Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No i never said other faiths don't exist. You can believe what you want. But do I think you are an atheist? What an interesting question..
would I call Satan an Atheist? Yes and No. (I am not suggesting you are satan by the way.)
Satan believes in God' existence. Therefore many would call him a theist. And if the definition of a theist is someone who believes in God then that would satisfy things.
For me however the belief in God's existence is not really that helpful - since that makes everyone in this world a theist, including every atheist since I hold the view that everyone believes in God. Many hold this truth down rather than accept its reality.
But there is another level of theism - it is the sense of those who believe and understand and follow. For me these are the real theists. Not just people who believe in a deity or whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Poly,
I don't believe in other Gods. I do think any religion apart from Christianity is a false religion. I don't make bones about it.
But every other religion does the same thing anyway - even if they never express it. IF they thought other religions were right then they would stop believing their own and jump ship.
I am not an egalitarian when it comes to religion. I'm not. I apologise that offends you - but it is what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So just to make sure I understand you Stephen, you reject science in the favour of testimonials?
Since you have never been to the Solomon Islands, you just accept it blindly.
Oh - yes I do believe the Solomon Islands exist. Very much so. Yet, I also admit and concede it is based on testimonials not on scientific evidence or proof.
You - reject the need for scientific evidence for the its existence and are VERY CONTENT to accept testimonials. And once again you also demonstrate your lack of courtroom procedures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sorry Trade.But that is all arrogant bunkum.You have your GOD implanted in your head, as acquired and stored data.Your GOD is currently not known to be anywhere else.
No need to apologize. Yet, you can't argue the point can you?
Nor will you admit it either. I am not the one living in delusional la la land. You believe most things based on testimonials of others - not because you have scientifically proved it yourself. Not only that, the only way you attempt to prove things mostly is by other people's testimonials. That is nothing short of BLIND FAITH. And that this is your basis of understanding is made very clear with a very concrete hypothetical of the Solomon Islands.
After all, if you cannot prove to me that the Solomon Islands exist - how in the world would you expect someone to prove that God exists to you? As I said above - it is an absurd standard of proof that you require. That is on you. Not me.
By the way, I accept that testimonials are acceptable. For me to believe that the Solomon Islands exists is therefore rational and consistent. You on the other hand - reject testimonials but do believe. Hence - blind faith. And more than that - inconsistent and one might say irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There is ONLY ONE GOD which counts. The rest are gods of the imagination or persons with an exaggerated sense of the Ego.LOL, the irony.
This would be a correct position IF I was not positing the Christian Traditional view. If I was coming from a multi-pluralistic point of view then yes - the irony would be all over the place.
Yet, I have never put any other position save the Christian one.
Acknowledging the existence of other positions does not imply that I agree with them. Or that I won't ridicule them when necessary.
I take quite a broad view of Christianity. Yet, there are limits to what Christianity is and how far it extends. Others with multi-theological positions can believe what they choose to - but this does not give them the right to just think that I believe something rather than know something. That is my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, that is the point - you can't prove it. You must rely upon testimony. And at the end of the day - even if you prove it to yourself by going somewhere - to prove it to me requires what? Your testimony. Unless you are going to pay for me to travel to a place - you think is called the Solomon Islands. This is the point. It is a ridiculous standard.Wait, so the only standard of evidence you'd accept on the existence of anything is first hand experience? So the countless pieces of evidence pointing to the existence of the Solomon Islands, like pictures of it, accounts of others about their travels there, location on a map, numerous independently verifiable evidence, none of those convince you? I don't need to go to Wyoming to know it exists. Do you? Just trying to understand your position here.
That is not what I am saying. And what are the countless pieces of evidence point to Solomon Island being real? A picture can be faked. People's accounts can be wrong and mistaken. Just because people say they have been there is not evidence. A location can be suggested. None of these are actual evidence of its existence. All of this is simply testimony. Other people's testimony. And my point is Zed believes all of this on faith.
If I produce a book which talks about Heaven, and it provides a picture of heaven. Obviously the picture is not a photo - but it was written before cameras were invented. But it provides good pictures by way of words. If this book also includes a person who has been to heaven and come back, not just one but several. If this book provides all of this testimony is it evidence?
In a court room it might be considered evidence if the person swears on it. But Zed would suggest that it is only words in a book - and someone else's words at that. Yet he is willing to believe that the Solomon Islands exists on nothing more than testimonials. And I suggest the same applies to you.
For you to believe that the Solomon Islands - compared to whether God exists or not - is not a matter of evidence. It is a matter of faith on both counts. For me - it is not faith - for me - since I know I exist - I know God exists. For me it is that simple. I also know that the Solomon Islands exists - but I do this on faith - on the good faith that I think most people are not trying to fool me when they tell me it is true. I think the same thing applies to the bible and also to many people I know who do know that God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I know God exists.That is untrue.You believe that a God exists.
I know God - the God of the Bible exists. I have faced this fact many times. It is about time you did as well.
If a God was actually known to exist, then why wouldn't we all accept the fact.
Well the obvious answer is - arrogance and pride. And the fact that as humans we want NO ONE to tell us how to live our lives.
The other obvious answers are ignorance and stupidity and foolishness.
Gods are the basis of various naive creation hypotheses.The outdated BIG BANGS, as it were.
There is ONLY ONE GOD which counts. The rest are gods of the imagination or persons with an exaggerated sense of the Ego.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't think it is weak link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The simple fact is, I don't need to do it.Just as you don't need to prove the existence of a specific GOD.
Yes that is correct. But the point is you believe the Solomon Islands exist ONLY upon testimony. That is the point. It is ok to concede.
Though the underlying reality is obvious.I can prove the Solomon Islands
Well, that is the point - you can't prove it. You must rely upon testimony. And at the end of the day - even if you prove it to yourself by going somewhere - to prove it to me requires what? Your testimony. Unless you are going to pay for me to travel to a place - you think is called the Solomon Islands. This is the point. It is a ridiculous standard.
But you cannot prove your GOD.
Well to the same standard as you require to prove the Solomon Islands are true - I could easily prove God - a particular God is true. To that same standard. Not a problem.
So you first - - prove to me that the Solomon Island is true.
And it's inevitably at this point that the theist invokes the strawman.By saying, ah but you cannot prove that a specific GOD doesn't exist.So are you saying that I cannot prove that the Solomon Islands exist?
But you are incorrect. I will prove to you that the Trinity God of the Bible exists as soon as you prove the Solomon Island exists.
And making someone believe, is both easy and impossible.And in this instance, it would all depend upon you rather than me.
This is true to some extent. The question is what might make you believe that the Trinity God exists? Or perhaps we might ask - what might make me believe that the Solomon Island exists? There is subjective and objective.
Though believing, by definition, proves nothing.....Other than a lesser or greater acceptance of certain hypothetical data.Nonetheless; validate the hypothesis and belief becomes irrelevant anyway.
I am not sure what you are saying.
The fact that the basis of your faith is only belief, currently tells me all that I need to know.You cannot actually prove the existence of a specific GOD.
I do believe in God - but it is not based in faith. I can prove God exists. In exactly the same way you can prove to me that God exists.
And I do not believe in the Solomon Islands.Because they do exist.Can you prove that they don't exist.
I don't have to prove anything, I know God exists - not believe He does exist, no question in my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
People's experience as presented by the Pharisees was wrong.Yet, you saidI would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.
Yes, it exactly my point. The doctrine or theology interprets our experience. Our experience does not determine our theology.
What of your experience as presented by Christ? Is that not also personal experience?
You are trying to suggest that the situation whereby I read the scriptures is an experience. At least that is what it looks like.
Yet the matter of doing something is not the same thing as an "experience". And what I mean by an "experience" is your warm fuzzy feelings of peace. Not that you prayed - but that feeling you have as opposed to the reality of what is happening.
When it comes to my theology - I do not have to experience Jesus rising from the dead to know he has risen from the dead. Do you?
When it comes to knowing God, I do not have to experience God to know that God is real. Do you?
The problem with experiences is that they change from person to person. You had an experience about the book of Mormon - and so did I? Which one is right? Yours or mine. This is why experience is not a useful determiner of truth. And again the experience I am talking about is not the five senses - but mostly related to a feeling. Are feelings genuine or real? Of course - but also they can be manipulated and forged or are false.
