2-way chat with God: good Father vs. neverending torture

[CST]

It's not the case that "humans evolved from primates." 

Yes, it is!

What lines of evidence/argumentation lead you to conclude that "humans evolved from primates"?

The science of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the science of radiocarbon dating, other sciences that show the age of the Earth and universe to be rather older than the seven day creation span the Bible gives. With God that doesn't really matter, but the evidence supports the process happening in some way.

Re: evolution;

There's Godless evolution that is all random and by chance that even atheist scientists don't understand fully and defies rational thinking.

There's the belief held by many Christians including people I know and myself included that God guides it and it is part of how he creates.

This is an example of how God creates in an ongoing process: let us make mankind in our image is happening today in my opinion, we are gradually being made in His image.

So I don't believe in Godless evolution.

And micro evolution is something I think we all agree upon (species change over time) so it isn't a leap for me to think of macro evolution in the same way, however I only believe in it because I believe in God and I don't believe God and science to be in opposition, I think they are complimentary: God without science and science without God are both lacking IMO, because science explains the glory of God.

I don't find it any more amazing that God created all in 7 days versus a more gradual unfolding.

I don't find it to be contradictory to genesis. 

Just my opinions though, sharing if anyone passing through is helped by this approach.

That doesn't explain whether or not you think man evolving from lower primates is part of that God-guided process.

[marie glen]

Isn't Natural "Selection" the separating of traits present? How do you get all kinds of life from one microcopic atom of life and it becomes all the life that there is?

What about soft tissue (collagen) in fossils and dinosaur remains? Soft tissue cannot remain for millions/billions of years.. And an explosion which on day one, sure.. But is it a constant rate so you can measure the time?

But no matter.. I get tired of that topic, lol.. Strong delusions.. phew.. Et.. is just one. (imo.)

Basically, the debate (conversation, should be) between evolution and what's called intelligent design (however that was done, but I believe literal :Peace2: figure why not? and no death before sin) ..the debate really should move on to what sort of intelligence designed? But I guess the evolutionary scientists panic! :laughing7: That's my guess.

Gotta run put the chickens in, lest them coyotes get 'em. But I know there was something else I wanted to write...  :doh: hate that..

P.s.. could look up the interlinear etc, of "made in His image" or became "in His image"..?

[marie glen]

Re: evolution;

There's Godless evolution that is all random and by chance that even atheist scientists don't understand fully and defies rational thinking.

There's the belief held by many Christians including people I know and myself included that God guides it and it is part of how he creates.

This is an example of how God creates in an ongoing process: let us make mankind in our image is happening today in my opinion, we are gradually being made in His image.

So I don't believe in Godless evolution.

And micro evolution is something I think we all agree upon (species change over time) so it isn't a leap for me to think of macro evolution in the same way, however I only believe in it because I believe in God and I don't believe God and science to be in opposition, I think they are complimentary: God without science and science without God are both lacking IMO, because science explains the glory of God.

I don't find it any more amazing that God created all in 7 days versus a more gradual unfolding.

I don't find it to be contradictory to genesis. 

Just my opinions though, sharing if anyone passing through is helped by this approach.

   :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

   ...also science is amazing! And all the variety of life and the planet and universe.. and that gets lost, sometimes in the 'debate'.. :girlheart:

[DavidFord]

What lines of evidence/argumentation lead you to conclude that "humans evolved from primates"?

The science of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the science of radiocarbon dating, other sciences that show the age of the Earth and universe to be rather older than the seven day creation span the Bible gives. With God that doesn't really matter, but the evidence supports the process happening in some way.

I agree that "the age of the Earth and universe" is much older than 6,000 years old.  The universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Also, it's possible for there to be a "seven day creation span" at the same time as a 15 billion-year-old universe:  if God said 'let there be ____' over the course of 7 24-hour days, commands that  then unfolded over the course of billions of years (as soon as God says 'let there be ____,' it's as good as done).  Hayward mentions that approach to interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis, plus several other approaches, in

_Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible_ by Alan Hayward
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Rethinking-Evidence-Science/dp/1597520616/

"the evidence supports the process happening"
Exactly what "process" do you refer to there?  (a population of monkeys or apes turning into a population of humans?  I remind you that evidence that the earth is very old isn't evidence that monkeys or apes turned into humans.)
What lines of evidence/argumentation lead you to conclude that "humans evolved from primates"?

