Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: john on February 18, 2016, 09:48:53 AM
-
Our old friend Hope raised the subject of resurrection in the Dawkins thread. It got me thinking again about one of the many aspects of Christian faith which cause me trouble:
So, if you've been good, when you die you go to live forever in a happy place with Jesus, so the idea goes.
An old man with severe arthritic pain who lived a good life dies and is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
An old woman who was born deaf dies. Will she be deaf in heaven?
A baby dies in childbirth and never did anything wrong and is resurrected. Will it remain a baby in heaven? And who will look after it and change it's nappies till mom gets there 50 years later?
As a result of of a battlefield injury a soldier has his legs and arms blown off and his torso damaged, medics fight to save him but after a month or so he succumbs to result of his massive trauma and dies. When resurrected will he get his arms and legs back?
A devoted young married Christian couple are separated at 25 years old when he dies in a train crash. She lives on Forever faithful to her husbands memory and dies aged 96 suffering with severe Alzheimer's disease. When resurrected will she recognized her ex hubby? Will he still find this 96 year old woman attractive?
To me there is so much about the concept of resurrection that just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Discuss please!!!!
-
Our old friend Hope raised the subject of resurrection in the Dawkins thread. It got me thinking again about one of the many aspects of Christian faith which cause me trouble:
So, if you've been good, when you die you go to live forever in a happy place with Jesus, so the idea goes.
An old man with severe arthritic pain who lived a good life dies and is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
An old woman who was born deaf dies. Will she be deaf in heaven?
A baby dies in childbirth and never did anything wrong and is resurrected. Will it remain a baby in heaven? And who will look after it and change it's nappies till mom gets there 50 years later?
As a result of of a battlefield injury a soldier has his legs and arms blown off and his torso damaged, medics fight to save him but after a month or so he succumbs to result of his massive trauma and dies. When resurrected will he get his arms and legs back?
A devoted young married Christian couple are separated at 25 years old when he dies in a train crash. She lives on Forever faithful to her husbands memory and dies aged 96 suffering with severe Alzheimer's disease. When resurrected will she recognized her ex hubby? Will he still find this 96 year old woman attractive?
To me there is so much about the concept of resurrection that just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Discuss please!!!!
1 Corinthians 15:43-44 provides the very answer to your question.
-
If this saying of Jesus is anything to go by, it is possibly a spiritual abode rather than physical.
"Your body is made from earthly elements but if you lose your valuable inner essence how will you replenish it? Then of what good are you but to be returned to the earth to be trodden under foot."
-
Our old friend Hope raised the subject of resurrection in the Dawkins thread. It got me thinking again about one of the many aspects of Christian faith which cause me trouble:
So, if you've been good, when you die you go to live forever in a happy place with Jesus, so the idea goes.
An old man with severe arthritic pain who lived a good life dies and is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
An old woman who was born deaf dies. Will she be deaf in heaven?
A baby dies in childbirth and never did anything wrong and is resurrected. Will it remain a baby in heaven? And who will look after it and change it's nappies till mom gets there 50 years later?
As a result of of a battlefield injury a soldier has his legs and arms blown off and his torso damaged, medics fight to save him but after a month or so he succumbs to result of his massive trauma and dies. When resurrected will he get his arms and legs back?
A devoted young married Christian couple are separated at 25 years old when he dies in a train crash. She lives on Forever faithful to her husbands memory and dies aged 96 suffering with severe Alzheimer's disease. When resurrected will she recognized her ex hubby? Will he still find this 96 year old woman attractive?
To me there is so much about the concept of resurrection that just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Discuss please!!!!
Surely it is the notion that only those who get 'saved', however bad they are, will go to heaven, whilst the good 'unsaved' will go to hell, which is very nasty?
-
Surely it is the notion that only those who get 'saved', however bad they are, will go to heaven, whilst the good 'unsaved' will go to hell, which is very nasty?
Christianity doesn't talk about the good unsaved though does it?
-
1 Corinthians 15:43-44 provides the very answer to your question.
You have a different definition of 'answer' to the rest of us, one that runs "Bald, unsubstantiated assertions in an ancient text" instead of "A rational explanation founded on evidence."
-
Christianity doesn't talk about the good unsaved though does it?
No, but it is clear that in order to be saved you need to have belief- churches and individuals who don't believe that go against what the Bible teaches. So it's apparent that there are good, unsaved people.
-
You have a different definition of 'answer' to the rest of us, one that runs "Bald, unsubstantiated assertions in an ancient text" instead of "A rational explanation founded on evidence."
Surely though here it is merely an expression of belief of what will happen that was asked for Vlad pointed in direction of statement that it won't be physical bodies, so the question in the OP as regards those is addressed. It didn't ask for evidence.
-
You have a different definition of 'answer' to the rest of us, one that runs "Bald, unsubstantiated assertions in an ancient text" instead of "A rational explanation founded on evidence."
I'm afraid John had entered into the premise of resurrection and asked pertinent rational questions based on that premise and received a rational statement based on that premise. Wobble dibble would have been an irrational reply, I'm not sure whether replying as you did that the answer is meaningless in your held belief was exactly rational.
What is irrational about a spiritual body.It can't be falsified that is all.
-
No, but it is clear that in order to be saved you need to have belief- churches and individuals who don't believe that go against what the Bible teaches. So it's apparent that there are good, unsaved people.
I don't see that that is true at all. If you believe in moral non realism no one is good or bad.
-
I don't see that that is true at all. If you believe in moral non realism no one is good or bad.
Was Jesus into that then?
-
Was Jesus into that then?
Beg pardon.
-
So the resurrected person will be a spiritual rather than a physical thing.
OK but.......
The person resurrected's spirit will be based upon its life experience. So how will the resurrected spirit of say a dead newly born child sit alongside that of a one who lived a full life and died aged 90?
I still cannot see how anyone can give any mileage to this concept.
-
So the resurrected person will be a spiritual rather than a physical thing.
OK but.......
The person resurrected's spirit will be based upon its life experience. So how will the resurrected spirit of say a dead newly born child sit alongside that of a one who lived a full life and died aged 90?
I still cannot see how anyone can give any mileage to this concept.
CS Lewis reckoned that everyone will be looking forward rather than backward
-
As though he'd know.
-
As though he'd know.
Well I think he surmised that the encounter with God is so wonderful that that would be the case.
-
I don't see that that is true at all. If you believe in moral non realism no one is good or bad.
But Christians are not moral non-realists, are they? They do believe that some people are saved, and some not saved, unless you are a universalist.
Who then is saved?
-
Dear John,
It got me thinking again about one of the many aspects of Christian faith which cause me trouble:
Does it keep you awake at night, all this nonsense we Christians chunter on about :o
I think Vlads quote from Corinthians was spot on but when I think about the afterlife, which is not very often, to busy with the here and now, I think about the Holy Trinity, we just become part of the whole, saying that I quite like the Pagan idea of Summerland or what about reincarnation, now I do think quite a lot about reincarnation, what would I like to be reincarnated as, a bird of the air is my favourite, but knowing my luck I would probably come back as a George Square flea ridden Doo with one leg, being constantly chased by some snot nosed kid as I try to enjoy a thrown away Greggs sausage roll >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners (a poster who seems more sensible than most) asked me.....
Does it keep you awake at night, all this nonsense we Christians chunter on about :o
Well frankly yes. In earlier times in one way, currently in another.
I was brought up as a regular CofE attender and sang in the choir till my mid teens and was a believer. Then a couple of things happened to make me rethink my beliefs, my father died aged only 46 and I started to study science seriously for work. The dichotomy between my beliefs and my science/logic studies was a problem as was gods unfairness at taking my dad before I ever really got to know him, I was a schoolboy when he died. Also there was the awful feelings of guilt I had imaging my Dad watching and tut tutting at me from heaven at my every misdeed....some 60 years later I still feel a bit of this guilt. My church teachings planted that guilt on me. So these aspects kept me awake.
Later in life/currently "the nonsense" still causes "Sleeplessness" when I ask a question like my OP I expect to hear some sort of consistent answer from Christians but I get instead a wide variety of totally different answers, some waffle, some insane ramblings, some who can know the mind of god replies, etc. You guys have had over 2000 years to figure this stuff out and still you haven't got anything sensible/logical in the way of an explanation.
And still you infest the minds of the young with these harmful beliefs.
Yep it keeps me awake, thinking about it.
-
Gonners (a poster who seems more sensible than most) asked me.....
Does it keep you awake at night, all this nonsense we Christians chunter on about :o
Well frankly yes. In earlier times in one way, currently in another.
I was brought up as a regular CofE attender and sang in the choir till my mid teens and was a believer. Then a couple of things happened to make me rethink my beliefs, my father died aged only 46 and I started to study science seriously for work. The dichotomy between my beliefs and my science/logic studies was a problem as was gods unfairness at taking my dad before I ever really got to know him, I was a schoolboy when he died. Also there was the awful feelings of guilt I had imaging my Dad watching and tut tutting at me from heaven at my every misdeed....some 60 years later I still feel a bit of this guilt. My church teachings planted that guilt on me. So these aspects kept me awake.
Later in life/currently "the nonsense" still causes "Sleeplessness" when I ask a question like my OP I expect to hear some sort of consistent answer from Christians but I get instead a wide variety of totally different answers, some waffle, some insane ramblings, some who can know the mind of god replies, etc. You guys have had over 2000 years to figure this stuff out and still you have got anything sensible/logical in the way of an explanation.
And still you infest the minds of the young with these harmful beliefs.
Yep it keeps me awake, thinking about it.
I'm sorry to hear that, John. I went through virtually the same process of development as you, and I, too, decry this addling of young minds with religious rubbish.
But I have supreme confidence that as time passes and we accumulate more and more knowledge of the way things are, religion will be relegated to its proper place ... mythical studies.
Knowing that I am doing my share of fighting against religious conditioning of the young allows me to sleep well. :)
-
Gonners (a poster who seems more sensible than most) asked me.....
Does it keep you awake at night, all this nonsense we Christians chunter on about :o
Well frankly yes. In earlier times in one way, currently in another.
I was brought up as a regular CofE attender and sang in the choir till my mid teens and was a believer. Then a couple of things happened to make me rethink my beliefs, my father died aged only 46 and I started to study science seriously for work. The dichotomy between my beliefs and my science/logic studies
What branch of lscience deals with spiritual bodies.
