Does God love the Devil?

[Detales]

I am not the one who have made these claims (except only as a messenger). The Church is the one making these claims. And if the Church wasn’t guided by the Holy Spirit, we would be in a very big mess indeed.

Areo, I have to get ready for work so may say more later. But truely: look around you. Are we not in a mess? Is the world as it is functioning to your satisfaction? Is the action oan treatment of humanity of itself, including christianism, orderly and loving? What is all that based on? Think on what I have said and how it applies/connects/embodies the two forms of the Golden Rule, and most importantly, why.

More later.

 

[Detales]

Well, one reason (as I’ve heard explained) is that if it’s all inside people, there is a great deal of room for rationalization and lying to oneself without anyone to check you. Also, with an institution, it concertizes divine reality much more than mere esoteric practice, and hence makes it more human … something we can relate to much more. Also, it brings one into community with others, whereas esoteric practices tend to segregate people, causing one to pay to much attention to the self. These are points of concern that rightly need attention. But why do you think that belonging to an institution is a prophylactic against self-lying? Have you taken any pew poles lately about practice/rationalization vs tenets of faith? Hmmm… Or read the news And “concertizing” is a wonderful term. Cement, solid, unyielding. Does that sound like living Love? and how does one “concretize” Divine Reality? Do you have God in a dogma box? Yes, churches can bring people into community. If that was the reason for religion I would recommend Mormonism. Have you ever examined the complexity of social interdependence in that institution? It is awesome! But ask me if I would become a Mormon! For my part, esoteric practices, whatever you think they might be, are testable and pragmatic exercises in self observation, prayer, and community. Yes, community. Both the one I hold as my “extended family,” and each person I meet and interact with. And the self you speak of is not the Self that is the Source and End of esoteric practice.

Tell me something: If you knew in your heart that the “other” person in essence IS yourself, would you harm them? Would you abuse them? Would you lie to them? Would you steal from them? Would you do them any conceivable harm? Would you fulfill the dictum “Love thy neighbor as thySelf for the Love of me?” Who do you think that “me” in that case is?

I guess the keywords “pursued to the discovery of their root.” I’m not sure what you mean by “root” I think. Like, “ultimate cause?” Obviously God is the root and final cause of everything. So, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. Where do your thoughts come from? where do they go? How is it that you know you think, or that you can make (if you can, lol!) dispassionate assessments of your own behavior as if you were observing someone else? What is the “I” of you before the acquisition of thoughts and memories that constitute what you call “me?” Why is it that the “me” of you changes constantly yet there is always “I” that doesn’t?

Even though Christ didn’t literally say, “Make all men Catholics” that doesn’t mean His words don’t carry the equivalent meaning. For what it’s worth, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, shows in his writings that the term “Catholic” was already in use (and that was c. 100 AD). “Catholic” means Universal. What is the one thing that is already Universal among Humanity that is the possible doorway to going beyond the form of worship to its essence? Religion is always an external reference that attempts to persuade by arguments and sanctions and has God approachable through a medium. Why not go direct? Why do you think it has been a dictum through the ages to Know ThySelf? As I said, practice your religion for the interim if you like, but do it consciously.

*Faith is a “shadowy knowledge.” It does not provide us with the complete beatific vision, but it provides us with enough knowledge to love God and work for salvation.

Also, just because faith cannot be proved does not mean it’s not knowledge. Much of our natural knowledge cannot be proved, but it is no less knowledge. Mathematical axioms and first principles are intuited and cannot be proved. All reasoning depends on epistemic starting points that cannot be proved, otherwise they would not be starting points.* Of course all that is true. All knowledge is provisional. It goes as far as one is able to see, and it provides, in the case of religion, material that allows you tho think you are attempting salvation. But all such knowledge is, as I keep saying, contents. It is not Knowledge of Self.

All reasoning depends on epistemic starting points that cannot be proved, otherwise they would not be starting points. vs Sorry to disappoint you, but how do we know that first principles and mathematical axioms are correct? We just know. No, we don’t know. We assume, and in our dimensions of experience these axioms are provisionally reliable. As Einstein said to the young man who asked him how he knew that “…that is a tree?” Einstein said “We have to assume something!” But “I AM” is not an assumption, nor a thought, nor contents.

