Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[NBB]

Agreed - yes it can grab flesh, if it is tangible enough to grab the flesh. But in that case it should be classified as material, if we are to avoid misleading the people of God.

I don't know who is misleading who.
What kind of material is that anyway.

 

[JAL]

I don't know who is misleading who.
What kind of material is that anyway.

Tangible - meaning capable of the sorts of physical collisions familiar to all of us. For 2,000 years, theologians have been misleading us with the impression that the soul is intangible.

The church father Tertullian (200 A.D.), who insisted that God is physical, and that the soul is physical, recognized this doctrine as madness but was unable to prevent them from spreading this contamination. He used some of the same arguments that I'm using now - that remain unrefuted.

 

[NBB]

Tangible - meaning capable of the sorts of physical collisions familiar to all of us. For 2,000 years, theologians have been misleading us with the impression that the soul is intangible.

The church father Tertullian (200 A.D.), who insisted that God is physical, and that the soul is physical, recognized this doctrine as madness but was unable to prevent them from spreading this contamination. He used some of the same arguments that I'm using now - that remain unrefuted.

If it is capable of physical collisions why it does not collide with a bisturi. We are supposed to die, and then get a new body, not a new soul and spirit you know, also for me the madness is trying to adjust God to the law of physics.

 

[JAL]

If it is capable of physical collisions why it does not collide with a bisturi.

Why doesn't wind 'collide' with a knife? I mean, there's no noticeable impact, when you cut the wind. And there will even be less of an impact if God intervenes for the sake of hiding that wind. For example an angel could fly right at my body without collision, passing right through it, if God so deigned to manipulate matter, even as Jesus walked right through a wall.

The point is that your objections, while perhaps raising some interesting LOGISTICAL problems, do not establish any LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS in my world view, unlike with immaterialism.

We are supposed to die, and then get a new body, not a new soul and spirit you know, also for me the madness is trying to adjust God to the law of physics.

Was there a point here?

 

[Dave L]

Okay.
I'm somewhat relieved to hear you ended up toward that end of the spectrum. But you are in camp with those who despise Pentecostals and Charismatics, which is probably fine by you. But you and I will never see eye to eye, I suppose.

Here's a proposal given those facts. I accept you where you are at and understand the reason for it. I invite you to do likewise in my direction. I understand that the camp you are in probably won't allow that. Keep that in mind when you think that I am somehow the one in bondage here. Thanks.

There are some Calvinistic Charismatics including Wayne Grudem (theologian). But I don't take them too seriously.

 

[JAL]

Why insanity?? if the spirit is of a nature you don't know about...

Don't know about? All substances fall into only two possible categories regarding materiality (leaving aside other properties for the moment):
(1) Intangible
(2) Tangible
Where does the evidence point?

Why insanity??

Time for a sanity check. 100 billion people have lived and died since the world began. So we have approximately 100 billion EMPIRICAL cases of the following facts:
(1) Thought is a physical process, occurring primarily in the brain if you're human. To deny the physical nature of thought is to deny the existence and role of the human brain in our daily lives.
(2) Nobody just 'knows' stuff magically. It has to be learned over time, perhaps with the exception of those things ingrained into our consciousness by our brains well-designed by God.
(3) Such learning began with our first thought, when we 'awoke' unto consciousness.

Traditional thinking, on the other hand, postulates a model CONTRARY to the above, something that flies in the face of EVERYTHING we've known and seen for the last 6,000 years.
(1) God is said to be a person who never engaged in a learning process. He knows stuff magically.
(2) For the divine soul, and the human soul, thought is a non-physical process.
(3) God never had a first thought.

Inherent knowledge? Unlearned? It's understood to be PART OF HIS NATURE (i.e. part of his definition). This leads to two contradictions of Scripture:
(1) If omniscience were inherent to God, inescapable for Him, part of His very definition, an Incarnation as an ignorant babe would be a logical impossibility.
(2) An inherently omniscient God would be incapable of LEARNING something new. But in Jesus we see a God who CAN and DOES learn.

 

[JAL]

deleted...

 

[Saint Steven]

Tangible hands can grab flesh. To say that intangible hands can grab flesh is pure insanity, as it contradicts the terminology at hand.