I start with the bible and permit this to interpret for my experiences not the other way around. Now admittedly I do not always get this right - but that is my rule of thumb.
Why do you believe the book of Mormon to be true? Because you prayed and received a warm fuzzy feeling of peace - and now you know that you know that you know. If I am wrong please correct me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
The truth is said in few words, most times. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Rare is not the case when the preponderance of evidence demonstrates verbosity.I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.Mark 2: 27 "The sabbath was made for man [to experience], and not man for the sabbath [for the sabbath to experience].
And this just proves my point doesn't?
How do you attempt to prove me wrong? Not by appealing to experience but to theology. The doctrine of Jesus. Not people's experience.
The doctrine has always been that the sabbath was made for man. People's experience as presented by the Pharisees was wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Were I to darken your door to seek enlightenment, tell me why I should, Christian, one who professes to be so, when I have been shown disrespect at every turn, regardless of my beliefs and my requests, to simply be called as I have described. I seek simple courtesy, and have been shown the door. Why, indeed, ought I knock rather than move on? I move on, my friend. Thanks for naught.
You are a funny one aren't you? I only want you to be who you are and not what you are not. If you want to follow the teachings of Mormon that is a matter for you. Just don't pretend to be something you are not. You stand on the outside of the door and demand that you should be let inside the room. Yet, you don't even hold the same doctrines or views of most of the church and its creeds and teachings for over 2000 years.
Your church has clearly told the main and traditional church that we have got it wrong. That our scriptures are incorrect. That we don't really know the Holy Spirit or God. You don't accept our baptism or our communion or our clergy. Now that is a matter for your church, but don't expect the traditional church just to say - ok we can work with that. Your church would not accept our teachings - hence why you are what you are.
You say you want curtesy. But did you even read the link I sent you. No of course not. You don't feel you need to read it - why? Because you are already right and we are wrong.
The church's teachings are clear. And if you wish to join the church, then the same rule applies to you as it does to anyone else. What God won't reject, neither will we. And what God accepts so will we.
But the Mormon church holds to a different standard. And that is part of the problem. It is classified as a cult. Now that is neither a positive or a negative statement. It simply recognizes the truth that the Mormon Church like the JWs stand outside of what is taught amongst the traditional church of whatever flavor. Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ, Brethren, Many Charismatic, and Pentecostal, even Salvation Army, and the Uniting Church - they all despite their differences in the style of government they have, even some of the nuances in respect of baptism and communion, and emphasis on literal v symbolic interpretations of the scriptures, and other odds and ends. The LDS and the JW and even the SDA to an extent - stand outside of the traditional position.
To call this what it is - is not offer you disrespect. It is to say to you - be what you are - don't pretend to be something you are not. Although I must say that the craving the LDS has to be part of the church demonstrates that the traditional church has something that the LDS does not have. And that is unity. But unity is not the end game here - and it never has been. It is Spirit and it is truth.
I leave you with my testimony of Jesus Christ, that he lives, that he is the atoning one, savior and redeemer of mankind.
Your testimony is just your own warm and fuzzy experience. I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's. The bible always calls us to understand our experience through the lens of theology - not the other way around.
For example the Bible tells us that Jesus died and rose physically from the grave. I have never experienced people rising from the grave. I have heard stories - but never experienced it myself. So do I start with my own experience or with the Bible?
My answer is going to be - with the bible. Not with my experience. Now don't misunderstand me. I am not saying experience is unimportant. It is. The question however is - how are we going to interpret that experience?
For example I attended a charismatic meeting during the high point of the Holy Roller laughing Toronto Blessing. During that meeting - hundreds of people were going down the front and experiencing something - they were falling down - laughing their heads off - and afterwards all of these people were saying how wonderful they felt - they were closer to God, reading their bibles more, praying etc. Sounds like a great experience.
But my experience in those meetings was quite different. I was curious in the first place - but could not justify these things from the bible. I was concerned this was not of God but did not know - since I was pretty young and reasonably naive to know or not know. People were saying - just go with it - let the Spirit move you.
I decided to leave it in God's hands - so I prayed firstly for myself and my sister who was attending - I said God - I don't know whether this is you or not - but please protect my sister and me whatever the situation was. Neither my sister nor I fell down or experienced this weird behavior. After that I looked down at the front and I was watching people just falling down one after the next. I picked a guy out about 10 from one end - and I prayed to God - God, please protect that man from anything that was not of you. The people just about reached him - but he would not fall down. They tried several times but he did not fall down. I was amazed - but thought - this is just a coincidence. So I looked up the row further to another person about 10 people down the row. Again I prayed the same prayer. And again the same thing happened. That person did not fall down either - this happened approximately another 4 0or 5 times. For every person I prayed for on that evening did not fall down or experience what everyone apparently was.
Now - how should I interpret that experience? Should I let my experience interpret my theology or my theology interpret my experience.
Was it just coincidence? I don't think so. But perhaps it was.
Was it saying this so called Toronto Blessing was not of God? Perhaps IDK.
Was it saying that I was stronger than GOD? Obviously not.
Was it saying I was in touch with God in a really strong way? Again obviously not.
And what about all the people experiencing this Toronto Blessing and experiencing a fresh life in God? Was that not true? Were they all lying? Was it some kind of mass hypnosis?
This is the problem with relying on experience as the basis of interpretation. There are so many potential interpretations of what happened.
Your testimony is your testimony. It does not fit with my experience nor with the theology of the Bible. Your experience fits very well with what you have been taught and asked to do in the first place. Ask the Holy Spirit to let you know whether book of Mormon is true or not. And a peace from God will come upon you and you will be satisfied with that experience. Now the thing about the Bible - is Christians know it is true - whether they pray to God for wisdom about it or not. The bible is God's revelation - theology prior to experience.
This is why in our first conversation on another topic - I told you that I prayed to God in relation to the book of Mormon and the Holy Spirit told me - the book of Mormon is NOT from GOD. You see - that is my testimony. How can you - who values testimony refute that? You can't - not in good conscience.
Unless of course you are going to that I did not follow all of the correct procedures or did not believe God enough or were not listening properly.
We don't discover whether a book if from God or not - by simply praying and hoping we will get a nice warm fuzzy feeling. That is just simply a nonsense - why? Because everyone's experience will be different. Yet the words of God are not different depending upon who you are - they remain the same - Like God himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
so here's the cruncher. Make me believe the Solomon Islands are real without referring to testimony.
Can you do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You continue to insist on limiting God. The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
Stop twisting my words. I said God limits himself. And besides the only unforgiveable sin is to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit which is to deny Jesus is LORD.
NOW he speaks through Jesus."Now" was then, in the time of Paul writing to the Hebrews; first century CE. But Jesus ascended to heaven, where God dwells. But, do not ignore Perter's words in Acts 2, 3. Read these entire chapters how, on theDay of Pentacost. the Holy Ghost descended on the crowd of roughly 3,000 souls, who spoke on tongues and prophesied contrary to your claim that prophecy ended with Christ.
Paul did not write Hebrews. The book however was written in the first century as was the rest of the canon of the NT. Jesus is in heaven - which by the way is on earth in the Garden of Eden. Now is contrasted with the "in former times" referring to the time before Now. Acts was written before Hebrews. Yes, those times included fresh revelation. In fact all of the NT was fresh revelation when it was written. But now it is completed. The perfect has come. 1 Corinthians 13:8.
Do not ignore that Peter prophesied that in the "times of trhe restitution of all things" that would include the return of the Lord, Jesus Christ to Earth, that prophesies and miracles would again fill the Earth, contrary to your claim. Sure, you can pick out scriptures that appear, to some, to say others, and I challenge you to show me that the verses you idewntifi3ed say specifically that God should cease speaking to man, even through his Son, Jesus Christ. They don't say that at all. Hebrews, Corinthians, Daniel, and Acts do bot contradict me. Period.
I'm not ignoring anything. And I'm not suggesting miracles don't happen. But perhaps you ought to point to the passages you are referring to - which you think say what you are saying. I don't see anything like you are saying. Again Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8 and Daniel 9:24. You have yet to refute them. Each of these verses contradict you. You just have to deny the obvious.
