Vambram said:

Did Christ's teachings include bringing in a culture from another nation which practices fraud and tribalism and stealing billions of taxes from us

Click to expand...

Jesus never addressed the nations or cultures of man. And as Paul wrote, "there is neither Jew nor Greek." In Christ, we are one. There is no American or Somali in His kingdom.

ThatRobGuy said:

If we want to discuss propensity for consolidating religious and government power...

34 of the 53 Muslim majority countries have codified state religions. Do you think that same ratio exists among Christian-majority countries?

Click to expand...

Nearly all of them. It may be beneficial to review European history before asking this type of question.

DaisyDay said:

No. Trump won by a plurality, not a majority. Furthermore, not everyone who voted for him are Magadonians.

Click to expand...

Magadonian, thats a new one lol.

DaisyDay said:

An awful lot of us oppose MAGA policies, many of which are designed (see Project2025) to dismantle our government,

Click to expand...

This whole project 25 is just one of a number of false narratives that have been put out there. Also some of the ideas are quite commonsense. I don't know what all the conflation is about like its some sort of theocracy lol.

But the whole Project 25 has been busted as a myth and c onspiracy anyway.

DaisyDay said:

many of which disregard established laws and regulations outright.

Click to expand...

There has been this false narrative about Trump for a decade now. He has never become the dictator the false narratives have claimed. Its all hyperbole and designed to create this us verse them politics. The big scarry monster who is going to take away our freedoms.

When in fact it was the otherway around from what they are finding with all the Lawfare, fraud and controlling of media and targeting conservatives and Christians. Gaslighting everyone over Biden and bypassing the democratic process in selection Harris ect. I mean they put forward Waltz which shows something was wrong with their selection or oversight.

I don't trust either as far as Christian belief and values. Luckily I don't have to vote in the US. But we do in Australia and we have a similar divide between Left and Right. If I have to vote out of two bad candidates I will tend to vote conservative as its closest to my beliefs. I cannot side with a party that supports abortion or other progressive ideas.

Otherwise I try and vote locally for a member who is closest to my beliefs. I actually did not vote for around 10 years. Then they found me lol.

DaisyDay said:

You, on the other hand, seem laser-focused on her identity as a naturalized immigrant from Somalia - projection. You seem willing to put the sins of any Somalians on her personally.

Click to expand...

Nah, I would say the same for anyone who uses such language. If you noticed I mentioned it was from the same school of thought as Critical Race theory and DEI. I know the language and its divisive and hateful. You may not recognise it.

But when people talk about white supremacy and bring up race in just about every answer. I know its identity politics. Pointing that out is not IP. Its highlighting it as obviously some don't see it as well until its identified.

I have not issues with immigrants, we are all immigrants to some extent. I trace back to African American slaves. I guess thats why I have an interest in US politics. But its similar to my nation generally. We are only 250 years young lol. We have had waves of immigrants to make our nation. But we also know that some who come don't like our western nations way of life and bring their own problems.

But its also the administration of integrating immigrants into the host culture rather than creating divisions. I see the whole immigration, illegal immigration and lack of integration as mess. Its associated with a lot of bad stuff that has cost a lot of people. The real culprits are those in charge who orchestrated this. Because it did not happen by accident. This was poor policiy and management.

Thats the true crime and moral wrong. That leaders who were suppose to do the right thing and set the example and look after the needy. Abused their position and allowed this to get to such a point that it costs so much financially and in human suffering.

Brightfame52 said:

You don't know what you believe.

Click to expand...

This is an admission that you are unwilling (or unable) to engage the argument that was just laid out. I know exactly what I believe, and why. I've made a clear grammatical and logical distinction, supported it at length, and even shown how it leads to the very conclusion we both affirm. Simply dismissing that by impugning my self-awareness avoids the substance entirely. If you think there's a contradiction, identify it! If you think the logic is faulty, show where. Otherwise, you're conceding the point without the candor to say so.