I'll have to hand it to you...
Too many hands. lol

 

[NBB]

Don't know about? All substances fall into only two possible categories regarding materiality (leaving aside other properties for the moment):
(1) Intangible
(2) Tangible
Where does the evidence point?


Time for a sanity check. 100 billion people have lived and died since the world began. So we have approximately 100 billion EMPIRICAL cases of the following facts:
(1) Thought is a physical process, occurring primarily in the brain if you're human. To deny the physical nature of thought is to deny the existence and role of the human brain in our daily lives.
(2) Nobody just 'knows' stuff magically. It has to be learned over time, perhaps with the exception of those things ingrained into our consciousness by our brains well-designed by God.
(3) Such learning began with our first thought, when we 'awoke' unto consciousness.

Traditional thinking, on the other hand, postulates a model CONTRARY to the above, something that flies in the face of EVERYTHING we've known and seen for the last 6,000 years.
(1) God is said to be a person who never engaged in a learning process. He knows stuff magically.
(2) For the divine soul, and the human soul, thought is a non-physical process.
(3) God never had a first thought.

Thought is a physical thing and a spiritual thing at the same time, by spiritual, we have an spiritual mind and heart, the heart has the intelligence. You that believe experiences with God are ok, God showed me that i have a gift in my heart related to intelligence, and i can recognize this from when i program things on the pc, that kind of easily think logic in that area is from the gift, and its in my heart, God showed me my heart too, i discerned it. Make what you want from this, but i'm not making stuff up.
You would say a soul is something that works like a machine?, i don't believe that, and ideas can pop up out of no where just by contemplating something, nobody knows how that works, but its not our brain alone that does that and the intelligence its in the soul part mostly. At least this is how i learned by myself. The brain without a soul is not worth much in my opinion.

Well its the bible that teach that God was forever.

 

[Saint Steven]

There are some Calvinistic Charismatics including Wayne Grudem (theologian). But I don't take them too seriously.

Last time I checked, both Arminians and Calvinists are Christians.
Therefore both part of the body of Christ. Can't you find an enemy outside the church?

 

[NBB]

Why doesn't wind 'collide' with a knife? I mean, there's no noticeable impact, when you cut the wind. And there will even be less of an impact if God intervenes for the sake of hiding that wind. For example an angel could fly right at my body without collision, passing right through it, if God so deigned to manipulate matter, even as Jesus walked right through a wall.

The point is that your objections, while perhaps raising some interesting LOGISTICAL problems, do not establish any LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS in my world view, unlike with immaterialism.

Was there a point here?

For me the 'wind' the bible talks about is something spiritual... i'm not changing my mind soon i think, only if better evidence or something appears, also you changing the nature of God doesn't help me to believe more, and believing in this 'totality' thingy... if you are going to believe something is eternal believe God is for the better i think..

 

[Dave L]

Last time I checked, both Arminians and Calvinists are Christians.
Therefore both part of the body of Christ. Can't you find an enemy outside the church?

Arminianism = salvation by works. Calvinism = salvation by grace. But it pans out like this. Arminians think they are saved by choosing to believe. Calvinists think they believe because God made them into believers. In the end, the Arminian must already believe or they would not "choose to believe". So Both are saved for the most part (some exceptions in both camps), but the Arminian always trust in their choosing to believe. While the Calvinists trusts in Christ who made them into believers.

 

[NBB]

Arminianism = salvation by works. Calvinism = salvation by grace. But it pans out like this. Arminians think they are saved by choosing to believe. Calvinists think they believe because God made them into believers. In the end, the Arminian must already believe or they would not "choose to believe". So Both are saved for the most part (some exceptions in both camps), but the Arminian always trust in their choosing to believe. While the Calvinists trusts in Christ who made them into believers.

My mental health is not compatible with calvinism, is there a calvinist that thinks he is going to hell?

I think i don't like the other side either.

 

[Dave L]

My mental health is not compatible with calvinism, is there a calvinist that thinks he is going to hell?

I think i don't like the other side either.

It's as simple as this. The Arminianian turns the gospel into law and makes salvation depend on obedience. The Calvinist knows that whoever hears the gospel and believes is saved. No choice involved.