You continue to wringing your hands over James. Just do what he says and see if he is wrong. Do all of it, in the order given, even, if you want to be that precise. If you do not want to try it, you cannot claim he might be wrong. You have the means to do everything he says. So stop bitching about it and do it. The entire epistle is a gold mine, Use it.
I'm not hand wringing. You are simply avoiding the obvious. You told me that the bible is written by man and therefore full of mistakes. And then you say I should read James. If you can't see the glaring inconsistency, then you need some real help. You can't try and say - the bible is untrustworthy and then say - trust it. You can't have it both ways.
You don't worship Jesus since you don't worship the Trinity.Rather cheeky to accuse me of whom I worship. I said: [#44]
Not cheeky. True.
I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature.That equals the Trinity; three personages. I also said: [#41]
Seriously!. And now not only are you someone who worships idols - you are lying. You see the three persons as completely distinct. And not as ONE. And I am not just talking about one in unity - one in aim or visiion. There is ONLY ONE GOD. Did you notice how once again you avoid actually talking about ONE GOD.
Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.I also said: [#33]
Christians don't worship the three persons separately. They worship GOD as one. They are not three gods. They are ONE GOD.
our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.Did I ever say that I worship these other Gods. No, I did not, and I do not. Acknowledging their existence does not mean I worship them. I have no reason to worship them; they have nothing to do with me, personally, nor anyone else living on Earth.
Your god is a product of your imagination. Your god is closer to the greek gnostic version of the demiurge, Just because you don't worship other gods - does not mean that you worship the ONE True GOD.
Do you intentionally just misread the bible? The vision was sealed up within a generation of Jesus being crucified on the cross.Daniel 9 contains the visin and the visitation of Gabriel, who tells Daniel of seventy weeks which will pass with the following results1. Finish the transgression,2. Make an end of sins,3. Make reconciliation for iniquity,4. Bring in everlasting righteousness,5. Seal up vision and prophecy,
6. Anoint the Most Holy.So the vision was not sealed up in the first century CE, but within the seventy days Gabriel described and which Daniel records and bears record in his Chapter 9.Do you intentionally misread the Bible?
LOL! As you well know this was not talking about 70 literal days. Perhaps you ought to read some commentaries written about the place and not just Mormon persons. Again - if you had bothered to read that book which I linked you to - you would see the arguments in it which blow your little theory to pieces. I expect you will not read it - it would challenge you to much.
The Mormon church is not a Christian church. IIt is not the Mormon Church. We do not worship Mormon. The name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is self-described as being Christian. That others discount it as such, such as you, do so in ignorance. Do I accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being the Pope Church? No, I do not. I call it by the proper name that it gives itself. The members of that church deserve that appropriate respect. I'll thank you to do the same.
Elijah ridiculed the ridiculous. I will do the same. The Mormon church is a cult. It does not deserve respect. You can call the Roman Catholic Church anything you want to. I won't call the Mormon church a Christian Church - because it is not part of the Church. It is a cult outside of the orthodox church. The Mormons reject the church and its teachings anyway - so I don't know why you are having such a hissy fit about me calling a spade a spade.
You would not accept our baptism or our communion. I would not accept your baptism. I think that we baptise once - and if a Catholic came or an epicopalian or even a baptist came and wanted to join our church - no problem at all. But if a mormon came- I would have to baptise him or her properly since they had not been baptised in the name of the triune God. No offence meant - that is how it is. Nor would I accept the baptism from a JW. They like you guys are your own religious cult - but you are not Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I love how you don't even try to address the main point in my response to you.
Let me go back to it again:
Why do you want me to trust James - even though he is a man and makes mistakes? Either his words are credible or not. How can you bag out one part of the bible and keep some parts? The inconsistency is testimony to your integrity.
Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8; Daniel 9: 24.
Let's take your points one at a time.
Hebrews: Nothing in these verses describe an end of God speaking to man. Yes, at Christ's beginning of his ministry, Jesus spoke as the Son of God, and he said on many occasions that what he spoke were not his words, but those given him by God the Father; iow, still God's word.
You obviously find it hard to read then. God spoke in various ways in the past - but now God speaks in a different way now. Not like the other ways - which includes angels like Moroni. He doesn't speak in dreams. He doesn't speak through miracles. He doesn't speak in divers manners. NOW he speaks through Jesus. There is a clear division in the way God speaks - then and now. Of course this contradicts your religion - but not mine.
Corinthians: Nothing in this verse indicates a cessation of God speaking to man [except as through Christ, as noted in Hebrews]. Paul is saying that there may be prophesies, tongues, and knowledge, but that these shall fall when "that which is perfect [Jesus Christ] is come" that these other utterances will cease, because Christ, himself, will again be on the Earth. He is speaking of that future time, not in Paul's time in the first century. This would necessarily imply that god speaks to man by prophecy from heaven until the time Christ returns.
This verse speaks of the end of revelation - knowledge, prophecy, and tongues. Each gift is one of revelation from God. To use this phraze obviously meant something to the readers. He was telling them that the church should focus on love because love is the only thing that will matter in the end. The perfect is not the end of the world - but rather the telos - the canon. The perfect revelation or the total revelation. And that makes sense - because once it is completed we don't need more until Jesus returns. It makes no sense that it ends on the last day - only then to start immediately because God is revealing himself to us more. Yes, one could take hold of the language in the passage about children becoming adults. But for most of Christian history - the teachers have been interpreting it to mean the perfect Canon. It makes no sense that Paul would confuse his readers by suggesting that revelation is going to end unless it was going to end. In fact why would he need to do so - if everyone was just going to keep doing it and then they would stop when the end of the world occurs? There is no point to that. And yet if it stopped in history - people would ask why? As indeed they do. And that is because the perfect - in relation to revelation - has come.
Daniel: Nothing in these verses say God stops speaking to man. Daniel and the Israelites have been allowed to return to Jerusalem, released by the Babylonians in ~525 BCE, after spending roughly 80 years in Babylon [from ~605 BCE, when Babylon sacked Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple. Daniel is told to re-build the temple, which is completed ~505 BC. The "seal up the vision and prophecy" speaks to Daniels own vision and prophecy being sealed as told in this chapter, but says nothing regarding a cessation of prophecy or visions to instruct on a further basis, else we should not have the records of Hosea through Malachi, 12 prophets in all. Do we ignore them based on your interpretation of Daniel, let alone the advent of Christ 500+ years later?
Do you intentionally just misread the bible? The vision was sealed up within a generation of Jesus being crucified on the cross. It has a specific time reference in it. Daniel does not inform any of us to ignore any of God's revelation. It ties it to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Did you read the book I linked you to previously? I reckon that you did not. Did you? How convenient? And predictable.
Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Mark and Luke - predicts the end of the age - when the temple would be destroyed. This was the end of the covenant between God and Israel. Their judgment was fulfilled. The temple destroyed - the sacrifices stopped. It was no longer a religion in the same way it had been before. With its heart and soul cut out - the Jewish world changed forever along with its religion. In fact I take the view that the Jewish religion died that way - and in its place is a new cult. A new Jewish cult.
Sealing up vision and prophecy is a clear closing of the canon of Scripture - dated to AD 70. I think the evidence for the NT writings all date prior to this time. I accept that there are differences of opinions among scholars and academics. I just take the view that the bible is the best determiner of the truth. Fresh revelation has stopped. It won't commence again until the Second Coming. This is what the bible tells us. It means that the book of Mormon like the Quaran and like all other so called prophets today are wrong. And in error. This means many within the Charismatic movement in the church today as well. The bible is clear. And I am happy to draw that line in the sand. Of course for people such as yourself - this goes against everything you think. But since God himself has declared he has finished until the second coming, I am happy to listen to him. He has already given us much to read and to think about and to obey and submit to. No one even comes close to understanding and applying it to our lives now. Why on earth would he want to give us more when we are having difficulty with what he has given us already?
Perhaps James is mistaken?Did the Holy Spirit tell you that, too?