Physics and math can be proven from natural first principles. Christianity cannot. Not exoteric christianism. No.

• What? I’m sorry if I’m grossly misunderstanding you. * Don’t worry about misunderstanding me. That is completely unimportant. The question is, and always will be: Do you know yourSelf? Off to work. Blessings and Best!

 

[Areopagite]

I apologize, Detales. You have given me much to think about. It may take a bit of time to digest everything you’ve said.

I do sympathize with something that you’re saying, I believe.

 

[Detales]

Areo, it takes a brave, intelligent, and emotionally mature person to say what you did. I truly admire that. I cannot tell you what I had to go through to claim my honesty in examining my own beliefs. I was, as I said, a very well catechized, proselytizing Roman Catholic. It was only after examining all that the Church had to offer me in terms of confessors, teachings, books, etc, that I was forced into looking elsewhere to explain the dynamics of an exceptionally potent spiritual experience that befell me. I had had a series of small realizations that led up to this one, but there was no sufficient explanation that was forthcoming from the Church or its representatives, as far as I could tell. I did not feel that my religion was a contract to give up my mind or to abstain from intellectual pursuits of a philosophical nature. Truth is unassailable. No truth will suffer, nor will God, nor Jesus, from me asking sincere questions and from putting my understanding on as real a ground as possible. Others may have not reached the same conclusions I did, Areo, but what I came to is mine by experience, I own it, and I will stand by it before the Judgment Seat. I have come close enough to that to not have such a concern!

All I am advocating here is that everyone examine thoroughly the fundamental beliefs of their life, whether they are religious, as we do here, political, or even scientific. Both of the later are as, or more incomplete, than religions. Most of them, by far, are based on transient or relative notions. That may work in the interim, or until we know better.

But the one fact of Spiritual significance that is either misunderstood and misattributed is the most obvious. No one can say that they are not. No one can deny that they can say fundamentally about themselves that “I am.” How does that statement relate to “I AM,” or I AM THAT I AM," or that “The Father and I are One?” The “I” of you that does not change includes the “me” of you that changes from moment to moment. So could that not have been a statement of accomplished realization, as it has been for millennia and across every culture, in whatever form it was spoken or known? It is, not as the pious would say, blasphemy to examine this, but the door to understanding the soul structure that is inherent in every human that ever was or will be. It is the single Universality we share, and based on that a true morality of understanding the “other” as Self can be built. That bypasses much, as you might imagine, as “Love is the fulfilling of the Law.” As the Rabi said, “God is Love; all the rest is commentary.”

Go in Peace in all your ways, whatever you find or decide. I only recommend that you own it as an aspect of yourself, not as an ingenuously acquired thought pattern. It is fine and wonderful to have a faith and pracitice it. But how many do so in the Conscious awareness that is beyond pious acceptance? Many practice a faith because they are good people and wish to be grateful to a Source, as we all might well do in the humility we find in contemplating the astonishing magnitude of the Universe. But Universe is the root of Catholic, and Universe means “to turn into one.” What One could that be? Are you not curious? I am.

 

[Benadam]

Hi Benadam,

I’m not sure what your reply means, but it kind of makes me think you don’t see clearly what I am saying. Could you clarify your statement, particularly what you mean by “you?”

Thanks

Detales, I was reorienting the statement concerning the object of myth. Your version projects your esoteric enterpretation that myth points to an experience.
I returned it to the exoteric object that inspired the saying.

Detales you make a false assumption when you assume that a faithfull Catholic couldn’t have experienced or hasn’t understood for themselves the spirituality you are experiencing.

 

[Detales]

Yes, I know from my experience before why you might make such a statement, but your reversion of the definition of myth makes me wonder, again, if you have other than an intellectual apprehension of what I speak of.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Well, there are seven things the Lord detests, and satan fits every bill. But this is an interesting question to say the least. Once I heard this analogy as to why God allows satan to live:

In the biginning, no one has perished. When Lucifer revolted, what if God just destroyed him? So what then? Will our all-merciful Lord kill someone for not agreeing with Him? How merciful would that be? How great to see that even evil is a demonstration of His mercy!