The irony here is that I'm not opposing your conclusion at all. I'm trying to strengthen it. We agree that John 6:44 teaches effectual grace. My concern is how that conclusion is argued. Collapsing necessity and sufficiency into the conditional clause itself is a logical mistake, and it hands critics an easy win they don't actually deserve. Your argument will be refuted by a sharp critic, and it will strengthen their confidence in their view. Why are you so opposed to my efforts to improve your own argument?

Well something is about to happen today. My ship is currently flying this message to our little fleet.

Aryeh Jay said:

I am just proud that President Trump had an completely original idea of a grand ballroom and isn't copying any other countries. We have the best original ideas! Make America Great!

Click to expand...

We have the biggest ballroom ever! Greatest, no one has a ballroom like it. Did you know that there's no balls in a ballroom? No one knew that, nobody knows that. It'll be huge.

zoidar said:

My point is there are other plausible interpretations to the text than the one you hold. It's not clear to me when you say something can be stated from grammar alone and where it's your theological interpretation. I think it would help if you were more clear about what the text actually requires and what you believe the text supports.

Click to expand...

What other interpretations are plausible? What is the syntactic argument for their plausibility?

Where have I been unclear? Can you specifically quote what portion of my argument breaks down and fails to produce the conclusion I offered?

fhansen said:

No, because the light shed by a correct theological overview can't be ignored in understanding the meaning of any single verse. It's as if I used Matt 19:17 or Rom 2:7 to build a complete theology without fleshing out the full meaning using the rest of Scripture et al.

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

Click to expand...

Again, what you're describing is theological harmonization by assertion, not exegesis.

Of course no single verse should be isolated from the whole of Scripture. But that principle does not license you to override the syntax of a specific text when it speaks clearly. The proper order is the opposite of what you are doing: we first determine what a passage actually says on its own terms, and only then integrate it into a broader theological synthesis. Otherwise, "theological overview" becomes a veto power that can silence any text that doesn't fit one's system.

The issue I raised is straightforward and local to John 6:44: the referent of αὐτόν and the force of the final clause. Appealing to other passages does not answer that question. If your understanding of the rest of Scripture is accurate, you ought to be able to show how John's syntax here fits within it, not excuse yourself from addressing it. So the persistent refusal to engage the grammatical question suggests that it does, indeed, press against your theological commitments in a way you would rather avoid than resolve.

Appealing to Matt. 19:17 or Rom. 2:7 does nothing to address that grammatical question. Once again, you are assuming a particular interpretation of those passages and then using that assumption to avoid engaging the syntactic issue in front of us. Those texts do not alter the referent of αὐτόν, the structure of the conditional, or the force of the final clause in John's sentence. Invoking them here is simply a deflection. The issue under dispute is syntactic, not systematic. Syntax is not fluid or impressionistic. You are responding to a grammatical argument by appealing to broader theological synthesis, as though theology could retroactively rewrite sentence structure.

That is like responding to an argument about subject-verb agreement in the sentence "the judge sentenced the defendant" by saying, "Yes, but other texts show judges value mercy." That may be true, but it does nothing to change who the subject is, what the verb does, or whom it acts upon. Theology can contextualize meaning, but when you go so far as to allow it to rewrite syntax, you're no longer reading the text; you're importing assumptions into it.

Hentenza said:

The problem with your theory is that this section of verse 3 and 5 are a quote from Psalm 95:11 and the “if” is not part of the verse. Unless you are a biblical text scholar I’m going to side with those that are and with the translation without the “if”.

Click to expand...

1. Look at Psalm 95:10, the previous verse, in context.


2. Psalm 95:11 points directly to the Sabbath, not away from it. Hebrews 4:5 points directly to the Sabbath, not away from it.

Conclusion: In both cases the context is shown in the previous verse. Both examples point directly to the Sabbath; its institution at creation and the commandment of God to keep it.

Delvianna said:

The whole argument of Hebrews 4 is STILL keeping the sabbath and not doing it is linked to disobedience where you will "perish".