What are the 2 strongest lines of fossil record evidence in support of "the theory of evolution by natural selection"?
What are the 2 strongest lines of breeding experiment evidence in support of "the theory of evolution by natural selection"?

[DavidFord]

could look up the interlinear etc, of "made in His image" or became "in His image"

From
http://holloway270.rssing.com/chan-26172398/all_p1.html
Here's the question; what do you think it means that you were created in my image?

Well you're right, I can hear you saying something, hear you explaining what it means, feel your explanation inside of me.  But until just now I would have said 'I haven't the faintest idea.'  Simply because the question is too big.

But now?

Now I THINK you're saying that the fact I'm created in your image means, among other things, that I think like you?

Yes.  That's what I'm showing you.  Tell me what you can hear me saying about that.

I think you're saying that because I think like you, then I end up thinking some of the thoughts you think.

Yes.  And that's the point.  That's the reason so many who try to hear my voice think that what they hear are their own thoughts.  Their thoughts are so often like my thoughts, so often a copy.

But God there's that scripture that says your thoughts aren't mine.

They're not.  But we think similarly.

But the scripture says also that your ways aren't mine.  That suggests that not only are our thoughts independent, we don't think similarly.

No.  What it means is that I don't think like you.  But you think like me.  I am before.  I am the perfect model.  You are a copy.  Next time someone tells you that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, ask them what they think it means when scripture also says that God created humans in his image.  Scripture is a balancing act Mark.  You need to balance one scripture against another, else you go off on a huge tangent.  Ever learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

[DavidFord]

There's Godless evolution that is all random and by chance that even atheist scientists don't understand fully and defies rational thinking.
There's the belief held by many Christians including people I know and myself included that God guides it and it is part of how he creates.

If God guides something, that something isn't Godless.  To say 'God guides Godless _x_' is contradictory and nonsensical.

[MusicLover123]

Regarding His image...

http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/image-and-likeness-13879/msg195612/#msg195612

And

http://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/created-or-creating-in-the-image-of-god-gen-127/

Are to threads that have debated about this.

I see verses that support both, but I see how knowing and reading Hebrew would tremendously help, especially on these matters.

Just a quote from someone before that knew Hebrew, from the second thread.

He is correct in saying that the first use of the verb ברא is in, what is actually called the incomplete state, which is an action in progress. He is mistaken though, in thinking that this means that this action is something that has not been completed yet. One has to understand how the Semitic peoples thought when they wrote. When the incomplete is used, (and it is many, many times to indicate things that clearly are not still in process) it is the writers way of putting the reader right there with the action, as if they were personally witnessing it take place.

Aside from James, which does indeed speak of man having been made in God's likeness, all one needs to do is go back and reread the entire Bereshiyt account and you will see that this exact form of the verb, with the nikkud (the little dots and dashes indicating vowel sounds) is found in one other place, back in verse 21...

And Elohim is creating the great monsters....etc.

No one suggests that this is also something that is still being done, correct? In fact, in looking at the verbs forming the first part of those verses in Genesis, all the through the entire Scripture, they are also incomplete. Again, this is simply a Semitic way of drawing the reader into what is being read, connecting them to it as if they were there witnessing it all.

Also, the completed (what you call perfective) state found in the same verse with regard to man speaks of the certainty of it having been done.

Because the English culture does not write that way, it can, and has lead, to things being taken from the text that were never intended.

Ray is correct about the grammar, but not so about the conclusion he comes to regarding it.

When I read Paul's words, I see man (the male) as the image and glory of God, and I see women as the image of God as well, but the glory of man. I see her as just as fully the image of God as a man is, just expressing different aspects and facets of his image.

[DavidFord]

Regarding His image...

search of chaimbentorah.com
https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&source=hp&ei=bBzZW9POGIqu5wLZvLmADA&ins=false&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.chaimbentorah.com+"image+of+god"

[CST]

Isn't Natural "Selection" the separating of traits present? How do you get all kinds of life from one microcopic atom of life and it becomes all the life that there is?

What about soft tissue (collagen) in fossils and dinosaur remains? Soft tissue cannot remain for millions/billions of years.. And an explosion which on day one, sure.. But is it a constant rate so you can measure the time?

But no matter.. I get tired of that topic, lol.. Strong delusions.. phew.. Et.. is just one. (imo.)