 

[Detales]

Lucifer literally means “The Light Bearer.” If you have the willingness to do so, you can discover an astonishing thing about the “fall” of Lucifer. If you can do it, you are in for quite the surprise!

 

[Benadam]

Yes, I know from my experience before why you might make such a statement, but your reversion of the definition of myth makes me wonder, again, if you have other than an intellectual apprehension of what I speak of.

I do know esoteric mysticism but not as a construct of emerging awareness,

 

[Detales]

Not sure what you mean, Benadam. How do you “know” esoteric mysticism: as an intellectual book learnig or an actual experience? And could you please clarify "…as a construct of emerging awareness?

Thank you.

 

[Benadam]

Not sure what you mean, Benadam. How do you “know” esoteric mysticism: as an intellectual book learnig or an actual experience? And could you please clarify "…as a construct of emerging awareness?

Thank you.

I hope I can articulate the ideas Detales.
Exoteric mysticism includes esoteric experience. The fundamental difference with esoteric mysticism is that esoteric mystical experience doesn’t include exoteric mysticism. Exoteric mysticism does include esoteric experience of the discovery of self.

Esoteric mysticism is able to offer an experience of oneness with creation because that is the awareness we entered the world experiencing. The self is the sole element of personal being that enters into oneness in the esoteric experience.

Esoteric experiience that isn’t a developement of exoteric mysticism is experienced as an emerging awareness and defined as mystical experience.

All this tangled wordiness can be simplified if we consider what distinguishes in a fundamental way esoteric and exoteric mysticism.

I’ll put it in the context of a monotheistic approach.

Both recognize the lost state of the self. So the self is a mystery and God is a mystery.

Esoteric mysticism seeks the inner life of the lost self and when found believes what is found is a twofold discovery of self in the oneness of creation, God or nothingness.

Exoteic mysticism seeks the life of God and when found believes what is found is a twofold discovery of God and self in the oness with creation.

 

[Detales]

hope I can articulate the ideas Detales.
Exoteric mysticism includes esoteric experience. Don’t see how. One profound esoteric experience casts doubt on or erases the need for anything exoteric. The only way “exoteric” might then apply is as a description of words pointing to the the experience for those who have not yet had it. The fundamental difference with esoteric mysticism is that esoteric mystical experience doesn’t include exoteric mysticism. Yes, because it erases the need for it.

Esoteric mysticism is able to offer an experience of oneness with creation because that is the awareness we entered the world experiencing. It is not “able to offer,” it refers to the experience itself, not the description of it which is mental. But yes, it is what we enter the world with, and from which state we have both the “Adam” and “Lucifer” experience.The self is the sole element of personal being that enters into oneness in the esoteric experience. The Self IS the sole/soul element of Being which when realized erases the notion that anything did or could enter into anything else.

Esoteric experience that isn’t a development of exoteric mysticism is experienced as an emerging awareness and defined as mystical experience. It sounds like you may be referring to an experience of the descent of Grace, in which case I agree as far as it seems to the mind to be "emerging, whereas in fact it is what is always already present to be remembered.

All this tangled wordiness can be simplified if we consider what distinguishes in a fundamental way esoteric and exoteric mysticism. Exoteric mysticism is the thoughts surrounding the possibility of esoteric mysticism being an experience

I’ll put it in the context of a monotheistic approach.

Both recognize the lost state of the self. So the self is a mystery and God is a mystery. They are mysteries to the intellect in terms of reconciliation due to an artificial mental separation. The esoteric experience yields the Understanding that Self, the essence or “I” of egoic self, or personality, are One. That is why Jesus made His great statement of recognition, saying that it is the Father “in” Him that doeth the work. He know and correctly attributed the Source of the “I” which allows each of us to say “I am,” but when realized as one with Source as “I AM THAT I AM.”

Esoteric mysticism seeks the inner life of the lost self and when found believes what is found is a twofold discovery of self in the oneness of creation, God or nothingness. There are not two “lives,” but One, the single fact that esoteric understanding is founded on.