It comes down to this, you have to ignore this chapter in order to say keeping the sabbath doesn't matter. That is picking and choosing what you want to follow and accept. Using God's grace, or sacrifice on the cross to argue against Hebrews 4 is misunderstanding what God did and what he still expects from us. The scriptural truth has to incorporate all teachings and verses while not ignoring a single point or verse. This is why understanding context matters. The context of Hebrews 4 is obedience vs disobedience. When you introduce concepts like grace, resting in Jesus, and justification, the context of those concepts are different.

Resting in Jesus :
Matthew 11:28-29: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

The context: Is talking about a general practice of seeking rest in Him for everyday trials and tribulations because the Lord can handle it. That's not the same context of the sabbath where you are required to not work. One is dealing with literal work/labor (ie: a job), the other is dealing with the souls need for peace.

Grace:
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

The concept is, that even if we were the most obedient people on the planet, we need God's grace to forgive us from the disobedience that we've done. And since not following the sabbath is "disobedience" according to Hebrews 4, we need God's grace to forgive us of that. But then Paul argues that we don't continue in disobedience so that Grace may increase:

Romans 6:1-2: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

So since we aren't supposed to continually live in sin (sin = disobedience 1 John 3:4), and since Jesus calls us to continue in obedience (John 14:15), we are still called to follow the Sabbath. Not doing so equals disobedience which equals death because that's not abiding in the vine (John 15:4) and are not apart of him (1 John 2:4).

Click to expand...

I read Hebrews 4 to find the promise of a Sabbath rest remains and that rest is Heaven! That is why we read in Hebrews 4:11: Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

Reading the full chapter shows that God rested on the seventh day after His work of creation. It is symbolic of heavenly rest. We too shall rest in heaven after our work on earth. God promised Isreal an earthly land of rest they referred to as the Promised Land, Canaan, which Joshua led them into. This is referenced in Hebrews 4:8. The Bible here teaches that Canaan was indeed not the ultimate land of rest, there remains a promise of rest… verse 1… and that is heaven! Hebrews expounds on the need not to be found fallen short so as to miss out on the heavenly rest.

rjs330 said:

No true Sottsman is not a fallacy.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, spelled with a single "t", albeit an informal one aka the appeal to purity. See No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

rjs330 said:

We see evidence of that all the time. We see it in the immigration debate. People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman. And they are correct.

Click to expand...

No, you yourself in this very example make a distinction between dangerous Islamists and Muslims who are not Islamists. Perhaps you don't understand the fallacy? No one is arguing that Islamists are not Muslims but that not all Muslims are Islamist.

rjs330 said:

Liberals are quick to point out that any liberal who commits violence doesn't truly represent liberals. Thats applying No True Scottsman.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If you want to argue the fallacy, then the argument would be that liberals who commit violence are not liberals. You have it backwards.

rjs330 said:

So I don't believe in the No True Sottsman fallacy theory.

Click to expand...

Yes, because you have it backwards - you think that it means that the smaller subset does not necessarily represent the larger set, which is correct, rather than that the smaller subset is not part of the larger set. Maybe read up on it?

rjs330 said:

The Italians can decide what is Italian and what is not.

Click to expand...

Lols, that's an ongoing argument there. What is Italian? The Romans, the Sicilians, the Neapolitans, the Milanese, the Sardians, etc. all have differing opinions.

rjs330 said:

That's why I don't believe in it. It can't be the catch all for anytime someone does something. No real Muslim would aact like that. A real Liberal would never be violent. A real whatever wouldn't do whatever. This argument works with individuals and is certainly issue dependant.

Click to expand...

Lols, you have described the actually fallacy here and why it is fallacious.

rjs330 said:

Sometimes a real whatever wouldn't actually do that.

Click to expand...

But the fallacy comes into play when an example of a real whatever is actually doing that but gets dismissed as not being a true one.