I never said James was mistaken? I told you I think the bible is infallible. I was reflecting your answer back at you.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons - but they are all ONE GOD.Three personages = one God? What's wrong with three personages = 3 Gods, united in purpose, but separate individuals? If nothing else, Occam's razor... makes more sense without having to noodle something out of "let us make man in our image." I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature. 3 = 3 makes a whole lot more sense, and less contradiction, than does 3 = 1. Particularly sense my whole purpose here, on earth, is to ultimately become like them with my continued obedience. I am, after all, as all of us are, a child of God. Should I not try to become like my parents? [Implying that I also have a Mother in Heaven, a Goddess, yeah?]
You don't worship Jesus since you don't worship the Trinity. The bible says over and over - there is one God. I know you think there are many and that there are references to other deities. But you never get around to actually answering what the bible clearly means when it says there is one God. And there is no one like him. You just ignore this and focus on what you think leads to many. That is bias and prejudice and faulty thinking.
the doctrine of the Trinity does pick up both trains of thought in the bible. There is ONLY ONE GOD. And yet there are THREE persons in that ONE GODHEAD. No goddess. No mother earth. No three gods. No other creator gods. Yes there are angels who are quite powerful. Yes there are people on this planet to call themselves divine - their power is their strength and the fear they generate over other people.
The Mormon church is not a Christian church. It does not fall within Christian orthodoxy. It is a christian cult. Like the JWs. Many people outside of the church would on that basis label it Christian - but Christians can't and won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Heaven is God's home on earth. AKA the Garden of Eden. AKA as paradise.
To the Solomon Islands.Is a corker of a strawman argument.
And yet this argument is not an strawman, is it? You believe entirely on someone else's testimony that the Solomon Islands is true. You have never been there. So you are trusting someone else's testimony, aren't you? You are not using reason or logic or science. You are using the fact that people are testifying to its existence. Now you could get off your backside and go there - but you won't. Because you are prepared to TRUST other people's testimony. Many of whom you have never met - or know anything about. Many who you even know are fraudsters and who are power hungry. But that won't make you stop trusting them in this instance.
This is not a strawman argument. You do believe that Solomon Islands exist. But only because someone told you. Not because you can say beyond a shadow of doubt - because you have personally experienced it. This is my point. It is testimony you trust. Just saying you could go there - is not proof. Or giving someone a location.
You trust testimony - and not because it has been proved as credible - but because "it fits your narrative". If it does not fit your narrative - then you don't believe it - no matter what the evidence is. That is the nuts and bolts of it Zed. And that is how most people in our world think. We think according to our narrative. For most of us - evidence is helpful - but we don't generally need it. We listen to the narrative and that fills out the gaps in what we can see or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself.Yet you keep saying that it IS.
No, I don't. Heaven is Heaven and Earth is Earth. I say Heaven is God's home on earth. It is on earth but separate to it. At least presently.
Nor do I limit God to one planet.So.. as of yet, I have heard nothing from you that indicates you believe God is not limited to this planet.
God made the universe and everything in it. God gives the stars names. I don't God is limited - except when he chooses to limit himself so that humans can understand. For instance - God would at times dwell in a temple - for the sake of humanity. But God was not limited to the temple. That would create an absurdity.
I take the view that heaven is God's home on earth.Here we are again, have you made up your mind yet?
Yes. I have not changed my mind. Heaven is Heaven and Earth is Earth. They are not the same. Yet Heaven is God's home on earth. Separate to the earth but on it.
Not that earth is heaven.I'm not sure what you believe to be honest, but I'd love to help you figure it out.
Well -- that is fine. I don't mind help.
In the bible - Heaven is described firstly as the Garden of Eden.Heaven, in the Bible is an actual city, and that city is located on a planet. Not the planet Earth, there is no city in the Garden of Eden lol. The Garden of Eden was created for man, it was very much like a paradise but it was not the city or the Kingdom of Heaven. Heaven on earth is to be completed at a later time. "A new heaven and a new earth".
Yes, the New Heavens are described as a city. Revelation 21. And it is located on the New Earth which is Earth renewed. I never said there was a city in the Garden of Eden. Eden is the original Heaven. The city is the New Heaven. And now you seem to understand that heaven will be on earth. Perhaps you should make up your mind?
And secondly in Revelation 21-22 as a city. When you read the different descriptions and compare the two - you notice the Garden of Eden is the original heaven and the City is the eternal or everlasting one. The city is basically the Garden of Eden on Steroids. The mature version.Again I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, the Garden of Eden and the City of Heaven are not the same things, Revelations is clear about that. So if the Garden of Eden (which exists on Earth) is not the Kingdom of Heaven, Heaven exists elsewhere. Revelations says " 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"....."10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God."
Yes, that is right. The Garden and the City are not the same thing. The City of heaven is the new heaven. It is not built yet. The Garden of Eden is the current or the original heaven. 21:1 tells us that it and earth will pass away. Heaven does not need to exist anywhere else. the word heaven in the greek is euranos - this word is used in many different ways. Sometimes it refers to heaven - God's home. Sometimes it refers to the sky. Sometimes it refers to God, as in the kingdom of heaven / God in the parables Jesus spoke about in the gospels. Here 21:1 says the heavens and the earth passed away. So if it has passed away - which heaven is the new city coming from? It can't obviously - so it is logical it is just coming from the sky.
Notice, it's coming down out of the Heaven from God, meaning it's not already there, it exists on another planet. We also know there is no city in the Garden of Eden that is described as this..."11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[c] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits[d] thick.[e] 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[f] 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass."This does not exist on Earth.
It is describing Heaven on the new earth. the new earth is not yet here. There is no mention of ANOTHER planet. Not in these verses. You might be right - but you have not yet provided proof from the bible itself.
When people die on this planet - if they are have trusted Jesus, they go to paradise.Some Christians might go the paradise yes, some won't. Certainly that is not on earth. Many other souls have many other options.
All Christians go to paradise in this generation. That is heaven. And heaven is here on earth. The bible does not provide any indication that any other soul has another option - unless of course you are talking about Hell. Of course I am happy to see you use the bible to say otherwise. Some contend that the bosem of Abraham is somewhere different. Is that your contention?
Then after the world is judged - say in Revelation 20, Jesus takes them with himself to the New Jerusalem on Earth.New, yes new. Meaning not anything we have here now.
That is what I am saying.
This is God's home.No.
Well yes. Unless you have some scriptures to say otherwise.
I suspect it is not a second place - but a reconditioned - or restored place.Yes, it is. One of many, many places in creation. At a later time, earth will be something completely new.
Agreed.
The beauty of course is that there is also a new earth.Yes, a new earth, meaning not the one we have now.
This is what I keep saying. Although I think it is the old earth - reconditioned or made perfect.
God's city is a beautiful garden city on the new earth. This is home on earth.No, God's city already exists elsewhere, but in the future God's city will come down out of heaven where it already exists. And I believe that just means a rebuilt earth...not that the city of heaven will literally fall down from the sky and plant itself here. It simply means what happens in heaven will be a reality on earth in the future.
I am talking about the New Heaven. It does not exist. God does not have another city elsewhere unless it is in the Garden of Eden which is Heaven on Earth.
The thing about God is that he does not need a home for himself. He was before heaven and does not need heaven.Correct, God is omnipresent and everything and all of creation exists within God. But an incarnation (Jesus) must exist to take form and have location to any specific place.
It does not exist within God. That is more akin to pantheism not biblical Christianity.
Yet because he wants to have a relationship with his people - he has fashioned this city, similarly to planting a Garden in the first place, as his home for his people to visit.The Garden of Eden began as a paradise on earth for mankind, it is not a city of heaven. The city of heaven is described for you above. The garden was just a beautiful garden located on earth.
The Garden of Eden was not planted for humanity but for God to have relationship with humanity. God planted it. It is his home on earth. Not just a garden - God's garden.