Exoteic mysticism seeks the life of God and when found believes what is found is a twofold discovery of God and self in the oness with creation. That is why it is exoteric: it remains dual by not crossing the threshold of understanding and see with double vision. And the double minded man cannot prevail. The very notion of duality is the condition of “devil” (d’evil," or error) and the playing out of the fall of Lucifer, both as elements of the psyche/soul.

---

 

[Areopagite]

The key word here is “about,” as it has been all along and ever will be in matters of faith.

Would you say that knowledge about God is the same thing as “knowing God”? Or is the word “about” to be exiled completely from the way one talks about the ideal way one relates to God?

And please understand, that I am arguing against faith as taken by people who substitute it for knowledge, whether that faith be religious, scientific, or political.

I agree that belief is inferior to knowledge. However, faith (as I am fairly certain) is a mixture of both belief and knowledge. When one has faith in God, one has some knowledge of God (giving him the justifiable reason to have the faith in the first place), but does not have complete knowledge of God, and so has belief in the things of God which he does not yet understand. Ideally, we should grow in our faith, which involves knowing more about God than merely believing things about God.

Would you be okay with what I say here?

It just seems like you are equivocating “faith” with “belief.” But with that said, I admire how you stress the importance about “knowing God” rather than merely accepting what is said about God. I respect that highly. And it is something many Catholics should be aware of. All too often, Catholics merely accept what the Church says about God, and don’t try to really know God, thinking that merely accepting doctrines is sufficient. One should always seek to grow in their faith, which does not involve growing in belief, but growing in knowledge.

Does this make sense? Or are you at odds with what I’m saying? What I’m really saying that contrasts with what you’re saying is perhaps more of a terminological difference. You contrast faith with knowledge, whereas I say faith pertains to both knowledge and belief, but one has stronger faith when the faith is composed more of knowledge than belief (more understanding of what the Church teaches rather than mere acceptance of what the Church teaches). Would this be agreeable to you?

 

[Detales]

It just seems like you are equivocating “faith” with “belief.” But with that said, I admire how you stress the importance about “knowing God” rather than merely accepting what is said about God. I respect that highly. And it is something many Catholics should be aware of. All too often, Catholics merely accept what the Church says about God, and don’t try to really know God, thinking that merely accepting doctrines is sufficient. One should always seek to grow in their faith, which does not involve growing in belief, but growing in knowledge. This is well said. I do maintain that faith and belief are merely circumstantial and mental ways of understanding. that means that that understanding o that foundation is built on the sands of personal mind, as it is composed of acquired content based on tradition, hearsay, questionable scriptures, and changeable dogma.

I also maintain that there is a different mode of knowledge, called by some* “Knowledge by Identity.” It is actual Self Knowledge that is the result of rigorous introspection and self observation. It leads to conclusions about the Nature of Consciousness an awareness itself, not of the contents of that or what That lights up. It is a different order of knowing. I personally left the Church because though that potential is actually there, the practice and teaching of the Church is so one dimensional that it not only doesn’t facilitate going beyond a certain point, but Saints such as Aquinas and Theresa of Avila, in my opinion, accomplished what they did *in spite *of the Church’s teaching.

*Does this make sense? Or are you at odds with what I’m saying? What I’m really saying that contrasts with what you’re saying is perhaps more of a terminological difference. You contrast faith with knowledge, whereas I say faith pertains to both knowledge and belief, but one has stronger faith when the faith is composed more of knowledge than belief (more understanding of what the Church teaches rather than mere acceptance of what the Church teaches). Would this be agreeable to you? * I think that the way you propose is difficult and fraught with dangers. There is already a Way of Understanding that circumvents all the circumlocutions and veilings that the Church relies on to attempt to keep its popularity. But it seems, thank God, that though it won’t admit it, the Church has had the rug pulled out from under it. It just hasn’t hit the ground yet.

You see, the Jesus story is very practical. But there is a big mistake in historicizing it. You may find this out for yourself some day. If you do, we can have a good laugh together, and go on with being what we are.