So a bit of good news. I started noticing yesterday morning through afternoon as I was sleeping through my manic episode that my gasping was gone then last night when I went to bed officially I don't recall waking up gasping at all. And now all of this morning when I was napping I didn't either. I think the gasping is gone. Just figured I'd share that good news with you. I'm considering going back in bed tonight and stopping sleeping on the couch.

The Ecumenical Councils - Church History Simplified​

Login to view embedded media

And look at this. In a recent episode of his show, Kirk Cameron publicly announced a change in his long-held views on Hell. Previously accepting the view of eternal conscious torment for the wicked, he now rejects it — calling such a fate “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Cameron says that the Bible, especially in its Old Testament writing, does not depict the souls of the wicked as immortal. Instead, the only souls promised eternal life — immortality — are those granted to believers.

Complete article:

Kirk Cameron no longer believes in eternal punishment​

(OPINION) In a recent episode of his show, Kirk Cameron publicly announced a change in his long-held views on Hell. Previously accepting the view of eternal conscious torment for the wicked, he now rejects it

HIM said:

No it is a subjective comment based on feelings. Nothing more than a "they say so, so it must be true".

Sadly, translators have ignored what is written and translated their thoughts or feelings rather than what the Lord our God intended. And now you are.

Because there is only one way to translate the Greek correctly to which the New Testament is from. Both the Byzantine Text type and the Alexandrian read the same in respect to the word in question, "IF". First the TR from of the Byzantine text type.

Heb 4:5 καὶ And ἐν In τούτῳ This ' Place ' πάλιν Again Εἰ If εἰσελεύσονται They Shall Enter εἰς Into τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου My Rest.

Here is the WH from the Alexandrian:
Heb 4:5 και εν τουτω παλιν ει εισελευσονται εις την καταπαυσιν μου

Here is how the word in question is defined. First from Thayer then from Strongs.

- Original: εἰ
- Transliteration: Ei
- Phonetic: i
- Definition:
1. if, whether
- Origin: a primary particle of conditionality
- TDNT entry: None
- Part(s) of speech: Conjunction

- Strong's: A primary particle of conditionality;
if whether that etc.: - forasmuch as if that ([al-]) though whether. Often used in connection or composition with other particles especially as in G1489 G1490 G1499 G1508 G1509 G1512 G1513 G1536 and G1537. See also G1437.

So why translate the Hebrew from Psalm 95 that way? Because when the writer thought of Psalm 95 HE thought of the Greek LXX which translates the Hebrew the same way as does the TR and the WH. Here is that translation. I will put the TR and the WH below it so you can see for yourself.

The LXX:
Ps 95:11 ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου Εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου.

The TR: Heb 4:5 καὶ And ἐν In τούτῳ This ' Place ' πάλιν Again Εἰ If εἰσελεύσονται They Shall Enter εἰς Into τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου My Rest.

Here is the WH from the Alexandrian:
Heb 4:5 και εν τουτω παλιν ει εισελευσονται εις την καταπαυσιν μου

And no, we are not defending the KJV. The KJV has errors also. We are here for the sake of truth. As was said and everyone including you can see from the information provided above, you are using a bad translation in respect to this verse. Not that big of a deal really. We all do it. Just recognize it and make changes in your thought process and move on.

Click to expand...

The problem with your theory is that this section of verse 3 and 5 are a quote from Psalm 95:11 and the “if” is not part of the verse. Unless you are a biblical text scholar I’m going to side with those that are and with the translation without the “if”.

A pro-"Palestinian" analyst from Gaza reveals how Hamas hid tonnes of baby food to stage an artificial famine. Yet in the West, people stubbornly cling to the narrative that Israel is starving children. The refusal to look has long been part of the problem itself.

There are moments when a single video can shake an entire moral architecture. The footage published by Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, an analyst from Gaza, falls squarely into this category. It shows cats running over boxes of baby food. A desperate voice can be heard swearing and crying: ‘Our children are dying of hunger and they are hoarding all this instead of distributing it.’

x.com

No Israeli spokesperson, no foreign journalist, no activist said these words. Instead, they were spoken by a man who describes himself as ‘pro-Palestine, anti-Hamas’ and who lost 31 relatives in the war. Alkhatib is anything but a friend of Israel. But he is an enemy of lies. And that makes him more dangerous to Hamas than any Israeli press release.

