Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No I would not. Anymore than I would say it was ok if you had a strong moral opinion that Jews should be exterminated, or the earth was only 6000 years old. It makes no difference to me what catholic scripture says, any more than what the q'uran or the veda says, for much the same reasons.Would you agree that it would be immoral for those that strongly believe that scripture teaches eternal punishment...not to teach it?
God bless.
Then I take it that you gloss over Timothew and He-man's posts without reading them?I don't think anyone here has denied the existence of an afterlife.
I don't see any moral lacking in believing that extreme sociopaths will be eternally separated from the rest of us. I remember you making a comment to the effect of, how could someone in heaven live in peace knowing that someone they love is eternally in the outer darkness. My answer is that once everyone's eyes are opened in the resurrection people will be able to see each other's hearts and there will be no fooling anyone. So anyone in heaven who thought they loved someone who is damned will see that that person is actually incapable of love, and so the person will no long feel a lack of peace at the other person's damnation.These are all historic and ancient Christian beliefs. The morality issue is not of God, but the adherent to the various belief systems. Some believed that those that believe God would torture a soul for eternity are morally lacking.
Why do you think the Bible's usage of the words psychikos and pneumatikos is a red herring?Eternal life is a gift from God to those who are in Christ.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ.
All of this other stuff is a red herring.
No. I've known Tim for a long time. He believes in eternal life for the saved. He Man seldom speaks, just cuts and pastes.Then I take it that you gloss over Timothew and He-man's posts without reading them?
I'm not judging, just giving the historic information.I don't see any moral lacking in believing that extreme sociopaths will be eternally separated from the rest of us. I remember you making a comment to the effect of, how could someone in heaven live in peace knowing that someone they love is eternally in the outer darkness. My answer is that once everyone's eyes are opened in the resurrection people will be able to see each other's hearts and there will be no fooling anyone. So anyone in heaven who thought they loved someone who is damned will see that that person is actually incapable of love, and so the person will no long feel a lack of peace at the other person's damnation.
He vociferously denies the existence of an afterlife and of any non-material nature to humanity. According to him the soul ceases to exist at death, and the spirit is not an innate part of humanity and not a source of consciousness. It is just a life-force that goes back to God at death.No. I've known Tim for a long time. He believes in eternal life for the saved.
That is completely different, you are talking about someone's heart and fundamental nature being changed, not just an increase in perceptive power. An increase in perceptive power does not constitute a fundamental and radical change in identity the way what you are suggesting does.You do bring up an interesting point though. Could not the axe murderers eyes be opened to his own heart?
Surely that darkness which is within all souls can be expunged by a God for which nothing is impossible? Or do you believe that God has such limitations on His power??That is completely different, you are talking about someone's heart and fundamental nature being changed, not just an increase in perceptive power. An increase in perceptive power does not constitute a fundamental and radical change in identity the way what you are suggesting does.
[/I]
No I would not. Anymore than I would say it was ok if you had a strong moral opinion that Jews should be exterminated, or the earth was only 6000 years old.
Well, when I hear about the "Catholic scriptures" I immediately think of that canon which includes the Apocrypha, and while I would not say "I don't care what they say" I will say that I do not accept them in a universal way, lol.
Yet to compare these "holy scriptures" is going a bit too far, as they are as opposed to each other as oil is to water. The only way to get them to blend isd to shake them up. lol
No worries...He does.
God bless.
Interesting examples offered.
That is twice the issue of anti-semitism has been raised...unwarranted. Why is that, I wonder?
And several statements equating to "Nothing is impossible for God" have also been accompanied by statements that denounce and condemn that the Lord can (and will) preserve His word in an orderly fashion or that the Lord can create the world in six literal day (to which I again state "six seconds would have been enough").
I wonder at that to, for the contradiction does not escape me.
Well, when I hear about the "Catholic scriptures" I immediately think of that canon which includes the Apocrypha, and while I would not say "I don't care what they say" I will say that I do not accept them in a universal way, lol.
Yet to compare these "holy scriptures" is going a bit too far, as they are as opposed to each other as oil is to water. The only way to get them to blend isd to shake them up. lol
No worries...He does.
God bless.
I have stated that God can and does preserve His word. However the idea that the "bible" is His word is just plain wrong, and is based in paganism.
The very first bible was an anthology of Christian writings put together by marcionites for the promotion of marcionism.
The very next bible was an anthology of Christian writings put together by catholics for the promotion of catholicism.
The western bible contains writings from both, but came to it's present form, more or less, in the sixteenth century at the council of Trent, supposedly an ecumenical council between protestants and their parent organization.