I just found this: “Consider only for a moment that thinking allows the paradox to be a riddle. But knowing allows the paradox to bear a power.” Kenneth.G.Mills, © The Candy Maker’s Son, Memoirs of Kenneth G. Mills, pg 646

*notably KG Mills and Franklin Merrel-Wollf

 

[Benadam]

Detales, the deepest theological meaning of knowledge is that it is a union of likeness. A being can be known in the measure one is like the being known.

I’m not sure what your reply means, but it kind of makes me think you don’t see clearly what I am saying. Could you clarify your statement, particularly what you mean by “you?”

In answer to the question you asked me, this is why when referencing myth’s true object I inserted the word ‘you’.

This is why the self is the sole being in the esoteric mystical experience and God is ‘oneness with creation’ or ‘nothingness’.

 

[Areopagite]

This is well said. I do maintain that faith and belief are merely circumstantial and mental ways of understanding. that means that that understanding o that foundation is built on the sands of personal mind, as it is composed of acquired content based on tradition, hearsay, questionable scriptures, and changeable dogma.

Unless, of course, the dogma isn’t changeable and the Scriptures are not questionable … if, in fact, God actually had a hand in establishing them.

I personally left the Church because though that potential is actually there, the practice and teaching of the Church is so one dimensional that it not only doesn’t facilitate going beyond a certain point, but Saints such as Aquinas and Theresa of Avila, in my opinion, accomplished what they did *in spite *of the Church’s teaching.

Interesting. I would ask what “certain point” does the Church not facilitate going beyond … and why does it necessitate leaving the Church by going beyond it? Obviously, the Catholic Church doesn’t necessarily facilitate you in getting an iPhone, but that doesn’t mean you have to leave the Church in order to get an iPhone. So, what is this “certain point”?

I think that the way you propose is difficult and fraught with dangers. There is already a Way of Understanding that circumvents all the circumlocutions and veilings that the Church relies on to attempt to keep its popularity. But it seems, thank God, that though it won’t admit it, the Church has had the rug pulled out from under it. It just hasn’t hit the ground yet.

Well, of course, that’s been said about the Church for years (and I do mean two millennia). I’m still not sure why the thing you propose is in opposition to the Church. Obviously, the Church is not against “knowing thyself.” It does say, however, that this Delphic motto is not enough. It helps. But oneself will not suffice for oneself. (which you seem to agree to … at least sometimes).

You see, the Jesus story is very practical. But there is a big mistake in historicizing it. You may find this out for yourself some day. If you do, we can have a good laugh together, and go on with being what we are.

Yes, I’m sure it’ll be a real knee-slapper.

Why is it a big mistake in historicizing it?

 

[Benadam]

hope I can articulate the ideas Detales.
Exoteric mysticism includes esoteric experience. Don’t see how. One profound esoteric experience casts doubt on or erases the need for anything exoteric. The only way “exoteric” might then apply is as a description of words pointing to the the experience for those who have not yet had it. The fundamental difference with esoteric mysticism is that esoteric mystical experience doesn’t include exoteric mysticism. Yes, because it erases the need for it.

Esoteric mysticism is able to offer an experience of oneness with creation because that is the awareness we entered the world experiencing. It is not “able to offer,” it refers to the experience itself, not the description of it which is mental. But yes, it is what we enter the world with, and from which state we have both the “Adam” and “Lucifer” experience.The self is the sole element of personal being that enters into oneness in the esoteric experience. The Self IS the sole/soul element of Being which when realized erases the notion that anything did or could enter into anything else.

Esoteric experience that isn’t a development of exoteric mysticism is experienced as an emerging awareness and defined as mystical experience. It sounds like you may be referring to an experience of the descent of Grace, in which case I agree as far as it seems to the mind to be "emerging, whereas in fact it is what is always already present to be remembered.

All this tangled wordiness can be simplified if we consider what distinguishes in a fundamental way esoteric and exoteric mysticism. Exoteric mysticism is the thoughts surrounding the possibility of esoteric mysticism being an experience

I’ll put it in the context of a monotheistic approach.

Both recognize the lost state of the self. So the self is a mystery and God is a mystery. They are mysteries to the intellect in terms of reconciliation due to an artificial mental separation. The esoteric experience yields the Understanding that Self, the essence or “I” of egoic self, or personality, are One. That is why Jesus made His great statement of recognition, saying that it is the Father “in” Him that doeth the work. He know and correctly attributed the Source of the “I” which allows each of us to say “I am,” but when realized as one with Source as “I AM THAT I AM.”

Esoteric mysticism seeks the inner life of the lost self and when found believes what is found is a twofold discovery of self in the oneness of creation, God or nothingness. There are not two “lives,” but One, the single fact that esoteric understanding is founded on.

Exoteic mysticism seeks the life of God and when found believes what is found is a twofold discovery of God and self in the oness with creation. That is why it is exoteric: it remains dual by not crossing the threshold of understanding and see with double vision. And the double minded man cannot prevail. The very notion of duality is the condition of “devil” (d’evil," or error) and the playing out of the fall of Lucifer, both as elements of the psyche/soul.

---

Just to be sure I’ve been understanding you correctly, you believe that the true self within each of us is dis-covered by removing the perception of duality caused by an attachement to a materialistic view of our selves which is a false identity. When we are able to do that we recognize we are not a being that possesses life but we are one with the source of life it’self. That we are not just one with God but there is no distinction between what we are and what is traditionally called God.

 

[Detales]

Benadam,

If I said that is right, I’d be misleading you. If I said it wasn’t, I’d be doing the same. One of the slippery parts is, you see, what is meant by “traditionally called God.” Another is “we are one with.” For someone who has a traditional, or anthropomorphic concept of God, such an idea would be rightfully blasphemous. No person is God. But without God, there can be no person, or anything else.

What is traditionally called God is an idea in mentality that is a place holder for the Infinity of Being and Creative Might. Unfortunately, that place holder is, we might say, a thought in the mind that is used to reason with about the Unknown in order to feel relationship with It. Since the usual model for relationship for us is the family, the placeholder “God” becomes anthropomorphised into a Person. An infinitely greater person than any human, but a person nevertheless. This may not be completely accurate, to say the least, despite the chief attribute of God being Consciousness in three ways nameable for educational purposes.

The Identity question comes in when believers attribute the place holding symbol and concept with and for the actuality. The constant error in that is that there is not a distinction in most human psyches experiencible as the difference between personal awareness and Consciousness itself. It might be said that awareness is an individuation of Consciousness that allows person to be experienced. That awareness, being associated with a referent in space time, “you.” or “me,” appears to be discreet and independent of what seems to be the world. Yet at another level of perception, our band of sensory existence being very very narrow, the distinctions we make regarding the objectified world are hugely arbitrary and pertinent only to our particular spectrum of awareness. This is true even unto local beliefs, as seen in the disparity of beliefs in the world population about everything, not just God. Yet it is the same world, “outside.” There is much to be mined in that idea, but not now.

So we have the “me” which changes and is local as awareness, yet it cannot exist without what is called "I’ and that “I” is unchanging and no person on Earth can not say “I am not.” The corollary of that is “I am.” It is in this distinction between “me” and “I am” that esoteric practice takes place as a refinement of perception of what is unreal, or changing, (me) and what is Real and Unchanging (I). A point of clarity can come when it is seen that the I of me is not distinct from the I that constitutes Consciousness. That I is neither personal nor temporal and is equatable with the synonyms for God. The realization of the actuality of the distinction, when realized, may in one of its forms be spoken as “I and the Father are One.” And yet it can be therefore also said that “The Son of Man doeth not the works, but the Father in me doeth the works.” This is an ancient and esoteric realization that is the core of Teaching from time immemorial, and only recently historicized from the map of myth into a personalization that is exoteric and misleading in view of individual accomplishment.

For most purposes, that historicization is sufficient. But there are those who have the potential or need to see beyond it to the Source experience. Those are very few and far between. Nevertheless, it is destructive to deny them the validation and support of Teaching. That denial is vaguely similar, but far more consequential, than holding back the best students in the class to the level of the beginning ones in a very large one room school house, if you get my analogy.

So, if you are capable of the sort of discrimination that can lead beyond and away from belief, this might be of use to you. Otherwise it has likely entrenched you further in your belief that what I am saying is inaccurate. If so, then for you it is. I do not see that this is for everyone, by any means. But I do see that it is for everyone to see that belief is just that: the act of children or adults of behaving as if something is true with little or no proof, or based on inaccurate thinking. That is fine as an ad hoc or pragmatic approach when nothing else is available in terms of procedure and as a modality for learning. But it is not the case in the discovery of Self Knowledge that has been with us since the beginning of Man. It is why it says on the Greek temple and in almost every philosophy and religion through the ages: Gnothi Seauton. “Know ThySelf.” It is the most consistent, penetrating, and accurate Teaching from which others have become popularized. That is why it is called, among other things, The Perennial Philosophy. Jesus taught it. If it was good enough for Him, it is good enough for me.

But I came to that not through belief, but through the necessity of inquiry. Such inquiry can literally destroy one’s world, as one man said, but that is merely the seeing through a veil, a very thin one. It is very much like looking at one of those “Magic Pictures.” It is the same before and after. But something has changed radically. What was that? my perception, because I was willing to look and shift my focus. The picture was the same, the light was the same, only my understanding shifted to the more comprehensive seeing of what was always inherent in the picture. Without the Light of “I” none of it would have or could have happened.

 

[Martyr4Christ]

I think this makes more sense anyways… for if hell were a place it would mean that God created it…(God does not create evil)…

I think this makes more sense anyways… for if hell were a place it would mean that God created it…(God does not create evil)…

actually Sheol(where Satan and his angels will be locked up) is a real place. Sheol is where the righteous dead stayed(Paradise/Abraham’s bosom/which is now in 3rd Heaven) to await the promise of Christs atonement. but also where those who were not chosen by God from before the earths foundations were laid reside in torment. this is where Satan and his angels will be when the mighty angel locks them up. we know they are not locked up right now because they still have access to heaven and earth to accuse us day and night before Father with Jesus still being on the right hand of Father defending us but also because we still are being tempted… but they are in chains of darkness bound to Gehenna. which is found in 2 Peter 2:4 the Greek word used for the proper name of Hell is Tartarus which is the equivalent to Gehenna:

Gehenna is from two Hebrew words
– Gay’ (Strong’s 01516) valley, a steep valley, narrow gorge
– Hinnom (Strong’s 02011) which may be the same valley and means lamentation)

sense the NT was written in Greek Paul used the Greek words in their mythology to explain the difference in places of Hades being there version of Sheol and Tartarus being there version of Gehenna which is the lake of fire.

Hades was the after life for them and the place/kingdom of dead while
Tartarus was a place where the dead went for punishment after being judged.

after they are released they will reek havoc again with Satan because it is seen in Revelation 9 that they are released from Sheol(Hades) to kill and torture humanity. but Gehenna is also a real place that both body and mind(soul) can be destroyed but obviously not the spirit as this was created eternal. Sheol was only meant for the soul and spirit because the spirit is conscience and able to communicate while being separate from the body temporarily.

Sheol/Hades is a temporary place that does not support purgatory or any refining fire for redemption after death, for all those who wind up their await Gods judgment after the 2nd Resurrection to be tossed in the Gehenna(the lake of Fire)

The lake of fire is not evil but outer darkness created for those who committed the unforgivable sin.God promised that those He has chosen through Faith will inherit spiritual life so those whom did not out of rejection of Salvation were handed over to a place that Satan himself fears. to say that a place of judgement is evil is to say that God Himself is evil because God created it to punish evil.and Satan and his angels want nothing more for your understanding of the absence of hell to be reality because Hell was prepared for them but because of sinful humanity God must judge those who rejected Him on earth as He has to judge those who rejected Him in the Heavenly realms.

God is not the source of Evil as He is not tempted by Evil nor tempts anyone, nor does He create Evil as you know, but He allowed a free will environment with the possibility of Evil to occur otherwise we have no real free will.

so I hope this cleared up both your confused views.