We however live in the time between the Garden of Eden and Judgment Day. In the time often known as the now and not yet. This means that we don't experience heaven until we die in the Garden or the City. Rather, due to God's wonderful grace - we experience heaven in the Church. The church performs a similar function to heaven. It is God's place to dwell on earth to meet with his people. Again if you did a biblical search you would find a common theme throughout the OT. The tabernacle in the desert. The temple in Jerusalem. People of God in the promised land. The church in the NT. God meets and dwells with his people.I've been submerged in the Bible and Christian teachings since I was a young boy. I'm well aware of what the Bible says and what is Christian fundamentalist teaching. There is some truth to it, yet there is much missing.
I am not a fundamentalist. I am not an evangelical. Nor am I Liberal or a universalist. What don't you agree with what I said above - I don't care for fundamentalist teaching.
The temple is an image of heaven. As is the church, one reason it is called a temple of God.Sure, not really sure what your point is though. We are talking about heaven itself. Heaven itself has a distinct location even though it can be tapped into from earth.
Because the new city that comes from heaven is a picture of both the new heavens but also of the church founded on the 12 sons of Israel and the 12 apostles. It is a mature bride prepared for her husband the lamb of God. This is where God dwells on earth - in his new heaven but also in the church universal. Heaven is God's home on earth. It is not on another planet or far far away. Please try and distinguish between the Greek and the Hebrew / Christian understanding of Heaven and Earth.
This means heaven MUST be God's home on earth. At least in accordance with the bible.Again you contradict your own statement..."I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself. "
I have not contradicted myself. I have maintained heaven is God's home on earth. It is distinct from earth - like the city of Heaven is distinct from the new earth - like the Garden of Eden is distinct from the earth to which Adam was banished.
Let me break this down for you as a Christian so that this is very clear for you. Heaven already exists as a city on a planet (not earth). This is where the angels, Jesus, the prophets, the saints and all of God's people currently dwell. The Earth was created and the Garden of Eden was established as a paradise on earth for man (not God). It no longer is what it once was....One day, after the temporary rule of the gods of this world the earth will once again be rebuilt and ruled by the Kingdom of heaven which exists elsewhere. When this rule takes place, it will come down from Heaven where Jesus rules this particular Kingdom and all of those who will be a part of it will reign this planet. It will be a new earth and new heaven, meaning something that does not already exist on this planet.Jesus' Kingdom is not currently on this planet, though his Kingdom is also channeled through every believer (on earth as it is in Heaven). This world is occupied by many various principalities, powers and rulers in high places but will one day be resurrected as a glorious planet and controlled by the Kingdom of heaven.
Thanks - but this is not what the bible says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
God did.Show me where God said he has stopped speaking to man, remembering that god wrote not one word or punctuation of the Holy Bible; men did, and men can make mistakes.
2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is God breathed. This means every word of the Scriptures is breathed out by God. This is one reason why Jesus in Matthew 5 said not one bit will be scrapped. So please don't ask me to remember lies and misrepresentations of the Scriptures or about them. I have provided several texts that show God has chosen to stop talking until the second coming. Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8; Daniel 9: 24. You have yet to refute any of these passages.
That is why James tells us how to properly interpret to gain wisdom.
If you are correct about men making mistakes - does not that include the little pearl of wisdom you are wanting me to read in James about wisdom? Perhaps James is mistaken? And if so- then it puts you up a creek without a paddle. Better to see the whole scriptures - OT and NT as infallible because it is written by the Holy Spirit - and by humans. Fully God and Fully Man. Very similar to Jesus.
I agree with your assessment that the Genesis account "Let us make..." is not a royal we; God is far greater than that need that royals have to be more than their subjects. I believe gods are stratified. Yes, God is the "creator god," but others can be delegated by him to perform certain functions of creation. We know a movie producer does not do all the work, just because he is called "producer." Skilled delegates do much work of the work on God's word.
I don't have an issue with delegated responsibility. What I asked for you to do was show where it is in the Scriptures - not just speculate.
God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, distinct personages who are completely aligned and one in purpose, but not one in body.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons - but they are all ONE GOD. No one is talking about bodies except you. There are NO other Creator Gods. In fact there is no one to compare to God the Triune ONE.
Jesus is not the Father.Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.
I worship but ONE GOD. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three but they are ONE. I worship them as the ONE and the MANY. TRINITY. I don't know what you mean by undirectional fawning - is that something that Mormons do? We pray to the Father, through Jesus by the power of the Spirit. We worship the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Well respectfully, you are not certain.Well, respectively, back at you. You have no idea of what I am certain. Return to James' epistle, and read the entirety of it. We can be certain, but there are specific steps to follow, and they cannot be short-circuited and expect to have that which is lacking in certainty. Learning is a continuous process, and we'd best be about it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. Therein is my evidence. It's called putting faith to work.
Your certainty respectfully is based on a testimony. I know that you know that you know that you know. But I also know that you cannot know. And I am certain about that. Why? Not because I have followed some magical process of steps - but because the bible - God breathed denies your words. I know because God said it. Not because I have followed a process and had a wonderful nice warm fuzzy feeling in my heart. My certainty comes from truth - not an experience.
I am not even sure you understand the contradiction you have placed yourself into. You want me to return to James' epistle. Why? If you are correct above - it is only man's words - which make mistakes. It cannot - if you are correct - give me certainty - because you have just told me - it cannot be trusted. I am sure you have a wonderful way to explain why I should trust something which I cannot trust. I will wait while you enlighten me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hypothetical animal souls in a hypothetical heaven.
Interesting response. I would think that pets that we live with now are hmmm not hypothetical. Perhaps you have imaginary ones?
Heaven is not hypothetical. You don't know where it is and how to get there - that is because you choose to rely on other people's testimonies. Have you been to the Solomon Islands? If not, do you think it is merely a hypothetical place? If you think it is real, on what basis? On someone else's testimony. Of course you could jump in a plane and go there. But you won't. You might say you could - but that is just a hypothetical. And all based on someone else's testimony until you actually do it. But you won't. You have no need to go there. So it is always going to be hypothetical based on someone's testimony that you believe is a fact for you. The thing is - while you hold such hypotheticals in your head - and this is just one really silly one, that you reject other people's views as hypothetical is nothing short of hypocrisy. Now that is fine so far as it goes - but just remember - it is what it is.
Undoubtedly.
For you this possible the case.
Hypothetical viruses, bacteria and fungi too.
Our scientists every year estimate thousands of new species are lost - hypothetically without ever producing proof of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have to say that I am not sure whether your pet will go to heaven or not. I do think that animals will be in heaven.
I would like to think that pets go. But I don't have any evidence to support that they will.
On the other hand, I do think that there will be many animals in heaven of sorts of varieties including perhaps many of our extinct ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Who says God stopped speaking with Biblical uttering?
God did.
That places limits on God, and we, certainly, have no authority to do that.
No, it is God placing limits on us. And he certainly has that authority.
The Genesis creation account refers to multiples in the creation process:, specifically in the creation of man " in our image" Gen 1: 26
I don't agree. The term "in our image" has been understood by different interpreters in different ways. Some have suggested it is a royal we. I think that is weak since God never uses that term anywhere in the bible.
Some suggest that it is talking about God and various other entities. I think this is weak too as the Bible declares that only God is the creator God.
Some suggest it is talking about the Trinity. It might be. I think it is possible since God's is the only image that humanity was made in. Yet I find it unlikely since it it seems to be an argument out of convenience rather than out of the doctrine of the Trinity.
You have said there were others in the creative process - apart from that verse which might mean a variety of things - how would you justify it?
Colossians 1 indicates that Jesus Christ was part of the Creation process as indeed John 1 tells us as well. God - in the sense of elohim was part of it - since that is the word used in Genesis 1. But are they different or are they two persons within the Trinitarian Godhead.
Yes, there are plentiful verses that advise that we worship no other gods but God, our Father.
That sentence does not compute since it is not true. There are many verses which talk of the worship of Jesus. Jesus is not the Father.
But that does not discount that there are others with whim he associates, who are the progenitors of other people not of this earth, as I am certain our Father has also populated other earths like ours.
Well respectfully, you are not certain. You have no evidence that any other planet has life. Nor do you have any evidence that the Father populated other worlds. Nor do you have any evidence to support that others with whom God associates helped create people on our world. You have no scientific evidence. You have no biblical evidence. You have one verse - one verse only that says - "in our image". That is not evidence - and clearly not proof.