 

[JAL]

Thought is a physical thing and a spiritual thing at the same time, by spiritual, we have an spiritual mind and heart, the heart has the intelligence. You that believe experiences with God are ok, God showed me that i have a gift in my heart related to intelligence, and i can recognize this from when i program things on the pc, that kind of easily think logic in that area is from the gift, and its in my heart, God showed me my heart too, i discerned it. Make what you want from this, but i'm not making stuff up.
You would say a soul is something that works like a machine?, i don't believe that, and ideas can pop up out of no where just by contemplating something, nobody knows how that works, but its not our brain alone that does that and the intelligence its in the soul part mostly. At least this is how i learned by myself. The brain without a soul is not worth much in my opinion.

Well its the bible that teach that God was forever.

As expected. You are talking around the points, You're saying, 'I deny your CONCLUSIONS' but you are not refuting the REASONS or resolving the alleged CONTRADICTIONS.'

Thought is a physical thing and a spiritual thing at the same time, by spiritual, we have an spiritual mind and heart...

The question is whether the human soul, and divine soul, is a tangible substance. If you're trying to say a soul is simultaneously both tangible and intangible, it's even worse insanity than before.

Now, the question as to whether the SUBSTANCE of a soul is material, is a slightly different question than as to whether EXPERIENCE is matter. The answer to that question is decidedly NO. Conscious experience is neither a material substance nor an immaterial substance, it is rather an EXPERIENCE had BY a (tangible) substance. Clear?

You would say a soul is something that works like a machine?

Where did I say THAT? You're trying so hard to put words in mouth as a basis for repudiating my views, instead of doing what I asked you to do, which is, Simply resolve the contradictions in traditional thinking - you guys have had 2,000 years to get it done, now would be a good time. If you can't do it, it's time to embrace a better theology.

To equate my version of a soul with a machine insinuates reductionism. I am NOT a reductionist. For example, machines act only according to mechanical laws, they do not, by free will, dictate their behavior. Secondly, machines are strictly cause-effect, you have to PUSH them to get them moving. Whereas I claimed that free will is self-propelling, and thus moves matter simply by free choice.

SOMETHING has to be self-propelling, to get the ball rolling, otherwise we'd be stuck in the infinite regress of trying to locate a First Push.

 

[NBB]

As expected. You are talking around the points, You're saying, 'I deny your CONCLUSIONS' but you are not refuting the REASONS or resolving the alleged CONTRADICTIONS.'

The question is whether the human soul, and divine soul, is a tangible substance. If you're trying to say a soul is simultaneously both tangible and intangible, it's even worse insanity than before.

Now, the question as to whether the SUBSTANCE of a soul is material, is a slightly different question than as to whether EXPERIENCE is matter. The answer to that question is decidedly NO. Conscious experience is neither a material substance nor an immaterial substance, it is rather an EXPERIENCE had BY a (tangible) substance. Clear?

Where did I say THAT? You're trying so hard to put words in mouth as a basis for repudiating my views, instead of doing what I asked you to do, which is, Simply resolve the contradictions in traditional thinking - you guys have had 2,000 years to get it done, now would be a good time. If you can't do it, it's time to embrace a better theology.

To equate my version of a soul with a machine insinuates reductionism. I am NOT a reductionist. For example, machines act only according to mechanical laws, they do not, by free will, dictate their behavior. Secondly, machines are strictly cause-effect, you have to PUSH them to get them moving. Whereas I claimed that free will is self-propelling, and thus moves matter simply by free choice.

SOMETHING has to be self-propelling, to get the ball rolling, otherwise we'd be stuck in the infinite regress of trying to locate a First Push.

Never mind, i may never hold your view... i don't think is correct for several reasons. I learnt about something else i didn't think a christian could believe though. Thanks, this conversation is not going to be productive any more i think for now...

I like to think i am not your enemy even if we have different opinions, so don't accuse me, the friendlier the conversation the better. So. I'm just chilling out trying to make conversation, so i'm not trying hard anything.

 

[JAL]

Never mind, i may never hold your view... i don't think is correct for several reasons. I learnt about something else i didn't think a christian could believe though. Thanks, this conversation is not going to be productive any more i think for now...

I am not your enemy, so don't accuse me, the friendlier the conversation the better. So. I'm just chilling out trying to make conversation, so i'm not trying hard anything.

Just bear in mind what YOU do when YOU praise God. You insult Him.