Basically, the debate (conversation, should be) between evolution and what's called intelligent design (however that was done, but I believe literal :Peace2: figure why not? and no death before sin) ..the debate really should move on to what sort of intelligence designed? But I guess the evolutionary scientists panic! :laughing7: That's my guess.

Gotta run put the chickens in, lest them coyotes get 'em. But I know there was something else I wanted to write...  :doh: hate that..

P.s.. could look up the interlinear etc, of "made in His image" or became "in His image"..?

Evolution states that 'parent' animals have traits hardwired into their genetic code, when they breed they reproduce part of this genetic code and pass on their own traits to their long. I theory each parent provides 50% of the genetic material although in practice a lot of the parents already have identical traits so in fact original traits are greatly reduced.

But evolution also says that the genetic code is prone to mutation, randomly but in line with certain laws, and when this happens the mutation can create a new trait which the parent that has the mutation can pass on. I'm pretty sure mutations can also develop as the child develops.

Natural Selection simply says that the pressures of the world act on the traits in ways that mean that animals with that trait are more likely and pass that trait on. I'm you know all this. when the trait is passed on enough it complete eclipses other traits on that part of the creatures genome and that version goes exist.

Now obviously this doesn't contradict God, God could easily have designed it this way and i get what you're saying because that sounds very plausible in many ways. The science works. However, people don't have a problem with evolution because of the science. They have problems with it because it means that creation took longer than the Bible says it did if read literally, or that it makes humans seem to be less of the special species they like to believe the Bible says they are. Or because it requires animals to die en masse over millions of years for it to work it contradicts the idea that death is introduced into the world by the sin of man not before. You seem to have a particular problem with this issue here. Reasons for opposing evolution aren't scientific they're theological, people think it's faithless to disbelieve the Bible when it contradicts science. The belief is that faith in God requires trusting Him and what He says, not evil science (which they can usefully point out means 'knowledge') which exists to lead us astray.  On the other side of the coin the scientists who support evolution and not God believe the high violence required by the process believe that any god that would create it as a process to create things must be a weak and violent god and not one that could be called loving or be worth of worship. To them a god that is like that would be abominable and so spectacularly flawed that on balance of probabilities that evolution is better explanation by God's absence than His presence.

You must know all this, the point here is that opposition to evolution is irrational it's not made based of the scientific evidence for evolution, it's done because people don't like what it suggests about our relationship with God and the world.

What lines of evidence/argumentation lead you to conclude that "humans evolved from primates"?

The science of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the science of radiocarbon dating, other sciences that show the age of the Earth and universe to be rather older than the seven day creation span the Bible gives. With God that doesn't really matter, but the evidence supports the process happening in some way.

I agree that "the age of the Earth and universe" is much older than 6,000 years old.  The universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Also, it's possible for there to be a "seven day creation span" at the same time as a 15 billion-year-old universe:  if God said 'let there be ____' over the course of 7 24-hour days, commands that  then unfolded over the course of billions of years (as soon as God says 'let there be ____,' it's as good as done).  Hayward mentions that approach to interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis, plus several other approaches, in

_Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible_ by Alan Hayward
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Rethinking-Evidence-Science/dp/1597520616/

"the evidence supports the process happening"
Exactly what "process" do you refer to there?  (a population of monkeys or apes turning into a population of humans?  I remind you that evidence that the earth is very old isn't evidence that monkeys or apes turned into humans.)
What lines of evidence/argumentation lead you to conclude that "humans evolved from primates"?

What are the 2 strongest lines of fossil record evidence in support of "the theory of evolution by natural selection"?
What are the 2 strongest lines of breeding experiment evidence in support of "the theory of evolution by natural selection"?

You appear to be in the 'don't want the humiliation of being a primate camp', you must prefer the idea of man being a special species, specially made. Yes, it is possible for both seven days and 15 billion years creation but, perhaps not the way you see it. The main point here is that God exist outside the tapestry and so can influence it from outside in whatever way He wishes.. When He's writing the story of the world He doesn't have to write the chapters in the order in which they occur. On one day He might paint the undercoat of the painting, the next He dds this detail, the next another, but the details aren't designed in the order they occur in our history because to God there's no such thing He's just painting the painting or writing the story, or creating whatever model you wish to use. He's beholden to nothing and it would be nonsense to suggest He is.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'm not going to go thrown evidence from that field at you it will take us way off topic but I will make this point. According to Genesis the reason for Adam and his wife's eventual embarrassment in Eden was because they were naked. So was the serpent (there's a pun on this) that is naked as in bare and hairless, a quality noticibly lacking in the species they supposedly evolved from.