Until the council of Trent, there was no "extra-biblical" scripture...there was only scripture.
The Bible as originally envisioned by it's compilers was to be the centerpiece of an anthology encompassing the wide variety of beliefs bound together in unity by catholicism, a school of belief started in the second century. Nor was there one version of the bible with more than personal preferences over another until the invention of the printing press.
Books such as the "Shepherd of Hermas", "The Apocalypse of Peter", and "The Apocalypse of John" swapped places repeatedly. We know from it's existence in the Ethiopean canon, that "Enoch" was once general canon.
Nor were it's doctrinal tenets any more stable. Older versions of Luke had different words coming from Heaven, and Eusebias, probably the father of the catholic bible quotes matthew numerous times, proving that the doctrine of the trinity was unknown to him.
proving that the doctrine of the trinity was unknown to him.
Now, to get to the age of the earth--- while you may safely argue that the earth may not be exactly 4.54 billion years old, to say that it is but 6000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is incredulous,
and frankly makes me wonder about your credulousness.
Ice core samples alone are some 250,000 seasons deep.
My ancestors on this continent are self saying 12,000 years and acknowledged as ten thousand.
Domestic dogs have been genetically traced backward to sometime between 75,000 and 150, 000 years.
I know that not everyone has a scientific background, but put yourself in my shoes....here you are making mistakes about the visible, and you hope to teach me about the invisible?
Now, if I were a superstitious man, I would simply assume that you have given yourself over to the father of lies, who, should he exist would undoubtedly be pleased with what he has accomplished with you.
Not being superstitious, I accept some moral concepts found in the mythology of the Old Testament.
I've already rejected that polemical version of the Babylonian Enuma Elis based on the weight of evidence as concerning the coming into existence the earth, as I also reject Aesop as having a higher version of entomology.
Now, I probably would have better results getting you to walk under a ladder than to get you to accept that critical, geological, archeological, anthropological and astronomical sciences don't meet on a regular basis to conspire on how to attack the reality that you have adopted.
I could tell you that those same ice flows I talked about previously do not contain sea ice,
but you undoubtedly would quickly adopt the facts to fit the belief;
this is not unreminiscent of the Cargo Cult religion of the isolated islanders, whom, when presented with a real airplane in an attempt to prove it wasn't a god, just knew they were being tricked.
I could tell you that yes, there are "great flood" stories from around the world,
but no, they do not all come from the same time period. However I doubt it will make an impression.
Next, we could discuss any stories from ancient Egypt that could come close to the account given in "Exodus"; there is one about a nation of mercenaries, unhappy that their services were no longer needed when Ramses signed a treaty, sacked a town as they departed, and were pursued by the military until it lost them during a storm at the Red Sea. However there is no proof that this was "Moses" or that these people were even Israelite, so lets not.
I just seriously don't know how to talk to people who have rejected reality to substitute a false one, and then talk about the "truth".
Though I do enjoy your company, and you make me laugh, so please don't feel insulted. It really isn't personal.
Excuse me. I did not "vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife".He vociferously denies the existence of an afterlife and of any non-material nature to humanity. According to him the soul ceases to exist at death, and the spirit is not an innate part of humanity and not a source of consciousness. It is just a life-force that goes back to God at death.
LOL, well, if you do not consider a collective scientific inquiry into the physical universe more reasonable than accepting a bronze age myth I really can't accept that you are qualified to define that which is reasonable and that which is not.lol...and if I were a superstitious man, I might be susceptible to opinions that cannot be verifeid by a reasonable source and refuse to give direct answers to direct questions and...continually change the subject or deign one beneath a dignified response.
To benefit from random chance is a religion to some...I lean more towards intelligent design.I guess we are both very lucky men, aren't we? Oops...doesn't that fall intot he category of superstition?
Indeed. Patterns have not changed in many centuries. Despots rule by fear. Military, financial or religious, the effect is the same. That Moses, Joshua or David ruled by fear and established a dynasty hidden behind theocracy should not really surprise any student. I believe based on my knowledge of ancient text that this is the reality behind John 10:8. I can see the truth behind John 8:32 also, that freedom from an oppressive religious theocracy was just a truth away.lol
That seems to be a pattern.
You are quite right, the flood is from the Sumerian, the creation account from Babylonia, both heavily polemicised of course. In the older Babylonian, Marduk created the heavens and the earth, and then created Man so that the gods would have someone to worship them. Same story, just insert your favorite deity.I don't seem to remember mentioning this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh.