He describes how the Ministry of Health in Gaza (Hamas' civilian front) hid tonnes of baby food for months. Not because of logistical problems. Not because of shortages. But deliberately, to exacerbate the disaster, create images of misery and serve a political narrative that had been prepared long before the war began: Israel is starving Gaza.

This narrative dominated Western reporting for months. Major media outlets proclaimed that Israeli restrictions were the cause of an ‘artificial famine.’ International organisations spread alarming figures without questioning who was controlling them. Headlines became moral accusations, often without any empirical basis. And anyone who disagreed was defamed.

Alkhatib speaks openly about this: those who pointed out the manipulation were threatened. Not by Israel, but by those in the West who dominate the discourse and punish any deviation from the desired narrative. He calls them ‘the pro-"Palestinian" activist cartel’. These are precisely the groups that reflexively reject any responsibility on the part of Hamas and brand any criticism as treason, no matter how many facts are on the table.

But the West plays along. Not because it doesn't know the truth, but because the truth is uncomfortable. The mechanism is an old one: when it comes to Jews, many find it easier to believe the worst. The words have changed, but the reflexes have not. Medieval ritual murder legends have become modern accusations against a democratic country that protects its population against terror. The structure, however, has remained the same: insinuation of evil first, investigation later – if at all.

It is this cultural bias that Hamas continues to exploit to this day. And it does so unscrupulously. The supposed Ministry of Health, whose figures are accepted as ‘neutral’ by many media outlets, hides life-saving food. The same ministry provides death statistics that no one is allowed to verify and yet are considered indisputable. How credible can an actor be who withholds food from babies in order to create a narrative?

Alkhatib's warning is crystal clear: there is no such thing as ‘pro-"Palestinian"’ that absolves Hamas of responsibility. Anyone who takes the suffering of the civilian population seriously must name the perpetrators – even if they are based in Gaza and speak Arabic. Morality does not mean always condemning the same side. Morality means looking at where the blame actually lies.

If people in the West continue to serve as ‘useful idiots’ and reinforce Hamas' propaganda, the cycle of lies will continue. And others will pay the price, Israelis, "Palestinians", everyone who wants to live in truth and not in an artificially created tragedy.

But this video breaks something open. It shows that even in the heart of Gaza, there are people who refuse to be part of the game. The truth does not come from Jerusalem, nor from Washington, but from the ruins of a city betrayed by its own leadership.

It asks the crucial question: How long will the West continue to look away when reality reveals itself?

stevevw said:

Why would you have contempt for MAGA. Was not this the majority that won the election. Are you saying you have contyempt for MAGA supporters.

Click to expand...

No. Trump won by a plurality, not a majority. Furthermore, not everyone who voted for him are Magadonians.

stevevw said:

This is the very identity politics I am talking about.

Click to expand...

An awful lot of us oppose MAGA policies, many of which are designed (see Project2025) to dismantle our government, many of which disregard established laws and regulations outright. You, on the other hand, seem laser-focused on her identity as a naturalized immigrant from Somalia - projection. You seem willing to put the sins of any Somalians on her personally.

stevevw said:

Well you seem to think that the same beliefs and ideas that Christians were following during the early church somehow disappeared.

Click to expand...

No they haven't. Christianity still teaches the resurrection of the body.

stevevw said:

Yes and Pauls and Johns and the bibles teachings are the truth when it comes to this natural human inclination to believe in spirits, disembodied souls and a mind that is beyond the physical brain. And you don't have to be a religious person to believe this. We do it naturally/ But we will place our own ideas about what that is.

I never said that. Thought its a logical follow on philosophically. There is a fine line between methological naturalism and metapgstical naturalsim.

Click to expand...