Also I am not discounting on a whim. If I do not see any evidence for something and no one produces any - and I hold to the Scriptures, which do not agree with your beliefs - that does not make it a whim.
That I owe them no allegiance does not say they do not exist.
That you think they do exist - does not make them exist. Produce your evidence. And then we can discuss further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
God used to speak to people from clouds and burning bushes, so why doesn't he go on Facebook and show pictures of Heaven?
Hebrews 1:1-3 provides the reason why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Firstly, God created HeavenDid God create his heaven, or ours? Genesis does not tell us. It does tell us there are multiple gods, however. Considering that string theory allows for the potential that the universe operates in cycles of expansion [from a big bang?] to contraction, in repeated cycles over timelessness, or, eternity, if you will, and that our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.
God created heaven. The bible does not tell us there are multiple Gods. The Bible clearly distinguishes between the ONE true God and every other pretender. There is only one creator God. It may be true that sometimes different beings are referred to as gods in the bible - Satan is called the god of this world. Jesus called humans gods. Angels are sometimes referred to as gods. Yet there is only one creator God in the bible. Every other so called god pales into insignificance next to this Creator God.
I don't particularly see how string theory is relevant in this situation. For despite the theory - no other dimension has been established to be true.
ASo, perhaps the "heaven" of "heaven and earth" as described in Genesis is a more local phenomenon than the entire universe., such as is suggested by Genesis, since the sun, moon and stars that volume describes are to be used for our "day from night, and times and seasons, and days and years." [Gen 1: 14] Not very many stars out there are used for those purposes for us on Earth, are they?
You can have your theories - go for it. Yet unless it springs from the bible then it is pointless to suggest it is helpful. For me when people don't really use the bible or know Jesus - it is like they are half tuned into a radio station hearing only static and other noise. Even people who are tuned in - mostly only see the world in black and white. But heaven will be full coloured and vivid. You enjoy your white noise. Go for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol, you are in for a big and delightful surprise. Earth could be considered a type of heaven, perhaps one day it could become one (out of many others) but to limit God to this one planet is very unfortunate. And what a waste of unimaginable space on every level.
Wow!
I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself. Nor do I limit God to one planet. I take the view that heaven is God's home on earth. Not that earth is heaven. In the bible - Heaven is described firstly as the Garden of Eden. And secondly in Revelation 21-22 as a city. When you read the different descriptions and compare the two - you notice the Garden of Eden is the original heaven and the City is the eternal or everlasting one. The city is basically the Garden of Eden on Steroids. The mature version.
When people die on this planet - if they are have trusted Jesus, they go to paradise. And they have plenty of things to do there. Work, eat, sleep, make love, have recreation, worship God. Then after the world is judged - say in Revelation 20, Jesus takes them with himself to the New Jerusalem on Earth. This is God's home. I suspect it is not a second place - but a reconditioned - or restored place. The beauty of course is that there is also a new earth. God's city is a beautiful garden city on the new earth. This is home on earth.
The thing about God is that he does not need a home for himself. He was before heaven and does not need heaven. Yet because he wants to have a relationship with his people - he has fashioned this city, similarly to planting a Garden in the first place, as his home for his people to visit.
We however live in the time between the Garden of Eden and Judgment Day. In the time often known as the now and not yet. This means that we don't experience heaven until we die in the Garden or the City. Rather, due to God's wonderful grace - we experience heaven in the Church. The church performs a similar function to heaven. It is God's place to dwell on earth to meet with his people. Again if you did a biblical search you would find a common theme throughout the OT. The tabernacle in the desert. The temple in Jerusalem. People of God in the promised land. The church in the NT. God meets and dwells with his people.
The temple is an image of heaven. As is the church, one reason it is called a temple of God.
This means heaven MUST be God's home on earth. At least in accordance with the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So where exactly is heaven?
I say on earth. The Jewish and Christian lingo puts heaven and earth hand in hand. This is in contradistinction to every other culture and religion in the universe.
Maybe your specific GOD utilises exoplanets somewhere.
Nuh.
So how would we get there?
Well, I suggest trusting in Jesus and then dying.
Even travelling at light speed it would take millions of years.Or is it just more theistic magic?
Sorry Heaven is not out there - it is here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
My understanding:1. Heaven is actually a realm of multiple kingdoms, not a single place, each geared to the relative success of people to be obedient to God's law. Thus, we will be stratified by judgment, but all kingdoms, will be more glorious than Earth is now.2. We will all resurrect with physical, but perfect bodies at roughly our prime in mortality; about 30.3 & 4. Hell is in outer darkness wherein no light exists, and which will be miserable in the extreme, but not really a place of fire and brimstone, just a place of utter and complete disappointment and lack of progress. Satan's domain. The difference is, however, that while people who will be in Hell are still resurrected, physical beings, those bodies will be of no advantage to those peopple because there will be no ability to continue to progress, and they will have power over Satan, who remains a spirit only.5. Heaven is eternal. Time, in effect, is meaningless. In heaven, we will continue to learn and progress and have the opportunity to become3 like God, being gods and goddesses, ourselves.
thanks 949havoc.
In relation to heaven being eternal, I disagree for a couple of reasons. Firstly, God created Heaven, so there must have been a time when Heaven was not in existence. Secondly, the bible talks of heaven being destroyed and being replaced by a new one. So on two basis - at least Heaven cannot be eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What is your understanding of heaven and why?It depends really, because there are many different places in creation. There is more than a single heaven just like there is more than a single culture or state. Universally (principally) speaking, heaven is an abode where those who deserve to enter indeed inhabit such places. Heaven is not really a religious gimmick that pretends "if I believe this or that...then I get to go here for eternity" type of baloney. Even believers won't inherit heavens because their heart and actions have no relevance in earning elevated places within God's vast creation.There are many, many beautiful planets that souls will get to experience when they leave this world, and given their actions and intentions (not beliefs) are contrary to intentions and actions of purity and integrity they too will not be permitted to enter a paradise and the rulers of such paradises will never allow it. One's beliefs, actions and intentions must align in unison to inherit heavens no matter what beliefs they hold.Is the heaven - if it exists - that some people go to when they die - the same one we end up in?This is the major misconception that pervades religious thought/idealism. There isn't a single place or a single heaven in God's vast creation and there isn't one or two options when we die about where we could go. God does not accommodate a single culture and then reject all other God lovers of other cultures. That is not how this works. Surely, there is a Christian Kingdom of Heaven....if it is your interest, your passion and patriotic pleasure then this is the place for you. Now, all you have to do is meet the requirements for you to gain it. The downside is that you may not meet the requirements.But to shed light on the whole of reality, there isn't just a single hell either. However there are as many misconceptions about hell as there is for heaven.Do we have bodies?Yes. There is much to understand about what that means though.Is Hell real?Yes. But not in the way certain religions depict it.If so what is it like?Hells are astral prisons. They exist as the same concept we have on earth with imprisoning criminals. They are meant to restrain and correct criminal transgressions against Karmetic and Divine laws. Now if you study various sources regarding hells it is quite clear there are levels and variations of punishments. And of course punishment is always congruent with crimes committed. Hells are not eternal, they are not meant for beliefs...they are strictly concerning actions and can be very scary depending upon the soul being restrained.And heaven - does it consist in time or in eternity?Heavens are within creation, they are apart of God's creative hand which exists within timeframes. They too are never eternal. Now, astral bodies can live for eons....and so "time" is very different to our notion of living a very short temporal life. You can live in heavens for eons, and it would seem like an eternity. But really break down eternity, it's something that must continue forever. Even in your greatest moments there is no reason God would inflict eternity on any of your experiences.Much of this will be determined by you anyways, you may be very content to live in heaven for eons of time, perhaps what you perceive as eternal. But at some point you're going to want to live a temporal life again, perhaps have another family where you will once again believe you will die and inherit a place of untold beauty with the ones you love and it will be permitted to you.If you want to escape the whole game totally and gain the understanding of what you truly are and what creation is your experiences will be completely different. It's your game, you are the one driving your seat and whatever it is you desire will be what dictates your future experiences. All in all, your soul comes from an eternal Reality where there is no form and there is no illusion of duality as we perceive it within creation and you are simply playing within God's vast works of art. When you tire of the game you forfeit creation, including heavens.