There are numerous extra biblical accounts of a flood figure. There is one, that has some archeological basis behind it, where the Moses like character hid his family and livestock in a mountain cave to escape the unrushing waves of a world flood. This took place around the time of the explosion of Thebes, which would have caused a massive tsunami that reached miles inland. The cave in the mountain, the magical ark settling on a mountain, there is enough similarity to have a reasonable suspicion that the stories are related.I will agree that I also reject them, but not for the same reasons, though. The correlation I was trying to point out was that, as I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, is the description of Nimrod found in Genesis, shortly after the flood, and the debate surrounding the passage in Genesis, as to whether we might not see a true historical account of a figure that is also seen in extrabiblical literature.
You would have to be specific. If you mean the earth being 6000 years old, you are living in a fantasy. If you mean actual basis for some of the legend, then yes there is. You are familiar with the story of God leading the Israelites via a pillar of fire at night and a column of smoke during the day? This is exactly what the military braziers of the day did. It was a vented globe full of pitch soaked fuel on a long pole carried at the head of an army. The vents were closed in the day so that it smoked, and opened at night for a visible flame. this way the trailing portion of an army would not lose the head of the army.And the primary point was that what we do have alludes to a closer correlation to what we have as actual historical and archaeological evidence shows. In other words, we have historical documentation that has survived the years and it is in more agreement with what is found in scripture than those theories proposed by those that are in opposition to God and His word.
You don't understand how science works. Theories must be submitted for peer review. This is a rather lengthy space of time where scholars do their level best to punch holes in them. This is how scientist earn their money--- If something is submitted and can be overturned by facts, it is. If it makes the cut, it can still be challenged as more facts come in. There is no room for conspiracy, religious, or political. Biases influence data streams, producing false results which are easy meat. This goes all the way down to grad student level. When something comes in it is worried over by a pack of hungry students like a dogs over a bone. If there was one shred of scientific evidence that could not be overturned concerning the age of the earth being any less than 4.54 billion years of age, it would soon be in the light. No one is hiding the age of the earth, free energy, alien spaceships or any other of the popular urban legends. Science just does not work like that.Walk under the ladders all the time...lol.
As far as a conspiracy theory concerning scientists, I think the public record will show who it is that runs under such thinkiing on relevant matters.
But that you would overlook that there need not be a united effort where conspiracy would be obvious and recognize that birds of a feather speak the same language in order to achieve a mutual agenda betrays a rather less than critical analysis of the facts.
That is an assumption on the part of the right based in fear. All I can say, is that if homosexuality threatens you so much, stop having homosexual children.Another example of this would be those that have a similar agenda that work together to achieve a desired result but are contrary otherwise would be the liberal agenda, where we see "tolerance" as a rally cry that supports both religious rights and special rights though they are contrary in practice and belief.
Such as homosexuals seeking to keep in office a clearly radical islamist sympathetic administration. The irony being that radical Islam will put to death these unwitting cohorts.
Osmoregulation is the process of osmosis. This is where a dry particle will absorb the moisture of an adjoining wet particle, seemingly to cause water to ignore gravity. It doesn't have much bearing on Glacier seasonal layers, which are currently studied by climatologist. At this point, they have gone back aprox 250,000 seasons with each season corresponding to a year, more or less. A layer is caused by the accumulation of ice and snow when it's cold, and bounded by a layer of melted ice when it's warm. Not much different than tree rings. The biggest danger here is that an accidental power loss could precipitate a plague by reintroducing an organism that we no longer have defenses against. Think "bird flu, 1918".And I would counter with "scripture is clear that the deeps of the earth supplied much of the water."
This is wqhy I ask specifically your thoughts on osmoregulation.
Worthy of a south sea native! Now, if they will just provide the hut, the beach and the Hula girls!How'd I do? lol
This came from the history channel, when they were studying ancient battles; I don't have a written source for it, but if you go through their program guide you should be able to pull up a you tube versionAnd as far as I am aware of...they still exist to this day.
How this applies to my faith or...my sense of humor, lol, I will have to await your remarkable knowledge to find out.
Curious, no?
Probably not...you know how hard it is to get through to the superstitious, lol.
Now that is a new one. I would like to see a link for this, as it will greatly help in my discussions with atheists. So far I have only been aware of the lack of evidence to support the evidence, which would be more in keeping with those who would stifle just such an embarrasing event.
Well, I am glad you are not offended or insulted. We just got to get you through the mythology to get to the good stuff.Thanks in advance.