-
1 Corinthians 15:43-44 provides the very answer to your question.
1 Corinthiams 15:43-44 !!??
"All men wishing to enter the assembly of the Lord must first queue here to have their genitals inspected in order to ensure nothing is broken or missing. Missing foreskins are OK"?
Sorry. I've been watching Ref Dwarf again.
-
1 Corinthiams 15:43-44 !!??
"All men wishing to enter the assembly of the Lord must first queue here to have their genitals inspected in order to ensure nothing is broken or missing. Missing foreskins are OK"?
Sorry. I've been watching Ref Dwarf again.
If you are going to quote Red Dwarf at least quote from one of the better series not the crap ones.
-
Huge anus
To help with your query I suggest you read some actual science books.
It may help you to start with the ones published by LADYBIRD.
-
Dear John,
I don't know if you read many of my posts, but I will say this, I will gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody to stop our children having their minds infested by harmful beliefs, but I don't see a willing commitment for this, give the kids the facts, the good, bad, and the downright ugly and let them decide.
I see to much of a them and us attitude, theist and atheist at each others throats instead of sitting down and looking for a way forward, religion is not going away, no matter which statistics you look at, and as this little world shrink we see lots of other religions in the mix.
What I do see is a concerted effort by groups such as the BHS and the NSS to show that religion has no relevance, you can be lovely person without religion ( which I don't doubt ) but I don't see a concerted effort to give us a replacement, kids from an early age must be taught right from wrong, Ethics and Morals need to take centre stage, it is far more important than Maths and English.
Kids can learn a lot about living a more fulfilling life by studying all world religions, all world philosophies, atheist and theist need to sit down and talk this through for the sake of future generations.
To end my little rant John, I am here willing and able to talk about a way forward but if all I hear is, it just a load of rubbish then we do the kids an injustice.
Gonnagle.
PS: Don't call me sensible, it does my street cred no good. ;)
-
Leonard
Thanks.
Keep up the good work.
-
Dear Gonners
But..(sorry)..... you are sensible and interesting and entertaining.
A man who one can discuss stuff with. Even if you don't agree.
You don't need street cred, really you don't. So take off that Barber Jkt, deerstalker and the pink wellies. There's a good boy.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_e0YAcy8s4
-
So the resurrected person will be a spiritual rather than a physical thing.
OK but.......
The person resurrected's spirit will be based upon its life experience. So how will the resurrected spirit of say a dead newly born child sit alongside that of a one who lived a full life and died aged 90?
I still cannot see how anyone can give any mileage to this concept.
Perhaps it's like those theories on multiverses.
One baby somewhere would have grown up 😜
-
Enki
See you and I
Raise you Peter Hammill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paE8mnveJVA
-
So, if you've been good, when you die you go to live forever in a happy place with Jesus, so the idea goes.
And at this point, your argument begins to unravel, john. 'Good' isn't a qualifying trait (not to mention that 'good' is such a non-descript term that it is largely meaningless).
An old man with severe arthritic pain ... is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the Bible before asking such a question - the New Testament makes it clear that 1) things like pain, ill-health, and even age will not exist in heaven; and 2) Jesus indicates that one's resuurrection body - be that spiritual or physical - will be 'new'
An old woman who was born deaf dies. Will she be deaf in heaven?
See above
A baby dies in childbirth and never did anything wrong and is resurrected. Will it remain a baby in heaven? And who will look after it and change it's nappies till mom gets there 50 years later?
See above
As a result of of a battlefield injury a soldier has his legs and arms blown off and his torso damaged, medics fight to save him but after a month or so he succumbs to result of his massive trauma and dies. When resurrected will he get his arms and legs back?
See above
A devoted young married Christian couple are separated at 25 years old when he dies in a train crash. She lives on Forever faithful to her husbands memory and dies aged 96 suffering with severe Alzheimer's disease. When resurrected will she recognized her ex hubby? Will he still find this 96 year old woman attractive?
As well as 'see above', Jesus teaches that human practices, such as marriage, will no longer be a concept in heaven.
To me there is so much about the concept of resurrection that just doesn't make any kind of sense.
You are obviously making it far more complex than it really is - look at the way in which you have listed 5 scenarios as if they are different, when they are no such thing.
-
So the resurrected person will be a spiritual rather than a physical thing.
OK but.......
The person resurrected's spirit will be based upon its life experience. So how will the resurrected spirit of say a dead newly born child sit alongside that of a one who lived a full life and died aged 90?
Perhaps you could provide us with the Biblical references that support this understanding, john?
I still cannot see how anyone can give any mileage to this concept.
Not sure that anyone sees how you can give any mileage to the concept, john ;)
-
Hopey
Do not consider it worthwhile to discuss this issue with you. You clearly do not grasp the consequences involved.
-
Hopey
Do not consider it worthwhile to discuss this issue with you. You clearly do not grasp the consequences involved.
OK, that's your right, but then refusing to discuss it shows that there is nothing to your concerns in the first place.
-
So the resurrected person will be a spiritual rather than a physical thing.
OK but.......
The person resurrected's spirit will be based upon its life experience. So how will the resurrected spirit of say a dead newly born child sit alongside that of a one who lived a full life and died aged 90?
I still cannot see how anyone can give any mileage to this concept.
I would guess that a mystic might say that the spirit is not about personality and life experience but more about purity of spirit. A 90 year old will need to have become purified of his life's attachments, whereas the child will not have accumulated such attachments .... and so .... 'unless you become as a small child, you will not enter the divine state (Heaven)'.
-
Would someone please, please, please, correct the spelling of the title? Synthetic Dave reads what's there and it's really irritating to hear the word 'resurrection' read as 'resherkshun'
thank you.
-
Would someone please, please, please, correct the spelling of the title? Synthetic Dave reads what's there and it's really irritating to hear the word 'resurrection' read as 'resherkshun'
thank you.
It's spelt wrongly, Susan. It is in fact resurrection.
Edit.
Oh sorry ... now I realise that you know that and want it corrected. Maybe a mod will do it.
-
Susan
so sorry my error caused you trouble.
I do not know how to edit a title.
Hope a mod can sort it for you.
Best Wishes
John
-
Susan
so sorry my error caused you trouble.
I do not know how to edit a title.
Hope a mod can sort it for you.
Best Wishes
John
If you go to the OP and click modify, it allows you to edit the title.
-
Moderator:
I can fix this by moving the thread temporarily, since it needs all the titles of each post to be changed to be certain - give me 10 minutes and I'll fix it.
Update: done.
-
Moderator:
I can fix this by moving the thread temporarily, since it needs all the titles of each post to be changed to be certain - give me 10 minutes and I'll fix it.
Update: done.
Well, done, Gordon. Note to all - mods do an amazing job in the background; pleeze don't diss them!! ;)
-
Thank you, Gordon! Synthetic Dave (do you know, I've only just realised that he has the same initials as me!!!) is happy now. :D
-
Thank you, Gordon! Synthetic Dave (do you know, I've only just realised that he has the same initials as me!!!) is happy now. :D
Susan
If Dave is happy, and more importantly you are happy, then I'm exceedingly happy. :)
-
Gonners (a poster who seems more sensible than most) asked me.....
Does it keep you awake at night, all this nonsense we Christians chunter on about :o
Well frankly yes. In earlier times in one way, currently in another.
I was brought up as a regular CofE attender and sang in the choir till my mid teens and was a believer. Then a couple of things happened to make me rethink my beliefs, my father died aged only 46 and I started to study science seriously for work. The dichotomy between my beliefs and my science/logic studies was a problem as was gods unfairness at taking my dad before I ever really got to know him, I was a schoolboy when he died. Also there was the awful feelings of guilt I had imaging my Dad watching and tut tutting at me from heaven at my every misdeed....some 60 years later I still feel a bit of this guilt. My church teachings planted that guilt on me. So these aspects kept me awake.
Later in life/currently "the nonsense" still causes "Sleeplessness" when I ask a question like my OP I expect to hear some sort of consistent answer from Christians but I get instead a wide variety of totally different answers, some waffle, some insane ramblings, some who can know the mind of god replies, etc. You guys have had over 2000 years to figure this stuff out and still you haven't got anything sensible/logical in the way of an explanation.
And still you infest the minds of the young with these harmful beliefs.
Yep it keeps me awake, thinking about it.
Can't tell if you are a Christian or not. You sound half in and half out. If you are not one then I can't see how these issues really bothers you, and if you wish you were one, because of your past, then I can see how these questions may hang around you. Which is it?
-
1 Corinthiams 15:43-44 !!??
"All men wishing to enter the assembly of the Lord must first queue here to have their genitals inspected in order to ensure nothing is broken or missing. Missing foreskins are OK"?
Sorry. I've been watching Ref Dwarf again.
Which series and episode is that from, I don't recognise it.
-
Beg pardon.
Did Jesus base his teachings on moral non-realism?
-
As well as 'see above', Jesus teaches that human practices, such as marriage, will no longer be a concept in heaven.
Being human is an intrinsic part of who we all are. If Heaven takes that away from you, what is left?
-
I would guess that a mystic might say that the spirit is not about personality and life experience but more about purity of spirit. A 90 year old will need to have become purified of his life's attachments, whereas the child will not have accumulated such attachments .... and so .... 'unless you become as a small child, you will not enter the divine state (Heaven)'.
Time after time, Ekim, I notice no-one picks up on your posts. I guess it's because this is 98% (?) an atheists (materialistically thinking) forum. But yes, nail on the head, once again.
-
Time after time, Ekim, I notice no-one picks up on your posts. I guess it's because this is 98% (?) an atheists (materialistically thinking) forum. But yes, nail on the head, once again.
Shhhhh, I think my cunning plan is working! ;)
-
Shhhhh, I think my cunning plan is working! ;)
Haha..... I'm with you. ;)
-
1 Corinthians 15:43-44 provides the very answer to your question.
John..... Vlad, has it in one, here. This is all you need. But it's also where faith and trust come in; and that is something you can only find yourself.... if and when you are ready.
-
Our old friend Hope raised the subject of resurrection in the Dawkins thread. It got me thinking again about one of the many aspects of Christian faith which cause me trouble:
So, if you've been good, when you die you go to live forever in a happy place with Jesus, so the idea goes.
An old man with severe arthritic pain who lived a good life dies and is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
An old woman who was born deaf dies. Will she be deaf in heaven?