Only to the theologically ignorant.

stevevw said:

I said that when people use science to beat down belief in God or Mind beyond the physical brain they are stepping from science to a metaphysical belief that epistemically there is only one way to know reality (matter and particles) and that this is an ontological truth. By the fact that its using science to defeat belief. Thus one belief defeating another belief.

Click to expand...

So why don't you go and find some scientists who are actually doing that and argue with them? You won't convince us that we are trying to do that.

The question of who should stabilise Gaza has become a geopolitical chess game. Ankara is pushing into the power vacuum, Israel is warning of a historic miscalculation, and the American president faces a decision that will shape the region for years to come.

In recent weeks, the debate about Gaza's future has taken on a dynamic that goes far beyond tactical agreements. For Israel, nothing less than the security of its own population is at stake. For Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is an opportunity to finally demonstrate his regional claim to leadership in military terms. And for President Donald Trump, it is a choice between two partners who both want something from him but do not pursue the same goals.

According to several Israeli security circles, the decision is imminent and will likely be made during Netanyahu's visit to Washington. But while Israel is interested in stability and predictable control, Erdogan is pursuing a completely different concept. His vision for the region extends far beyond Gaza. It includes reshaping the political order of the Middle East, weakening Iranian spheres of influence and establishing a Turkish power bloc that would unite Gaza, Ramallah, large parts of Syria and Sunni movements under one ideological umbrella.

The Turkish president sees his country as the future leader of the Sunni world. His affinity for the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is well known, as is his political activism in the shadow of regional instability. In Syria, he has quietly established a network of newly formed militias, some of which have structures that deliberately resemble extremist organisations. According to his plan, these forces are intended to fulfil three objectives: to push back Iran, weaken the Kurds and create a permanent threat on the Israeli border.

For Erdogan, the stationing of Turkish troops in Gaza would be a triumph. It would not only restrict Israel's operational freedom, but also position Turkey as a protective power in the Muslim-Arab world. His proposal not to disarm Hamas' armed wing for the time being also shows that he is not concerned with stability, but with levers of power. An armed, reorganised and technically upgraded Hamas offshoot would be a means of pressure that Ankara could use at will.

From Israel's perspective, such a scenario would dramatically worsen the strategic situation. Attacks from Gaza would effectively be attacks on Turkish soil as soon as Turkish soldiers were stationed there. Any Israeli military action could thus lead to a military conflict with a NATO member. This thought alone is enough to imagine the risks involved.

The US is the only player that can stop this development. President Trump tends to value personal loyalty more highly than geopolitical subtleties. This is precisely what makes the situation so delicate. Erdogan recognised early on that a direct line to the Oval Office could open doors for him. At the same time, Netanyahu is staking a lot on this relationship because he knows that a visible Turkish presence in Gaza would be a strategic disaster.

From Israel's point of view, there is only one realistic alternative: Egypt, flanked by moderate Arab states. Cairo has the experience, legitimacy and ability to enforce security without opening up new fronts. This option is uncomfortable for Israel because it could potentially re-establish the PA in Gaza. However, compared to the Turkish presence, it is clearly the lesser evil in terms of security policy.

The price of making the wrong choice would be high. A Turkish military force in Gaza would make Ankara a direct factor in any future Israeli operation. And it would give Erdogan an additional platform from which to expand his regional leadership claims, at the expense of Israel and its room for manoeuvre.

In the end, the American president faces a decision that has less to do with military logic than with political proximity. Netanyahu has staked everything on convincing Trump. Erdogan is staking everything on courting him. And whatever Trump ultimately decides will define Israel's security architecture for many years to come.

stevevw said:

You should know those lol. Like the Freedoms we have come to know, democracy, Rule of Law, meritocracy, human rights ect.

Click to expand...

All of which Omar supports. No wonder Trump hates her.

stevevw said:

But mostly I feel the whole fraud thing was under her watch.

Click to expand...

She is in the US Congress; she works in Washington, D. C. so your feelings seem more informed by prejudice than by facts, as you have given no facts to support your feeling.

stevevw said:

She was closely linked to a lot of this.