You praise Him for BEING holy - for innate characteristics?
I praise Him for BECOMING holy (over time)

Supposed I asked you to praise me for innate characteristics (e.g. for being human). That would make me a jerk, right? So every time you praise God for BEING holy, you're insinuating that He's the sort of jerk that WANTS that kind of gratuitous praise. (This is in addition to how the unsolved problem of evil, as I mentioned a while back, ALREADY insinuates that He is a jerk. And don't get me started on how the traditional view of Adam and Eve, by virtue an immaterial soul, FURTHER insinuates that He is a jerk).

You're implying He has no merit - that even the cross was simply God acting according to HIS (innately) holy nature. I mean, He doesn't change in your view, right?

Funny when Christians say how much they 'love God'. From what I've seen, most Christians don't love Him enough to seriously reconsider their views, regardless of how insulting to God those views might be. In short they don't seem to love Him enough to EVEN CHANGE THEIR MINDS - which they could do without breaking a sweat!

And they'll happily praise Him for 3 days of suffering at Calvary, but when I speak of 13 billion years of labor/suffering to become holy, they don't much want to even DISCUSS it. That's too much to ask, apparently God isn't really worth the time to discuss it - but they sure love God! Just ask them!

 

[NBB]

Just bear in mind what YOU do when YOU praise God. You insult Him.

You praise Him for BEING holy - for innate characteristics?
I praise Him for BECOMING holy (over time)

Supposed I asked you to praise me for innate characteristics (e.g. for being human). That would make me a jerk, right? So every time you praise God for BEING holy, you're insinuating that He's the sort of jerk that WANTS that kind of gratuitous praise. (This is in addition to how the unsolved problem of evil, as I mentioned a while back, ALREADY insinuates that He is a jerk. And don't get me started on how the traditional view of Adam and Eve, by virtue an immaterial soul, FURTHER insinuates that He is a jerk).

You're implying He has no merit - that even the cross was simply God acting according to HIS (innately) holy nature. I mean, He doesn't change in your view, right?

Funny when Christians say how much they 'love God'. From what I've seen, most Christians don't love Him enough to seriously reconsider their views, regardless of how insulting to God those views might be. In short they don't seem to love Him enough to EVEN CHANGE THEIR MINDS - which they could do without breaking a sweat!

And they'll happily praise Him for 3 days of suffering at Calvary, but when I speak of 13 billion years of labor/suffering to become holy, they don't much want to even DISCUSS it. That's too much to ask, apparently God isn't really worth the time to discuss it - but they sure love God! Just ask them!

The bible says is hard to understand God ways, and doesn't say anything about insulting him for thinking he is holy forever or something that insinuate that, what hurts God is our sins, that is the problem, the rest can be solved without much issue.
God is pleased with just people etc, and it says we should praise him for the things he has done, and that he is a good God, not for the things we don't know about.

 

[JAL]

The bible says is hard to understand God ways, and doesn't say anything about insulting him for thinking he is holy forever or something that insinuate that, what hurts God is our sins, that is the problem, the rest can be solved without much issue.
God is pleased with just people etc, and it says we should praise him for the things he has done, and that he is a good God, not for the things we don't know about.

You seem to think the Bible is merely saying, 'Praise God for BEING holy, regardless of whether his holiness has merit.'

What it ACTUALLY says is that He is WORTHY of praise, i.e. that He MERITS praise. Therefore any non-meritorious definition of the divine Holiness contradicts Scripture.

But we already knew that, right? As I showed in the previous post, innate holiness insinuates that He is a jerk. The Bible is clear that He is NOT a jerk.

 

[Saint Steven]

Arminianism = salvation by works. Calvinism = salvation by grace. But it pans out like this. Arminians think they are saved by choosing to believe. Calvinists think they believe because God made them into believers. In the end, the Arminian must already believe or they would not "choose to believe". So Both are saved for the most part (some exceptions in both camps), but the Arminian always trust in their choosing to believe. While the Calvinists trusts in Christ who made them into believers.

It's funny.
I'm not sure how one could totally buy into either side.
I believe in salvation by grace, but we obviously have the free will to choose, or reject it.
On the other hand the Bible says God chose us. But Jesus is the way (truth, life) and we must come to him. And unless we are born again... on and on it goes.