Well, my friend, it had to happen: I knew we would find common ground somewhere along the way.
lol
No insult taken, Soulgazer. It is not often that I get to enjoy dialogue like this unless I go on an atheist forum, which makes me nervous because I usually have to worry about viruses and other such non-spiritual attacks. And the latter is enough for me.
Look forward to talking more with you in the future.
God bless.
Surely that darkness which is within all souls can be expunged by a God for which nothing is impossible? Or do you believe that God has such limitations on His power??
How could guilt constitute an endless torture in the resurrection, where even past murders will no longer be such a big deal? A past murder would have become an obviously temporary thing and much outweighted by eternal life.I myself do not know. I have read the countless beliefs of our ancient Christian forebears, and this has been a question that plagued them also. I do not believe in eternal torture, though the endless torment of a repentant heart knowing the pain it has caused through the enlightenment of the soul does not seem far fetched.
You vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife immediately after death.Excuse me. I did not "vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife".
This is an excellent synopsis of your whole argument. It is all based on nothing more than arguing over semantics, just like how you want to quibble over the definition of afterlife here. You don't have hardly any supporting arguments, virtually all of your arguments rest exclusively on altered definitions that assume your annihilationist conclusion. If someone has anything more sophisticated than a purely semantic argument against annihilationism, you just evade it.Show the post where I ever denied the afterlife. After we die, on Judgment Day we are resurrected to eternal life. That's the afterlife. Now I guess you are going to try to say "that's not a proper afterlife".
You believe in a special translation of the Bible where the common venacular definitions of words are altered to suit your desires.I just say what the bible says. That's all. You don't have to make up things and say that "Tim believes that!"
Just look at the bible, and that's what I believe.
Have you never felt true remorse toward a person who has forgiven you for a deep transgression? Even though you know you have been forgiven, you take great care not to harm that person further.For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.Do I think it impossible for a demon to repent and become an angel again? I don't know, but even if it can happen I don't think it will happen much.
1 Thessalonians 5:5
How could guilt constitute an endless torture in the resurrection, where even past murders will no longer be such a big deal? A past murder would have become an obviously temporary thing and much outweighted by eternal life.
Do you mean common words like perish, death, life, eternal, destroy, destruction, etc? I don't insist that "death" actually means "eternal life in hell". I believe that death means death. I'm looking at your post and I can see that it applies more to you than it does to me. I'm not arguing over semantics. In order for believe as you believe, I would have to believe that perish doesn't really mean perish, it means "be sent to hell", eternal life doesn't mean eternal life, it means "die and go to heaven", death doesn't mean death, it means "sent to hell", destroy doesn't mean destroy, it means "be tortured", and destruction doesn't mean destruction it means "kept eternally in pain, but never quite destroyed."You vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife immediately after death.
Are you happy now?
This is an excellent synopsis of your whole argument. It is all based on nothing more than arguing over semantics, just like how you want to quibble over the definition of afterlife here. You don't have hardly any supporting arguments, virtually all of your arguments rest exclusively on altered definitions that assume your annihilationist conclusion. If someone has anything more sophisticated than a purely semantic argument against annihilationism, you just evade it.
You believe in a special translation of the Bible where the common venacular definitions of words are altered to suit your desires.
LOL, well, if you do not consider a collective scientific inquiry into the physical universe more reasonable than accepting a bronze age myth I really can't accept that you are qualified to define that which is reasonable and that which is not.
To benefit from random chance is a religion to some...I lean more towards intelligent design.
Indeed. Patterns have not changed in many centuries. Despots rule by fear. Military, financial or religious, the effect is the same. That Moses, Joshua or David ruled by fear and established a dynasty hidden behind theocracy should not really surprise any student.
I believe based on my knowledge of ancient text
that this is the reality behind John 10:8.
Yes, but I was very young and they were minor issues.Have you never felt true remorse toward a person who has forgiven you for a deep transgression?
I didn't say they would not feel regret or a sense of debt. Howwever, I don't think guilt really rises to the level of tortured torment in a world where murders can't happen anymore and all of their past effects have been reversed.Even if the person you murdered is standing in front of you with words of love and forgiveness, I think it is still going to hurt, because you would have the full knowledge and experience of being them. Just me though.
In the Bhagavad Gita that the Hare Krishnas revere, there is an interesting verse that says that demonic humans despise God, both in the external universe and in themselves--in their own atman (soul).I am not sure a daemon can repent---I think the only life it has is from the darker side of us; fear, hatred and anger is it's food and well, in this case I think it literally true that "you are what you eat". If you remove the darkness from it's being, there would be nothing left. Maybe some people are like that also?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?