Click to expand...

How so? Because she's from there?

stevevw said:

I am not saying she did anything wrong.

Click to expand...

No? She didn't do anything wrong but "the whole fraud thing was under her watch"?

stevevw said:

But that her attention was more on her own people and not the good of the US.

Click to expand...

You do know that, unlike the president who is supposed to represent the entire nation, congresscritters are elected specifically to represent their constituents?

stevevw said:

Perhaps like Waltz they seen something going on but turned a blind eye because they were afraid of upsetting people.

Click to expand...

Walz' administration caught the fraud and turned it over to the feds. Perhaps your accusations are not founded in any facts.

BCP1928 said:

And Christianity began to incorporate more Greek philosophy into it's theoogy. Who said it disappeared?

Click to expand...

Well you seem to think that the same beliefs and ideas that Christians were following during the early church somehow disappeared. They are the same beliefs in the spirit and the flesh, the material world and the immaterial realm.

These beliefs did not come from the Greek. They are uniquely Christian beliefs. They may have been influenced by Hellinistic thought as far as how they were expressed in the language and meanings used. But the fundemental belief is uniquely Christian and the only truth of the Mind and Body problem.

All other concepts in attempts to explain this stem from our knowledge of God and His invisible aspects we see in the world through His creation.

BCP1928 said:

Of course, since it's an unfalsifiable proposition there are many ways to speculate about it.

Click to expand...

Yes and Pauls and Johns and the bibles teachings are the truth when it comes to this natural human inclination to believe in spirits, disembodied souls and a mind that is beyond the physical brain. And you don't have to be a religious person to believe this. We do it naturally/ But we will place our own ideas about what that is.

BCP1928 said:

Back to your perpetual whine and big lie: "Science days no God is required."

Click to expand...

I never said that. Thought its a logical follow on philosophically. There is a fine line between methological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

I said that when people use science to beat down belief in God or any transcedent idea they are stepping from science to a metaphysical belief epistemically that claims there is only one way to know reality (matter and particles). That this is an ontological truth.

By the fact that its using science beyond its parameter to defeat belief. Thus one belief defeating another belief. Which is not science or at least cannot be verified by science.

SabbathBlessings said:

Thats why we should go by what God says, He was very clear about activities we should be doing on His holy day. Isa58:13 Lev23:3 Exo20:8-11 Luke4:16 1John2:6 Acts 13:44 Acts 18:4 etc etc.

Click to expand...

I agree completely which is why I rest on God's day of rest and do not add unscriptural nineteenth-century American Protestant religious activities in violation of resting.

stevevw said:

Why would you have contempt for MAGA. Was not this the majority that won the election. Are you saying you have contyempt for MAGA supporters.

Click to expand...

No, just MAGA policies.

stevevw said:

This is the very identity politics I am talking about.

Click to expand...

Yes, the politics which allows you, an Austrailian, to dictate what "identities" people in America are supposed to have.

FredVB said:

I think the conundrum I posted is only so for literalist views of anything in Bible passages that are as likely symbolic. The book of Revelation is full of symbolic passages, and much of what will be said of what is in any afterlife would be, as any of that goes outside of experiences any have in this world. This applies to the afterlife of the saved, too. Eye has not seen, not ear heard, not have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love God. 1 Corinthians 2:9

Click to expand...

That, my friend, is actually yet another aspect which has caused all manner of division within Christianity. The interpretation of Revelation is a minefield, indeed. That there are very obviously many things in it which are symbolic and allegorical is obvious to everyone except to those at the very extreme end of literalism. The difficulty is determining whether or not passages which could be taken at face value are, in fact, literal or symbolic or even both, has vexed Bible commentators since, at least, the earliest centuries of Christianity. It is no small difficulty to overcome to avoid reading into the passage one's own extrabiblical thoughts and beliefs. A classic case is the woman in chapter 12 who, according to Roman Catholics, is none other to Mary, but for Protestants is the personification of God's wife, Israel, who gave birth to her son, the Church.