that the differences between belief structures are only apparent differences, brought about by the treachery of language, which frequently conceals more than it reveals.<br /><br />I believe the differences are about the misapplication of names/labels, not substantive differences about the ideas and concepts. People almost always confuse the Name of the Thing (eg Jehovah) with the Thing Itself, or confuse the Name with the Classification (a divine being, a god)<br /><br />This takes us into deconstruction territory which I hate. But I do find the follwoing distinctions very useful: distinction between the Sign, the Thing Signified, the Signifier/s; or between the Thing Itself and the Attributes of the Thing.<br /><br />Anyway, this comment is far too long so I'll end here. I hope you will continue coming to visit Cosmic Rapture.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br /><br />masterymistery at <a href="http://cosmic-rapture.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">cosmic rapture</a>masterymisteryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844831221838590812noreply@blogger.com