[marie glen]

All I know is.. there was no death before sin. “Therefore through Adam came death upon all”

I can’t imagine that there was centuries of death then eventually a perfect pair and they were immortal after all the deaths that preceded their version.

I’ve read that all the science branches are disconnected somewhat from one another and they assume another branch has the proof/support for their theory.

Mutations are a downward, at best sideways change, and are not improvements but wear and disintegration like the 2nd law of science upon all matter.

I read God’s Word(s) as literal - allowing for parable when it says so - but too much and it it becomes dangerously close to contradicting God.. and adding to and taking away from His Word(s) (imo)

Done with this! Gotta let my chickens out!

Which reminds me, what did come first? The chicken or the egg?!? :laughing7:

[CST]

The answer is the egg, evolution teaches us that. A better question is what came first, matter or the laws of the universe; that's a much more intractable problem.

In the Bible God says to Adam that on the day he eats of the tree of knowledge he will die, Genesis 2-4 never claims Adam was immortal and couldn't die (physically) otherwise, that's not what it says. It doesn't say Adam and Woman were a perfect pair either and some parts of ancient Judaism had no trouble claiming that Eve was a replacement for the even less perfect Lilith.

[DavidFord]

Evolution states that 'parent' animals have traits hardwired into their genetic code, when they breed they reproduce part of this genetic code and pass on their own traits to their long. I theory each parent provides 50% of the genetic material although in practice a lot of the parents already have identical traits so in fact original traits are greatly reduced.

Despite having conversed with atheists about darwinian theory for several years, I don't understand what you just said.

But evolution also says that the genetic code is prone to mutation, randomly but in line with certain laws, and when this happens the mutation can create a new trait which the parent that has the mutation can pass on. I'm pretty sure mutations can also develop as the child develops.

"I'm pretty sure"
What are the 3 most-impressive instances of mutations observed in the laboratory, of which you're aware?
"mutation, randomly but in line with certain laws"
What are some of those "laws"?  Are you OK with mutations occurring in _your_ DNA, and if not, how come not?

Natural Selection simply says that the pressures of the world act on the traits in ways that mean that animals with that trait are more likely and pass that trait on. I'm you know all this. when the trait is passed on enough it complete eclipses other traits on that part of the creatures genome and that version goes exist.

I am aware that Darwin's theory of NS is a pile of poop.

The science works.

In fantasyland, maybe.

However, people don't have a problem with evolution because of the science. They have problems with it because it means that creation took longer than the Bible says it did if read literally, or that it makes humans seem to be less of the special species they like to believe the Bible says they are. Or because it requires animals to die en masse over millions of years for it to work it contradicts the idea that death is introduced into the world by the sin of man not before.

Different people reject Darwinianity for various reasons; the best reason to reject it are that it's opposed by observations of the biological and geological world.
"longer than the Bible says it did"
And how long is that?

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'm not going to go thrown evidence from that field at you it will take us way off topic

You can't present a convincing case for the validity of Darwin's theory of NS because such doesn't exist.

[DavidFord]

All I know is.. there was no death before sin. "Therefore through Adam came death upon all"

How about the death of:  bacteria?  dinosaurs?

Mutations are a downward, at best sideways change, and are not improvements but wear and disintegration like the 2nd law of science upon all matter.

Sounds about right.

[MusicLover123]

Natural Selection simply says that the pressures of the world act on the traits in ways that mean that animals with that trait are more likely and pass that trait on. I'm you know all this. when the trait is passed on enough it complete eclipses other traits on that part of the creatures genome and that version goes exist.

I am aware that Darwin's theory of NS is a pile of poop.

Well, isn't natural selection basically saying if one type is better than the other, it will basically beat the weaker ones? That IMO is no proof of changing from one species to another, like a dog to human. And something called entropy(sin and death) exists. So if someone claims that time is needed, won't it get WORSE over time, and not better?

I think the description of days is a bit more symbolic, probably more apparent in Hebrew. I would probably lean towards Old Earth, but reject Darwinian/Macro Evolution.

[DavidFord]

I am aware that Darwin's theory of NS is a pile of poop.