Thanks for posting. Where do you get all of your information for such things? And how do you divide the good from the bad? And how can you be sure you are correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The problem is is you think it should be sacred for everyone because it's sacred for you and your religion. Good Friday means absolutely nothing to me. And I'm not sure why you feel every single human being on the planet should have to stop what they're doing that day so it can be sacred for you. Halloween is actually very sacred for me and there is a whole spiritual practice done the same day as traditional cultural practices are done. So I can set up an alter and do a ritual on Halloween and then pass out candy and not feel like anything's not being held sacred because I'm holding it sacred. In my home, in my life, between me and my gods, Halloween is sacred. That should be what Christian holidays are for you. I know plenty of Americans who do all kinds of sacred traditions Christmas Eve and Christmas Day that honor Christ and honor his Father and then open presents. Because a holy day and a holiday are not the same thing. And Halloween is not American. Halloween comes from Europe it is a European tradition that has expanded to the European colonized areas. There's also a huge commercial component to it. But you don't have to engage in any part of that you don't want to but forbidding others then becomes tyranny.
Um, I don't think I said that. I was merely comparing different traditions noting some have become more popular and others have become less so. I did say Halloween was American. Thanks for correcting me. I had believed it had something to do with some American thing - but seems from what you say I was wrong.
I do think that national holidays are only justified if it is something that everyone can embrace. They don't have to embrace it or even agree with it in the same way. But I do might say I do get annoyed with traditions that I don't want to be part of personally. It is not very nice to be abused because I didn't take time to prepare some sweets for children. My house got egged. And spray painted. I would not expect everyone to attend church on Christmas or Good Friday. In fact many don't. But to be made to feel bad because I don't celebrate environmental day or Australia Day or something I don't agree with is madness. Yet if it is a national holiday - then I take a day off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There are people who think religion is just some fancy club you choose to join and even ought to join if those around you believe(d) in it while you grew up. These people don't for one second genuinely adhere to their religion and while they are not fundamentalists, they're a different kind of problem and you can't address that problem without getting cancelled these days because, you're potentially called racist but at least called prejudiced.For instance, if I point out the sexism and severe homophobia present in Islamic culture and religion, all it takes is the Muslim individual I'm debating with to say 'but I am not sexist or a homophobe' to then put me in a position where they can play the prejudice card if I push further. Similarly, all religions can do this as almost all religions are considered to be things you're born into that are a part of your identity, rather than things you believe genuinely and can defend against critique.Therefore, the answer to your question is no, I wouldn't join it. I gain nothing from pretending to and am too intelligent to join a religion I don't believe in for any reason other than superficial gain (I can't fool myself into thinking I believe in it just because my family and/or friends do, I am too smart to fall for my own self-deceit).Religion should be based on ideas clashing, instead it's very much based on nonsense traditions as opposed to genuine outlooks on reality and morality. It then becomes very precarious as you can't attack the religion without being seen as a (racist) bigoted prick who is prejudiced against the culture and particular hymns, dances and dresses they have.Even in today's more secular world people haven't yet separated religion from their own racial, national and/or cultural identity. I want to see religion as an idea you believe in, not some set of traditions you and your friends and family carry out and sing about once a week (or even five times a day) because that has zero bearing on whether your god is real and whether your moral code is the one to follow.
Interesting insights. Yet I disagree. While much of what you have elucidated to is possibly correct, there is also an element of cynicism to your words.
Religion is not a fancy club. And from my perspective it ought not be. Yet there are many who would say otherwise.
Pointing out what you perceive to be faults of a religion - no matter what it is - is going to give them reason to call you bigoted. Sexism and homophobia, or tolerance and relativity of ethics, or love and hate, or revelation or niceness, or science or not are all based in people's beliefs. And in our particular cultural generation some are accepted and some are not. In the next generation things might well reverse again. Pointing out that we disagree is not conducive to truth. It is only likely to lead to division.
I wouldn't join either but for none of the reasons you give.
Religion should not be based on anything but the truth. It has nothing to do with the clash of ideas. That is what philosophy is about. Religion might have philosophical components but it is not based on the clash of ideas. Not all traditions are nonsense - elements of cynicism on your part. Why do you want to attack religions? What an arrogant thing to want to do.
You might like to see religion as an idea you believe in. Many people including me - don't see it as an idea. For me religion - if that is the correct word - is about a relationship with the maker of the universe and reality. It goes far beyond an idea. It actually is about truth.
Secularism can't divorce itself from religion because it is religious. It might lie and try to deceive itself that it is not religious. Yet - religion really is a different word for worldview. It is the way we see the world. Religions mostly tend to see it through the eyes of its perception of a deity or deities and how they brought this universe into existence or even how they were brought into existence by something else. The secular worldview simply omits a reference to a deity and somehow thinks this makes it non-religious. It might fool itself. But the rest of the world and every other worldview remains unconvinced.
I like traditions. I think having a tradition for the sake of a tradition is silly. Yet also to delete a tradition because you can't think why it exists is also silly.
Meaningfulness is helpful. Sometimes we lose the meaning because it becomes so familiar we fail to hold onto its meaning. This is why in the OT the Jewish culture not only repeated their traditions but always explained why they did it - so they did not lose its meaning in the tradition and ritual itself.
We have just celebrated Halloween in Australia - I don't know why. It is an American tradition not an Aussie one. But it is becoming more popular because it is more and more commercialised and as Australia becomes more like America in culture. But it is not our tradition. But it might become one. Christmas will remain. Not in the way it has historically been celebrated - now it is more about presents and family time. Once upon a time Good Friday was sacred. No sport no newspapers. Now it is considered just another opportunity for people to make money and play sport, No longer sacred. Anzac Day on the other hand has become very sacred. They still play sport. But no divisive talk is allowed. We all have to be respectful for those who have fallen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Does this religion allow you to have 5 children with 3 different wives? I know Christianity does.
Hmm - so a criteria to join a religion has something to do with sex? Interesting that your mind goes there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The same stupid questions.Always get the same stupid answers.If you're going to promote fantastical ideologies.....You need to be able to back them up with something more substantial than Middle Eastern folk tales and myth.So Poly....Just unequivocally prove the existence of a specific GOD.....And I expect that Stephen will stop asking "stupid questions".And you obviously do give a s***.......Because you continually respond with angry rants.
Her point is valid though. Atheists do come in and ask the same questions over and over again. There is nothing new under the sun. Atheists don't have the ability to take an answer and think it through. That is why they keep repeating them over and over again. Some theists do it too.
The irony of a religious forum where the atheist comes in swaggering like he knows everything is not lost on most people. But the next time an atheist comes up with something new - and unasked question - will be the first time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is sin?I suppose it's an assumption that something is intrinsically wrong.I am of the opinion that anything that can occur is intrinsically possible.And sin, assumptions, wrong and beliefs are human data constructs relative to human data constructs.
So you don't actually know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There's one of them there stupid repeat comments.
Agreed. But it is what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What language do you speak in Heaven? Is it Vulcan, dif-tor heh smusma?
Great question FLRW. I like to see you expanding your mind.
Do they speak Vulcan in heaven? Hmm - do you know?
Perhaps they like to watch re-runs of Star Trek? Do they tvs in heaven? And electricity?
What do you think and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Does the Bible, Torah or Koran not address these? If they do not then I imagine it's not important.
I am wanting to know what people think about these things. Both the Torah and the Bible (Torah is the law in the OT) talk about these things.
Yet, it would be enlightening to know what people in general think about when it comes to heaven. Or the afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well the Hubble telescope hasn't spotted it yet.In my opinion heaven is an internal data construct, relative to death and the uncertainty thereof.Basically, thinking up a nice solution to a worrying thought.Overthink because we do.
Ok. So you don't believe in heaven.
I suspect people looking into space are letting their Greek mythology get in the way.
Created:
Posted in:
What is your understanding of heaven and why?
Is the heaven - if it exists - that some people go to when they die - the same one we end up in?
Do we have bodies?
Is Hell real?
If so what is it like?