A baby dies in childbirth and never did anything wrong and is resurrected. Will it remain a baby in heaven? And who will look after it and change it's nappies till mom gets there 50 years later?
As a result of of a battlefield injury a soldier has his legs and arms blown off and his torso damaged, medics fight to save him but after a month or so he succumbs to result of his massive trauma and dies. When resurrected will he get his arms and legs back?
A devoted young married Christian couple are separated at 25 years old when he dies in a train crash. She lives on Forever faithful to her husbands memory and dies aged 96 suffering with severe Alzheimer's disease. When resurrected will she recognized her ex hubby? Will he still find this 96 year old woman attractive?
To me there is so much about the concept of resurrection that just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Discuss please!!!!
There is no sickness or pain in heaven.
Revelation 21:4.
King James Bible
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Watch the film.
Babies grow in heaven.
And people become young again not children but young adults.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1929263/
God loves us and wants us free from all that harms or hurts us.
-
God loves us and wants us free from all that harms or hurts us.
That's omnibenevolence taken care of.
An omniscient god would know how to bring about this state of affairs (moreover while sentient creatures are still alive, not after their deaths, where - very conveniently for those who make assertions such as these - it's somewhat difficult to ascertain the truth of the claim); an omnipotent god would be able to bring about this state of affairs; this state of affairs doesn't exist.
So you have a variety of options as to why this state of affairs does not exist. Let's see if you can work out what they are.
-
There is no sickness or pain in heaven.
Revelation 21:4.
King James Bible
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Watch the film.
Babies grow in heaven.
And people become young again not children but young adults.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1929263/
God loves us and wants us free from all that harms or hurts us.
The Bible gives the lie to that silly statement! ::)
-
Jack Knave
Silly statement, it should be obvious that I am not a Christian (anymore), either half in or half out. I EVOLVED.
I consider the bible to be as an important a tale (but little more important) than others like; King Arthur, Robin Hood, Star Trek, etc.
I do not believe in god/s furthermore I think that belief in god is harmful to modern humans, useful as an evolutionary tool though it might once have been. Humanity too has EVOLVED. Well most of us have!
-
So the resurrected will be born anew, as if babies. Presumably therefore with no memories to even out any difference between a 90 year old, who lived a full Christian life and an infant who died in child birth.
Let’s examine the consequences of this idea.
The resurrected will be pure spirit unable to feel pain, sadness, etc. This scuppers the idea that they will consider heaven a reward for a life lived by the example of Christ. The sprit will simply be unaware of what happened before it’s death. It also scuppers the idea (oft suggested by Cof E vicars at least) that the resurrected will be reunited with their pre deceased loved ones, they simply won’t remember each other.
The resurrected will have no memorys. Can they create new ones If they are unable to feel pain, sadness, etc.? And if they have no physical body to experience touch, make noise, hear sound etc. What will they have to build their new memories on?
It doesn’t seem to me that there would be much advantage to being in heaven.
W.T.F.P.
You would be better off going to Hell, perhaps there you could keep your memory to understand why you are being punished and your ability to feel as well too, so you can feel the heat!!! If they cannot again W.T.F.P.
And these are the terrors we put into the minds of young Christian children to control them!.
-
So the resurrected will be born anew, as if babies. Presumably therefore with no memories to even out any difference between a 90 year old, who lived a full Christian life and an infant who died in child birth.
Let’s examine the consequences of this idea.
The resurrected will be pure spirit unable to feel pain, sadness, etc. This scuppers the idea that they will consider heaven a reward for a life lived by the example of Christ. The sprit will simply be unaware of what happened before it’s death. It also scuppers the idea (oft suggested by Cof E vicars at least) that the resurrected will be reunited with their pre deceased loved ones, they simply won’t remember each other.
The resurrected will have no memorys. Can they create new ones If they are unable to feel pain, sadness, etc.? And if they have no physical body to experience touch, make noise, hear sound etc. What will they have to build their new memories on?
It doesn’t seem to me that there would be much advantage to being in heaven.
W.T.F.P.
You would be better off going to Hell, perhaps there you could keep your memory to understand why you are being punished and your ability to feel as well too, so you can feel the heat!!! If they cannot again W.T.F.P.
And these are the terrors we put into the minds of young Christian children to control them!.
The mystic might see it differently, not so much born anew but more dropping the old, which is past oriented, and the imagined, which is future oriented, and remaining consciously present in a 'heavenly' blissful state which is within everybody. The idea is to 'seek first the kingdom of heaven' i.e. now, rather than hope for a resurrection after the body dies.
-
Jack Knave
Silly statement, it should be obvious that I am not a Christian (anymore), either half in or half out. I EVOLVED.
I consider the bible to be as an important a tale (but little more important) than others like; King Arthur, Robin Hood, Star Trek, etc.
I do not believe in god/s furthermore I think that belief in god is harmful to modern humans, useful as an evolutionary tool though it might once have been. Humanity too has EVOLVED. Well most of us have!
If that is the case why do these things keep you awake at night then, and grieve you so, if they are as you say above?
-
Our old friend Hope raised the subject of resurrection in the Dawkins thread. It got me thinking again about one of the many aspects of Christian faith which cause me trouble:
So, if you've been good, when you die you go to live forever in a happy place with Jesus, so the idea goes.
An old man with severe arthritic pain who lived a good life dies and is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
An old woman who was born deaf dies. Will she be deaf in heaven?
A baby dies in childbirth and never did anything wrong and is resurrected. Will it remain a baby in heaven? And who will look after it and change it's nappies till mom gets there 50 years later?
As a result of of a battlefield injury a soldier has his legs and arms blown off and his torso damaged, medics fight to save him but after a month or so he succumbs to result of his massive trauma and dies. When resurrected will he get his arms and legs back?
A devoted young married Christian couple are separated at 25 years old when he dies in a train crash. She lives on Forever faithful to her husbands memory and dies aged 96 suffering with severe Alzheimer's disease. When resurrected will she recognized her ex hubby? Will he still find this 96 year old woman attractive?
To me there is so much about the concept of resurrection that just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Discuss please!!!!
An old man with severe arthritic pain who lived a good life dies and is resurrected, does his pain continue in heaven, it was part of what he became?
Yes if Hope were there too.
It might be a different type of pain.
ippy
-
Thank you, Gordon! Synthetic Dave (do you know, I've only just realised that he has the same initials as me!!!) is happy now. :D
Shouldn't it be Sympathetic Dave, you'd still have the initials in place Susan.
ippy
-
The only trouble is that 'sympathetic' has four syllables which means it would take a fraction of a second longer to say each time!! :D :D
-
Jack Knave asks
If that is the case why do these things keep you awake at night then, and grieve you so, if they are as you say above?
Because I dislike cruelty to children.
I do not want to see human development held back.
And I want to remove at least one of the causes of human conflict.
-
Jack Knave asks
If that is the case why do these things keep you awake at night then, and grieve you so, if they are as you say above?
Because I dislike cruelty to children.
I do not want to see human development held back.
And I want to remove at least one of the causes of human conflict.
What has that got to do with going to heaven if you don't believe in it? It is a superfluous consideration.
-
What has that got to do with going to heaven if you don't believe in it? It is a superfluous consideration.
Going to "heaven" is a self-centred wish. Harming children is an immoral and worrying action.
-
Going to "heaven" is a self-centred wish. Harming children is an immoral and worrying action.
Self centered wish it may be but teaching children to live their lives in fear of that wish, with all the guilt and repression that entails. Without any credible evidence to support the imposition of those beliefs.... adds up to child cruelty.
-
There is no sickness or pain in heaven.
Revelation 21:4.
King James Bible
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
.
God loves us and wants us free from all that harms or hurts us.
Such a shame he couldn't have just started with heaven instead of putting humanity through such pain
-
Yet back in the day, resurrections were no big deal in the ancient Middle East.
The Bible itself tells us how the following individuals all came back to life after they'd died:
1. Widow of Zarephath's son
2. Shunamite's son
3. Man tossed into Elisha's tomb
4. Widow of Nain's son
5. Jairus' daughter
6. Lazarus
7. Tabitha
8. Eutychus
Not forgetting the hundreds (maybe thousands) who zombie-walked their way into Jerusalem.
Of course it wasn't just the Middle East where people came back from the dead but all over the ancient world. Some of these include:
Quetzalcoatl
Ishtar
Osiris
Adonis
Dionysus
Persephone
Tammuz
Baal
Attis
Lemminkainen
Odin
Ganesha
Krishna
So there you have it, returning from the grave used to be much more commonplace than people think.
Strange how all these resurrections, occurred in a time when humans were deeply superstitious and since the advent of science we haven't reliably recorded any instances of people being resurrected after death. This is so much the case that it's only the deeply superstitious who still cling to the ancient myths.
-
Yet back in the day, resurrections were no big deal in the ancient Middle East.
The Bible itself tells us how the following individuals all came back to life after they'd died:
1. Widow of Zarephath's son
2. Shunamite's son
3. Man tossed into Elisha's tomb
4. Widow of Nain's son
5. Jairus' daughter
6. Lazarus
7. Tabitha
8. Eutychus
Not forgetting the hundreds (maybe thousands) who zombie-walked their way into Jerusalem.
Of course it wasn't just the Middle East where people came back from the dead but all over the ancient world. Some of these include:
Quetzalcoatl
Ishtar
Osiris
Adonis
Dionysus
Persephone
Tammuz
Baal
Attis
Lemminkainen
Odin
Ganesha
Krishna
So there you have it, returning from the grave used to be much more commonplace than people think.
Strange how all these resurrections, occurred in a time when humans were deeply superstitious and since the advent of science we haven't reliably recorded any instances of people being resurrected after death. This is so much the case that it's only the deeply superstitious who still cling to the ancient myths.
Good work, Khatru.
-
Going to "heaven" is a self-centred wish. Harming children is an immoral and worrying action.
But his OP has nothing to do about harming children, as wondering how children are going to be judged on Judgement Day by God when he doesn't believe in all that twaddle.
-
Self centered wish it may be but teaching children to live their lives in fear of that wish, with all the guilt and repression that entails. Without any credible evidence to support the imposition of those beliefs.... adds up to child cruelty.
But that is not what your OP said or what I'm referring to, which is your comment about how a baby will be judged compared to an old person of 90 who has had to endure and live through life's trials and pressures......and which you said kept you awake at night.
-
There is no sickness or pain in heaven.
Revelation 21:4.
King James Bible
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Watch the film.
Babies grow in heaven.
And people become young again not children but young adults.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1929263/
God loves us and wants us free from all that harms or hurts us.
So why did It put us here in the first place then?
-
If this saying of Jesus is anything to go by, it is possibly a spiritual abode rather than physical.
"Your body is made from earthly elements but if you lose your valuable inner essence how will you replenish it? Then of what good are you but to be returned to the earth to be trodden under foot."
Where did jesus say this?
-
1 Corinthians 15:43-44 provides the very answer to your question.
Well it doesn't really... all it states is Pauls musings on the subject but that doesn't mean it is the right answer.
-
Well it doesn't really... all it states is Pauls musings on the subject but that doesn't mean it is the right answer.
Too true! And the same applies to the writers of the Bible.
-
Where did jesus say this?
A paraphrase of Matt 5:13.
-
That's omnibenevolence taken care of.
An omniscient god would know how to bring about this state of affairs (moreover while sentient creatures are still alive, not after their deaths, where - very conveniently for those who make assertions such as these - it's somewhat difficult to ascertain the truth of the claim); an omnipotent god would be able to bring about this state of affairs; this state of affairs doesn't exist.
So you have a variety of options as to why this state of affairs does not exist. Let's see if you can work out what they are.
For someone claiming to have read the bible you appear to know so little of the contents.
King James Bible
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
The reason people don't have it, is because people like you are like the thief. you come to steal, and to kill and to destroy.
You lack faith and wisdom to understand how Gods plan is for all. And all who come to God through Christ are provided for.
Your atheism serves only to keep others away from having that abundant life. You refuse it, they refuse it.
How do you feel to know your belief and action would only serve to prevent others from entering into that perfect state and rest?
Like yourself, others do not want it either. So instead of saying he has not provided. The truth is you decided you do not want it. God has offered you and they refused.
-
The Bible gives the lie to that silly statement! ::)
No the bible gives NO lie. People like yourself and shaker just do not want it to be true. You choose not to have what God and Christ have sacrificed for you. And you blame everyone for things being wrong but yourselves and people like you.
Truth is if you wanted to see the world as God wants it. Loving him and your neighbour you would obey. Clearly a peaceful loving world is not something you want at any price. Even the price of Christs suffering and death.
So the only lie being lived is by you and the statements you make. The truth is you don't want the good things God has for you.
-
So the resurrected will be born anew, as if babies. Presumably therefore with no memories to even out any difference between a 90 year old, who lived a full Christian life and an infant who died in child birth.
Let’s examine the consequences of this idea.
The resurrected will be pure spirit unable to feel pain, sadness, etc. This scuppers the idea that they will consider heaven a reward for a life lived by the example of Christ. The sprit will simply be unaware of what happened before it’s death. It also scuppers the idea (oft suggested by Cof E vicars at least) that the resurrected will be reunited with their pre deceased loved ones, they simply won’t remember each other.
The resurrected will have no memorys. Can they create new ones If they are unable to feel pain, sadness, etc.? And if they have no physical body to experience touch, make noise, hear sound etc. What will they have to build their new memories on?
It doesn’t seem to me that there would be much advantage to being in heaven.
W.T.F.P.
You would be better off going to Hell, perhaps there you could keep your memory to understand why you are being punished and your ability to feel as well too, so you can feel the heat!!! If they cannot again W.T.F.P.
And these are the terrors we put into the minds of young Christian children to control them!.
May be you would like to go through your statement showing evidence and using the bible as support from Christ onward.
-
Jack Knave asks
If that is the case why do these things keep you awake at night then, and grieve you so, if they are as you say above?
Because I dislike cruelty to children.
I do not want to see human development held back.
And I want to remove at least one of the causes of human conflict.
To remove human conflict you would have to remove man.
Religion and politics are not the cause of human conflict... mans own evil does that all by itself and his thirst for power.
Why not really study mankind and life. You will find that Christ's way would unite all mankind not cause conflict.
-
No the bible gives NO lie. People like yourself and shaker just do not want it to be true. You choose not to have what God and Christ have sacrificed for you. And you blame everyone for things being wrong but yourselves and people like you.
Truth is if you wanted to see the world as God wants it. Loving him and your neighbour you would obey. Clearly a peaceful loving world is not something you want at any price. Even the price of Christs suffering and death.
So the only lie being lived is by you and the statements you make. The truth is you don't want the good things God has for you.
There is NOTHING good about the Biblical psycho, no human is as evil! >:(
-
And at this point, your argument begins to unravel, john. 'Good' isn't a qualifying trait (not to mention that 'good' is such a nondescript term that it is largely meaningless).
Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the Bible before asking such a question - the New Testament makes it clear that 1) things like pain, ill-health, and even age will not exist in heaven; and 2) Jesus indicates that one's resurrection body - be that spiritual or physical - will be 'new'
Hmmm According to scripture Jesus was resurrected in the same body he had before he died. For example, he still had all the wounds from the crucifixion. So if Jesus set the pattern for the resurrection then surely it will be the same for those who are resurrected in the new kingdom. That they will be raised in the same body.
As Jesus is reported as saying: “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28-29). Which seems to be saying that the resurrected will come as they are.
Also Paul states to the Corinthians 1:15 that the body that is buried/entombed is the body that is resurrected, albeit in a spiritual/ghostly way, but he seems to indicate that you will be raised in the same body only it will be a better body.
As well as 'see above', Jesus teaches that human practices, such as marriage, will no longer be a concept in heaven.
You are obviously making it far more complex than it really is - look at the way in which you have listed 5 scenarios as if they are different when they are no such thing.
Our John was positing a question of what body the resurrected will have when they rise. Trust you to latch on to something irrelevant and make a piss-poor attempt to make a big deal about it.
-
A paraphrase of Matt 5:13.
So Jesus never said it then... gotcha! ;)
-
Even if an afterlife did exist, it is the consciousness which would survive death, not the body, imo. Anyway what about bodies which are cremated, how are they going to be restored. Will god wave its magic wand and recreate them? ;D
-
Ahhh but the afterlife that Jesus preached, and Paul for that matter, was not about a heaven. Jesus seems to take the stance that his Father was going to create a new kingdom here on the earth which was only going to be populated with beings of Jesus' choosing.
Paul understanding is that it doesn't matter if the body has turned into dust. Your body will still rise in the guise of how it is before death. Think Star Wars and the ending of episode VI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGPTrRueZXY
-
Ahhh but the afterlife that Jesus preached, and Paul for that matter, was not about a heaven. Jesus seems to take the stance that his Father was going to create a new kingdom here on the earth which was only going to be populated with beings of Jesus' choosing.
Paul understanding is that it doesn't matter if the body has turned into dust. Your body will still rise in the guise of how it is before death. Think Star Wars and the ending of episode VI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGPTrRueZXY
That is so credible, NOT! ;D
-
Going to "heaven" is a self-centred wish. Harming children is an immoral and worrying action.
And what is 'going' to heaven all about, Len? It seems to me that there are people here, like you, who seem to believe that it is a physical place that a human being may reach sometime after death.
-
Self centered wish it may be but teaching children to live their lives in fear of that wish, with all the guilt and repression that entails. Without any credible evidence to support the imposition of those beliefs.... adds up to child cruelty.
That's your opinion, but is it a valid opinion? Growing up in a Christian family, I never felt that I had to fear such a wish. For me it was more like what happens when one is reasonable at sport and want to get into a team. One doesn't just rest on one's laurels, one works hard to ensure that one reaches the level required. Sometimes that will be by listening to the advice of coaches and others in the sport, sometimes its by hard work based on that advice.
-
And what is 'going' to heaven all about, Len? It seems to me that there are people here, like you, who seem to believe that it is a physical place that a human being may reach sometime after death.
Well, that is how most people here seem to describe it. I fear that, like Sass, you are enclosed in your own idea of what Christianity teaches.
-
That's your opinion, but is it a valid opinion? Growing up in a Christian family, I never felt that I had to fear such a wish. For me it was more like what happens when one is reasonable at sport and want to get into a team. One doesn't just rest on one's laurels, one works hard to ensure that one reaches the level required. Sometimes that will be by listening to the advice of coaches and others in the sport, sometimes its by hard work based on that advice.
If you never doubted that you were good enough to be "on the team", you must have very conceited. :)
-
Jesus seems to take the stance that his Father was going to create a new kingdom here on the earth which was only going to be populated with beings of Jesus' choosing.
Paul understanding is that it doesn't matter if the body has turned into dust. Your body will still rise in the guise of how it is before death. Think Star Wars and the ending of episode VI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGPTrRueZXY
Thrud, nowhere in the New Testament is there a suggestion that God was "going to create a new kingdom here on the earth which was only going to be populated with beings of Jesus' choosing". There are, however, a number of references to his creating the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth that would be populated by those who choose him.
As for "Your body will still rise in the guise of how it is before death", how does that fit with Jesus's teaching that there will be no pain in heaven, or sickness or any of the other very earthly conditions that inflict humanity.
-
And what is 'going' to heaven all about, Len? It seems to me that there are people here, like you, who seem to believe that it is a physical place that a human being may reach sometime after death.
So what do you think this place called heaven is like? It can only be an opinion of course as you have no evidence it exists.
-
If you never doubted that you were good enough to be "on the team", you must have very conceited. :)
And where did you get that idea from? I can think of some people who's inclusion was never in doubt - and it didn't necessarily make them conceited. Often it made them very humble.
-
So what do you think this place called heaven is like? It can only be an opinion of course as you have no evidence it exists.
Well, for me it isn't a place, its relationship. Its being part of a family.
-
And where did you get that idea from? I can think of some people who's inclusion was never in doubt - and it didn't necessarily make them conceited. Often it made them very humble.
In which case they could be in a shock if they discover the team leader has turned them down! ;D
-
Well, for me it isn't a place, its relationship. Its being part of a family.
Don't you have a real one?
-
So Jesus never said it then... gotcha! ;)
Correct, just like all the other English/Latin/Greek words attributed to him in the Gospels. All we can say is that the teachings exist and, if interested, try to fathom out what they mean. As this is a Christian topic under discussion, it is probably better to associate them with Jesus rather than any other person, even though they might be the words of the Gospel writer based upon his understanding of what was being taught.
-
And what is 'going' to heaven all about, Len? It seems to me that there are people here, like you, who seem to believe that it is a physical place that a human being may reach sometime after death.
Heaven is exotic to Jesus and Paul.. they are both expecting the new kingdom to be here on Earth..
-
And where did you get that idea from? I can think of some people who's inclusion was never in doubt - and it didn't necessarily make them conceited. Often it made them very humble.
No matter what you say, Hope, the Christian belief is that if you don't live according to his rules, "God" will not grant you eternal life in his company.
I am weary of this exchange, which will go nowhere, so I'll opt out ... even though I know I will be accused of "running away". ;D
-
For me it was more like what happens when one is reasonable at sport and want to get into a team. One doesn't just rest on one's laurels, one works hard to ensure that one reaches the level required. Sometimes that will be by listening to the advice of coaches and others in the sport, sometimes its by hard work based on that advice.
At school our RE teacher said eternal life was God's gift to us, but now you are telling me that you have to train and go through selection trials to get it.
Will you Christians pleas make up your minds about what your religion actually teaches.
-
And what is 'going' to heaven all about, Len? It seems to me that there are people here, like you, who seem to believe that it is a physical place that a human being may reach sometime after death.
Again Hope it has to be pointed out that Jesus didn't expect a heaven above.. he was expecting a new kingdom here on Earth... that according to Paul was exclusive to those who believed in the Christ.
-
At school our RE teacher said eternal life was God's gift to us, but now you are telling me that you have to train and go through selection trials to get it.
Will you Christians pleas make up your minds about what your religion actually teaches.
I have a relative who refuses to open gifts from family he has fallen out with. He won't throw them away but they remain unopened.
-
I have a relative who refuses to open gifts from family he has fallen out with. He won't throw them away but they remain unopened.
Maybe like the deity's so called 'gift' they think they are a poison chalice!
-
I have a relative who refuses to open gifts from family he has fallen out with. He won't throw them away but they remain unopened.
Really? I call bullshit. Why the fuck would "he" keep shit he's not interested in?
-
Really? I call bullshit. Why the fuck would "he" keep shit he's not interested in?
I think it's called hoarding.
-
In the 1940s, Kathleen Kennedy (called 'Kit' or 'Kick' - I cannot hear it properly) married the Marquis of Huntington,. They had wanted to marry five years previously, but the Kennedys, particularly Rose Kennedy, were implacably against it because of religion. Apparently Rose never changed her mind. Five weeks after the marriage, Kit was widowed and had not become pregnant. So that particular aspect of religious belief denied her five years of happiness.
(I'm listening to 'The Mitford Girls' by Mary S Lovell - an excellent book.)
-
Ahh so this "he" would be you then?
-
In the 1940s, Kathleen Kennedy (called 'Kit' or 'Kick' - I cannot hear it properly) married the Marquis of Huntington,. They had wanted to marry five years previously, but the Kennedys, particularly Rose Kennedy, were implacably against it because of religion. Apparently Rose never changed her mind. Five weeks after the marriage, Kit was widowed and had not become pregnant. So that particular aspect of religious belief denied her five years of happiness.
Yes, it tends to do that. The recent "John Paul II" thread refers to a relationship that the former Pope of that moniker had with a woman, which gave rise to a mention of the Catholic monk Thomas Merton and his nearly/maybe/might be/not quite relationship with a nurse, which he desperately wanted but broke off because of his attachment to his vows of (amongst other things) chastity. In other words, he put dogma and ideology ahead of what most normally-constituted people regard as the very greatest happiness that life can afford - the attachment to and the communion with (in every sense) another human being. Which is what religion generally and monotheistic religions such as Christianity especially, with its morbid erotophobic horror of the body and sexuality, tends to do. Other religions are not free of it - there's a monastic tradition within Tibetan Buddhism, of course; "Catholicism without God" as Renan put it - but nobody does fear and horror of the body and shame and guilt at fleshy, fleshy corporeality like Christianity. If anybody desires evidence for this statement, it's not far to seek: the history of Christianity and various maladapted psychiatric cases posing as saints and Church Fathers furnishes umpteen examples.
(I'm listening to 'The Mitford Girls' by Mary S Lovell - an excellent book.)
You have superb taste in books, SD :D
-
Yes, it tends to do that. The recent "John Paul II" thread refers to a relationship that the former Pope of that moniker had with a woman, which gave rise to a mention of the Catholic monk Thomas Merton and his nearly/maybe/might be/not quite relationship with a nurse, which he desperately wanted but broke off because of his attachment to his vows of (amongst other things) chastity. In other words, he put dogma and ideology ahead of what most normally-constituted people regard as the very greatest happiness that life can afford - the attachment to and the communion with (in every sense) another human being. Which is what religion generally and monotheistic religions such as Christianity especially, with its morbid erotophobic horror of the body and sexuality, tends to do. Other religions are not free of it - there's a monastic tradition within Tibetan Buddhism, of course; "Catholicism without God" as Renan put it - but nobody does fear and horror of the body and shame and guilt at fleshy, fleshy corporeality like Christianity. If anybody desires evidence for this statement, it's not far to seek: the history of Christianity and various maladapted psychiatric cases posing as saints and Church Fathers furnishes umpteen examples.
Crikey, it's enough to give one eructations and borborygmi !
-
Crikey, it's enough to give one eructations and borborygmi !
Some sort of bilious attack, certainly. Christianity is like that.
-
Thank you, Shaker! :)
-
Some sort of bilious attack, certainly. Christianity is like that.
I'd be interested in why Merton did what he did rather than wittering on about what ''normally constituted people do''
That just makes you sound like ''Angry from Leicester''.
-
I'd be interested in why Merton did what he did rather than wittering on about what ''normally constituted people do''
He had a belief system which he thought meant attachment to his own mental picture of Jesus and his supposed wants, wishes and desires (as filtered through two thousand years of celibate virgin men - at least in principle rather than actuality, hypocrisy being what it is in religion, i.e. rife), with no more evidence for said beliefs than they ever had (i.e. zero), mattered more than making two people happy in life. Basically. As I said in the relevant thread, thus increasing the sum total of human unhappiness in the world to the tune of two people for the sake of absolutely nothing whatsoever at all.
That just makes you sound like ''Angry from Leicester''.
Yes, it does, since I am.
-
He had a belief system which he thought meant attachment to his own inidvidual mental picture of Jesus and his supposed wants, wishes and desires as filtered through two thousand years of celibate virgins with no more evidence than him mattered more than making two people happy in life. Basically. Yes, it does, since I am.
Although I find elements of sadness about Merton's dilemma, it was his life.
Unlike you I have no desire to order anybody to be a normally constituted person particularly if you and your ilk are examples of it. That and your desire to control language smack a bit of Stalinism.
I would never have for example Susan Doris abandon her seeming free will decision to laugh dutifully only at comic material from antitheists even though Normally constituted people of any religious persuasion are free to occasionally find humour in any antitheist comic and even Milton Jones.
-
Although I find elements of sadness about Merton's dilemma, it was his life.
Unfortunately for him and M., it wasn't - it was Catholicism's life, because it was Catholicism to which he had given over his life and which swung the decision away from a happy life with the woman he loved and who loved him. A free decision is made without external compulsion or coercion in one direction or another; it wasn't Merton's decision, it was the Vatican's.
Unlike you I have no desire to order anybody to be a normally constituted person particularly if you and your ilk are examples of it. That and your desire to control language smack a bit of Stalinism.
I have no desire to control language. I do however like clarity and precision, so that language does its intended job (i.e. is an efficient tool of clear communication of concepts) and doesn't turn into blancmange.
-
I have no desire to control language.
Except the word pantheism obviously.
All quiet on the pantheism thread I see ;D
-
Unfortunately for him and M., it wasn't - it was Catholicism's life, because it was Catholicism to which he had given over his life and which swing the decision away from a happy life with the woman he loved and who loved him. A free decision is made without external compulsion or coercion in one direction or another; it wasn't Merton's decision, it was the Vatican's.
I suppose your a fan of the Thorn Birds as well.
-
Except the word pantheism obviously.
No, the definition of pantheism is really quite clear. So much so that I included several definitions of same from various sources in the OP of the relevant thread.
All quiet on the pantheism thread I see ;D
Thank goodness. I suspect people are waiting to see if you rock up yet again.
-
No, the definition of pantheism is really quite clear. So much so that I included several definitions of same from various sources in the OP of the relevant thread.
Thank goodness. I suspect people are waiting to see if you rock up yet again.
I'm not saving it again.
-
I'm not saving it again.
No Vlad, you do the opposite of that.
-
If this saying of Jesus is anything to go by, it is possibly a spiritual abode rather than physical.
"Your body is made from earthly elements but if you lose your valuable inner essence how will you replenish it? Then of what good are you but to be returned to the earth to be trodden under foot."
Where did jesus say this?
On the loo!!! ;D
-
If this saying of Jesus is anything to go by, it is possibly a spiritual abode rather than physical.
"Your body is made from earthly elements but if you lose your valuable inner essence how will you replenish it? Then of what good are you but to be returned to the earth to be trodden under foot."
On the loo!!! ;D
You're thinking of pan-theism. :-[
-
You're thinking of pan-theism. :-[
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You're thinking of pan-theism. :-[
I think he might have been quite flushed when he said it. ;)
-
I think he might have been quite flushed when he said it. ;)
Oh gawd, pack it in, I've been reprimanded for laughing to myself!
-
You're thinking of pan-theism. :-[
Oh sorry, wrong thread. :D
-
Ahhh but the afterlife that Jesus preached, and Paul for that matter, was not about a heaven. Jesus seems to take the stance that his Father was going to create a new kingdom here on the earth which was only going to be populated with beings of Jesus' choosing.
Paul understanding is that it doesn't matter if the body has turned into dust. Your body will still rise in the guise of how it is before death. Think Star Wars and the ending of episode VI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGPTrRueZXY
Do you ever think you are wrong B?
King James Bible
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
On the cross.
King James Bible
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The Kingdom of Heaven is within us.
King James Bible
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
The Kingdom of God is within the believer not a worldly thing at all.
King James Bible
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
So where do we go from here. Everything you said disproved in the words of Christ himself.
What do you really seek answers to? You appear weary and disgruntled with the whole thing. Never really reaching satisfactory answers. But Christ said:-King James Bible
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
The truth of the answers you want won't come as the truth you seek. You are trying to disprove all Christ has said to yourself.
Jesus is the Master NOT Paul. It is the Words of Christ whom God says we are to obey.
You won't find answers you seek only the the true answers Christ gives.
When you accept Christ, B, then you will receive the truth and rest.
-
More meaningless assertions from Sass! ::)
-
More meaningless assertions from Sass! ::)
No more meaningless than your assertion here, Floo ;) Is this an 'argumentum ad non-sensus' fallacy? ;)
-
No more meaningless than your assertion here, Floo ;) Is this an 'argumentum ad non-sensus' fallacy? ;)
Stating things as a fact, without evidence to support them, as Sass does is meaningless.
-
You are always singling out Sassy, floo, yet there are plenty of other posters with whom you disagree - or whom you might say were ''just as bad'', who you do not call out by name, or pounce on. Why? It's very noticeable. If you don't 'like' someone (& how anyone can truly like or dislike a person they've never met), ignore them. If you cannot do that at least treat them the same as everyone else.
Sorry folks for going off topic. I have noticed the above since being back on the forum and have nothing against the above poster personally, nor anyone else. It was important, to me, to say what I said, not everyone will think I'm right to have said it.
Regarding the Resurrection, I do believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and always have. I understand why people don't and that doesn't bother me in the least. Faith is a gift.
Hugh, I was a fan of the ''Thorn Birds'' too! I devoured the book and loved the TV film - can't remember now whether it was a series or a longer, one off film. Richard Chamberlain was gorgeous in it, beautiful shoulders. A lovely story, very romantic.
-
You are always singling out Sassy, floo, yet there are plenty of other posters with whom you disagree - or whom you might say were ''just as bad'', who you do not call out by name, or pounce on. Why? It's very noticeable. If you don't 'like' someone (& how anyone can truly like or dislike a person they've never met), ignore them. If you cannot do that at least treat them the same as everyone else.
Sorry folks for going off topic. I have noticed the above since being back on the forum and have nothing against the above poster personally, nor anyone else. It was important, to me, to say what I said, not everyone will think I'm right to have said it.
Regarding the Resurrection, I do believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and always have. I understand why people don't and that doesn't bother me in the least. Faith is a gift.
Hugh, I was a fan of the ''Thorn Birds'' too! I devoured the book and loved the TV film - can't remember now whether it was a series or a longer, one off film. Richard Chamberlain was gorgeous in it, beautiful shoulders. A lovely story, very romantic.
Series... and not quite the same as the first time it was shown... :D
-
The Resurrection in Paul
"I have been discussing an apocalyptic understanding of Jesus’ resurrection. For the earliest followers of Jesus, coming to think that Jesus was raised from the dead provided both a confirmation and an elaboration of their understanding of the end times. Prior to Jesus’ death, they had come to think that they were living at the end of the age and that God was soon to bring history to a climactic end through a cataclysmic act of judgment; this final event in history would involve a resurrection of all those who had died to face judgment. When these disciples came to think that Jesus himself had been raised, they naturally concluded that the resurrection had begun. Jesus was the first to rise; he had been exalted to heaven; he himself was to return to earth as the powerful Son of Man to raise all people from the dead. All this would happen very soon.
As it turns out there were other apocalyptic lessons that could be drawn from Jesus’ resurrection. One of the most interesting – and, oddly enough, least generally known – is one that comes to us from the writings of the apostle Paul. Most readers of the New Testament know that the resurrection of Jesus was inordinately important for Paul. But few (in my experience, at least) understand why the resurrection was so central to Paul’s understanding of salvation.
Paul was a die-hard apocalypticist, but he was a very different kind of thinker than the original disciples of Jesus. They were all lower-class, uneducated, Aramaic-speaking peasants from rural Galilee. He was a highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora. It’s true that he almost certainly did not have the highest level of education available in the Roman empire – he was not a great philosopher or one of the elite literati trained in advanced rhetoric – but by comparison with virtually all the other Christians of his day, he was in the top 1%. As a result, as you might suspect, his views and understandings of things were much more sophisticated than those of Jesus’ Galilean followers.
Paul’s apocalyptic views are complicated and not easy to explain – especially in a short blog post (the views I’m summarizing here can be seen in Paul’s letter to the Romans, especially chp. 5-8). For one thing, his views were more cosmic and all-embracing than we would find among other early Christians. For him, the forces that are aligned against God are not simply embodiments of evil such as demons and the Devil. They are great powers that hold sway over the world, including the powers of sin and death.
Sin, for Paul, was not simply an act of transgression, an action that was opposed to the will of God. It was that, for sure; but Paul had a view of sin that was much bigger and all-encompassing. Sin for Paul was also a kind of demonic power that existed in the world, a force that was trying to enslave people and make them do what was contrary both to their own will and contrary to the will of God. Sin came into the world with the transgression of Adam, and it dominated the human race. Everyone was enslaved to sin, which is why people were alienated from God. This did not simply mean that everyone did things that were wrong. It meant that they were helpless to do otherwise because they were under the power of an alien force opposed to God.
So too with the power of death. Death, for Paul, was not simply something that happened to people at the end of their lives, when they stopped breathing. It certainly was that, but it was, again, also much bigger and powerful and cosmic. Death for Paul was an alien force that was opposed to God and all he stood for. It was a power that – like sin – was trying to enslave people. When death captured a person, it annihilated her, destroying her existence.
The powers of sin and death were closely related. Being enslaved to sin led to being conquered by death. This was a hopeless situation for humans since these were cosmic forces far more powerful than any man or woman could withstand. And there was nothing that could be done about it. Because we are humans, we are enslaved to sin and will be conquered by death.
That’s where Jesus comes in. Humans have to be delivered from the powers of sin and death, but they are powerless to deliver themselves. Someone (else) needs to conquer these powers and provide the benefits of this conquest to others Jesus did that.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus showed beyond all doubt that he conquered the power of death. Death could not keep Jesus in its grip. He was more powerful than death and defeated it. Moreover, since he conquered this, the ultimate and greatest power, he had obviously conquered the other powers aligned against God as well, including the power of sin. For Paul, Jesus defeated sin by his death: he took sin upon himself (even though he did not deserve it) and nailed it to his cross. In him, sin was defeated, at the crucifixion, just as death was defeated at the resurrection.
If all this had been done by Jesus, it would show why *he* had escaped sin and death. But how can others participate in this victory? Here especially is where Paul’s theology is not widely known, but he lays it out in Romans 6 (esp. vv. 1-6). The reason followers of Jesus have also escaped the powers of sin and death is because they have been … baptized.
When a person becomes a follower of Jesus and undergoes the ritual of baptism, for Paul, something actually happens. The person goes under the water, just as Jesus at his burial went underground. “We have been buried with him in baptism.” For Paul, at this moment in the baptism ritual, the believer is “united with Christ,” so that the victories that Christ experienced are shared by the believer. The believer too, then, has participated in the victory over sin and death. The person is then, and only then, freed from the power of sin and placed under a different power, the power of righteousness. Moreover, the person is freed from the power of death and will now have eternal life.
The resurrection of Jesus, then, had enormous apocalyptic consequences for Paul. It represented the defeat of the cosmic forces aligned against God, and it made it possible for people to escape the powers that have enslaved this world in order to be transferred into the realm of God, to live forever more apart from the forces of sin and death."
http://ehrmanblog.org/the-resurrection-in-paul/
-
The Resurrection in Paul
"I have been discussing an apocalyptic understanding of Jesus’ resurrection. For the earliest followers of Jesus, coming to think that Jesus was raised from the dead provided both a confirmation and an elaboration of their understanding of the end times. Prior to Jesus’ death, they had come to think that they were living at the end of the age and that God was soon to bring history to a climactic end through a cataclysmic act of judgment; this final event in history would involve a resurrection of all those who had died to face judgment. When these disciples came to think that Jesus himself had been raised, they naturally concluded that the resurrection had begun. Jesus was the first to rise; he had been exalted to heaven; he himself was to return to earth as the powerful Son of Man to raise all people from the dead. All this would happen very soon.
I disagree. Christ made it quite clear no one but the Father knew the day and hour of his return.
Therefore there was no way anyone and that included Paul, could think it would happen soon.
As it turns out there were other apocalyptic lessons that could be drawn from Jesus’ resurrection. One of the most interesting – and, oddly enough, least generally known – is one that comes to us from the writings of the apostle Paul. Most readers of the New Testament know that the resurrection of Jesus was inordinately important for Paul. But few (in my experience, at least) understand why the resurrection was so central to Paul’s understanding of salvation.
Would that have anything to do with the him being a Pharisee and so believing already in the resurrection, angels and spirits?
Paul was a die-hard apocalypticist, but he was a very different kind of thinker than the original disciples of Jesus. They were all lower-class, uneducated, Aramaic-speaking peasants from rural Galilee. He was a highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora. It’s true that he almost certainly did not have the highest level of education available in the Roman empire – he was not a great philosopher or one of the elite literati trained in advanced rhetoric – but by comparison with virtually all the other Christians of his day, he was in the top 1%. As a result, as you might suspect, his views and understandings of things were much more sophisticated than those of Jesus’ Galilean followers.
A dramatic generalisation... What were Moses, Abraham. Isaiah, Jeremiah etc? Who received the teachings of Christ and the Spirit first. The disciples the lower-class, uneducated and Aramaic-speaking peasants? Really... Wasn't Luke a doctor?
I am not sure what point you hoped to establish but it is of very little value in generalisation of making Paul look greater than the Apostles when he simply was not. True faith has always been established in Spirit and truth. No posh education for the Prophets. In fact in Christ all were equal because of one Lord, One Spirit and one Truth.
Paul’s apocalyptic views are complicated and not easy to explain – especially in a short blog post (the views I’m summarizing here can be seen in Paul’s letter to the Romans, especially chp. 5-8). For one thing, his views were more cosmic and all-embracing than we would find among other early Christians. For him, the forces that are aligned against God are not simply embodiments of evil such as demons and the Devil. They are great powers that hold sway over the world, including the powers of sin and death.
Which forces would overcome God?
I can see nothing of any use in the above would you please explain.