Well, isn't natural selection basically saying if one type is better than the other, it will basically beat the weaker ones? That IMO is no proof of changing from one species to another, like a dog to human. And something called entropy(sin and death) exists. So if someone claims that time is needed, won't it get WORSE over time, and not better?

One method of defining 'natural selection' is with the tautological 'there is survival of the fittest-- those that survive are the fittest, and the fittest are those that survive.'
Yes, over the generations, DNA degrades.

I think the description of days is a bit more symbolic, probably more apparent in Hebrew. I would probably lean towards Old Earth, but reject Darwinian/Macro Evolution.

'Yom' has several definitions, including an epoch.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101/biblical-evidence-old-earth
The biblical word for day, yom, has four different literal meanings: 1) the daylight portion of a day, 2) part of the daylight hours, 3) an ordinary day (now 24 hours), and 4) a longer but finite period of time....

Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2000/01/01/notable-christians-open-to-an-old-universe-old-earth-perspective

[MusicLover123]

Here's an interesting thing that most people probably miss. God tells us His definition of day in the text:

Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God's day always begins at night. Notice it says evening then morning, not the opposite.

[DavidFord]

Here's an interesting thing that most people probably miss. God tells us His definition of day in the text:

Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God's day always begins at night. Notice it says evening then morning, not the opposite.

What's the meaning of "day" here?:

Genesis 2:4 (YLT)
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=day&qs_version=YLT
These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

Matthew 10:15
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=day+of+judgment&qs_version=YLT&limit=100
verily I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

[CST]

Here's an interesting thing that most people probably miss. God tells us His definition of day in the text:

Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God's day always begins at night. Notice it says evening then morning, not the opposite.

Actually that not quite correct, what it says, is that God does the day's work (whatever that may be) and then evening arrives and then morning follows the (x) day. A day actually seems to run from morning to morning, at least as translated in English but the big thing is that there is no 'night', the text just skips over it. It should come between each evening and morning but it doesn't. This what happens when you try to take the Bible literally, you often find that what is written has lacking details that pull the rug from under the concept.

[MusicLover123]

Here's an interesting thing that most people probably miss. God tells us His definition of day in the text:

Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God's day always begins at night. Notice it says evening then morning, not the opposite.

Actually that not quite correct, what it says, is that God does the day's work (whatever that may be) and then evening arrives and then morning follows the (x) day. A day actually seems to run from morning to morning, at least as translated in English but the big thing is that there is no 'night', the text just skips over it. It should come between each evening and morning but it doesn't. This what happens when you try to take the Bible literally, you often find that what is written has lacking details that pull the rug from under the concept.

Could you give me a couple verses supporting the bolded part? Thanks.

Here is how the Concordant translates it:

CLV Gen 1:5 And calling is the Elohim the light "day, and the darkness He calls "night." And coming is it to be evening and coming to be morning, day one.

Gen 1:1 Created by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the water.

CLV doesn't even say "in the beginning." Also something to note, is that the earth became chaos and void. It was not always like that(I think.)

[CST]

Yeah, a lot of translations render it: "God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." (Genesis 1:5 - NIV)
"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." (Genesis 1:5 - ESV)
"God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5 - NASB)

I can't entirely see how your rendering changes that. The general reading seems to be that the text describes God's action, in this case calling light and separating it from darkness, and then evening follows it and then the next morning which describes the whole day. Otherwise you have this weird scenario where it goes evening followed by night (unmentioned) followed by morning and calling it 'one day' when no 'day' (period of light) actually occurs. It's actually day, evening, night, (unmentioned) morning, or else the text is naming a day while describing a time period where there is no 'day' to speak of.

The point is that as soon as God says "Let there be light." and get's it that's the start of the day because day is defined by being light that follows and is separated from darkness (night). Until God invokes light it was all night when He does invoke light and separates it, it is immediately day. This is just logical I don't really need quotes to defend it.

[DavidFord]

_Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Book 1_ by Neale Donald Walsch (1995), 211+pp., 40-42, largely cited at
https://www.lightforcenetwork.com/castiel/hell
with a shorter excerpt at https://www.facebook.com/NealeDonaldWalsch/photos/what-if-everything-we-thought-about-god-was-inaccurate-would-it-matter-find-out-/10152937244232344/
[God]
There is hell, but it is not what you think, and you do not experience it for the reasons you have been given.

[NDW]
What is hell?

