I’m really happy to hear how popular this view is. It’s one that makes sense to me too. I don’t want my old body back though.I’m afraid I haven’t taken very good care of it. If I knew it was eternal I certainly would have.
Gonna read these but just got home and I wanted to reply so people wouldn’t think I’d abandoned the thread which I have not done. Thanks for the links.
I disagree here. There is a difference between legislating morality and legislating a stable society. Laws should be for the latter. Strictly. Everyone agrees that murder is bad and disruptive to society so it must not be allowed. Even an anarchistic athiest isn’t going to want people murdering people. It’s an issue of civil stability not particularly a religious issue. Christians don’t own the being averse to murder franchise just because they consider it a sin. Everybody agrees this is a good thing.
In response to whether paying taxes to Caesar which violated Jewish law Jesus said
.
On murder, note that he forgave the murderer on the cross yet did not absolve him of Caesars punishment nor say it was unjust? Jesus didn’t believe in mixing a personal relationship with God ( which he granted ) with mans law ( which the man had broken ).
He did not view Caesars law as having anything at all to do with Gods’ forgiveness of the murderer. This clearly shows to me that he considered these as two separate things.
Ah, so heavenly paradise will be somewhat like that enjoyed by a neutered dog, is that approximately correct? But wait, since no sustenance will be required for a dog in heavenly paradise, it would be like a dog with no desires or drives whatsoever. So heavenly paradise is basically like being a dead dog – is that a fairly accurate approximation?
Actually, to be perfectly accurate, extrapolating from my previous submission, I now infer it to be like a dead dog that is class B fire resistant under standardized ASTM E-108 conditions. Basically a dead dog that won’t burn.
This gives me faith.
Well, there’s the harp playing and the singing. Some people really do enjoy this.
I don’t think the whole idea works like this though. Sins are temptations of the flesh not a part of the soul. What the soul likes, I have no idea but it won’t be any Earthlike vices.
If we broke ourselves into the molecular level none of those molecules are going to have desires akin to those of the wholly developed man. I think the thinking is that the soul is equivalent to this.
The prodigal son is one of my favorites because it echoed a time in my life when I turned back to Him. He won’t abandon us, but He gives us free will. The prodigal son did have to come back and be open to being taken care of.
Disgruntled Penguin:
The Talmud derives it from Isaiah 66:23-24:
Verse 24 implies that only “those who rebelled against [G-d]” will be in a situation where the “worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched”, so ordinary sinners (not rebels) are not punished eternally. How long would their punishment be? Verse 23 states “From one New Moon to another”, in Hebrew, that phrase literally says “From a New Moon to its* next New Moon”, in other words, implying when the same New Moon, i.e., month, re-occurs - i.e., one year. That’s when the others will be allowed to come and bow before G-d.
Jewish tradition does not believe that non-Jews are damned forever just for not being Jewish. There’s a place in Heaven for righteous non-Jews as well.
I think this explains the OP.
Bias and ignorance about the subject. Just came here to bash religion.
I realize this, it’s obvious now. You are secure in your ignorance on the subject and just came here to bash religion, based upon that ignorance.
So, exactly where was the “Great Debate” here? You set up a madeup strawman, and bash it. Nice.
I do not necessarily disagree with DrDeth’s analysis of the OP’s intent, however in my opinion, it’s ok. Maybe…just maybe the OP might glean a bit of knowledge that at some point in his/her life will become useful. Christian’s are supposed to share the word. I will never try to force it, but I certainly will share it.
Piss poor religion that can’t stand up to a little bashing. If it’s all that insecure, maybe it should form an inquisition to burn critics at the stake.
Yes, I agree, and you make a excellent point.
It’s not like He sends us out there to fend for ourselves and then condemns us. He gives us every chance in the world, and grace to do His will if we’re open to it, and forgiveness and second, third and millionth chances. He takes on our burdens and died for us so we don’t have to die. Given all that, He is merciful and He is also just.
Alas, he also sends earthquakes and plagues, and in one case is said to have wiped out humanity in a flood. The fantasy is not supportable that every single human was so evil as to require killing…and if God were merciful and just, he’d have just snapped his fingers and the sinners would have fallen dead.
God, in the Bible, is a completely pointless drama queen. The whole crucifixion was never necessary: God, as all-powerful, could simply have decreed mankind redeemed, and it would have been so. No sacrifice was necessary; to say it was means that God is not all-powerful, nor even able to govern the operations of his own creation.
God, in the Bible, is more than a little monstrous. Unleashing the Children of Israel on Canaan was a dog-rotten way of giving his Chosen People a homeland. If he can raise and lower the sea, why not lift up a nice, fresh, new, empty peninsula or island for them to live in? Why did it have to be someone else’s land, to be seized by exceptional brutality?
Either God is not all-powerful, or he is not all-good, and the Bible strongly suggests both.
Which has diddly squat to do with the OP. Well, other than they are both just bashing.
Trinopus:
“Someone else’s land?” (Theologically speaking, taking the Bible as represnting truth,) G-d is the owner of the land, and can grant it to whom he wishes. As it turns out, the residents of Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest were an extremely immoral bunch of nations, and that caused (in the Bible’s words) “the land to spit them out.”
It was a response to what gig posted…which also had squat to do with the OP.
cmkeller: The same problem pertains. Why eject the Canaanites by bloodshed, massacre, warfare of the most ghastly form – which God not only approves of but commands – when God could politely have inspired in the Canaanites the calm desire to migrate somewhere else.
Why is God unable to find the quiet, peaceful solution, especially if he is all-powerful and all-good?
Any one of us, here, would have done a better job!
If god was the owner of that land and wanted the Israelites to dwell there, he did a piss-poor job of taking care of that, and an even worse and most brutal job of correcting that little inconvenience. And by the way, the chosen people in the OT don’t behave one iota morally better than their defeated neighbors most of the time. It’s right there in the book.
You’ve answered my question. The answer is frank open hostility and name calling. Thanks for the answer.
I stand by my words as being what I believe. I am less kind by your interpretation of them
I hope you feel good that you’ve derailed a perfectly civil conversation. It was fun while it lasted. I don’t mind doubt about me. That’s fair. It’s the hostility and coming in with guns blazing that disappoint me.