Sin, for Paul, was not simply an act of transgression, an action that was opposed to the will of God. It was that, for sure; but Paul had a view of sin that was much bigger and all-encompassing. Sin for Paul was also a kind of demonic power that existed in the world, a force that was trying to enslave people and make them do what was contrary both to their own will and contrary to the will of God. Sin came into the world with the transgression of Adam, and it dominated the human race. Everyone was enslaved to sin, which is why people were alienated from God. This did not simply mean that everyone did things that were wrong. It meant that they were helpless to do otherwise because they were under the power of an alien force opposed to God.
Did you see that in the temptation of Christ having been starved and without water for 40 days and night?
Christ is the way to God and the Spirit empowers the believers to stop sinning.
Did you gain that from reading Pauls letters?
So too with the power of death. Death, for Paul, was not simply something that happened to people at the end of their lives, when they stopped breathing. It certainly was that, but it was, again, also much bigger and powerful and cosmic. Death for Paul was an alien force that was opposed to God and all he stood for. It was a power that – like sin – was trying to enslave people. When death captured a person, it annihilated her, destroying her existence.
Death of body and soul? Christ said fear not those who kill the body, but rather fear God who has the power to throw both body and soul into hell. Death was not something God wanted for mankind. So Christians fall asleep rather than die.
Because the final thing to be destroyed is death,, Wherefore death is thy sting...
No more death, no more weeping or suffering....
The powers of sin and death were closely related. Being enslaved to sin led to being conquered by death. This was a hopeless situation for humans since these were cosmic forces far more powerful than any man or woman could withstand. And there was nothing that could be done about it. Because we are humans, we are enslaved to sin and will be conquered by death.
Men and women sin. Are they forced to sin? Who will save me from this body and I guess you are thinking of this...
King James Bible
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
That’s where Jesus comes in. Humans have to be delivered from the powers of sin and death, but they are powerless to deliver themselves. Someone (else) needs to conquer these powers and provide the benefits of this conquest to others Jesus did that.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus showed beyond all doubt that he conquered the power of death. Death could not keep Jesus in its grip. He was more powerful than death and defeated it. Moreover, since he conquered this, the ultimate and greatest power, he had obviously conquered the other powers aligned against God as well, including the power of sin. For Paul, Jesus defeated sin by his death: he took sin upon himself (even though he did not deserve it) and nailed it to his cross. In him, sin was defeated, at the crucifixion, just as death was defeated at the resurrection.
If all this had been done by Jesus, it would show why *he* had escaped sin and death. But how can others participate in this victory? Here especially is where Paul’s theology is not widely known, but he lays it out in Romans 6 (esp. vv. 1-6). The reason followers of Jesus have also escaped the powers of sin and death is because they have been … baptized.
When a person becomes a follower of Jesus and undergoes the ritual of baptism, for Paul, something actually happens. The person goes under the water, just as Jesus at his burial went underground. “We have been buried with him in baptism.” For Paul, at this moment in the baptism ritual, the believer is “united with Christ,” so that the victories that Christ experienced are shared by the believer. The believer too, then, has participated in the victory over sin and death. The person is then, and only then, freed from the power of sin and placed under a different power, the power of righteousness. Moreover, the person is freed from the power of death and will now have eternal life.
The resurrection of Jesus, then, had enormous apocalyptic consequences for Paul. It represented the defeat of the cosmic forces aligned against God, and it made it possible for people to escape the powers that have enslaved this world in order to be transferred into the realm of God, to live forever more apart from the forces of sin and death."
http://ehrmanblog.org/the-resurrection-in-paul/
When a person receive baptism of the Holy Spirit they live according to the Spirit. But the body itself is transformed after death at the resurrection.
-
1: I disagree. Christ made it quite clear no one but the Father knew the day and hour of his return.
Therefore there was no way anyone and that included Paul, could think it would happen soon.
2: Would that have anything to do with the him being a Pharisee and so believing already in the resurrection, angels and spirits?
3: A dramatic generalisation... What were Moses, Abraham. Isaiah, Jeremiah etc? Who received the teachings of Christ and the Spirit first. The disciples the lower-class, uneducated and Aramaic-speaking peasants? Really... Wasn't Luke a doctor?
I am not sure what point you hoped to establish but it is of very little value in generalisation of making Paul look greater than the Apostles when he simply was not. True faith has always been established in Spirit and truth. No posh education for the Prophets. In fact in Christ all were equal because of one Lord, One Spirit and one Truth.
4: Which forces would overcome God?
I can see nothing of any use in the above would you please explain.
5: Did you see that in the temptation of Christ having been starved and without water for 40 days and night?
Christ is the way to God and the Spirit empowers the believers to stop sinning.
Did you gain that from reading Pauls letters?
6: Death of body and soul? Christ said fear not those who kill the body, but rather fear God who has the power to throw both body and soul into hell. Death was not something God wanted for mankind. So Christians fall asleep rather than die.
Because the final thing to be destroyed is death,, Wherefore death is thy sting...
No more death, no more weeping or suffering....Men and women sin. Are they forced to sin? Who will save me from this body and I guess you are thinking of this...
7: King James Bible
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
8: When a person receive baptism of the Holy Spirit they live according to the Spirit. But the body itself is transformed after death at the resurrection.
1: Jesus exclaimed many times that the Kingdom of God was near/close. (Mark 1:15. Matt 4:17. Matt 3:2 Matt 10:7 Matt 12:28. Matt. 5:20; 7:21.) Even Paul exclaimed that the Kingdom was near, in fact the term "Kingdom of God" occurs several times in Matthew (12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43), many times in Mark, even more times in Luke, a couple in the Gospel of John (3:3, 5), several times in Acts and in Paul letters, and once in Revelation (12:10). Matthew actually prefers the term "Kingdom of heaven" which he uses more in his gospel.
I know how I interpret this Kingdom of God/heaven and have a clear picture of how Jesus as a Jew would understand it.
Do you?
2. 3,4, 5, 6 and 7: Obviously your understanding of Pauls teaching is shockingly limited. As well as who Jesus' disciples were. Luke was never one of the 12, yes they were all uneducated peasants, even Matthew the tax collector/bailiff.
Paul was an educated Greco-Roman Jew from Turkey which obviously had an influence on his interpretation of what he had heard about this Christ.
If you read his letters you can also see that he was expecting this Kingdom to appear in his lifetime as Jesus taught.
8: That is just your interpretation, doesn't mean it is the righteous one!
-
1: Jesus exclaimed many times that the Kingdom of God was near/close. (Mark 1:15. Matt 4:17. Matt 3:2 Matt 10:7 Matt 12:28. Matt. 5:20; 7:21.) Even Paul exclaimed that the Kingdom was near, in fact the term "Kingdom of God" occurs several times in Matthew (12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43), many times in Mark, even more times in Luke, a couple in the Gospel of John (3:3, 5), several times in Acts and in Paul letters, and once in Revelation (12:10). Matthew actually prefers the term "Kingdom of heaven" which he uses more in his gospel.
I know how I interpret this Kingdom of God/heaven and have a clear picture of how Jesus as a Jew would understand it.
Do you?
Your confusing the kingdom of God within the person arriving and the return of Christ to collect the people of his kingdom.
Christ taught the kingdom of God within a person. You cannot go seek it here or there. We know the true kingdom of God are those born of the Spirit and Truth. The disciples in acts 2 receive the Holy Spirit.
The Kingdom of God is not heaven. But all who believe in Christ and are born of the Holy Spirit are part of Gods Kingdom.
Remember Christ told us... " My Kingdom is not of this world" he also said " The kingdom of God is within you."
If Christ did not go away the Spirit could not come unto us and therefore the Kingdom of God established within the persons who believe. The return of Christ is something completely different when Christ takes his people unto himself. That day and hour his return not expected as it was not known.
2. 3,4, 5, 6 and 7: Obviously your understanding of Pauls teaching is shockingly limited. As well as who Jesus' disciples were. Luke was never one of the 12, yes they were all uneducated peasants, even Matthew the tax collector/bailiff.
Again, you fail to understand that no one who is born of the Spirit is uneducated in the word and truth of God.
Christ reminded the disciples before he left... John 14:26.
26But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
So you confuse worldly wisdom with the wisdom of God which was imparted to all men including the Prophets by the Holy Spirit. So these men were better educated because they had the Holy Spirit who taught them everything.
Paul was an educated Greco-Roman Jew from Turkey which obviously had an influence on his interpretation of what he had heard about this Christ.
Yet for all his education he did not recognise the Messiah from what he had learned? But Peter the simple fishermen who like all Jews knew the scriptures off by heart as commanded by God through Moses did recognise the Messiah.
Do you not see the error in that you are making comparison by worldly wisdom of scholars and not the wisdom of God through his own words and teachings?
Had Christ not revealed himself to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus would he have ever been able to know Christ as the Messiah without that personal revelation and conversion?
If you read his letters you can also see that he was expecting this Kingdom to appear in his lifetime as Jesus taught.
8: That is just your interpretation, doesn't mean it is the righteous one!
As you can see the interpretation of what Christ said and taught shows Paul did not expect him to return in his lifetime. Simply that he was to live as if he would return any day because no one knew the hour or the day but God.
I believe the bible has clearly met all the points you raised.
-
Your confusing the kingdom of God within the person arriving and the return of Christ to collect the people of his kingdom.
Christ taught the kingdom of God within a person. You cannot go seek it here or there. We know the true kingdom of God are those born of the Spirit and Truth. The disciples in acts 2 receive the Holy Spirit.
The Kingdom of God is not heaven. But all who believe in Christ and are born of the Holy Spirit are part of Gods Kingdom.
Remember Christ told us... " My Kingdom is not of this world" he also said " The kingdom of God is within you."
If Christ did not go away the Spirit could not come unto us and therefore the Kingdom of God established within the persons who believe. The return of Christ is something completely different when Christ takes his people unto himself. That day and hour his return not expected as it was not known.
Again, you fail to understand that no one who is born of the Spirit is uneducated in the word and truth of God.
Christ reminded the disciples before he left... John 14:26.
26But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
So you confuse worldly wisdom with the wisdom of God which was imparted to all men including the Prophets by the Holy Spirit. So these men were better educated because they had the Holy Spirit who taught them everything.
Yet for all his education he did not recognise the Messiah from what he had learned? But Peter the simple fishermen who like all Jews knew the scriptures off by heart as commanded by God through Moses did recognise the Messiah.
Do you not see the error in that you are making comparison by worldly wisdom of scholars and not the wisdom of God through his own words and teachings?
Had Christ not revealed himself to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus would he have ever been able to know Christ as the Messiah without that personal revelation and conversion? As you can see the interpretation of what Christ said and taught shows Paul did not expect him to return in his lifetime. Simply that he was to live as if he would return any day because no one knew the hour or the day but God.
I believe the bible has clearly met all the points you raised.
Nothing like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic type discussions Sass.
ippy
-
Nothing like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic type discussions Sass.
ippy
Better than leaving the iceberg in charge of the Titanic in the first instance.....
-
The Resurrection in Paul
Thrud, I'd advise you to take what Ehrman says on anything to do with the Bible with a sizeable pinch of salt. I often enjoy reading his stuff - but on an enjoyment par with reading Michael Bond's 'Paddington' stories.
-
Thrud, I'd advise you to take what Ehrman says on anything to do with the Bible with a sizeable pinch of salt. I often enjoy reading his stuff - but on an enjoyment par with reading Michael Bond's 'Paddington' stories.
I'd like to see the two of you in a televised debate. I imagine your fundament being truly bored, screwed, and countersunk. Not that you would notice, though. You have truly been gifted with a 'miraculous' capacity for stubbornness. I'm sure others could think of other more apposite euphemisms.
-
I'm sure others could think of other more apposite euphemisms.
Easily programmed organisms?
-
I'd like to see the two of you in a televised debate. I imagine your fundament being truly bored, screwed, and countersunk. Not that you would notice, though. You have truly been gifted with a 'miraculous' capacity for stubbornness. I'm sure others could think of other more apposite euphemisms.
You're entitled to your opinions, DU. Mind you, you're rather better informed than Farmer Thrud seems to have been in the years I've known him.
-
Easily programmed organisms?
Len, currently, pretty well none of my organisms are allowing themselves to be programmed - they are in outright rebellion. Hopefully some blood tests tomorrow will give some indication of why!!
-
Len, currently, pretty well none of my organisms are allowing themselves to be programmed - they are in outright rebellion. Hopefully some blood tests tomorrow will give some indication of why!!
I hope so, Hope. But I think you know that my remark was directed at the programming of the brain by religious rubbish.
-
You're entitled to your opinions, DU. Mind you, you're rather better informed than Farmer Thrud seems to have been in the years I've known him.
Your dismissive comment regarding a distinguished biblical scholar was inappropriate. I may take some of his views with a pinch of salt, but Ehrman was important for me in re-reading the work of Schweitzer (whose influence Ehrman acknowledges). Perhaps you regard the work and magnificent inspirational life of Albert Schweitzer as also being on a level with the Paddington Bear books?
-
Hello Norty Knickers, I too devoured some of Ehrman's writings some years ago and have great respect for him as a scholar. I like people prepared to think outside the box.
-
Hello Norty Knickers, I too devoured some of Ehrman's writings some years ago and have great respect for him as a scholar. I like people prepared to think outside the box.
Very glad to hear it. By the way, from what I've read of your posts here, you're a credit to your faith.
-
Thanks, I'm not really :-[. Anyway we've met before Richard, in other places. Can't remember which. I didn't use the name ''Brownie'' elsewhere, I was Victoria Plum. I was LyndaB on here but had a long break, came back last May and couldn't log in without changing my name - hence 'Brown' - 'Brownie'. Yet if I do have to log in here, I still have to put LyndaB in as my username! I cannot fathom it. Never mind. See you later.
-
No more meaningless than your assertion here, Floo ;) Is this an 'argumentum ad non-sensus' fallacy? ;)
Says the assertional expert on supplying assertions by the bucket load, but without, guess what?
ippy
-
Thanks, I'm not really :-[. Anyway we've met before Richard, in other places. Can't remember which. I didn't use the name ''Brownie'' elsewhere, I was Victoria Plum.
Victoria Plum as in No Greater Love, St. Thads Victoria Plum??? :o
-
Bathroom fittings - one good reason to stop being Victoria Plum, I was fed up with seeing my nickname on the TV adverts. I thought you knew me Mr Shaker! You left out Premier (the old forum and the latest one, both now closed), and the BBC R&E forum which is where I started on forums. Great days they were. This forum is pretty good though, lively and diverse.
-
Bathroom fittings - one good reason to stop being Victoria Plum, I was fed up with seeing my nickname on the TV adverts. I thought you knew me Mr Shaker! You left out Premier (the old forum and the latest one, both now closed), and the BBC R&E forum which is where I started on forums. Great days they were. This forum is pretty good though, lively and diverse.
I wondered why you had changed your name as you have used Victoria Plum for so long. Have you changed it on St Thads assuming if you still post there? Why Brownie, were you one as a kid?
So many of the old forums have closed! :(
-
I was born a Brown, floo. Yes I stopped being VP a little while ago. Most people knew my name anyway and VP seemed like a silly name after all these years. When I first adopted it it seemed OK but that was thirteen years ago. I always liked your old nickname, Tagnefedd. It was so different and suited you very well.
I thought forums were fading out because more people seem to prefer Facebook but this one is lively enough. There are better discussions on forums so let's hope this one keeps going.
-
I was born a Brown, floo. Yes I stopped being VP a little while ago. Most people knew my name anyway and VP seemed like a silly name after all these years. When I first adopted it it seemed OK but that was thirteen years ago. I always liked your old nickname, Tagnefedd. It was so different and suited you very well.
I thought forums were fading out because more people seem to prefer Facebook but this one is lively enough. There are better discussions on forums so let's hope this one keeps going.
I don't know that Tangnefedd suited me that well as it means 'peace' in Welsh! :D
-
Thanks, I'm not really :-[. Anyway we've met before Richard, in other places. Can't remember which. I didn't use the name ''Brownie'' elsewhere, I was Victoria Plum. I was LyndaB on here but had a long break, came back last May and couldn't log in without changing my name - hence 'Brown' - 'Brownie'. Yet if I do have to log in here, I still have to put LyndaB in as my username! I cannot fathom it. Never mind. See you later.
Victoria Plum! 'Pon my word! Though, to tell the truth, your name had crossed my mind whilst reading your posts. I don't remember reading much of your LyndaB incarnation. Anyway, good to see you still around.
-
Yeah, still living and breathing oh Mr Y'fronts. Good to see you too.
Tangnefedd suited you well floo, a very pleasant. charming, Welsh name and I've no doubt you like peace as much as the next one. None of us are peaceful all the time! I still think of you as 'Tang'. It is fourteen years, not thirteen, since I first posted on the BBC and you were a great poster, lots of fun.
Dicky, I probably didn't post much when this forum first started (& I was LyndaB) - just a bit I think. I was interested because it sought to replicate the old BBC forum. Then I faded away and actually forgot about it. It was floo who reminded me I had been a member and, quite a while after that, I came back, initially to tell floo something that I thought would interest her. Then I got hooked :D. As you do.
Very pleased to see people I knew from other forums, some more than others, eg floo, Leonard, Sass, Shaker and yourself. There are others whose names I recognise but don't remember much about.
Anyway back to the Resurrection. Easter in two weeks today!
-
Anyway back to the Resurrection. Easter in two weeks today!
Anyway, back to resurrection.
Well trodden ground here, with the debaters taking up typically entrenched camps in opposition to each other. "Jesus rose from the dead" or "Dead bodies stay dead".
There is, of course, the position argued by extreme liberal Christians (usually pooh-pooed by traditional believers as nothing more than atheists). One of this type of Christian was John Shelby Spong, who argued in several books a different view.
Using approaches from the Hebrew interpretive tradition to discern the actual events surrounding Jesus' death, Bishop Spong questions the historical validity of literal narrative concerning the Resurrection. He asserts that the resurrection story was born in an experience that opened the disciples' eyes to the reality of God and the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. Spong traces the Christian origins of anti-Semitism to the Church's fabrication of the ultimate Jewish scapegoat, Judas Iscariot. He affirms the inclusiveness of the Christian message and emphasizes the necessity of mutual integrity and respect among Christians and Jews.
(blurb about "Resurrection: Myth or Reality?" by J.S.Spong, pub. 1995)
www.goodreads.com › Religion › Theology
-
IIRC Marcus Borg had a similar idea - that the Resurrection should be seen as s spiritual rather than a physical event.
It's really quite mind-blowing to consider how human history would look different were it not for the accidental way in which this Jewish apocalyptic prophet became God on the Cross.
-
Dicky, interesting post. Wasn't there a bishop who asked if you could have videoed the resurrection, and said, no? Can't remember who.
-
Borg's blog. Worth a rummage.
http://www.marcusjborg.com/2011/05/16/the-resurrection-of-jesus/
Liberal Christianity lost one of its most accessible writers with his passing.
-
IIRC Marcus Borg had a similar idea - that the Resurrection should be seen as s spiritual rather than a physical event.
It's really quite mind-blowing to consider how human history would look different were it not for the accidental way in which this Jewish apocalyptic prophet became God on the Cross.
Rhiannon
Whether that process of mythologizing was accidental or not is still a subject for debate :) Ehrman has suggested in recent books that it involved a degree of deliberate deception (which I'm not so sure about).
However, the discrepancies in the gospel narratives - let alone the differing take on the matter in St Paul - have long given scholars cause for thought on what the nature of the Resurrection might have been. A literal approach falls at the first fence - St John seems to want to have it both ways: a physical resurrection with all the stigmata, and yet a physical body that can pass through walls. And then there's the small matter of St Paul's express statement that "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". Okay, some might say - so there was no 'resurrection of the body' - next question...
The question is the one that Spong, Tillich, and apparently Borg have grappled with. These arguments certainly lack popular appeal (especially for those for whom this is an essentially binary argument). Jesus certainly appeared to be 'living in the hearts' of the early Christians - and no doubt does so to those for whom Jesus has supreme meaning today. I don't know how one can get beyond that - if Jesus is living for you in some way, and inspires you to do good, then one could hardly complain. This approach seemed to work for Albert Schweitzer.
-
Dicky, interesting post. Wasn't there a bishop who asked if you could have videoed the resurrection, and said, no? Can't remember who.
David Jenkins, perhaps (grossly misunderstood man, BTW). The latter actually did believe in a real, spiritual resurrection, not just a 'metaphorical one which had meaning to the early Christians'. He just accepted you couldn't accept the gospel accounts as definitive or truly descriptive, since they are so contradictory.