Thread: the genesis of hell

I had an interesting thought last night, after watching a TV show titled "the history of the devil".

Basically, Satan, at the time he was an angel, asked God if indeed people were charaterised by their environment, that if one person is in heaven, because they are in heaven it means they are good, and if a person is in hell, it means they are bad.

<and I think God was trying to tell Satan, in contemporary terms, "the matrix canot tell you who you are........you are free.........if you choose to be"........Mmmmmm>

.........so, God allowed, as the story goes, Satan, to test his theory and torment some poor bastard of the system, as satan would have thought, to prove that by the torment of that person, that person would become "evil"........would ADAPT to his torment.

........as the story goes, satan failed.........as the one being tormented never lost his faith in God.

HENCE, as the story goes (and it does seem to seem logical, at this point)........Satan, in being a tormenter, in having to live up to his own theory, because he had "pride", had to face a reality of hell...........for being a "tormentor" and in being "wrong".

.............ANY THOUGHTS, PEOPLE?

I think the message, the MORAL, and well may we look at the canvass itself of the evolution of faith in the minds of people, even the installment of faith by God, as would seem logical, is that if the system of space-time is conscious, it can't tell a person who or what they are...............a person is "free"............

And that's a good thing in this day and age of placiong ourselves in IT bubbles that have the ability to outsmart us.........why not install faith to ensure we are still "free"?

will you trust me?

.......any response right now gains credibility over other "interests".........

sure........compared to "all else" in this forum..........given what I posted here.

You are suggesting that one can judge your preposition as though it was simple.....

lukewarm...........

Your suggestion is "lukewarm".

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I had an interesting thought last night, after watching a TV show titled "the history of the devil".

Basically, Satan, at the time he was an angel, asked God if indeed people were charaterised by their environment, that if one person is in heaven, because they are in heaven it means they are good, and if a person is in hell, it means they are bad.

<and I think God was trying to tell Satan, in contemporary terms, "the matrix canot tell you who you are........you are free.........if you choose to be"........Mmmmmm>

.........so, God allowed, as the story goes, Satan, to test his theory and torment some poor bastard of the system, as satan would have thought, to prove that by the torment of that person, that person would become "evil"........would ADAPT to his torment.

........as the story goes, satan failed.........as the one being tormented never lost his faith in God.

HENCE, as the story goes (and it does seem to seem logical, at this point)........Satan, in being a tormenter, in having to live up to his own theory, because he had "pride", had to face a reality of hell...........for being a "tormentor" and in being "wrong".

.............ANY THOUGHTS, PEOPLE?

I think the message, the MORAL, and well may we look at the canvass itself of the evolution of faith in the minds of people, even the installment of faith by God, as would seem logical, is that if the system of space-time is conscious, it can't tell a person who or what they are...............a person is "free"............

And that's a good thing in this day and age of placiong ourselves in IT bubbles that have the ability to outsmart us.........why not install faith to ensure we are still "free"?

So, the savior is meant to remind people, people who have been mistreated, that they actually have a "leadership", a leadership of overcoming torment (by still believing in a concedpt of heaven that is bigger than their environment), of resurrection?

that's not for me to answer.

........you are quietly suspicious of responses.

You seem to KNOW an issue others enjoy themselves with, and just that.

Do you enjoy it?

It seems not, given your continual questioning.

Sadly, they are lost in "enjoyment"......I have seen no real sincere brevity that meets your own standard of wit.

I don't know many of this forum, personally, but I gather it is a pre-degree chat-room.

.......and of course when a teacher steps in, hardly will that be an ongoing event, given it is not funded.

Taaaaaa.

Even you offer me no help.........like fuelling some type of irrational fire.

I applaud anyone who can less than not keep some type of what may as well be small minded issue alive.

...........

........I wish you well............you seem like you are some type of character who prefers to remain more philosophical than "oh, oh my God, I have a theory".

Without causing some type of "patridge family" acc-acc-acc-ident......tttttttt..........

.....maybe "SATAN" needs to be properly represented by the LOOOOOOOOSERS?

Orrrrrrrrr........maybe he is instead........."regime...........MAAAAAASTER"?

..............this seems to be a "scare syndrome"..........even I am afraid to say something..............relllllllllllevant..........

...............this...........is.................p retty...............annoying...................... .....................
............................
...............

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I had an interesting thought last night, after watching a TV show titled "the history of the devil".

Basically, Satan, at the time he was an angel, asked God if indeed people were charaterised by their environment, that if one person is in heaven, because they are in heaven it means they are good, and if a person is in hell, it means they are bad.

<and I think God was trying to tell Satan, in contemporary terms, "the matrix canot tell you who you are........you are free.........if you choose to be"........Mmmmmm>

.........so, God allowed, as the story goes, Satan, to test his theory and torment some poor bastard of the system, as satan would have thought, to prove that by the torment of that person, that person would become "evil"........would ADAPT to his torment.

........as the story goes, satan failed.........as the one being tormented never lost his faith in God.

HENCE, as the story goes (and it does seem to seem logical, at this point)........Satan, in being a tormenter, in having to live up to his own theory, because he had "pride", had to face a reality of hell...........for being a "tormentor" and in being "wrong".

.............ANY THOUGHTS, PEOPLE?

I think the message, the MORAL, and well may we look at the canvass itself of the evolution of faith in the minds of people, even the installment of faith by God, as would seem logical, is that if the system of space-time is conscious, it can't tell a person who or what they are...............a person is "free"............

And that's a good thing in this day and age of placiong ourselves in IT bubbles that have the ability to outsmart us.........why not install faith to ensure we are still "free"?

That's what I said. Anyone still interested in commenting (forget the dramatics thus far).

I really must be getting senile. None of the foregoing made any sense whatsoever. Are you just burnishing egos are did you actually have something of substance to communicate?

I was just seeking feedback from the forum on a tv program that basically presented what I presented here (although the version here is very simplified).

Thanks though.........I knew it was a bit simple anyway (it was late).

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I really must be getting senile. None of the foregoing made any sense whatsoever. Are you just burnishing egos are did you actually have something of substance to communicate?

Beyond their attempt at fancy word use and inappropriate punctuation, no I don't think they do.

Also, ophiolite, might I bring attention the fact that three posters lately all have the same excessive period use in inappropriate areas? An IP check would be useful.

I think next time I do a post on this subject, I should put it in the general discussion section.

Sorry.

I am realizing steadily that "religion" posts always raise eyebrows if they don't condone faith.

It is perfectly in place in the religion section. I see no evidence that any poster has 'raised their eyebrows' because you did not condone faith.

My concerns/objections have centred on the fact that I can barely make out what the **** you are talking about. Here is an example: "I think the message, the MORAL, and well may we look at the canvass itself of the evolution of faith in the minds of people, even the installment of faith by God, as would seem logical, is that if the system of space-time is conscious, it can't tell a person who or what they are...............a person is "free"............ "

Huh? That is so convoluted, so loaded with parenthetic inclusions, as to be incomprehensible. It is reminiscent of Stephen Gould at his worst, yet carries none of the erudition and education we would expect from a Gould sentence.

You're right.

I sometimes get the same criticisms from my friends.

I think the problem was compacting a lot of ideas in just a few phrases.

The theory I have available on my www button below has basically made my "awareness" of "topics", of anything, in the way you precisely explained.

It's really weird sometimes. I know what I mean when I put words together, but I forget I am using a different theory of perception to the classical scheme of education people are commonly use to.

But you are right.

Sometimes the other effect people find a little disconcerting is that my communication is a little too intense.

Nice comparison to the "jay" man, though. (stephen gould).

I'll tone it down.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I'll tone it down.

thanks.

i was starting to wonder myself if there was something missing from StreamSystems posts.
most of the posts seemed extremely lightweight and superficial,
many words conveying no information.
and then glazed with grammar from hell.

Well, you see, I don't know you guys.

Most of the posts in this forum either become an acid bath of opinion or a direct reference from a text book.

Offering new ideas ain't that easy, like the suggestion "that Higgs particles could actually represent space-points in time dimensions we have yet to incorporate into our equations for space-time" I thought was quite deep.

........and please, forgive me for saying that in this religion section.

AMEN.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Well, you see, I don't know you guys.

Most of the posts in this forum either become an acid bath of opinion or a direct reference from a text book.

Offering new ideas ain't that easy, like the suggestion "that Higgs particles could actually represent space-points in time dimensions we have yet to incorporate into our equations for space-time" I thought was quite deep.

........and please, forgive me for saying that in this religion section.

AMEN.

If offering new ideas ain't easy, then doesn't it make sense to at least use reasonable grammar to make it easier on us? If the new idea is hard, and you just vomit thoughts up all over the place without a coherent, easy to follow structure and flow, you can't expect people to take it seriously. Not trying to gang up on you or anything just throwing out a plea for more coherent posts.

I want to echo Neutrino's remark about not wanting to be gangin up on you. It seems more than one person has been frsutrated in their efforts to understand you. Please note that an effort has been made - in other words several of us are treatng you and your posts with respect by investing time in trying to understand what you are getting at.
Let me discuss another example of what for me is loose posting.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Offering new ideas ain't that easy, like the suggestion "that Higgs particles could actually represent space-points in time dimensions we have yet to incorporate into our equations for space-time" I thought was quite deep.

What is a space point? You have not defined it. What are time dimensions? Are you postulating multiple dimensions of time, just as there are muliple dimensions of space? If not were you just being sloppy in your use of a plural? In what way is there a mapping between particles and space points (whatever they are)?
In short, what the hell are you talking about? This does not sound deep at all: it sounds like someone with verbal diahorea. You have not demonstrated at any time that you have even a basic grasp of the physical principles and theories your thoughts are swarming around. You may very well have a superb grasp of these, but you are offering no evidence of it, so it is difficult to take your summaries seriously.

All the foregoing offered with the best of intentions, but no attempt to spare feelings.

Regards
O.

And I thought Kermit the Frog had it tough in the lilly pond (it ain't easy, being green).

I know, when I make a suggestion regarding "points" in space in other time dimensions representing what scientists theorize as "Higgs particles" via their elaborate and expensive particle accelerator experiments, I guess I am beginning to lose the plot a little...........I mean it's me in my mini up against an Airbus 388. I mean, "what's a point", "what's space", what's time"........surely I have to define all these words, and make them relevant to just not one another, but the very proveable reality itself of space-time. Even though I am aware of that, I am beginning to realize I could be from another science of space-time that I shold at least make the effort to more subtly introduce.

I will aim to improve.

Maybe we should all nominate a time to get really pissed and grease the cogs?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Maybe we should all nominate a time to get really pissed and grease the cogs?

Now that I understood. However the closest I'll get to Sydney this year is late October in Kuala Lumpur. :?

Are you going by train, boat, or flying with Boeing or Airbus?

well, what "space-points" made me think about, was euclidian positional coordinates, in an additional euclidian space called "time".
although that assumption could be wrong.

Now that our imaginations are all collectively tweaked, is it possibe to form a mathematics that actually perceives space-time as a grid, a graphed grid, that we could see that, or would that confuse our third eye for the two we use?

Space-time in regards to general relativity can be calculated by matrices.

Of course?

But how well do those matrices stand up to a realistic imagined and yet thoroughly thought-of grid understanding of space-time.