[God]
It is the experience of the worst possible outcome of your choices, decisions, and creations.  It is the natural consequence of any thought which denies Me, or says no to Who You Are in relationship to Me.
It is the pain you suffer through wrong thinking.  Yet even the term "wrong thinking" is a misnomer, because there is no such thing as that which is wrong. 
Hell is the opposite of joy.  It is unfulfillment.  It is knowing Who and What You Are, and failing to experience that.  It is being _less._  That is hell, and there is none greater for your soul.
But hell does not exist as this _place_ you have fantasized, where you burn in some everlasting fire, or exist in some state of everlasting torment.  What purpose could I have in that?
Even if I did hold the extraordinarily unGodly thought that you did not "deserve" heaven, why would I have a need to seek some kind of revenge, or punishment, for your failing?  Wouldn't it be a simple matter for Me to just dispose of you?  What vengeful part of Me would require that I subject you to eternal suffering of a type and at a level beyond description?

If you answer, the need for justice, would not a simple denial of communion with Me in heaven serve the ends of justice?  Is the unending infliction of pain also required?
I tell you there _is_ no such experience after death as you have constructed in your fear-based theologies.  Yet there is an experience of the soul so unhappy, so incomplete, so less than whole, so _separated_ from God's greatest joy, that to your soul this would be hell.  But I tell you _I_ do not _send_ you there, nor do I cause this experience to be visited upon you.  You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you.  You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you reject Who and What You Really Are.

Yet even this experience is never eternal.  It _cannot_ be, for it is not My plan that you shall be separated from Me forever and ever.  Indeed, such a thing is an impossibility-- for to achieve such an event, not only would _you_ have to deny Who You Are-- I would have to as well.  This I will never do.  And so long as one of us holds the truth about you, the truth about you shall ultimately prevail.

[NDW]
But if there is no hell, does that mean I can do what I want, act as I wish, commit any act, without fear of retribution?

[God]
Is it _fear_ that you need in order to be, do, and have what is intrinsically right?  Must you be _threatened_ in order to "be good"?  And what is "being good"?  Who gets to have the final say about that?  Who sets the guidelines?  Who makes the rules?
I tell you this:  _You_ are your own rule-maker.  You set the guidelines.  And _you_ decide how well you have done; how well you are doing.  For _you_ are the one who has decided Who and What You Really Are-- and Who You Want to Be.  And _you_ are the _only one_ who can assess how well you're doing. 
No one else will judge you ever, for why, and how, could God judge God's own creation and call it bad?  If I wanted you to be and do everything perfectly, I would have left you in the state of total perfection whence you came.  The whole point of the process was for you to discover yourself, _create_ your Self, as you truly are-- and as you truly wish to be.  Yet you could not be that unless you also had a choice to _be something else._
Should I therefore punish you for making a choice that I Myself have laid before you?  If I did not want you to make the second choice, why would I create other than the first?
This is a question you must ask yourself before you would assign Me the role of a condemning God. 

The direct answer to your question is, yes, you may do as you wish without fear of retribution.  It may serve you, however, to be aware of consequences. 
Consequences are results.  Natural outcomes.  These are not at all the same as retributions, or punishments.  Outcomes are simply that.  They are what results from the natural application of natural laws.  They are that _which_ occurs, quite predictably, as a consequence of what _has_ occurred. 
All physical life functions in accordance with natural laws.  Once you remember these laws, and apply them, you have mastered life at the physical level. 
What seems like punishment to you-- or what you would call evil, or bad luck-- is nothing more than a natural law asserting itself.

[jabcat]

As solid as you otherwise seem scripturally David, do you ever question the total authenticity of this?

Personally, I see several issues in this one "conversation" alone.  To name a couple;  the capitalization of things having to do with 'Self' (deifying self) - also that Jesus would say there is no such thing as that which is wrong.

I honestly have doubts that this guy is totally hearing from God.  I'd suspect his own imagination is at work in at least some of it, if not much of it...  :dunno2:  my :2c:  ..  blessings

[sheila]

"YOU ARE YOUR OWN RULER,MAKER"  that's a  big FAT bullfrog!!!!! :2c:...If I'kiss it"will it turn into a 'prince?" :eek:

[sheila]

2 Thessalonians2;4 man of lawlessness...exalt him-SELF over everything that is called'GOD" like creator/maker/sovereign :2c:

  do we not have to receive 'authority' from the very hands of God?And also'POWER"over all the enemy[wickedness]ofour soul.

                                                                 :2c:

[jabcat]

 :nod: