[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So?
[/QUOTE]
“So?” answers everything. Either when used by religionists or secularists.
Of course, it also doesn’t answer anything.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
“So?” answers everything. Either when used by religionists or secularists.
Of course, it also doesn’t answer anything.
[/QUOTE]
The link does.
[QUOTE=Blake]
Am I to understand from this that you believe that an entity that orders the slaughter of small children and the rape of teenage girls to be the ultimate good, and a better standard of goodness than anything a a human can come up with? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Religious Jews do. And I agree with them.
Btw, you’re wrong about the rape.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The link does.
[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn’t. I agree with both Aquinas & Rousseau here. My head & heart both affirm trust in a Creator Who is ultimately kind & fair, Who manifested as Yahweh to Israel & then in flesh as Jesus.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
No, it doesn’t. I agree with both Aquinas & Rousseau here. My head & heart both affirm trust in a Creator Who is ultimately kind & fair, Who manifested as Yahweh to Israel & then in flesh as Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
Aquinas and Rousseau are not in agreement.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Aquinas and Rousseau are not in agreement.
[/QUOTE]
They aren’t but my point is- I see Thomistic thinking on God & Rousseauing feeling on God as both having valid places in one’s belief-system, with the intellectual path as having the edge.
Why must you be a divider & not a uniter? 
[QUOTE=Blake]
According to the JWs, Ecclesiatstes: “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.”
Yet another Biblical verse that is self-contradictory with other Biblical verses and requres a lot of squirming and interpretation to make it fit. The ancient Jewish tradition was that dead people are just plain dead intil the resurrection. But Jesus had a chat to Moses and Elisha, who had both long been dead.
[/QUOTE]
That’s Elijah, since I know you’re a guy who likes to get his facts straight.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Would you accept the bible’s indication that, in fact, after death you would be ‘nonexistant’, in as much as you would be non-sentient, unaware and simply dead?
[/QUOTE]
That is not what the Word says, take your apocrophia cite:
“For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.”
[QUOTE=Blake]
So the way Christians squirm out of this is by applying a true Scotsman. The dead are conscious of nothing at all, but angels, peoplw in limbo, souls in hell and so forth aren’t dead, they are angels, discorporated souls and so forth.
[/QUOTE]
No** Blake **you are simply wrong. People do not become angels, or in limbo - both are unscripturally. God is the God of the living:
[QUOTE=Matthew 22 NIV]
31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32’I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
[/QUOTE]
The dead in that contects in OT times equates to those in Hell in NT times, those who worshiped other then the God of the living, themselves or one of Satan’s forms. They are effectively removed from eternal life.
[QUOTE=Nancarrow]
The OP is not asking how he or she can change anyone’s mind. They’re asking what would change someone’s mind. This is an important difference.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, that’s correct, I have no interest in changing peoples’ minds.
I do find this very interesting, though. We’ve only gotten one real response, and that was logic (Auntbeast’s answer). In the corresponding atheist thread we did a bit better, I think. The atheists, for the most part, are at least willing to consider the alternative, even if the standard of proof is high. That doesn’t seem to be the case with religious people.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
That is not what the Word says, take your apocrophia cite:
“For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.”
[/QUOTE]
Nothing apocryphal about Ecclesiastes, kb. Did you think Blake meant Ecclesiasticus?
[QUOTE=Renee]
Thank you, that’s correct, I have no interest in changing peoples’ minds.
I do find this very interesting, though. We’ve only gotten one real response, and that was logic (Auntbeast’s answer). In the corresponding atheist thread we did a bit better, I think. The atheists, for the most part, are at least willing to consider the alternative, even if the standard of proof is high. That doesn’t seem to be the case with religious people.
[/QUOTE]
Well, but to be fair, Auntbeast is not a theist.
[QUOTE=Renee]
The atheists, for the most part, are at least willing to consider the alternative, even if the standard of proof is high.
[/QUOTE]
You left out the significant adverb - “absurdly”. I might as well say that I will consider atheism when you are able to show me God’s dead body. 
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Nothing apocryphal about Ecclesiastes, kb. Did you think Blake meant Ecclesiasticus?
[/QUOTE]
Thank you Malacandra, that was a running out to work post, I realized by mistake on the way, glad someone corrected it.
The book of Ecclesiastes shows how everything in the flesh is meaningless without the eternal (spiritual) side.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
[QUOTE=Renee]
The atheists, for the most part, are at least willing to consider the alternative, even if the standard of proof is high.
[/QUOTE]
You left out the significant adverb - “absurdly”. I might as well say that I will consider atheism when you are able to show me God’s dead body.
[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair, the standard of proof is absurdly high, because it is trying to prove something that is even more absurdly improbable.
As for god’s dead body, I don’t think you’re playing the game very well. Try and do better, or admit that you’re not willing to openly examine the alternatives.
[QUOTE=Blake]
Am I to understand from this that you believe that an entity that orders the slaughter of small children and the rape of teenage girls to be the ultimate good, and a better standard of goodness than anything a a human can come up with?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Religious Jews do. And I agree with them.
[/QUOTE]
This is truly scary. Why this isn’t considered a mental disorder is beyond me.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
This is truly scary. Why this isn’t considered a mental disorder is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]
For the same reason that homosexuality WAS considered mental illness for such a long time. Political power.
[QUOTE=Nancarrow]
Q: What would change my mind about God’s non-existence? A: All the stars in the sky moving into position so as to spell out Goldbach’s conjecture* in Serbo-Croatian, independently verifiable by astronomers the world over and by the camera on the New Horizons probe.
[/QUOTE]
Well, only half the Balkans will believe, then, depending on what script God writes it in.
There is nothing in this world that could change my mind. War, pestilance, the rape of children, the death of loved ones, all of these do serve some purpose when they are looked into and not just judged on the surface.
When we judge things on the surface we are being lazy, selfish and pridefull. We are too lazy to look for all of the facts, too selfish to try and empathize with someone elses point of view, and too pridefull not to admit that we might not already know all of the answers.
Do I feign to understand the purpose and plan behind all evil and unspeakable acts? Certainly not, there are a lot of sick and twisted people out there. God does not stop them for a reason, faith in His plan tells me that. I don’t need to understand it, I just need the faith to accept that 1. This too shall pass and 2. All things will work themselves out in the end.
Finally, a poem I found that kind of sums it up for me:
Of course YMMV - N8
[QUOTE=Blake]
According to the JWs, Ecclesiatstes: “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.”
Yet another Biblical verse that is self-contradictory with other Biblical verses and requres a lot of squirming and interpretation to make it fit. The ancient Jewish tradition was that dead people are just plain dead intil the resurrection. But Jesus had a chat to Moses and Elisha, who had both long been dead.
So the way Christians squirm out of this is by applying a true Scotsman. The * dead* are conscious of nothing at all, but angels, peoplw in limbo, souls in hell and so forth aren’t dead, they are angels, discorporated souls and so forth.
Yeah, I know it’s ablatant true scotamsn and renders the Ecclesiastes verse utterly meaningless, **but there you have it. **The trouble is that the Christain view of the afterlife was not the Jeiwsh view.
[/QUOTE]
Highlighting mine
Well, no, no you don’t have it.
While the text Blake cited is germane to the JW belief in the question of life (or death) after death, it is but one text among many other texts and contexts that speak to it.
The rest of this post----especially the stuff about limbo, souls in hell etc----are not part of JW teaching.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
UNTIL The Resurrection!
I’m going to open a new GD thread on your faith’s teaching on The Restoration. Please join it.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you FriarTed.
I’ll join the discussion later this evening.
[QUOTE=MrFantsyPants]
Well, to be fair, the standard of proof is absurdly high, because it is trying to prove something that is even more absurdly improbable.
As for god’s dead body, I don’t think you’re playing the game very well. Try and do better, or admit that you’re not willing to openly examine the alternatives.
[/QUOTE]
I’m playing the game at least as well as those who want the stars in the sky rearranged to spell out Goldbach’s Conjecture and its proof in Serbo-Croat, dude. Why does their side get to mock, and not mine?
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Why does their side get to mock, and not mine?
[/QUOTE]
Plenty of mockery to go around! Here:
Q: What would it take to change a theist’s mind?
A: A bone saw, a melon baller, and a roll of duct tape.
Thanks, you’ve been a great congregation. I’m here every Sunday.