And heaven - does it consist in time or in eternity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Jesus told us in the story of Lazerus and the rich man, that even if a man arose from the dead it would not help people to believe.
There is NOTHING I can do or provide that will make you believe.
You don't even believe in sin - so why would you believe he died for you?
What is sin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Lazarus really died. Jesus used him in a parable - the one about heaven and Hell. Although Jesus referred to Paradise. Or Abraham's bosem.
He died - and went to heaven. His master died and went to Hell.
No second chances Stephen. It is only while you have breath that hope is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thanks Poly,
I appreciate the sentiment. Sometimes I get frustrated by the repetition and at other times I like to engage as well.
Yes, it can get tiresome, but I also feel at times a duty to ensure that both side of a discussion get an airing.
Mostly, it really does not bother me. Yet admittedly at other times it becomes draining.
Still, I appreciate your sentiments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Keep barking up that old tree. I am not Ethang. Never have been. This is one of the reasons I don't care to discuss things with you. You just want to pile up lies on top of lies.
Ethang as far as I can tell works in Africa somewhere. But is an American. I live in Australia. I have never been to Africa.
If you can't figure out your own answers - go and look it up on the internet. Or go and find your secret book on Mark. Despite the fact that it has well and truly been shown to be a fraud.
Go and jump back in your rabbit hole - with your tin foil hat. What is the bet you have not had a vaccine.
The 5G probably will give you Covid. LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
My students are prepared to listen and reason with me. They argue with me - which I encourage them to do.Yet fail to qualify your own statements made about god and scripture on this forum. You must have the dumbest students in all of Australia, or have you moved to another country this week?.
No that is just your impression based entirely on statements you think prove your point. Perhaps I do have the dumbest students in Australia - but compared to you - they are Einstein. I have always lived in Australia. I don't desire to move any other place. Weird Statement. England of course - particularly around Droitwich
Worcestershire I reckon is full of the most obvious losers.
On the other hand, you think you are the MASTER TEACHER and although you suggest you are simply asking questions - it is not to learn.Opinion doesn't count for anything, Reverend.
Except when the opinion comes from an expert.
MASTER TEACHERNope. I am not here to teach anyone about anything. I simply ask questions concerning these unreliable scriptures, make comments and share my thoughts , ideas and opinions about your unreliable scriptures. And as I have already said, who better to ask than someone with your excellent accreditations and qualifications.#20
LOL! Of course you are. Master Stevie Blunder, where is your Padawan?
It is to intentionally find holes in other people's reasoning.That will be discussion and debate, Reverend. And there shouldn't be any holes to find if your reasoning is sound and the New Testament is sound, now should there be? But holes there are. The point Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete is that the Jesus story is full of holes because it is made up of ambiguous half stories contradictions and dead ends.
Funny man. Every debate in history is full of holes. Having holes is not the issue - and never has been. You have yet to prove a hole in the Christian narrative. You assert much - but NEVER with any evidence.
Take Lazarus; He was obviously a character of some great importance to Jesus and the Jews wanted him dead, but the bible never explains why? What happened to Lazarus "who Jesus loved and wept over "after he was said to have been "raised from the dead", where does he go? What does he do?
Well actually they do - but you refuse to accept the evidence. A man allegedly raised from the dead is a threat to people who see the person who allegedly raised him from the dead. I think afterwards, he probably wrote the gospel we know as John.
Why didn't Jesus afford the same "miracle" of resurrection to John the Baptist his own blood and said by Jesus to be " the "greatest prophet that ever lived" when he died yet didn't even weep over?
Ah, relying upon that old chestnut. LOL! the argument from silence.
Where did Jesus stay while growing up in Egypt. Who taught him his craft? What happened to Mary "the blessed among women" who but for a few verses seems to have been written out of scripture altogether? And Joseph, where did he disappear to?
Which craft are you referring too? None of your questions demonstrate anything. The gospels are about Jesus. It is not about the narrative of every other person in his life. It is not a book trying to find the answer to every lose end. Your lack of understanding of genre is beautiful.
So do you see Reverend how just a few simple questions about these unreliable biblical half stories can cause anyone interested had they mind to- to start looking closer at the bullshite that the likes of you have been for feeding mankind since their childhoods for millennia, ?
Your simple questions are good questions. But well - irrelevant. For not one of them adds or takes away from the gospel story. Do you see that? OR do you think that because Joseph's story disapears that it takes away from what Jesus was doing?
You - like most people find it easy to destroy - but you don't have the capacity to rebuild or to replace.The Jesus story as it has come down to us and has been preached by the likes of you for millennia destroys itself and is reasonably easy to pick apart.And tell me, what is it that you expect me or anyone to replace the Jesus story with once it has been scrutinised, picked apart and shown it for the unreliable mess that it is? Another unreliable story? I have said many times that I cannot support my own theories, opinions or ideas about what I believe is going on in the New Testament.
But you don't pick it apart. you ask a question - and think that - because someone can't answer you in the way you want - that it somehow refutes it. That is dear Stephen - a flaw in thinking. Or are you not even aware of this?
Someone - once said "you can't beat something with nothing".Who said that? One of your other personas? But I agree with whoever said that. And you have nothing to defend you own statements and comments made up on the hoof concerning these unreliable scriptures, do you Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete.
An American potential president in his campaign. Perhaps you might like to look it up.
You have NOT ONCE offered an alternative position that any would be content to replace what you spend your life destroying.My position has been made clear on many occasions on this forum so many times that I am sick of having to repeat it and to you especially.You in particular Reverend afford yourself literary licence to throw into scripture anything you like and throw in conjecture at the drop of an hat while not allowing others to do the likewise and expect no one to challenge you because of your imagined status. Let me tell you, those days are long gone and the educated of the world do, and can, read the scriptures for themselves if they care to do so.
Yes your position has been made abundantly clear. This is why I say you have nothing to offer.
And this changes the world bit by bit - one person at a time. It was not meant to be an immediate thing for the whole world at once. It will however change over time - one person at a time - one family at a time - until the world is reconciled with God.Does the bible actually say this, Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete? Where?
Yes it does. Stevie Blinder!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A conditioned theist will repeat the data that they feel compelled to repeat.The conditioned atheist is the same I suppose.Though relative to acquired human knowledge, the atheist now has the benefit of logic on their side.The Hubble Telescope, sort of puts into perspective, a floaty about bloke that nails his kids to wooden crosses for our sins.
I reject the assertion that I am conditioned. I just would like atheists to admit what they are - and not to hide behind philosophical arguments of why they think they have the upper hand.
Take your - "the atheist now has the benefit of logic on their side." as an example - it simply is a nonsense.
The Atheist does not rely upon logic. The Atheist relies upon an inconsistent premise.
Yet, honestly, Zed, your response does not really surprise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A love, hate relationship.Two minds inextricably lockedIn a remotely passionate binary embrace.
I don't hate Stephen.
Nevertheless, if he were to ask genuine questions - searching for answers rather than to attack it would be a more beneficial discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you really think your endless goading is going to make me change my mind?
I'm not interested in discussing anything with a person's whose agenda is akin to a tin foil hat - rabbit hole.
I have to deal with enough people in our current pandemic - falling down such holes - without entertaining you as well.
My students are prepared to listen and reason with me. They argue with me - which I encourage them to do.
On the other hand, you think you are the MASTER TEACHER and although you suggest you are simply asking questions - it is not to learn. It is to intentionally find holes in other people's reasoning. That is something you might enjoy and to be honest it is a genuine way of pulling down strongholds. The problem for you though - is that you don't have anything to replace the buildings you pull down.
You - like most people find it easy to destroy - but you don't have the capacity to rebuild or to replace.
Someone - once said "you can't beat something with nothing".
You have NOT ONCE offered an alternative position that any would be content to replace what you spend your life destroying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Nope. Not awkward. Not in the least. I just am not interested in answering your questions. As others will testify, I do answer when I desire too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not interested in answering your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You seriously don't get it do you?
I am not your little boy to go about doing your bidding. You don't want to learn. You just want to make your point and EXPECT everyone to go "wow, isn't he wonderful"!
Well I don't particularly think you do any homework. You just have read a couple of books - and simply cut and paste it.
Created: