Guaranteed freedoms sometimes come into conflict

Psolus Says, "Find someone that you trust, and ask him or her to explain sarcasm to you."

Perhaps you should learn something here Psolus, that sarcasm only works as a communication strategy when you use it sparingly, where you provide a distinct contrast between what is straightforward and honest, and you throw in a bit of sarcasm, and it is the contrast that makes the sarcasm bite.

I guess you are saying that you are always sarcastic, and since there is no contrast, I think everyone here takes it as a uniform pattern of dodging and weaving.

If you use it all the time, its a lot like the boy who called wolf over and over. Pretty soon you put the people to sleep regarding your true intent.

Now, if you would simply answer the question in a straightforward manner, we can move on.

You have a Catholic History. You have placed that on the record. And you have a streak of stubborn defiance in the direction of God, which goes beyond just "attitude", which makes it likely that the priests and nuns would believe there is something extra operating in your world, and they might therefore consider you a candidate for an exorcism. And my question is simply this, did the priests and nuns you had contact with recommend you for an exorcism, or try to perform one on you without your consent? Just give me a straight answer if you please.

GoldenEagles,

"I admit that your style of dodging and weaving makes it somewhat difficult to get a grasp on the true meaning of your answers."

Are you serious?

"I took your previous response to indicate that the priests and nuns did attempt to perform an exorcism on you."

Are you freaking serious?

"And I was just asking whether that exorcism was with your consent, or against your will."

Dude, I think you're a little beyond your depth here.

Find someone that you trust, and ask him or her to explain sarcasm to you.

(fin)

"Mmmm….I Co. 15:52-54 in no way refutes my contention that the Kingdom has already been inaugurated/established on earth. I understand these events are to take place at the consummation of the Kingdom. Your use of Re. 21:22-26 cites events that clearly are to take place at the consummation. Again, this doesn’t refute my contention."

I cite verses highlighting interaction between people and the kingdom, that can only happen upon Christ's return, and you say it doesn't prove that the kingdom has yet to be established?

"The “fowls of the heaven” thing is a new one on me. But even taking that interpretation, the parable still speaks of the Kingdom beginning small and progressively growing larger. Where to do you find that happening in scripture if Christ did not inaugurate the Kingdom during His first Advent?"

You're so stuck on whether or not the kingdom has been "established", (which means absolutely zero, since we all know we're here reading this, and not in the city of God worshiping before the throne) you don't even care that you were just shown something in scripture you've never heard before.

"You’re rebutting my interpretation of that passage by saying the scribes and Pharisees were trying to keep the dead from entering heaven??"

Nope. I was rebutting this:
"The scribes and Pharisees could not enter the Kingdom because they were depending on their own righteousness instead of trusting in the righteousness of Christ."

The example of Lazarus and the rich man proves that acts, whether righteous or unrighteous, play a role in determining whether or not you can enter the kingdom after death

"Yes, but surely you agree that the authority of Satan is subordinate to the authority of Christ, who has been given all authority in heaven and earth (Mt. 28:19), right?"

Yes, but obviously Christ isn't exercising authority upon the Earth. If he is, he's not doing very well. If he were here, and the kingdom established on this Earth, do you think we would have to discuss doctrine?

"Now, if you will apply the last two summary points of my 3 part post (you agreed with both) to the passages you have been hashing over with Peter, I guarantee you they will read differently for you."

And you called me arrogant.

Psolus asks, " ... do you have any idea what is going on here?"

I admit that your style of dodging and weaving makes it somewhat difficult to get a grasp on the true meaning of your answers.

I took your previous response to indicate that the priests and nuns did attempt to perform an exorcism on you. And I was just asking whether that exorcism was with your consent, or against your will.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, was that exorcism performed with your consent, or against your will?"

Dude, do you have any idea what is going on here?

Psolus, was that exorcism performed with your consent, or against your will?

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, during the time you were associated with the Catholic Church, did the priests reccommend you for an exorcism, or try to perform an exorcism on you against your will?"

Well, they called it an exorcism, but the nice police lady who had me point at the doll when I told her about it called it something else.

"And if so, what was the experience like?"

Do you have a doll that I can point to while I tell you?

"Does that represent a fond memory for you?"

Hey, were you the one with that weird mole?

Psolus, during the time you were associated with the Catholic Church, did the priests reccommend you for an exorcism, or try to perform an exorcism on you against your will? And if so, what was the experience like? Does that represent a fond memory for you?

REMINDER:

This thread will time out soon. When it does, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2011/02/keep_the_focus_on_candidates_capabilities_not_their_faith.html

PEREGRINE,

....Bwaaaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaahaaaaaaaa....

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, the problem you had with Catholics, is that they kept recommending you for an Exorcism, is that right?"

No, the problem I had with catholics, and still have, is that they never finished rebuilding the Pont d'Avignon.

"This posture of stubborn defiance against the precepts of common sense indicates the activity of something that is beyond a mere "attitude"."

I agree; how cool would it have been if they would have just finished rebuilding it?

(fin)

RCofield,

"Oooohaahaaahaaaa....That's OK Peregrine."

You're welcome.

"That's just your opinion, and even you don't believe your opinions..."

Now you're learning.

"haaaaaaahaaahaaaa"

Seriously, you might want to have someone look into that.

Psolus, the problem you had with Catholics, is that they kept recommending you for an Exorcism, is that right?

This posture of stubborn defiance against the precepts of common sense indicates the activity of something that is beyond a mere "attitude".

PEREGRINE,

You have only yourself to blame.

Oooohaahaaahaaaa....That's OK Peregrine.

That's just your opinion, and even you don't believe your opinions...haaaaaaahaaahaaaa

RCofield,

"I asked you to post your definition of "belief.""

Well, I rarely read you comments, except cursorily.

You have only yourself to blame.

Besides, I don't have a definition of any word; I am not a dictionary.

"You posted it with fanfare."

No, I posted it with my Dell laptop.

"Own it."

I own nothing that is not mine to own.

"....Bwaaaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaahaaaaaaaa"

Are you being possessed?

If you wish to win this particular round of this little "intellectual wrestling match" so badly, why don't you and I just pretend that you did?

It'll be our little secret; the others don't have to know.

GoldenEagles,

"I know this because you are a passionate spokesman for abortion, refusing to see the handiwork of God in the miracle of the child."

In other words, because I disagree with your beliefs.

"That is as close to the utterance of absolute evil as you can get."

Really?

And here nobody thought that I'd make anything of myself.

"It would be impossible for a normal human being to hold such views, without some heavy arm-twisting going on."

How do you know that; are you the one doing the arm-twisting?

"Only a much stronger force of evil can account for such egregious distortions of common sense."

Are you saying that there is a stronger force of evil than I?

I think that I'm disappointed.

"Those who allow that force of evil to wag their own tongue, as we see in your case, are those who have sold their soul to the devil."

How do you know that I'm not the devil?

"At some point, you rented out one of your guest bedrooms to this creature in exchange for something of value."

Would that have been taxable income?

Did I include linen service and meals?

"After that, you had no choice but to give him the run of the house."

So, that's why the bathroom smells so bad.

"I am not sure what they, or you, believe you received of value for the exchange."

Well, I sure hope it was worth it.

"What do you feel you're gaining by denying the role of God in the creation of the child?"

I don't know, you tell me; this is your fantasy, not mine.

"I can’t fathom it, so you'll have to explain it."

Haven't you been explaining so far?

If you can't fathom it, could it be that maybe you are way off base here?

"But actually, I have never heard you try to explain anything."

I don't think that I could explain your beliefs, even if I tried.

"This “no belief” charade you hide behind, is just a mechanism of hiding the truth from your own eyes."

How do you know that?

Did your god tell you that?

"It is surely a spineless approach to life."

Then, why does it appear to threaten you so?

"There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see."

Cool; did you read that in a fortune cookie?

(fin)

PEREGRINE,

Firs, none of those definitions are my accepted definition; they are only some of the many different definitions for the word.

I asked you to post your definition of "belief."

You posted it with fanfare.

Own it.

Third, I do not believe my opinions, and my opinions are not based on any beliefs.

....Bwaaaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaahaaaaaaaa

MRMEANER,

Now, if you will apply the last two summary points of my 3 part post (you agreed with both) to the passages you have been hashing over with Peter, I guarantee you they will read differently for you.

RCofield,

"So you are, by your own accepted definition, one who holds beliefs."

Firs, none of those definitions are my accepted definition; they are only some of the many different definitions for the word.

Second, I do not have to live my life according to a particular dictionary definition, just as I do not have to live my life according to any of your beliefs.

Third, I do not believe my opinions, and my opinions are not based on any beliefs.

MRMEANER,

Already answered on February 6, 2011 3:16 PM

Mmmm….I Co. 15:52-54 in no way refutes my contention that the Kingdom has already been inaugurated/established on earth. I understand these events are to take place at the consummation of the Kingdom. Your use of Re. 21:22-26 cites events that clearly are to take place at the consummation. Again, this doesn’t refute my contention.

Already answered on February 6, 2011 3:16 PM, as well as February 8, 2011 9:25 PM

Read it 3 times. Not following.

" the birds of the air" or "the fowls of heaven" (KJV translation)
That's not a good thing. You will not find a reference to the fowls of heaven that is cast in a positive light. Always negative.
It is speaking of an infiltration of unclean, ravenous doctrine that would corrupt the enlarged church in the latter days.

The “fowls of the heaven” thing is a new one on me. But even taking that interpretation, the parable still speaks of the Kingdom beginning small and progressively growing larger. Where to do you find that happening in scripture if Christ did not inaugurate the Kingdom during His first Advent?

Of course there were. Why did Lazarus find himself in the bosom of Abraham, while the rich man could only watch from a distance? Was it not due to unrighteousness?

You’re rebutting my interpretation of that passage by saying the scribes and Pharisees were trying to keep the dead from entering heaven??

I interpret it (Mt. 8:11-12) more literally.

OK…..

I said:

"In short, there is an “already/not ye” aspect to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is already inaugurated, but it is not yet consummated. It has been inaugurated by the finished work of Christ on the cross. It has been confirmed by His resurrection from the dead. The Kingdom has a present King, Jesus Christ, who rules His Kingdom now, having been given all power and authority and having been given a name that is above every name"—RCO

You responded:

I would agree. But this Earth is currently under the authority described in Eph.2:2.

Yes, but surely you agree that the authority of Satan is subordinate to the authority of Christ, who has been given all authority in heaven and earth (Mt. 28:19), right?

I said:

"And this Kingdom is moving inexorably toward the great consummation depicted in Revelation 21 & 22. Yes, it is suffering violence, just as it did in the days of John the Baptist and Jesus. Yes, it will suffer more, even increasing violence as we draw near to its consummation. But rejoice, brother. The Kingdom of heaven is here, and it is in us as the children of God."--RCO

You replied:

I totally agree.

See? My post was neither insane, abominable, or apostate, was it?

MrMeaner,

"Yes."

So, a sentient being is free to choose to not be a believer.

"There would be no need for a judgment, if people weren't free to make that choice."

I don't like the sound of "need for a judgement".

Who does the judging?

Is that where you come in?

Is a sentient being to be judged for choosing to not be a believer?

What is the punishment for choosing to not be a believer?

"No."

So, while I, as a sentient being, am free to choose to not be a believer, I, as a sentient being, am not free to choose to believe nothing?

Are you saying that I am free to choose to not be a believer, but only as long as I also choose, or allow myself to be forced, to believe in something?

Can it be only one thing, or is there a minimum number of things that I am to be forced to believe?

"If you were to believe nothing, you would be a drooling vegetable, unable to be having this conversation."

How do you know this?

On what are you basing that statement?

Psolus asks, “How do you know that I sold my "soul" to your [bleep] "devil"?

I know this because you are a passionate spokesman for abortion, refusing to see the handiwork of God in the miracle of the child. That is as close to the utterance of absolute evil as you can get. It would be impossible for a normal human being to hold such views, without some heavy arm-twisting going on. Only a much stronger force of evil can account for such egregious distortions of common sense. Those who allow that force of evil to wag their own tongue, as we see in your case, are those who have sold their soul to the devil. At some point, you rented out one of your guest bedrooms to this creature in exchange for something of value. After that, you had no choice but to give him the run of the house. I am not sure what they, or you, believe you received of value for the exchange.

What do you feel you're gaining by denying the role of God in the creation of the child? I can’t fathom it, so you'll have to explain it. But actually, I have never heard you try to explain anything.

This “no belief” charade you hide behind, is just a mechanism of hiding the truth from your own eyes. It is surely a spineless approach to life.

There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

PEREGRINE,

be·lief (bi l"fÆ), n.
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction

So you are, by your own accepted definition, one who holds beliefs.

"Does a sentient being have to be a believer?"

No

"Can a sentient being choose to not be a believer?"

Yes. There would be no need for a judgment, if people weren't free to make that choice.

"Can a sentient being choose to believe in nothing?"

No. If you were to believe nothing, you would be a drooling vegetable, unable to be having this conversation.

MrMeaner,

"As a sentient being."

Does a sentient being have to be a believer?

Can a sentient being choose to not be a believer?

Can a sentient being choose not to believe?

Can a sentient being choose to believe in nothing?

"Do you believe that everyone else has to agree with you?"

No

"Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is insane?"

No

"As a believer?"

As a sentient being.

MrMeaner,

"No."

Fair enough.

Do you believe that everyone else has to agree with you?

"I would be insane if I attempted to do so."

Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is insane?

"I'll never agree that a belief is not a belief."

Well, that wasn't the question, but, if that's the best you can do...

"I'm just wired that way."

As a believer?

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, when you sold your soul to the devil, it might be that he put it, like unto a valuable jewel, into a hermitically sealed lock box."

How do you know that I sold my "soul" to your imaginary "devil"?

"The question for you is, how do you get it back?"

No, the question is: How do you know that I sold my "soul" to your imaginary "devil"?

"If this is the situation that confronts you,..."

It isn't.

"...I would expect you to have a strong intuitive sense that you currently do not have a soul."

Well, you can't be right all the time, can you?

"That would make sense."

To you perhaps; not to me.

"However, you should also be able to make this internal differentiation, between, on the one hand, NEVER having had a soul, and on the other, having had a soul at one time, and having misplaced it, being currently without it, i.e. at the present moment."

Since I'm not superstitious, I'm guessing that I never had one, just as I never had a unicorn, and never found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

"Do you sense that you had a soul at one time, but that you have misplaced it?"

I sense that you are one of the weirder people on this blog.

Do you know TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1?

(fin)

peterhuff,

"Because it is impossible to go through life without beliefs, structures that you base most opinions on,..."

Again, how do you know that?

On what are you basing that claim?

Are you sure that that is not simply your opinion?

"But ever evidence shows that you have an organized system of chaos. ... You constantly turn the discussion into little nothings, which shows that you are playing a game and do believe that there are rules to that game - making everything redundant and nonsense."

Again, how do you know that?

On what are you basing that claim?

Are you sure that that is not simply your opinion?

"But I must say that you broke down on this very thread and did actually have something to say on abortion."

First, I did not break down.

Second, I've previously said exactly what I said here on many threads on this blog.

Hint: Just because you did not see something, does not mean that it did not happen.

"Please see above."

See my questions above, also.

"Enough to know that you have been hurt by Christians and that you now have a resentment towards them that results in these games you play."

That's like saying that I walked by a tree at some point in my life.

Who hasn't been hurt by one or another sort of believer in his or her life?

"Enough to know that you have bought into one of the great deceptions of our time, relativism, nihilism, and post-modernism."

Again, how do you know that about me?

On what are you basing that claim?

Are you sure that that is not simply your opinion?

"I stated your foundation above."

As far as I can gather, you simply stated several of your opinions.

"As for how long you have thought this way, I'm not a mind reader."

Then, why do you claim to know things about me that you have no possible way of knowing?

"Many, although sometimes I just blurt out something nonsensical."

Sometimes?

Don't be so modest.

"I never said that."

So, are you saying that it is possible to form an opinion without a belief?

"I've done it without trying many times, but you have a system that you work from that you use to refute other claims."

Again, how do you know that about me?

On what are you basing that claim?

Are you sure that that is not simply your opinion?

"It is a belief you have convinced yourself of or rather are trying to convince us of."

Again, how do you know that about me?

On what are you basing that claim?

Are you sure that that is not simply your opinion?

"How can you know it without believing it?"

Are you incapable of knowing something without also believing it?

Am I capable of doing only what you are capable of doing?

Hint: Just because you cannot do something, does not necessarily mean that nobody else can do it.

More...

More:

"What is knowledge based on?"

Many things: Evidence, experience, learning, extrapolation, etc.

"Hopefully on what is believed to be true."

Is everything that is believed to be true, true?

Is everything that is not believed to be true, not true?

"What is truth based on?"

Are you asking about absolute truth, or what is believed to be the truth?

Can anyone even know truth.

"Hopefully on what is real."

How do you know what is real?

"What is choice based on?"

The act of choosing?

"A decision?"

Perhaps, that too.

"What is a decision based on?"

The act of deciding?

"A moral belief hopefully in what is true."

What is a moral belief?

How do you know that a moral belief is true?

"Is nothing true?"

Is anything true?

(fin)

"Do you have to agree that a belief in nothing is not a belief?"

No. I would be insane if I attempted to do so. I'll never agree that a belief is not a belief. I'm just wired that way.

PH

I should have added that my understanding is that the temple won't be built in this age. In fact, it is written that the Lord God and the Lamb are the temple. (I take that to mean temple in a metaphysical sense...much in the way that the true church makes up the body of Christ)

PH

I can't think of a better example than the parable of the fig tree.
Jesus cursed it (The city fell at the hands of Titus), but then he promised that when the fig tree would begin to re-sprout forth, that generation would not pass away before all things are fulfilled.

As far as Darby is concerned, I don't agree with much that I know from his teachings, but I do agree with the gap theory.
It makes sense to me that the days of the last "week", would correspond to the last seven years of this age.
And the fact that the Messiah is said to be "cut off", at 62 weeks, with seven years (or days)remaining, the seventieth being his return, seems to bolster my argument.

"Then you later called into question someone of the links I provided as bad theology. Explain how. I'm willing to consider what you have to say."

I've already explained it.
The page I saw was suggesting that because Rev. Ch. 20 didn't mention the change in bodies, that this wasn't referring to the time that I have described.

"While you are at it please could you point out to me why the destruction of the city and Temple have not been mentioned in any of the letters/epistles. Why is Scripture silent on such a catastrophic event, the end of the Jewish system of worship?"

You tell me. I'm the one saying that the destruction of the temple isn't the subject of these questionable prophecies.
Also, the Jewish system of worship hasn't ended. It may not be practiced by many, but it still exists.

"Also, while you are at it, please point to me what verses speak of a rebuilt temple in the NT? It seems that the Jewish believers are waiting for this near at hand event that Jesus predicted, but no one mentions the destruction as having been completed or preparations to rebuild the temple."

Rev. Ch.21, and the Book of Ezekiel, from Ch. 40-end

Psolus says, “I mean exactly that: I don't have a soul.”

Psolus, when you sold your soul to the devil, it might be that he put it, like unto a valuable jewel, into a hermitically sealed lock box. The question for you is, how do you get it back?

If this is the situation that confronts you, I would expect you to have a strong intuitive sense that you currently do not have a soul. That would make sense.

However, you should also be able to make this internal differentiation, between, on the one hand, NEVER having had a soul, and on the other, having had a soul at one time, and having misplaced it, being currently without it, i.e. at the present moment.

Do you sense that you had a soul at one time, but that you have misplaced it?

Hi PSolus,

Sorry, I have to take a nap, so this will be my last post today.

ME: "You are lying to yourself."

PSO: "How do you know that?"

Because it is impossible to go through life without beliefs, structures that you base most opinions on, although I will admit that sometimes they are not thought of from a world-view standpoint but just blurted out without considering what it is that you believe.

But ever evidence shows that you have an organized system of chaos. (^8 You constantly turn the discussion into little nothings, which shows that you are playing a game and do believe that there are rules to that game - making everything redundant and nonsense. But I must say that you broke down on this very thread and did actually have something to say on abortion. Congratulations!

PSO: "On what are you basing that statement?"

Please see above.

PSO: "What, exactly, do you know about me?"

Enough to know that you have been hurt by Christians and that you now have a resentment towards them that results in these games you play. Enough to know that you have bought into one of the great deceptions of our time, relativism, nihilism, and post-modernism.

ME: "You are so caught up in the quagmire of postmodern thought that you will not accept the fact that you have a foundation of beliefs that shape the very way you think."

PSO: "OK, then, tell me what my "foundation of beliefs" is, how long that I have had it, how I developed it, how it evolved over time, and anything else that care to share with me."

I stated your foundation above. As for how long you have thought this way, I'm not a mind reader.

ME: "Opinions are formed from beliefs."

PSO: "Are your opinions formed only from beliefs?"

Many, although sometimes I just blurt out something nonsensical.

PSO: "Are you sure that it is impossible to form an opinion without a belief?"

I never said that.

PSO: "Have you ever tried?"

I've done it without trying many times, but you have a system that you work from that you use to refute other claims. That shows a belief system.

ME: "When you say that you believe nothing, you have in fact stated a belief."

PSO: "Not if I do not believe that I believe nothing."

It is a belief you have convinced yourself of or rather are trying to convince us of.

ME: "I bet that you are the only one on this forum that actually believes you have no beliefs."

PSO: "I may well be the only person on this forum who knows that I have no beliefs, simply because everyone else simply chooses not to believe that I have no beliefs, and, good for them, by the way."

How can you know it without believing it? What is knowledge based on? Hopefully on what is believed to be true. What is truth based on? Hopefully on what is real. What is choice based on? A decision? What is a decision based on? A moral belief hopefully in what is true.

Is nothing true?

Hi PSolus,

Sorry, I have to take a nap, so this will be my last post today.

ME: "You are lying to yourself."

PSO: "How do you know that?"

Because it is impossible to go through life without beliefs, structures that you base most opinions on, although I will admit that sometimes they are not thought of from a world-view standpoint but just blurted out without considering what it is that you believe.

But ever evidence shows that you have an organized system of chaos. (^8 You constantly turn the discussion into little nothings, which shows that you are playing a game and do believe that there are rules to that game - making everything redundant and nonsense. But I must say that you broke down on this very thread and did actually have something to say on abortion. Congratulations!

PSO: "On what are you basing that statement?"

Please see above.

PSO: "What, exactly, do you know about me?"

Enough to know that you have been hurt by Christians and that you now have a resentment towards them that results in these games you play. Enough to know that you have bought into one of the great deceptions of our time, relativism, nihilism, and post-modernism.

ME: "You are so caught up in the quagmire of postmodern thought that you will not accept the fact that you have a foundation of beliefs that shape the very way you think."

PSO: "OK, then, tell me what my "foundation of beliefs" is, how long that I have had it, how I developed it, how it evolved over time, and anything else that care to share with me."

I stated your foundation above. As for how long you have thought this way, I'm not a mind reader.

ME: "Opinions are formed from beliefs."

PSO: "Are your opinions formed only from beliefs?"

Many, although sometimes I just blurt out something nonsensical.

PSO: "Are you sure that it is impossible to form an opinion without a belief?"

I never said that.

PSO: "Have you ever tried?"

I've done it without trying many times, but you have a system that you work from that you use to refute other claims. That shows a belief system.

ME: "When you say that you believe nothing, you have in fact stated a belief."

PSO: "Not if I do not believe that I believe nothing."

It is a belief you have convinced yourself of or rather are trying to convince us of.

ME: "I bet that you are the only one on this forum that actually believes you have no beliefs."

PSO: "I may well be the only person on this forum who knows that I have no beliefs, simply because everyone else simply chooses not to believe that I have no beliefs, and, good for them, by the way."

How can you know it without believing it? What is knowledge based on? Hopefully on what is believed to be true. What is truth based on? Hopefully on what is real. What is choice based on? A decision? What is a decision based on? A moral belief hopefully in what is true.

Is nothing true?

MrMeaner,

"C'mon, man.
Surely you have to agree that a belief in nothing is a belief, itself, don't you?"

Do I?

Do you have to agree that a belief in nothing is not a belief?

RCofield,

"Good grief.
Why don't you humor us and give us your definition of belief."

Consider yourself humored:

be·lief (b-lf)
n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe), of Old English gelafa. See leubh- in Indo-European Roots.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

be·lief (bi l"fÆ), n.
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
[1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (n. use of v.); r. ME bileave, equiv. to bi- BE- + leave; cf. OE gel"afa (c. D geloof, G Glaube; akin to Goth galaubeins)]

Rcofield says, “test”.

Indeed. That’s what its all about.

Beyond that, if you want to know for sure if the forum has timed out or not, you can type in your word “TEST” and hit the preview button. On the preview page, if there is no comment box displayed for editing, then you know the forum has timed out.

"Again, I don't have to; I already know that I believe nothing"

C'mon, man.
Surely you have to agree that a belief in nothing is a belief, itself, don't you?

PEREGRINE,

Not if I do not believe that I believe nothing.

Good grief.

Why don't you humor us and give us your definition of belief.

Hi MrMeaner,

I have a few minutes before I take an afternoon nap for the dreaded midnight shift.

You said:

I'm sorry, but it appears to me that you are the one who has to displace or discard much of the NT teachings, to make it fit your preconceptions. - MrM

Let's put it this way. Can you find any verses of Scripture in the NT, especially the gospels and even Jesus' parables, let alone the OT, that suggests at least, that God is about to judge His people. a lot of these parables talk about judgment. Shall we start looking at them? Then there are the plain references that Jesus makes, of which I have given you a few and you have danced over them.

You should at least look at the verses that Jesus makes reference to 'this generation' and see if what I have said rings true.

Like I said, it's nothing to me. I just call it like I see it, until shown otherwise. And I have seen no evidence presented here, that would challenge what I believe to be truth. -MrM

You 'call it like [you] see it' but do you see it as God has revealed it. You have started that you are willing to compromise with Darby on the 'gap hypothesis.' Then you later called into question someone of the links I provided as bad theology. Explain how. I'm willing to consider what you have to say.

Paul commended Timothy and indirectly other believers to study to show ourselves approved, workmen who correctly handle the word of truth. RCofield has made an important point to you about the gap in Daniel 9:24-27, where no gap actually exists in the text that I am aware of. Maybe you can point this out to me.

While you are at it please could you point out to me why the destruction of the city and Temple have not been mentioned in any of the letters/epistles. Why is Scripture silent on such a catastrophic event, the end of the Jewish system of worship?

Also, while you are at it, please point to me what verses speak of a rebuilt temple in the NT? It seems that the Jewish believers are waiting for this near at hand event that Jesus predicted, but no one mentions the destruction as having been completed or preparations to rebuild the temple.

In my opinion, you are selling the word short. - MrM

And in mine, you are not paying enough attention to what is actually said and how it corresponds with other Scripture, brother.

RC
Here are the answers to your earlier questions:

"Has the Kingdom of Heaven been established here upon the earth yet? What saith the scripture?"

Already answered on February 6, 2011 3:16 PM

"Note here that it some sense the Kingdom of Heaven existed here on earth from the days of John the Baptist until the time Christ made this statement. The Kingdom suffered violence with the beheading of John the Baptist, and it was about to suffer even greater violence with the Jews rejection of Christ as Messiah and their crucifixion of Him."

Already answered on February 6, 2011 3:16 PM, as well as February 8, 2011 9:25 PM

"Mt 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
The “mustard seed” was the smallest of seeds. This speaks of the small beginnings of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet the little grain of mustard seed grows into a great tree, and the birds rest in its branches. This speaks to the great consummation of the Kingdom of Heaven."

" the birds of the air" or "the fowls of heaven" (KJV translation)
That's not a good thing. You will not find a reference to the fowls of heaven that is cast in a positive light. Always negative.
It is speaking of an infiltration of unclean, ravenous doctrine that would corrupt the enlarged church in the latter days.

"There were those entering the Kingdom of Heaven even at this point as is testified by this verse. The scribes and Pharisees could not enter the Kingdom because they were depending on their own righteousness instead of trusting in the righteousness of Christ."

Of course there were. Why did Lazarus find himself in the bosom of Abraham, while the rich man could only watch from a distance? Was it not due to unrighteousness?

part 1

cont.

"Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Does this not speak to the grafting in of the Gentiles, which begins to take place on a large scale in the book of Acts? Again, this testifies to a “here and now” aspect of the Kingdom of Heaven."

I interpret it more literally.

"The scribes and Pharisees were presently—at that time—trying to keep others from entering the Kingdom. Yet clearly there were some who were entering a present Kingdom."

Yes. I just provided one example.

"In short, there is an “already/not ye” aspect to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is already inaugurated, but it is not yet consummated. It has been inaugurated by the finished work of Christ on the cross. It has been confirmed by His resurrection from the dead. The Kingdom has a present King, Jesus Christ, who rules His Kingdom now, having been given all power and authority and having been given a name that is above every name"

I would agree. But this Earth is currently under the authority described in Eph.2:2.

"And this Kingdom is moving inexorably toward the great consummation depicted in Revelation 21 & 22. Yes, it is suffering violence, just as it did in the days of John the Baptist and Jesus. Yes, it will suffer more, even increasing violence as we draw near to its consummation. But rejoice, brother. The Kingdom of heaven is here, and it is in us as the children of God."

I totally agree.

end

peterhuff,

"You are lying to yourself."

How do you know that?

On what are you basing that statement?

What, exactly, do you know about me?

"You are so caught up in the quagmire of postmodern thought that you will not accept the fact that you have a foundation of beliefs that shape the very way you think."

OK, then, tell me what my "foundation of beliefs" is, how long that I have had it, how I developed it, how it evolved over time, and anything else that care to share with me.

"Opinions are formed from beliefs."

Are your opinions formed only from beliefs?

Are you sure that it is impossible to form an opinion without a belief?

Have you ever tried?

Is your failure to do so an indication of universality?

"When you say that you believe nothing, you have in fact stated a belief."

Not if I do not believe that I believe nothing.

"I bet that you are the only one on this forum that actually believes you have no beliefs."

I may well be the only person on this forum who knows that I have no beliefs, simply because everyone else simply chooses not to believe that I have no beliefs, and, good for them, by the way.

"Can I conduct a survey on PSolus."

Go right ahead.

"Walter, MrMeaner, RCofield, GoldenEagles, does PSolus have beliefs?"

Show your work, people: tell me what my "foundation of beliefs" is, how long that I have had it, how I developed it, how it evolved over time, and anything else that care to share with me.

Hi PSolus,

Again, I don't have to; I already know that I believe nothing. -PSolus

You are lying to yourself. You are so caught up in the quagmire of postmodern thought that you will not accept the fact that you have a foundation of beliefs that shape the very way you think. Opinions are formed from beliefs. When you say that you believe nothing, you have in fact stated a belief. I bet that you are the only one on this forum that actually believes you have no beliefs.

Can I conduct a survey on PSolus. Walter, MrMeaner, RCofield, GoldenEagles, does PSolus have beliefs?

RCofield,

"Already been done."

Not by you.

"The scientific community (one of your apparent "gods," along with "U.S. Law")..."

Wrong, I have no gods; you are the god believer.

"...generally agrees that time began with the Big Bang."

Did you read that on one of your fundamentalist Websites?

Do you also choose to believe the scientific community (one of your anti-jebuses) when they estimate the age of the universe to be ~14 billions years, and the age of the earth to be ~4.5 billion years.

"You are apparently not keeping up with the work of those who tell you what to think."

No one tells me what to think; you are the bible believer.

"Of course, it's really not that complicated if one understands how to apply simple logic instead of depending on "accredited scientific journals" to tell them what to think."

Perhaps it is not that complicated for you, since you are able to apply simplistic belief-logic, and depend on fundamentalist Websites to tell you what to think.

PEREGRINE,

Have you now?

I have.

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, as your grandpa used to say.

Is it now?

Indeed.

Well, now that's creepy!

Now, now. Don't be afraid.

Do you?

REMINDER:

This thread will time out soon. When it does, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2011/02/keep_the_focus_on_candidates_capabilities_not_their_faith.html

RCofield,

"And I've noticed you have a whole host of sophomoric adjectives for those who disagree with your "belief in nothing.""

Have you now?

"Rather strange antics for one who supposedly "believes nothing.""

Is it now?

"Do you have any grand-children?"

Well, now that's creepy!

PEREGRINE,

Wrong. Instead: etc...

Already been done. The scientific community (one of your apparent "gods," along with "U.S. Law") generally agrees that time began with the Big Bang.

You are apparently not keeping up with the work of those who tell you what to think.

Of course, it's really not that complicated if one understands how to apply simple logic instead of depending on "accredited scientific journals" to tell them what to think.

PEREGRINE,

I've noticed that you regard anyone who agrees with your beliefs as intelligent, but anyone who challenge your beliefs as "evil", or "wicked", or "sinful", or "deceitful", or "hypocritical" or any of the other words that populate your fundamentalist vocabulary.

And I've noticed you have a whole host of sophomoric adjectives for those who disagree with your "belief in nothing."

Rather strange antics for one who supposedly "believes nothing."

Do you have any grand-children?

RCofield,

"Time: Probably infinite or probably finite.
Circle one."

Wrong.

Instead:

1. Presume that time is infinite, and than use all of the advanced mathematics, relativity theory, quantum theory, thermodynamics theory, chemistry, and cosmology theory that you learned in grad school to develop a model that describes how the universe would look right now under that presumption.

2. Presume that time is finite, and than use all of the advanced mathematics, relativity theory, quantum theory, thermodynamics theory, chemistry, and cosmology theory that you learned in grad school to develop a model that describes how the universe would look right now under that presumption.

3. Presume that time is something other than finite or infinite, and than use all of the advanced mathematics, relativity theory, quantum theory, thermodynamics theory, chemistry, and cosmology theory that you learned in grad school to develop a model that describes how the universe would look right now under that presumption.

4. Publish your results in an accredited scientific journal to be reviewed by the scientific community.

MRMEANER,

Do you define "worthy exegetes" as the ones accepted by you? By the most people? Do you require polling data before you can form an opinion?

Do you require polling data to recognize great presidents or great military leaders in history?

I said:

I once held some of the same positions you are arguing for.

To which you responded:

I don't think you have. You have mischaracterized my positions.

OK. How about this: I once interpreted Mt. 24 etc. exactly as you have interpreted them on this thread.

You're pretty good at making charges against others, but I notice you're not too eager to offer any rebuttals to the scriptural references I've offered.

On February 5th you posted on Daniel 7. You then posted the following:

That was for PH, but I would welcome any other thoughts on the subject.

I responded with a 3 part post beginning @ February 5, 2011 9:40 PM with something in the neighborhood of a dozen passages that seem to contradict your interpretation of Daniel 7.

You then responded by “making charges” against me as follows:

“that's insanity”.....”your thinking...is an abomination”.....”It is the great apostasy”....”you're no better than those (who built) the tower of Babylon” (I think you meant Babel).

Then, I think, you made a thinly veiled allusion to me being a wh0re. :-)

After admitting that was a knee-jerk reaction you said your “ole lady” was harassing you so you couldn't continue.

You have yet to deal in any way with the passages and exegesis I offered in that 3 part post.

This is not to mention the mountain of rebuttals PeterHuff has given you.

Peace.

test

RCofield,

"Well, I'll grant you she is a pretty sharp little cookie for 2 years old, but it is still astounding that she can carry on a more intelligent conversation than you seem to be able to."

With "seem" being the operative word.

I've noticed that you regard anyone who agrees with your beliefs as intelligent, but anyone who challenge your beliefs as "evil", or "wicked", or "sinful", or "deceitful", or "hypocritical" or any of the other words that populate your fundamentalist vocabulary.

WALTER,

well, i don't know. seems like if there was no universe prior to the big bang then "time" is kind of irrelevant. but, note i just said "prior" to the big bang, so i'm implying that there was a "time" that was "prior" to the big bang.

Time: Probably infinite or probably finite.

Circle one.

I'll assume no new snow-sculpting photos.

Peace.

PEREGRINE,

After all, the IQ of a two year old seems like a good match for you, without being overly challenging.

Well, I'll grant you she is a pretty sharp little cookie for 2 years old, but it is still astounding that she can carry on a more intelligent conversation than you seem to be able to.

rco, you asked,
"What about the infinitude of time issue?"

well, i don't know. seems like if there was no universe prior to the big bang then "time" is kind of irrelevant. but, note i just said "prior" to the big bang, so i'm implying that there was a "time" that was "prior" to the big bang.

RCofield,

"I've had more intelligent and meaningful conversations than that with my 2 year old grand-daughter."

I'm sure that you have had what are to you, intelligent and meaningful conversations, with your granddaughter; I just wonder what she would have to say about the conversations.

After all, the IQ of a two year old seems like a good match for you, without being overly challenging.

Plus, she is probably one of the few people you interact with who is unable to challenge or question your beliefs, and is willing to accept your beliefs, as you articulate them, without thinking about them a lot.

That said, I feel sorry for the poor child that she has to listen to you.

II Timothy Ch.4

[3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
[4] And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

If this is the end generation, I guess that means that this passage would be directed to what is considered the majority opinion of the day

"So, if your interpretations on "end times" runs counter to the majority of all worthy exegetes in the history of Christianity doesn't it stand to reason that the possibility exists that you might be wrong?"

Of course I could be wrong. If I am, it's because my understanding of it is flawed. But I won't be wrong because of someone else's mistake, that I believed.

Do you define "worthy exegetes" as the ones accepted by you? By the most people? Do you require polling data before you can form an opinion?

MRMEANER,

There's nothing wrong with comparing opinions, but the final discernment has to be made on an individual level.

So, if your interpretations on "end times" runs counter to the majority of all worthy exegetes in the history of Christianity doesn't it stand to reason that the possibility exists that you might be wrong?

"So you don't think you can learn anything from the studies and writings of those who have gone before you, many of whom were more learned in scripture than you or I ever will be?"

I didn't say that. There's nothing wrong with comparing opinions, but the final discernment has to be made on an individual level. If you're wrong, you won't be able to blame the theologian who misled you, on judgment day.

"Rather arrogant, but about what I've come to expect."

Coming from you, that's saying something.

"And that doesn't concern you at all?"

Why should it? I'm not going to be judged by which theologian I have the most in common with.

"Yet many of their interpretations of the “end times” passages you are citing are virtually identical to yours. You have yet to state anything that one or more of these men have not already posited."

Maybe they have some right, and some wrong. I don't really care what they taught 150 years ago.

"Whoa there, big fella! I may understand more than you realize."

I don't think you do.

" I once held some of the same positions you are arguing for."

I don't think you have. You have mischaracterized my positions.

" And no “twisted knickers” here; I simply asked you a series of legitimate questions."

What? asking me how I feel about what others feel?

"That last statement was pretty much in line with your earlier “that's insanity.” Most dispensationalists are so certain they have all of this “figured out” that their default position with anyone who may not agree with them is condescension."

You're pretty good at making charges against others, but I notice you're not too eager to offer any rebuttals to the scriptural references I've offered.
Show me where I'm wrong. You're a smart guy. You should be able to do it. Right?

MRMEANER,

I don't need to be taught how to read, and I don't need to be taught what to think. Maybe you do.

So you don't think you can learn anything from the studies and writings of those who have gone before you, many of whom were more learned in scripture than you or I ever will be?

MRMEANER,

Not at all

That seems about right for virtually every dispensationalist I've ever encountered. Rather arrogant, but about what I've come to expect.

No, I'm not aware of that.

And that doesn't concern you at all?

I am aware that the teachings of those names you listed absolutely have nothing in common with any opinions I have listed.

Yet many of their interpretations of the “end times” passages you are citing are virtually identical to yours. You have yet to state anything that one or more of these men have not already posited.

You might want to at least try to understand what is being said before you "get your knickers in a twist"

Whoa there, big fella! I may understand more than you realize. I once held some of the same positions you are arguing for. And no “twisted knickers” here; I simply asked you a series of legitimate questions.

That last statement was pretty much in line with your earlier “that's insanity.” Most dispensationalists are so certain they have all of this “figured out” that their default position with anyone who may not agree with them is condescension.

That is hardly illustrative of spiritual maturity. (See Romans 14, esp. vs. 17)

Peace.

"Have these clowns “figured out” something that seemingly eluded the greatest exegetical minds Christianity has ever produced?"

I can't speak for the clowns, but I would point out that today, we have as much, or more access to ancient writings as those early theologians ever had.

For thirty bucks you can buy a concordance.
For a few hundred, you can buy a complete manuscript.

I don't need to be taught how to read, and I don't need to be taught what to think. Maybe you do.

WALTER,

i said i'm willing to grant that the universe is probably not eternal or infinite - and that "something" caused it.

OK.

What about the infinitude of time issue?

PS. Any new snow sculpting photos?

Peace.

"I don't know how important the exegetics of theologians from by-gone years is to you,"

Not at all

"but are you aware that no theologian prior to about 1850 held the interpretive positions that you seem to hold? Does that concern you at all?"

No, I'm not aware of that.
I am aware that the teachings of those names you listed absolutely have nothing in common with any opinions I have listed.

Their idea of "The Holy Spirit" is unintelligible babble.

That's not what the Book of Acts says, and not what I believe, nor have I claimed to believe it.

They believe in a rapture. I do not.

You might want to at least try to understand what is being said before you "get your knickers in a twist"

rco, you said,

I guess the bottom line is that if you cannot agree that the universe(s) is probably not eternal and that time is probably not infinite (and that both are therefore dependent upon a first cause) it would hardly make sense to proceed to the next level of my argument. The next level is, obviously, built upon the probabilities I tried to establish in the first level.

i said i'm willing to grant that the universe is probably not eternal or infinite - and that "something" caused it.

PEREGRINE,

Re: Your last post.

I've had more intelligent and meaningful conversations than that with my 2 year old grand-daughter.

MRMEANER,

...apparently I'm a Post-tribulational premillennialist.

I don't know how important the exegetics of theologians from by-gone years is to you, but are you aware that no theologian prior to about 1850 held the interpretive positions that you seem to hold? Does that concern you at all?

Do you honestly think that modern “end times prophets” such as C. I. Scofield, J. N. Darby, Jack Van Impe, Tim Lahay, and Hal Lindsay stand on-par with the long line of truly notable exegetes of the past 2000 years?

Have these clowns “figured out” something that seemingly eluded the greatest exegetical minds Christianity has ever produced?

Does it bother you at all that dispensationalism as an interpretive hermeneutic has replaced the obvious Christological interpretive hermeneutic of scripture?

RCofield,

"Nor do I have to offer evidence that it is impossible to “believe nothing.”"

No, you don't; I already know that it is impossible for you to believe nothing.

"I already know that it is impossible to believe nothing."

You are a believer; without belief, you are nothing.

"See how that works?"

I understand how that works; do you?

"Are you absolutely, 100% certain that you believe nothing?"

Are you?

"Or are you just “pretty sure”?"

Are you?

"Its OK, Peregrine; you don't have to believe that it is impossible to believe nothing for it to be true."

I'm already well aware that I don't have to believe anything that you believe to be true.

"And I will point out that you just posited no less than three separate beliefs of your own in the above statement."

Or, do you simply see everything as a "belief", simply because you are incapable of understanding anything except as a "belief"?

"And what's with these accusations of me being “compelled” to “force” my beliefs on other people?"

Does that get your knickers in a twist?

"You have flatly stated on numerous occasions that you are trying to “teach” me to believe nothing."

Waiting for someone to learn is not the same as teaching; I attempt to teach only by example.

"Are you familiar with the adage “that is like the pot calling the kettle black”?"

Yeah, my grandpa used to say that.

"Nor do I think you can provide any evidence that supports your contention that you “believe nothing.”"

You meant to write: "Nor do I believe...".

Don't confuse "believing" with "thinking"; not the same thing.

"See how that works?"

I think that I'm beginning to understand how your belief-logic works.

"And your belief that you “believe nothing” is exactly that: your own personal (and unprovable) belief."

That is probably as close as you will ever get to understanding reality.

"See how that works?"

Again, I think that I'm beginning to understand how your belief-logic works.

"Hmmm....another unprovable statement of belief on your part. And your contention that you believe nothing exists only in your mind and is supported by nothing."

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

"Lol..."

WTF?

"Another stated belief on your part. It is actually your “I believe nothing” illogic that does not work in the real world. You seem unaware that you contradict your own contention virtually every moment of your life."

Are you going to send me to hell?

"Your contention that you believe nothing is meaningless to everyone, including yourself."

Then why does it get your knickers in such a twist?

"Everyone, including yourself, knows that you believe that you believe nothing, thereby negating your own contention that you believe nothing."

Well, everyone, including yourself, knows that you are a cootie infested booger eater; and you smell like an elephant's butt.

More...

More:

"You have seldom entered a post on these threads in which you did not state one or more of your personal beliefs."

Imagine that; someone stating his or her opinions in the comments section of a blog?

What is the world coming to?

That would never happen is schoolchildren were forced to pray to someone else's imaginary god in public schools.

(fin)

WALTER,

Rco; i said i'd be willing to grant your points (with the reservations i've enumerated) if it meant we could move on to how you think we can go from the necessity of a first cause to thinking yahweh of the ancient israelite is that first cause.

To which I responded @ February 8, 2011 2:14 PM

PEREGRINE,

Again, I don't have to; I already know that I believe nothing.

Nor do I have to offer evidence that it is impossible to “believe nothing.” I already know that it is impossible to believe nothing. See how that works?

I already know that I believe nothing....That is what I know about myself;

Are you absolutely, 100% certain that you believe nothing? Or are you just “pretty sure”?

Your belief that it is "impossible" to "believe nothing" is, as most of your beliefs are, a belief that you are compelled to claim for other people, and attempt to force onto other people.

Its OK, Peregrine; you don't have to believe that it is impossible to believe nothing for it to be true.

And I will point out that you just posited no less than three separate beliefs of your own in the above statement.

And what's with these accusations of me being “compelled” to “force” my beliefs on other people? You have flatly stated on numerous occasions that you are trying to “teach” me to believe nothing. Are you familiar with the adage “that is like the pot calling the kettle black”?

I don't think that can provide any evidence that supports your belief;

Nor do I think you can provide any evidence that supports your contention that you “believe nothing.” See how that works?

...your belief that it is impossible to "believe nothing" is exactly that: your own personal belief.

And your belief that you “believe nothing” is exactly that: your own personal (and unprovable) belief. See how that works?

And as one of your personal beliefs, it exists only within your mind, and is supported only with your own personal belief-logic.

Hmmm....another unprovable statement of belief on your part. And your contention that you believe nothing exists only in your mind and is supported by nothing.

Your belief-logic does not work in the real world,

Lol...Another stated belief on your part. It is actually your “I believe nothing” illogic that does not work in the real world. You seem unaware that you contradict your own contention virtually every moment of your life.

...and is therefore meaningless to anyone but you, and your fellow travelers.

Your contention that you believe nothing is meaningless to everyone, including yourself. Everyone, including yourself, knows that you believe that you believe nothing, thereby negating your own contention that you believe nothing.

You have seldom entered a post on these threads in which you did not state one or more of your personal beliefs.

Mr Meaner,

The funny thing about this discussion is, I haven't even expressed my controversial opinions, yet. -MrM

(^8

You imply over and over in your posts that you do not accept the interpretation that I have laid out. And you have revealed your camp:

Ah yes, the old "gap theory". I lean toward accepting that theory. I'm definitely not a fan of Darby, but the math does work. Thanks to your link, I have learned that, apparently, I'm a Post-tribulational premillennialist.

I'm glad to see that you actually listen to the video(s).

I've never really sought out to categorize my beliefs, but at first glance, PTPM appears to be pretty close. - MrM

So you are a futurist. You believe these prophesies are still awaiting their fulfillment for the most part, that there will be a future literal earthly millennial kingdom. Lets see how you justify that then, according to Scripture. I noticed when I went back over your posts that I missed replying to a few. But that will have to wait for the most part for the weekend since I'm working the next two nights.

Please see Matthew 26:64 in relation to the judgment/wrath on the high priest along with other passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:19; Rev.6:17, etc. I think we should look more upon this judgment and the passages that teach of the expectancy of Jesus' coming in the lifetime of those believers such as Romans 13:11; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 1 Peter 4:7; James 5:8-9; Revelation 1:1; 22:10, 20.

The letter to the Hebrews starts out addressing them with these words:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." (1:1-2)

What last days are 'these'?

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days." (2 Tim. 3:1)

"He was chosen before the creation of the world but revealed in these last times for your sake." (1 Peter 1:20)

"Dear children, this is the last hour..." (1 John 2:18)

"Let us not give up meeting together...-and all the more as you see the Day approaching." (Hebrews 10:25)

"The end of all things is at hand."
(1 Peter 4:7)

Shall I go on?

Peterhuff says to MrMeaner, "So you saying that when Jesus is speaking to the disciples and uses the word "you", this can mean anything you want it to mean?"

MrMeaner quoted an important statement by the Master Jesus, that allows us to interpret "you" to mean, as a general rule, whoever is reading his words at any point, throughout all future times:

Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

He says his words will stand when heaven and earth pass away. This is to be taken as a statement of timeless relevance.

And it makes abundant sense too, because as you know, people are always looking for reasons to dodge responsibility. The Master is closing off this way of dodging around his teaching by those who will deny it applies to them, because he was speaking only to the people he had in physical view at the time.

"This generation is used in every other passage that I know of to speak of the current generation. Why do you want to make an exception now?"

The fig tree began to sprout forth when Judah re-took possesion of the promised land.
This is why I think we're having trouble connecting, I believe.
Many of those prophecies where it mentions the LORD bringing his people back to his land were fulfilled in 1948.
This is when the final struggle would begin. I think every one reading this would agree that Israel, and it's existence, is the reason for most of the conflict in the world today.
This is why some people viem this as the end times.

"Jesus cursed a fig tree that was not in season for not bearing figs (another analogy). "

Wow
Amazing that you would ask that.
That is the beginning of the parable.
That was the "judgment" against the Jews.
They were going to lose their homeland.
But, as the OT reveals in many places, they would be brought back to their land, as they now have.
This is the generation of the fig tree.
This is the generation that won't pass away before all things are fulfliied.

Hi again MrMeaner,

Either Jesus meant something else by "taste of death", than what you're thinking, or you would have to say that those people are going to be alive in flesh when these things come to pass. -MrM

That some of them would be alive is what the text seems to imply over and over.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: [33] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. [34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This generation is used in every other passage that I know of to speak of the current generation. Why do you want to make an exception now? The lesson of the fig tree is used as an analogy for them to know that when they see these signs that Jesus has just spoken of to flee from Judea for the judgment on Israel is coming, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jewish people, sacrificial system and economy is about to be judged. This is the great and terrible day of the Lord, the great tribulation on Israel for its rejection of the Messiah and for its sins.

Did you notice that on another occasion (Mark 11, also 12) Jesus cursed a fig tree that was not in season for not bearing figs (another analogy). Then we read that He does goes into the Temple and pronounce judgment of the people their. The chief priests and teachers of the law then seek to kill Him, for they knew He was pronouncing judgment on them, the same way He had just judged the fig tree. Peter noticed the next day that the fig tree had withered.

Then in Matthew 23 He again (possibly the same account as spoken of in Mark 11) pronounces judgment on the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Matt. 23:2 for context) with all His seven woeful judgments to them.

He says,
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?...I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation....Look, your house is being left to you desolate...Jesus left the temple and was walking away when His disciples came up to Him to call His attention to its buildings. 'Do you see all these things?' He asked. 'I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.'
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when will this happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?'...'Watch out that no one deceives you...You will hear of wars and rumors of wars...Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death...you will be hated by all nations....So when you see standing in the holy place....Pray that your flight will not take place in winter..."
Matt. 23:33, 36, 38-39 and various passages from Matt. 24.

The funny thing about this discussion is, I haven't even expressed my controversial opinions, yet.

lol

PH

I think the word speaks for itself.
You are trying to make it more complicated than it is.

I haven't added anything to any scripture I've quoted. I just applied simple logic to narrow the choices down as to what was being said. You are free to interpret it any way you see fit.
You brought up those OT references, I simply pointed out that in the full context, they prove conclusively that the major elements of these prophecies remain unfulfilled.

I'm sorry, but it appears to me that you are the one who has to displace or discard much of the NT teachings, to make it fit your preconceptions.

Like I said, it's nothing to me. I just call it like I see it, until shown otherwise. And I have seen no evidence presented here, that would challenge what I believe to be truth.

In my opinion, you are selling the word short.

Hi MrMeaner,

I'm not willing to make that claim, myself, though I don't dismiss it outright. I can certainly understand why someone would be left with that impression. But, I believe it is possible that he meant for these instructions to be carried forward, as instructions for those who would be alive to see these things come to pass. -MrM

You are basing it all on conjecture. So you saying that when Jesus is speaking to the disciples and uses the word "you", this can mean anything you want it to mean?

Obviously, we haven't been delivered up for a testimony in the cloven tongue of the Holy Spirit. That says to me that all of these other things that are accepted by some as fulfillment of these prophecies, were simply an example of typology. - MR

I could understand you saying that the history of the OT was used by God as typology to point us to Christ, but I thought the NT explained these shadows and types of Jesus as well as those that oppose Christ; examples to teach us about Jesus (Luke 24:27, 44; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; 2 Corinthians 4; Hebrews) and those to teach us of our sin/rebellion and shortfalls (Romans 5:12-19, etc.).

It seems you will do your best to avoid take Scripture at its plain meaning where it can be taken as such in these passages. You are reading a future generation into God's word that does not seem to be there. That is not exegetics. Do you think that God is incapable of making Himself clear?

Jesus is talking to the disciples here and He uses the pronouns 'you' and 'your' to make it personal to them. He also uses the same language over and over again in other Scriptural passages, such as Matthew 10:23; 16:24-28.

So you have nothing else than your feelings in which to determine what these Scriptures are actually saying?

The apostle Paul said, "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the plain truthwe commend ourselves to every man's conscious." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

walter-in-fallschurch asks, "why the [bleep] do theists invoke hitler/nazis in every other post?!?!"

First, you are exaggerating, in an extreme and dishonest manner, the number of references made to Hitler/Nazis in this discussion.

Second, to understand why the Hitler/Nazi connection comes up, from time to time, in the abortion debate is because both subject areas involve the mass anesthetization of conscience, whereby we see millions of people stand by and do nothing when millions of innocent people are exterminated.

This mass anesthetization of conscience has a common source. The sickening fruit of mass death grows off the same tree.

Hi Walter,

peter, rco, i'd like to engage in the jesus the false end time prophet discussion, but i'm afraid it would distract from/dilute my hopefully upcoming first cause→yahweh discussion. - Walter

That is fine by me Walter, I'm looking forward to see how you get around this stumbling block. I'm waiting for an answer from you that can make sense of this. (^8

PH,

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)
Who is He talking to and what does He mean by the coming of the Son of Man, also spoken about in Matthew 24 and other passages.

He's speaking to those he sent to minister to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (those dispersed among the nations)
Most of my answer would just be a quote of the scriptures preceeding 23.
[15] Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
[16] Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
[17] But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
[18] And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
[19] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
[20] For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
[21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
[22] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
You can take that literally, in which case you would have to say that GE may be right.
If he meant that those people hearing him speak those words would see these things, there's no other alternative but to say that they would have to be literally "re-born".
I'm not willing to make that claim, myself, though I don't dismiss it outright. I can certainly understand why someone would be left with that impression. But, I believe it is possible that he meant for these instructions to be carried forward, as instructions for those who would be alive to see these things come to pass.
Obviously, we haven't been delivered up for a testimony in the cloven tongue of the Holy Spirit. That says to me that all of these other things that are accepted by some as fulfillment of these prophecies, were simply an example of typology.

cont.

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see (Matthew 16:27-28) See also Mark 9:1."

I discussed this earlier. Here is another example of "either GE is right"
There can only be two ways of looking at that, as far as I can tell.
Either Jesus meant something else by "taste of death", than what you're thinking, or you would have to say that those people are going to be alive in flesh when these things come to pass.

"3)
"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34)
"Which generation is He referring to and whom is He speaking to when He says, 'you?'"

[32] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
[33] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

cont.

"Is it possible that God's kingdom came in one way with His visitation coming - first coming, then in another way with the crushing of Satan on the cross and with the destruction of the city and Temple - His coming in judgment, then will come a final time when He has made all His enemies His footstool?"

He defeated Satan, he hasn't destroyed him, though.
I can accept that the destruction of the temple was "a" judgment, not "the" judgment.
That judgment is final.
There is no judgment in this world. Every time I turn on the news I'm reminded of that.
I also believe that the elect's testimony in the Holy Spirit, plays a role in making his enemies his footstool.

"And what is the difference between His coming, His second coming, and His final coming?"

[17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
[21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

That was the reason for the 1st advent.
He closed the scroll in the middle of Is. 61:2
The rest of the passage reads
", and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
[3] To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified."
That's the reason for the 2nd advent.
I'm only aware of two advents.

cont.

"Signs of judgment as spoken of by the prophets such as the ‘sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord” and “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light…at that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, with power and great glory…’

Here is that quote from the Book of Joel;
[1] Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
[2] A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
[3] A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
[4] The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
[5] Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
[6] Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
[7] They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks:
[8] Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.
[9] They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief.
[10] The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
[11] And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

As we can see, that quote is referring to a time when men can fall on their sword, and not be wounded. I wouldn't try it today.
We can also see that as far back as Joel, the day of the LORD was "nigh at hand"

cont.

"In Acts we are told of the ‘great and glorious day of the Lord,’ while in Malachi 4:5 we are told of Elijah the prophet being sent ‘before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. We see John the Baptist calling on Israel to repent before His coming and we are told by Jesus ‘And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear.’ (Matthew 11:14-15)

Matt 17
[10] And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
[11] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
[12] But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

I think it's possible that the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation, will be Elijah, and Moses.
I base that on their appearance as Jesus was transfigured.

"MrMeaner, ‘near’ in relation to what? If you were the one reading this revelation in the first century would you think that verses like ‘near’ is referring to things that must shortly take place’ (Rev. 1:1)

If you were alive in 900 BC, and read the Book of Joel, you would have read that the Day of the LORD is at hand.

"The word ‘age’ here is not kosmos/world, but aion/age. So what end of what age is Jesus referring to,"
This age ends in fire, and the end of all flesh.
II Peter Ch.3
[7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
[11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
[12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
[13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
[14] Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

end

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, when God fashions a beautiful child in the womb, you should not be part of the conspiracy that would murder that child."

You are assuming way too much, beginning with you assuming that your imaginary god actually exists, or has any power to do anything in the real world.

"You should not conspire with the criminal element of our society to murder that child."

You should not assume that your delusional beliefs have anything to do with reality.

"Certainly, you should be able to use the intelligence God has Given to You, to see a connection between the fabricated rationales which populated the Nazi mind to justify the extermination of the Jews, with the fabricated rationales that populate the mind of the criminal element of our own society in justifying the mass slaughter of the innocent and defenseless in the womb."

Certainly, you should be able to use what apparently little intelligence you were born with not to be so deluded by your own and other's superstitious beliefs.

"I would point out that the criminal element of our society has succeeded in slaughtering far more than the Nazis."

I'm not as familiar with nazism as you apparently are, so I guess I'll just have to take you at your word regarding that.

"Indeed, each in their day, occupied the center stage of what constituted the conventional wisdom of their culture. But we know the end of the former, don’t we. The end to which the latter will come, is no different in the degree of desolation and rubble within which these “wise people” will then stand."

Well, we'll just have to see, won't we.

Do you really believe that your writing mindless comments in this blog is going to change reality?

(fin)

why the hell do theists invoke hitler/nazis in every other post?!?!

peter, rco,
i'd like to engage in the jesus the false end time prophet discussion, but i'm afraid it would distract from/dilute my hopefully upcoming first cause→yahweh discussion.

Psolus, when God fashions a beautiful child in the womb, you should not be part of the conspiracy that would murder that child. You should not conspire with the criminal element of our society to murder that child.

Certainly, you should be able to use the intelligence God has Given to You, to see a connection between the fabricated rationales which populated the Nazi mind to justify the extermination of the Jews, with the fabricated rationales that populate the mind of the criminal element of our own society in justifying the mass slaughter of the innocent and defenseless in the womb.

I would point out that the criminal element of our society has succeeded in slaughtering far more than the Nazis.

Indeed, each in their day, occupied the center stage of what constituted the conventional wisdom of their culture. But we know the end of the former, don’t we. The end to which the latter will come, is no different in the degree of desolation and rubble within which these “wise people” will then stand.

rco,
i said i'd be willing to grant your points (with the reservations i've enumerated) if it meant we could move on to how you think we can go from the necessity of a first cause to thinking yahweh of the ancient israelite is that first cause.

GoldenEagles,

"My concern for the murder of more than 53 million innocent Americans in the womb thus far, and my concern with the continuing and ongoing murder of about 4,000 innocent Americans in the womb each and every day, is the sign of a healthy conscience."

Oh, I'm sure that you believe that.

"The health of my conscience, in this area, would be on par with the conscience of those bold and courageous demonstrators, which appeared, in the hundreds and thousands, carrying their protest signs outside the gates, for example of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka, and other places where the Nazi’s exterminated the innocent."

Oh, I'm sure that you believe that, also.

"Yes, the health of my conscience is on par with the thousands who stood before those gates shouting, “Stop the Killing! Stop the Killing! Stop the Killing!”"

Believing is easy, isn't it?

Learning and understanding is just too difficult.

(fin)

RCofield,

"Can you provide evidence that you "believe nothing"?"

Again, I don't have to; I already know that I believe nothing.

"That is, after all, your stated position."

That is what I know about myself; it is not a belief that I attempt to claim for other people, or for all other people.

Your belief that it is "impossible" to "believe nothing" is, as most of your beliefs are, a belief that you are compelled to claim for other people, and attempt to force onto other people.

"If you'll be a good boy and be sure to show all your work, I'll reciprocate by providing you evidence that it is impossible to "believe nothing.""

I don't think that can provide any evidence that supports your belief; your belief that it is impossible to "believe nothing" is exactly that: your own personal belief.

And as one of your personal beliefs, it exists only within your mind, and is supported only with your own personal belief-logic.

Your belief-logic does not work in the real world, and is therefore meaningless to anyone but you, and your fellow travelers.

Hi again Walter,

You said,

the fact of the matter is he (or whoever put those words in his mouth) was not JUST just talking about the temple. according to those mark/mat/luke verses, jesus was supposed to have returned by now to "gather his elect" and take them off to heaven to live happily ever after....

No, He is not just talking about the Temple, but about judgment on Israel, the saving of the elect and the 'time of the end.' End of what?

If you take His words plainly and in context in Matthew 24:27-30 you see a lot of figurative language.

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30)

Gary Demar points out a similar verse in Micah 1:2-4 when God judged Samaria and Jerusalem centuries before Jesus' coming.

"...For behold, the LORD is coming forth from His place. He will come down and tread on the high places of the earth. The mountains will melt under Him, and the valleys will split, like wax before the fire, like water poured down a steep place."

He comes down, but the reference in Daniel 7:13 the Anointed One goes 'up' to receive His kingdom.

"In my vision at night I looked and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

Now read Revelation 5:7-10 about the heavenly scene which uses much of the same language. He is given authority to judge and He judges His people as He opens the scrolls and pours out judgment, those people He came to. (John 1:11-13)

As for the elect, read Matthew 1:21.

Just before the disciples come to Jesus and ask Him when will all these things be and what will be the 'sign of Your coming and of the end of the age'
He speaks to the Pharisees in judgment, over and over again and says to them, 'I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.' (Matt. 23, esp. 23:36)

So from Matthew 24:1-35 these signs are laid out by Jesus. They apply to punishment on the house of Israel, as mention in the complimentary verses of Luke 21:20-28. Notice Jesus said to His elect, 'When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, for your redemption is drawing near.' (vs. 28)

At this time, in heaven, the Son is given all authority by the Father. The Ancient of Days hands it to Him (Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 5:9). But in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 we see a different scenario. I believe this is the final judgment and close to world history, but I could be wrong on this. There is much to work out yet.

Psolus says, “You seem to have an unhealthy fascination with murdering children.”

My concern for the murder of more than 53 million innocent Americans in the womb thus far, and my concern with the continuing and ongoing murder of about 4,000 innocent Americans in the womb each and every day, is the sign of a healthy conscience.

The health of my conscience, in this area, would be on par with the conscience of those bold and courageous demonstrators, which appeared, in the hundreds and thousands, carrying their protest signs outside the gates, for example of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka, and other places where the Nazi’s exterminated the innocent. Yes, the health of my conscience is on par with the thousands who stood before those gates shouting, “Stop the Killing! Stop the Killing! Stop the Killing!”

PEREGRINE,

Can you provide evidence that "believing nothing" is "impossible"?
Be sure to show all your work.

Can you provide evidence that you "believe nothing"? That is, after all, your stated position.

If you'll be a good boy and be sure to show all your work, I'll reciprocate by providing you evidence that it is impossible to "believe nothing."

Hi Walter,

You crack me up also! You remind me of the struggle C.S. Lewis had in coming to faith, the most reluctant believer. He knew all the evidence pointed to Jesus and yet he did not want to at first admit it.

i see you're still working on that "jesus didn't lie about coming back on a cloud" gymnastics routine.... quite elaborate obfuscations there. -Walter

You fail to realize a number of factors. You have accused me of being a literalist in the past, of which I am not, for I try to only take Scripture as speaking plainly when and where there is just cause to take it that way. A couple of other factor that you are ignoring is that Scripture interprets Scripture, God's word does not contradict itself and context and audience relevance is important. RCofield went through this with you beautifully and in great detail. Still you ignore it.

I think first century Jews who knew the OT would have keyed into what He was saying more readily than the pre-trib, dispensational crowd do today.

'Coming on the clouds' is a phrase that is used in other places in Scripture to speak of judgment, and the judgment Jesus is speaking of is the judgment of Israel for rejecting their Messiah and for their unrepentant hearts.

It is figurative language used to signify God's presence and judgment. He doesn't physically appear on clouds. He uses the term in guidance or in judgment.

"He makes His clouds His chariots;
He walks upon the wings of the wind; He makes the winds His messengers;
Flaming fire His ministers." (Psalm 104:3-4)

"By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light." (Ex. 13:21)

No one saw Him, they felt His presence and guidance when they saw the physical clouds or fire.

"During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion." (Ex. 14:24)

Here we see His judgment from the pillar of fire and cloud on Egypt. Fire can also signify judgment in Scripture.

"Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him and consumes His foes on every side." (Psalm 97:2-3)

"This is what the sovereign LORD says:
'Wail and say, 'Alas for that day!' For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near - a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations, A sword will come against Egypt..." (Ezek. 30:2b-4a)

"Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on My holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming. It is close at hand - a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness." (Joel 2:1-2)

RCofield,

"All things being equal (they're not), PSOLUS' position of “believing nothing” (an impossibility)..."

Are you now the "impossibility" god?

Can you provide evidence that "believing nothing" is "impossible"?

Be sure to show all your work.

Can you also please supply us with a list of all things that are "impossible"?

I'm apparently already doing one thing that is "impossible", so I'm curious as to how many other "impossible" things that I may be doing.

WALTER,

You said to Peter:

the fact of the matter is he (or whoever put those words in his mouth) was not JUST just talking about the temple. according to those mark/mat/luke verses, jesus was supposed to have returned by now to "gather his elect" and take them off to heaven to live happily ever after.... (emphasis added)

Christ has been doing precisely that for 2,000 years through the preaching of the gospel and the saving of the lost (even to the very ends of the earth). By your own testimony your wife may well be one of these "elect."

Even if you reject the concept of salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ, you can hardly use your disbelief to argue that Christ has not been "gathering his elect."

You're being influenced more than you know by the silly "Left Behind" dispensational pre-millennialism that has become so "popular" over the past 50 years or so.

WALTER,

how do you get from "generic first cause" to "yahweh"?

I didn't realize we had gotten to a “generic first cause.” In your last post you seemed to be arguing that the universe(s) itself is/are probably eternal/infinite. That would necessarily mean that they were without a first cause.

You also seemed to be arguing that time itself may be eternal/infinite, and you completely dismissed the logical argument that it is impossible to traverse an infinite series. You gave no particular reason why, you just dismissed it. I must confess, I've never encountered anyone who argued for the infinitude of time. That's a new one for me.

That being said, if you can believe that the universe(s) is without a cause and that time is without beginning I really don't understand why believing in the existence of God gives you such heartburn. All things being equal (they're not, but that seems to be what you are arguing), one is just as viable as the other when it comes to beliefs. In the end, you wind up believing something you cannot possibly prove in lieu of believing in the existence of God.

Yet you fault me for believing in the existence of God. That is obviously inconsistent.

All things being equal (they're not), PSOLUS' position of “believing nothing” (an impossibility) would be more intellectually honest.

I guess the bottom line is that if you cannot agree that the universe(s) is probably not eternal and that time is probably not infinite (and that both are therefore dependent upon a first cause) it would hardly make sense to proceed to the next level of my argument. The next level is, obviously, built upon the probabilities I tried to establish in the first level.

And I'm still shaking my head in bewilderment at your question “what caused the uncaused cause.”

Peace.

peter,
i see you're still working on that "jesus didn't lie about coming back on a cloud" gymnastics routine.... quite elaborate obfuscations there.

the fact of the matter is he (or whoever put those words in his mouth) was not JUST just talking about the temple. according to those mark/mat/luke verses, jesus was supposed to have returned by now to "gather his elect" and take them off to heaven to live happily ever after....

like i've said, eschatology (the study of "where the hell's jesus") cracks me up.

rco,
how do you get from "generic first cause" to "yahweh"?

Hi MrMeaner,

Regarding the coming of His kingdom:

1)
"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

Who is He talking to and what does He mean by the coming of the Son of Man, also spoken about in Matthew 24 and other passages.

Do you believe Luke 21, Mark 13 and Matthew 24 all refer to the same period of time?

2)
"For the Son of Man is going to come in His father's glory with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see (Matthew 16:27-28) See also Mark 9:1.

Who is He talking to and when does He say to these people when His kingdom will come?

What does He mean by that phrase, "coming in His kingdom?"

Without projecting something into it, what is this verse actually saying?

3)
"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34)

Which generation is He referring to and whom is He speaking to when He says, 'you?'

Keep in mind that every other mention of 'this generation' spoken of by Jesus can be argued to speak of the generation He came to.

Is it possible that God's kingdom came in one way with His visitation coming - first coming, then in another way with the crushing of Satan on the cross and with the destruction of the city and Temple - His coming in judgment, then will come a final time when He has made all His enemies His footstool?

PART 2

And what is the difference between His coming, His second coming, and His final coming?

Let me propose an answer while I await yours. I propose that Matthew 24:1-35 at least, speak of Christ's first and second coming, while other passages of Scripture speak of Christ's final coming.

"As He approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it and said, 'The days will come upon you when your enemies will build and embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side [which happened when the Roman armies came against Jerusalem]. They will dash you to the ground, you and your children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.'" [or ‘Your visitation’ in other translations] (Luke 19:41-44)

So, if this verse referring to God's visitation is referring to Christ, then the rest of the passage speaking of judgment could signify the second coming of Christ in judgment to the Jews, the very ones who had their Lord crucified.

Matthew 24 makes various references to ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ and in one particular verse (vs.30-31) I see comparisons between it and Daniel 7:13-14, in which we see a heavenly vision of Christ approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving His everlasting kingdom. We see a similar scene in Revelation 5:7-9:

“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne….And they sang a new song: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased men from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

This is a heavenly vision.

Take a look at the similarities in language between Acts 2:15-21 and Matthew 24. Signs of judgment as spoken of by the prophets such as the ‘sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord” and “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light…at that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, with power and great glory…’

In Acts we are told of the ‘great and glorious day of the Lord,’ while in Malachi 4:5 we are told of Elijah the prophet being sent ‘before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. We see John the Baptist calling on Israel to repent before His coming and we are told by Jesus ‘And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear.’ (Matthew 11:14-15)

To one group of Jews it is the great and glorious day, to another the great and terrible day of the Lord.

PART 3

First in Daniel, we read that Daniel is told to seal up the words of the scroll until the ’time of the end,’ (Daniel 12:4) then in Revelation we see Christ opening the scrolls. We see John being told, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book because ’the time is near.’

MrMeaner, ‘near’ in relation to what? If you were the one reading this revelation in the first century would you think that verses like ‘near’ is referring to things that must shortly take place’ (Rev. 1:1)

‘Repent, or else I will come quickly’ (Rev. 2:16 speaking of judgment, just like the whole of the NT is pregnant with the theme of judgment)

Do you think “Behold, I am coming quickly!’ (Rev. 3:11; 22:7; 22:12; 22:20), or ‘the time is near’ are speaking to a people two thousand plus years removed? That is reading a lot into prophecy, isn’t it?

What is the ‘time of the end’ that Daniel is speaking of? Is it the end of the world? Apparently not in Matthew 24:3 when the disciples come to Jesus and ask Him, “what will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?’

The word ‘age’ here is not kosmos/world, but aion/age. So what end of what age is Jesus referring to, and for that matter Daniel in 9:26-27, because Jesus refers to the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ spoken by the prophet Daniel?

Just like Daniel, Jesus in speaking to the Pharisees is speaking judgment on them. He refers to them as ‘this generation’ and talks about their house (i.e. the Temple) as being left to ’them desolate.’

“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written….They will fall by the sword and will be taken prisoners to all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:20-24)

If this is some way future prophecy then it seems to concern Jerusalem and Judea and not the whole world, plus the language is archaic, speaking of being put to death by sword.

Where in Scripture do you see another Temple being built? If these prophecies refer to an end time event then why is Scripture silent on another Temple? In Revelation 11 we see John is told to measure the Temple. There has to be a physical Temple in order to measure it. It also mentions the Gentiles and them trampling on the holy city for 42 months. (See Luke 21:24)

On and on we go, but I’m done for tonight/this morning.

GoldenEagles,

"What is it, or who is it, inside of you, that apparently believes, with great passion, that it is a proper and good thing to take the life away from a person who could grow up into a productive and useful citizen of this nation?"

What is it, or who is it, inside of you, that apparently believes, with great passion, that you have any idea of what you are talking about?

(fin)

GoldenEagles,

"I take note of a substantial increase in your level of hostility as you approach a truth for which there appears to be scientific foundation."

I am not approaching any truth in this "intellectual wrestling match"; nor are you.

"Even from a materialistic standpoint, this principle “the blueprint of the adult lives within the child from the very instant of conception.” has a scientific basis in fact."

No, it doesn't.

"I think you call it genes and DNA and stuff like that, and the mechanisms that begin to unfold the blueprint in the direction of the adult from the very first instant, are all right there, from the very first instant."

Do you ever wish that you had stayed in school?

"And because this principle has a basis in scientific fact, “the blueprint of the adult lives within the child from the very instant of conception.” then this principle has a basis in scientific fact, as well, “To kill the child at any point along this continuum, is to kill the adult."

I think that you belief-logic has failed you.

"Therefore, it follows, that to support legal abortion, is to support non-voluntary relinquishment of human life, which is only an artfully crafted euphemism for murder."

No, it doesn't follow.

(fin)

Psolus says, “.. I ...deliberately choose to believe nothing.”

What is it, or who is it, inside of you, that apparently believes, with great passion, that it is a proper and good thing to take the life away from a person who could grow up into a productive and useful citizen of this nation?

Psolus says, “Do you think before you write this [bleep]?”

I take note of a substantial increase in your level of hostility as you approach a truth for which there appears to be scientific foundation.

Even from a materialistic standpoint, this principle “the blueprint of the adult lives within the child from the very instant of conception.” has a scientific basis in fact. I think you call it genes and DNA and stuff like that, and the mechanisms that begin to unfold the blueprint in the direction of the adult from the very first instant, are all right there, from the very first instant.

And because this principle has a basis in scientific fact, “the blueprint of the adult lives within the child from the very instant of conception.” then this principle has a basis in scientific fact, as well, “To kill the child at any point along this continuum, is to kill the adult."

Therefore, it follows, that to support legal abortion, is to support non-voluntary relinquishment of human life, which is only an artfully crafted euphemism for murder.

Hi MrMeaner,

"Has the Kingdom of Heaven been established here upon the earth yet?"

I would say spiritually yes, physically no.

Jesus said, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for these are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." (John 4:23)

Add to that fact that we serve the king of that kingdom and our values and citizenship is not of this world/current world system; when we are born again we become His children and subjects of His kingdom (John 3:3, 5) and our citizenship is kept for us in heaven(Eph. 2:19; Phil. 3:20).

Has this happened yet? - MrM

Spiritually for those who are born again/born from above/regenerated.

I'm not saying that the kingdom doesn't exist. I am quite confident in stating that the kingdom, in it's totality, is not accessible to flesh. -MrM

I believe it is accessible to flesh, just not flesh and blood but flesh and bone.

"He will transform our lowly bodies (of flesh and blood) so that they will be like His glorious body (of flesh and bone)." (Phil. 3:21b)

1 Corinthians 15 talks of a spiritual body. I believe a lot of people get this term confused by thinking of a body made of spirit rather than a body controlled by the Spirit. The natural body is controlled by the flesh, the spiritual body by the Spirit. Jesus made a distinction in Luke 24:39.

"Look at My hands and feet. It is I Myself! Touch Me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (vs. 39)

So one day the Christians earthly body will be translated/changed to be like His glorious body that you can see and touch, among other things that Scripture reveals.

As for being accessible, it depends how you look upon it. God transcends time. To die is in the presence of God.

"Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." MrM

And how is this possible for a flesh man? MrM

Because it is possible for Christ.

If this is the kingdom of heaven, then why are we awaiting the return of Christ? -MrM

Because God is merciful and will wait until all those who Christ died for are brought into that kingdom, and not all enemies have been brought beneath His feet yet. This will happen at His final appearance.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, invested in the child at the time of its murder (at ANY point along the continuum presented) are all the mechanisms necessary to unfold that child into a full adult over time, just as a rose unfolds from a bud."

You seem to have an unhealthy fascination with murdering children.

"To destroy the bud is to destroy the fully blossomed rose."

And, apparently, killing roses.

"In this regard, if you read the continuum of questions from the bottom up, you will see that the blueprint of the adult lives within the child from the very instant of conception."

Do you think before you write this crap?

"To kill the child at any point along this continuum, is to kill the adult."

Again with your fascination with killing children.

You might want to do something about that.

(fin)

Re: Abortion as Murder

Psolus, invested in the child at the time of its murder (at ANY point along the continuum presented) are all the mechanisms necessary to unfold that child into a full adult over time, just as a rose unfolds from a bud.

To destroy the bud is to destroy the fully blossomed rose.

In this regard, if you read the continuum of questions from the bottom up, you will see that the blueprint of the adult lives within the child from the very instant of conception. To kill the child at any point along this continuum, is to kill the adult.

GoldenEagles,

"I see that you spelled this correctly "Cabernet Sauvignon"."

How observant.

"What I want to know is whether you spelled that correctly out of the knowledge of your own mind, or did you have to use your computer spell checker?"

I spelled it correctly because I knew how to spell it correctly, and I also managed not to commit any typos.

I then used a spell checker to confirm that I spelled it correctly.

Do you also want to know how I create table of contents and indexes?

(fin)

Psolus says, "If I wash my mouth out with anything, it'll be a nice Cabernet Sauvignon."

I see that you spelled this correctly "Cabernet Sauvignon". What I want to know is whether you spelled that correctly out of the knowledge of your own mind, or did you have to use your computer spell checker?

GoldenEagles,

"Well, how do you know you don’t have a soul?"

Because I once tried to sing the blues.

It was not pretty.

"I believe it’s fair to say that 99.9% of the people who lived on this planet from 5,000 BC to about 1800 AD, did not know that had a liver, or a kidney, but of course they did."

What about the people who lived on this planet the 150,000 years before that?

"How do you know you don’t have a soul?"

Because the same people who attempt to convince me that I have a soul, also attempt to convince me that I am a "sinner", that I am "fallen", that I am "broken', that I am "unworthy", that I need to be "saved" by their personal imaginary "god" (for a price, of course), that species do not evolve, that "abortion is murder", that contraceptives are "immoral", that masturbation is a "sin", that sex is "filthy", that women are inferior to men, that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, that the sun revolves around the earth, and many, many, many more superstitious ideas.

In fact, that is why I avoid all superstitions in general, and deliberately choose to believe nothing.

"It might be in a place you never looked, or a place that is currently hidden from your inner eyesight."

I don't have "inner eyesight".

(fin)

Psolus says, “I mean exactly that: I don't have a soul.”

Well, how do you know you don’t have a soul?

I believe it’s fair to say that 99.9% of the people who lived on this planet from 5,000 BC to about 1800 AD, did not know that had a liver, or a kidney, but of course they did.

How do you know you don’t have a soul? It might be in a place you never looked, or a place that is currently hidden from your inner eyesight.

GoldenEagles,

"What do you mean, Psolus, that you don’t have a soul?"

I mean exactly that: I don't have a soul.

"Surely you jest."

No, I'm simply not superstitious.

"Please go to the kitchen sink, and wash your mouth out with soap."

Surely, you jest.

If I wash my mouth out with anything, it'll be a nice Cabernet Sauvignon.

(fin)

Psolus says, “I don't have a "soul".”

What do you mean, Psolus, that you don’t have a soul? Surely you jest.

Please go to the kitchen sink, and wash your mouth out with soap.

Lepidopteryx says, “If people choose their own parents, how do so many people end up parents who don't want them? No one in their right mind would choose parents that didn't want them.”

Not every set of parents is perfect. Actually no set of parents are perfect. Tough circumstances can work on the mind of parents creating hostility in the direction of children. Tough circumstances can work on the minds of children, making them difficult for their parents to love. Sometimes these factors can come together in the same family making matters even worse. We have a high profile case along those lines in the news at this time.

Moreover, in most cases there are far more souls needing to come into embodiment than there are available parents. The advent of “legal” abortion has made that problem even worse. That means the incoming soul will not always get its first choice. And we can see this as well, that parent pairs are positioned at all economic strata levels. A substantial percentage of parent pairs throughout the world live in stressed out economic conditions. Only the smallest percentage of incoming souls are born into affluent families where economic pressures do not weigh on family relations.

In some cases, feuds that erupt between souls in previous lifetimes are carried forward to current lifetimes for resolution. And sometimes there are debts to be balanced, where the debtor is not so enthusiastic about fulfilling the responsibility, so relations are strained.

If this were heaven, things would be perfect. But as things stand, this is not heaven, and things are not perfect. But that is why the Master Jesus Christ gave us the Lord’s Prayer. “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.” That is what would make things better if every family made a point to say that prayer together at least three times a day, morning, noon, and night.

Walter-in-fallschurch asks, “... or is that pre-existence of the soul catholic stuff? heck, that's a "life begins BEFORE conception" stance.”

Thanks to MrMeaner, we know this concept is purely Biblical (God Reality).

Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Of course, not all of us are sanctified as prophets within the womb. But God created every soul, in a purely spiritual state, long before it ever needed to come into physical embodiment.

If people choose their own parents, how do so many people end up parents who don't want them? No one in their right mind would choose parents that didn't want them.

GoldenEagles,

"Fact Check: According to Wikipedia, Word was orginally developed by Microsoft staff engineers, and not acquired."

Interesting; did you also fact check your imaginary gods, demons, beasts, and souls using Wikipedia?

(fin)

"As a general rule, prior to conception, the soul has full awareness of the journey it is about to take into physical embodiment. In fact the soul has been consciously involved in the choosing of the parents."

wow... that's really funny stuff. you inhabit a very interesting world. is there a hindu/buddhist element to your thinking? or is that pre-existence of the soul catholic stuff? heck, that's a "life begins BEFORE conception" stance.

Psolus says, "I've been using Word since before Microsoft bought it."

Fact Check: According to Wikipedia, Word was orginally developed by Microsoft staff engineers, and not acquired.

GoldenEagles"

"There is no flaw in the Continuum of the Life (of the soul) as I have set it forth in the 120 questions I posed to you."

There are many flaws; you're just to much of a believer to see them.

"In fact, each and every one of those questions I know to be a genuine representation of the purest truth."

No, you don't know that, you simply believe that.

"Like a radiant star."

No, like a double rainbow.

"Take question #64 as a representative example."

No thanks.

[lunacy expurgated]

"No one, with eyes, can behold the sun, and miss the radiant light blazing in their direction."

You don't say.

"You know what the truth is."

No, I don't, and neither do you.

"But you can’t come to closure with it."

I don't do "closure".

"Why?"

Because I don't.

"You cannot raise up the very body of your own soul into a posture of support for this area of the truth."

I don't have a "soul".

"Why?"

Because I'm not superstitious.

"Indeed, before you shines this radiant truth."

Indeed, before me is my coffee table and PC.

"It is like unto a bright and alluring campfire lighting and warming a grassy clearing at the center of an otherwise cold and dark forest."

No, it is like unto a Dell.

"In the direction of this campfire you long to approach, to warm yourself through and through, yet you are held back, to lurk around the edge of the clearing, in the dark folds of these unfriendly briars and thorns, shivering, perhaps too afraid, or too proud to sever your connection to the shadows."

Actually, I'm sitting on my couch, watching TV.

"Indeed, you find yourself mocking the light of the campfire itself, as a justification mechanism, for the fact that your feet are frozen and chained, blocking you from moving in the direction of the warmth and its comfort for which your soul cries out."

Indeed, I find myself mocking the likes of you and RCofield.

"What is the force that communicates this truth to you?"

I don't know, you tell me.

"Even as unshielded eyes behold the sun, and are filled with the light therefrom?"

Say what?

"And what is the force that holds you back from embracing that truth?"

Where do you come up with this crap?

"It is the very hand of heaven that reaches out to you."

The only thing reaching out to me right now is a Geico commercial.

I love that gecko.

"And it the very hand of Hell that holds you back."

Actually, it's my lack a respect for authority that is holding me back.

"Indeed you’re like a man dying of thirst, who cannot reach out for a cup of cold water."

Indeed, I'm like a man who is slightly parched, reaching out for a pint of pale ale.

"Your thirst is like the giant bucket of a steam shovel, yet it is a dark hand that rests heavily on the control panel."

Do you have a problem with people of color?

More...

More:

"To break the hold that darkness has upon you, you must use the Word to set yourself free."

I've been using Word since before Microsoft bought it.

And, I have a real nice bankers lamp for when it gets dark.

"It would not be too much to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ wrote the Lord’s Prayer just for you in your hour of need."

It might not be too much for you to believe that, but I'm not a believer.

"God is your Father too, and longs to draw you, once again, into the circle of song around the campfire of reality."

Yuck, reminds me too much of the priest who used to chase me around the altar.

(fin)

The Campfire of Reality

Psolus says, “Do you actually believe that the fact that you do not know my actual age is the only flaw in your insane series of babblings about The Continuum of the Life?”

There is no flaw in the Continuum of the Life (of the soul) as I have set it forth in the 120 questions I posed to you. In fact, each and every one of those questions I know to be a genuine representation of the purest truth. Like a radiant star. Take question #64 as a representative example.

Q64. Psolus, at the age of 22, do you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 22nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you consent? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

No one, with eyes, can behold the sun, and miss the radiant light blazing in their direction.

You know what the truth is. But you can’t come to closure with it. Why? You cannot raise up the very body of your own soul into a posture of support for this area of the truth. Why?

Indeed, before you shines this radiant truth. It is like unto a bright and alluring campfire lighting and warming a grassy clearing at the center of an otherwise cold and dark forest. In the direction of this campfire you long to approach, to warm yourself through and through, yet you are held back, to lurk around the edge of the clearing, in the dark folds of these unfriendly briars and thorns, shivering, perhaps too afraid, or too proud to sever your connection to the shadows. Indeed, you find yourself mocking the light of the campfire itself, as a justification mechanism, for the fact that your feet are frozen and chained, blocking you from moving in the direction of the warmth and its comfort for which your soul cries out.

What is the force that communicates this truth to you? Even as unshielded eyes behold the sun, and are filled with the light therefrom? And what is the force that holds you back from embracing that truth?

It is the very hand of heaven that reaches out to you. And it the very hand of Hell that holds you back.

Indeed you’re like a man dying of thirst, who cannot reach out for a cup of cold water. Your thirst is like the giant bucket of a steam shovel, yet it is a dark hand that rests heavily on the control panel.

To break the hold that darkness has upon you, you must use the Word to set yourself free. It would not be too much to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ wrote the Lord’s Prayer just for you in your hour of need.

God is your Father too, and longs to draw you, once again, into the circle of song around the campfire of reality.

"Has the Kingdom of Heaven been established here upon the earth yet?"

Has this happened yet?

[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

I'm not saying that the kingdom doesn't exist. I am quite confident in stating that the kingdom, in it's totality, is not accessible to flesh.

"Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."

And how is this possible for a flesh man?

Bottom line:
If this is the kingdom of heaven, then why are we awaiting the return of Christ?

An accurate description of the kingdom:
[22] And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
[23] And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
[24] And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
[25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
[26] And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Are any of these things happening in the world today?

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, given the fact that you took issue with my lack of sensitivity as to your real age, and moreover, to allow me to frame with a greater degree of clarity, the questions to follow, I would ask you to please give me a sense of your actual age. You can give me a concrete answer if you like, or at least specify which range your actual age would fit within:"

Dude, you are one tenacious little bugger, aren't you?

Do you actually believe that the fact that you do not know my actual age is the only flaw in your insane series of babblings about The Continuum of the Life?

(fin)

Psolus, given the fact that you took issue with my lack of sensitivity as to your real age, and moreover, to allow me to frame with a greater degree of clarity, the questions to follow, I would ask you to please give me a sense of your actual age. You can give me a concrete answer if you like, or at least specify which range your actual age would fit within:

1. 0 - 5
2. 6 - 10
3. 11 - 15
4. 16 - 20
5. 21 - 25
6. 26 - 30
7. 31 - 35
8. 36 - 40
9. 41 - 45
10. 46 - 50
11. greater than 50

GoldenEagles,

"The more defensive you become, the more you prove the truth, that you have been pinned to the mat in this intellectual wrestling match."

That's funny: "intellectual wrestling match" indeed.

"Obviously, there is nothing at all “silly and superstitious” about any of those questions."

Obviously, you do not know the meaning of the words "obviously", "silly" or "superstitious".

"They are all sober, serious, and profoundly pertinent, representing what 99.999% of all people, in all cultures, in all nations would agree to, at least for years 85 down to 1."

Oh, I'm sure that you believe that.

"Again, I would ask you, in all seriousness and sobriety, please admit that the answers to those questions, for years 85 down to 1, would be the answer of 99.999% of the human race, in all cultures, in all nations, including you."

Again, I would ask you, why do you so desperately need me to validate your silly superstitious beliefs?

Am I your new god?

"And again I would ask you, to please pinpoint, along that continuum, the place where your answers would begin to change, and give me a rational reason for the change."

And again I would tell you that I do not have to participate in your silly, superstitious beliefs.

(fin)

Psolus says, “I do not have to participate in your silly, superstitious beliefs.”

The more defensive you become, the more you prove the truth, that you have been pinned to the mat in this intellectual wrestling match.

Obviously, there is nothing at all “silly and superstitious” about any of those questions. They are all sober, serious, and profoundly pertinent, representing what 99.999% of all people, in all cultures, in all nations would agree to, at least for years 85 down to 1.

Again, I would ask you, in all seriousness and sobriety, please admit that the answers to those questions, for years 85 down to 1, would be the answer of 99.999% of the human race, in all cultures, in all nations, including you. And again I would ask you, to please pinpoint, along that continuum, the place where your answers would begin to change, and give me a rational reason for the change.

The Soul's Journey into Physical Embodiment

lepidopteryx says, “At the moment of my conception, I didn't consider myself anything at all, as I had no way of forming a self-concept. Nor have I any memories of my existence within my mother's uterus.”

As a general rule, prior to conception, the soul has full awareness of the journey it is about to take into physical embodiment. In fact the soul has been consciously involved in the choosing of the parents. The event of conception marks the actual beginning of the long journey ahead. Your soul was clearly aware of this beginning. It was a very exciting moment for you, as the plans for this particular life, being in a manner abstract before that point, became concrete at that point.

At the point of conception your hopes were literally soaring.

This would be analogous to an astronaut in training for a mission to Alpha Centauri, where there is in existence no vehicle that can actually take you there. The point of conception, would be like the astronaut visiting an aerospace factory where the construction has just begun of an actual ship which could carry the astronaut on its journey. A very exciting point in time. And as the astronaut visits the factory from time to time, he becomes more and more excited about the journey ahead as the vehicle takes shape. As the vehicle comes closer and closer to completion, the astronaut will spend more and more time within the ship, learning all about how to make it go, and so forth.

As to your comment on your lack of memory, I would say only, that the memories are there. Intuitively you know the memories are there. There are various factors that work to suppress those memories. But those memories are there.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, in all seriousness and sobriety, please admit that the answers to those questions, for years 85 down to 1, would be the answer of 99.999% of the human race, in all cultures, in all nations, including you."

Why do you want me to admit to what you have chosen to believe?

Are you so unsure of your beliefs that you need me to validate them?

Why doesn't your god validate your beliefs for you?

Have you been in touch with him lately?

"Along that continuum, please pinpoint the place where your answers would begin to change, and give me a rational reason for the change."

I do not have to participate in your silly, superstitious beliefs.

You have several fellow travelers in this thread alone who are quite happy to babble along with you about your and their beliefs, your and their imaginary gods, and your and their magical book of superstitious fiction.

(fin)

RCofield,

"Still dodging."

Fine; you can start calling me Artful Dodger.

I always thought that that was a cool name.

"You seem to have difficulty being honest with yourself, let alone your fellow posters."

On what are you basing that belief?

Psolus, in all seriousness and sobriety, please admit that the answers to those questions, for years 85 down to 1, would be the answer of 99.999% of the human race, in all cultures, in all nations, including you. Along that continuum, please pinpoint the place where your answers would begin to change, and give me a rational reason for the change.

GoldenEagle,
Your questions are bogus.
At the moment of my conception, I didn't consider myself anything at all, as I had no way of forming a self-concept.
Nor have I any memories of my existence within my mother's uterus.
In fact, the earliest memory I have is from when I was about 2 years old.

AS for whether I would consent to someone else ending my life now, that would depend entirely on the circumstances. There are circumstances under which I would gladly offer my life, and there are circumstances under which I would seek to take my own life.

PEREGRINE,

Still dodging. You seem to have difficulty being honest with yourself, let alone your fellow posters.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, I sense you are having trouble focusing your mind on the definition of human life."

Do you, now?

"And I want to help you to hold the radar dish, such as it is, steady upon the right target."

I don't have a radar dish - hell, I don't even get cable.

Did you bring your own radar dish?

"I will attempt to do this by posting a series of questions concerning your own identity as a human being, going back in time, 120 questions in all."

120 freaking questions?

Sounds like a lot of work for nothing, but be my guest.

"Now, having absolutely no sense of your current age, I must start someplace, so I will pick the age of 85, giving you the benefit of many years of experiential wisdom."

Well, that alone shows how little you know about my identity.

"Q1. Psolus, at the age of 85, do you consider yourself to be a human being?"

I'm not 85.

"Your answer would be YES."

I thought that question was for me; why did you answer it?

And, incorrectly, at that.

"At this moment, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you consent?"

Well, now, that would depend on the circumstances.

"NO."

Again with you answering the question.

And, as you can see, you got it wrong again.

Shows how little you know.

"If they continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you describe that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life?"

I don't think that I would be able to describe it as anything, as I would be dead.

"YES."

Again you answer the question.

Why bother asking me questions if you're going to answer the questions yourself?

Are you mini-RCofield?

Do you think that you know me better than I know myself?

Did your imaginary god tell you all about me?

Did RCofield's imaginary god tell you all about me?

Did you read about me in your magical book of fiction, which you, MrMeaner, RCofield, and peterhuff all read religiously (get it?), but can't agree on what the hell it all means?

This series of babblings on your part is as meaningless as all of your previous series of babblings.

(fin)

The Continuum of the Life - Part 1

RcoField says to Psolus, "You are still arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life when you argue for abortion."

Psolus responds, “No I'm not; but you appear to have fallen back to your old, superstitious beliefs.”

Psolus, I sense you are having trouble focusing your mind on the definition of human life. And I want to help you to hold the radar dish, such as it is, steady upon the right target. I will attempt to do this by posting a series of questions concerning your own identity as a human being, going back in time, 120 questions in all.

Now, having absolutely no sense of your current age, I must start someplace, so I will pick the age of 85, giving you the benefit of many years of experiential wisdom.

Q1. Psolus, at the age of 85, do you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At this moment, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you consent? NO. If they continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you describe that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q2. Psolus, at the age of 84, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 84th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q3. Psolus, at the age of 83, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 83rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q4. Psolus, at the age of 82, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 82nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q5. Psolus, at the age of 81, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 81st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 2

Q6. Psolus, at the age of 80, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 80th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q7. Psolus, at the age of 79, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 79th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q8. Psolus, at the age of 78, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 78th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q9. Psolus, at the age of 77, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 77th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q10. Psolus, at the age of 76, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 76th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q11. Psolus, at the age of 75, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 75th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q12. Psolus, at the age of 74, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 74th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 3

Q13. Psolus, at the age of 73, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 73rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q14. Psolus, at the age of 72, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 72nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q15. Psolus, at the age of 71, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 71st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q16. Psolus, at the age of 70, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 70th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q17. Psolus, at the age of 69, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 69th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q18. Psolus, at the age of 68, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 68th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q19. Psolus, at the age of 67, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 67th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 4

Q20. Psolus, at the age of 66, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 66th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q21. Psolus, at the age of 65, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 65th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q22. Psolus, at the age of 64, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 64th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q23. Psolus, at the age of 63, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 63rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q24. Psolus, at the age of 62, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 62nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q25. Psolus, at the age of 61, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 61st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q26. Psolus, at the age of 60, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 60th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 5

Q27. Psolus, at the age of 59, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 59th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q28. Psolus, at the age of 58, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 58th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q29. Psolus, at the age of 57, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 57th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q30. Psolus, at the age of 56, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 56th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q31. Psolus, at the age of 55, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 55th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q32. Psolus, at the age of 54, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 54th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q33. Psolus, at the age of 53, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 53rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 6

Q34. Psolus, at the age of 52, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 52nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q35. Psolus, at the age of 51, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 51st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q36. Psolus, at the age of 50, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 50th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q37. Psolus, at the age of 49, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 49th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q38. Psolus, at the age of 48, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 48th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q39. Psolus, at the age of 47, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 47th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q40. Psolus, at the age of 46, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 46th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 7

Q41. Psolus, at the age of 45, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 45th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q42. Psolus, at the age of 44, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 44th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q43. Psolus, at the age of 43, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 43rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q44. Psolus, at the age of 42, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 42nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q45. Psolus, at the age of 41, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 41st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q46. Psolus, at the age of 40, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 40th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q47. Psolus, at the age of 39, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 39th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 8

Q48. Psolus, at the age of 38, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 38th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q49. Psolus, at the age of 37, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 37th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q50. Psolus, at the age of 36, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 36th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q51. Psolus, at the age of 35, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 35th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q52. Psolus, at the age of 34, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 34th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q53. Psolus, at the age of 33, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 33rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q54. Psolus, at the age of 32, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 32nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 9

Q55. Psolus, at the age of 31, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 31st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q56. Psolus, at the age of 30, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 30th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q57. Psolus, at the age of 29, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 29th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q58. Psolus, at the age of 28, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 28th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q59. Psolus, at the age of 27, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 27th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q60. Psolus, at the age of 26, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 26th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q61. Psolus, at the age of 25, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 25th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 10

Q62. Psolus, at the age of 24, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 24th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q63. Psolus, at the age of 23, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 23rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q64. Psolus, at the age of 22, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 22nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q65. Psolus, at the age of 21, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 21st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q66. Psolus, at the age of 20, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 20th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q67. Psolus, at the age of 19, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 19th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q68. Psolus, at the age of 18, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 18th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 11

Q69. Psolus, at the age of 17, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 17th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q70. Psolus, at the age of 16, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 16th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q71. Psolus, at the age of 15, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 15th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q72. Psolus, at the age of 14, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 14th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q73. Psolus, at the age of 13, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 13th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q74. Psolus, at the age of 12, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 12th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q75. Psolus, at the age of 11, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 11th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 12

Q76. Psolus, at the age of 10, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 10th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q77. Psolus, at the age of 9, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 9th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q78. Psolus, at the age of 8, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 8th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q79. Psolus, at the age of 7, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 7th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q80. Psolus, at the age of 6, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 6th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q81. Psolus, at the age of 5, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 5th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q82. Psolus, at the age of 4, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 4th year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 13

Q83. Psolus, at the age of 3, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 3rd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q84. Psolus, at the age of 2, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 2nd year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q85. Psolus, at the age of 1, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st year, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q86. Psolus, at the age of 1 Month, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st month, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q87. Psolus, at the age of 1 Week, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st week, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q88. Psolus, at the age of 1 Day, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st day, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q89. Psolus, at the age of 1 Hour, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st hour, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 14

Q90. Psolus, at the age of 1 Minute, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st minute, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q91. Psolus, at the age of 30 Seconds, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st 20 seconds, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q92. Psolus, at the age of 20 Seconds, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st 20 seconds, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q93. Psolus, at the age of 10 Seconds, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st 10 seconds, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q94. Psolus, at the age of 1 Second, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At some point during your 1st second, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q95. Psolus, at the moment of Birth, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are in the process of being born, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 15

Q96. Psolus, at the age of Birth -1 Second, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 1 second away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q97. Psolus, at the age of Birth -10 Seconds, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 10 seconds away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q98. Psolus, at the age of Birth -20 Seconds, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 20 seconds away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q99. Psolus, at the age of Birth -30 Seconds, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 30 seconds away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q100. Psolus, at the age of Birth -1 Minute, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 1 Minute away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q101. Psolus, at the age of Birth -1 Hour, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 1 Hour away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 16

Q102. Psolus, at the age of Birth -1 Day, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 1 Day away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q103. Psolus, at the age of Birth -1 Week, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 1 Week away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q104. Psolus, at the age of Birth -2 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 2 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q105. Psolus, at the age of Birth -3 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 3 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q106. Psolus, at the age of Birth -4 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 4 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q107. Psolus, at the age of Birth -5 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 5 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 17

Q108. Psolus, at the age of Birth -6 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 6 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q109. Psolus, at the age of Birth -7 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 7 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q110. Psolus, at the age of Birth -8 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 8 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q111. Psolus, at the age of Birth -9 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 9 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q112. Psolus, at the age of Birth -10 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 10 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q113. Psolus, at the age of Birth -11 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 11 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 18

Q114. Psolus, at the age of Birth -12 Weeks, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 12 Weeks away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q115. Psolus, at the age of Birth -4 Months, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 4 Months away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q116. Psolus, at the age of Birth -5 Months, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 5 Months away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q117. Psolus, at the age of Birth -6 Months, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 6 Months away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q118. Psolus, at the age of Birth -7 Months, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 7 Months away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Q119. Psolus, at the age of Birth -8 Months, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 8 Months away from leaving the womb, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

(more)

The Continuum of Life - Part 19

Q120. Psolus, at the point of Conception, did you consider yourself to be a human being? Your answer would be YES. At that point, especially given the fact that you are only 9 Months away from leaving the womb, with 80-90 years of life opportunity before you, if someone wanted to abort your life, would you have consented? NO. If they had continued forward with their plan, and aborted your life anyway, would you have described that as involuntary relinquishment of (your) human life? YES.

Psolus, if you would go back in your own memory, you would realize, that there was no time, along this entire continuum, where you would relinquish the definition of human life for yourself, and there was no time during this entire continuum, where you would have agreed to the abortion of your own life.

(End)

MrMeaner, remember, according to the Teaching of Christ, that the Kingdom of Heaven is within. I think that this statement that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven speaks quite narrowly to the carnal nature of man. Jesus Christ was in a flesh and blood body, yet he was the incarnation of the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, wherever he was, there was the Kingdom of Heaven, anchored in a physical (flesh and blood) body. And when the flesh and blood body was killed on the cross, the power of the Kingdom of Heaven within that body, resurrected it. And it was raised into heaven (in a completely transfigured manner) in the ascension.

Moreover, the effort that Jesus made, in his teaching on the Lord’s Prayer, in asking us to pray for the Kingdom of God to come to the earth, speaks to this fact, that flesh and blood bodies are not incompatible with the Heavenly Kingdom. They simply need to be transfigured. In other words, the carnal nature, the disobedient nature, must be washed away by the Power of God. Though this cannot happen without the cooperation of the soul. If the soul clings with a tightly clenched fist to a dirty rag, that rag can’t be put into the washing machine.

Repentance is the process by which the dirty rag is released into God's Hands, wherein He can put it into the washing machine, whereby, he can then hit the super-cleaning button, and invoke a double rinse cycle as well. Only then can he hand the cloth back to the soul pure white.

Yes, it was a knee-jerk response, but good Lord, man...I wonder if we're reading the same book, brother.

My ol'lady is harrassing me, so let me sleep on this...

This has been a good day for discourse. I hope it continues.
Have a good night guys/gals

MRMEANER,

I'm sorry, but that's insanity.

The scripture is insanity?

Flesh and blood CAN NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Which is precisely why you must be “born again” (Jn. 3). Have you been born from above, or are you waiting for that to take place in the future?

Your thinking, that a heavenly kingdom can be established by man on Earth, is an abomination.
It is the great apostasy. If you believe you can establish God's kingdom on Earth, you are no better than those who thought they could get to heaven by building the tower of Babylon.

Pardon me? Where do you get the idea that I think “man” or “I” can establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth?

I hope the whole of your post was just a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm sorry, but that's insanity.
If I were in the kingdom of heaven, I would be in an immortal body.
Flesh and blood CAN NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Your thinking, that a heavenly kingdom can be established by man on Earth, is an abomination.
It is the great apostasy.
If you believe you can establish God's kingdom on Earth, you are no better than those who thought they could get to heaven by building the tower of Babylon.

The harlot says:

I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow

TYPO:

In short, there is an “already/not ye(t)” aspect to the Kingdom of Heaven.

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 3

Da. 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Of this passage you pose the question:

Just the fact that the kingdom hasn't been taken, much less possessed, indicates that we are still living in the time of the fourth beast.

Has the Kingdom of Heaven been established here upon the earth yet? What saith the scripture?

Mt. 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (note the present tense)

Mt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Note here that it some sense the Kingdom of Heaven existed here on earth from the days of John the Baptist until the time Christ made this statement. The Kingdom suffered violence with the beheading of John the Baptist, and it was about to suffer even greater violence with the Jews rejection of Christ as Messiah and their crucifixion of Him.

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 3

Notice further that every one of the parables Jesus spoke concerning the “likeness” of the Kingdom of Heaven in the gospel of Matthew gives the sense that the Kingdom was even then being inaugurated here upon the earth. I’ll just use one of these parables as an example:

Mt 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

The “mustard seed” was the smallest of seeds. This speaks of the small beginnings of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet the little grain of mustard seed grows into a great tree, and the birds rest in its branches. This speaks to the great consummation of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Kingdom of Heaven was inaugurated here upon the earth in a small band of 12 disciples. This grew to 120 gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:13-15), then 3,000 on the day of Pentecost, then 10,000 later in the book of Acts, and now, today, a multitude which no man can number.

Mt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

There were those entering the Kingdom of Heaven even at this point as is testified by this verse. The scribes and Pharisees could not enter the Kingdom because they were depending on their own righteousness instead of trusting in the righteousness of Christ.

Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Does this not speak to the grafting in of the Gentiles, which begins to take place on a large scale in the book of Acts? Again, this testifies to a “here and now” aspect of the Kingdom of Heaven.

MRMEANER,

Part 3 of 3

Mt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The scribes and Pharisees were presently—at that time—trying to keep others from entering the Kingdom. Yet clearly there were some who were entering a present Kingdom.

In short, there is an “already/not ye” aspect to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is already inaugurated, but it is not yet consummated. It has been inaugurated by the finished work of Christ on the cross. It has been confirmed by His resurrection from the dead. The Kingdom has a present King, Jesus Christ, who rules His Kingdom now, having been given all power and authority and having been given a name that is above every name.

And this Kingdom is moving inexorably toward the great consummation depicted in Revelation 21 & 22. Yes, it is suffering violence, just as it did in the days of John the Baptist and Jesus. Yes, it will suffer more, even increasing violence as we draw near to its consummation. But rejoice, brother. The Kingdom of heaven is here, and it is in us as the children of God.

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you (already), the hope of glory (not yet):

Peace, brother.

Hi MrMeaner,

The dissoltion of the Roman empire served as the foundation, from which the peoples of the former empire would base a new global system. All you have to do is turn on the news and see how western leaders, and financiers are calling for a new world order, and setting economic conditions in such a way that a global government is necessary. - MrM

When is/was this 'global system' supposed to be set up and what is the biblical basis for it?

Did you watch any of those videos?

You can read whatever you want into the text, but what does the text actually say? Jesus, in the Olivetti Discourse, refers the reader back to Daniel 9:24-27. This is in relation to the Anointed One. Who do you think that is or will be? Can you back it up with Scripture?

What is the theme/prophecy of Matthew 24:1-35 in relation to?

We could go in to deeper detail by discussing genealogies, ancient migrations, the rise and fall of governments, etc. -=MrM

I'm game, let me hear your thoughts then.

If it helps, you can think of the fourth beast as a revived Roman empire, but it's much more extensive than that. - MrM

Where are you getting the 'revived' Roman Empire from?

My take on abortion, which will be meaningless to non-believers, accordingly, so they can be judged fairly in their disbelief, and love of murder, and violence:

Abortion isn't just the murder of a human infant.
It is the termination of the "temple" of a soul that God sent here to complete a task.

While it may be argued that "all things work together for good, to them that love God, to them that are the called...", all are not "called".

While we can be sure that no leftist, godless employee of Planned Parenthood ever approached the mother of Jeremiah, of whom it was said;

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

We can't be sure of that same protection for those who weren't "called", or "justified".

What if Esau, who was hated by God himself, while in his mother's womb, had never been allowed to be born? His rebellion, disobedience to God's will, and emnity from his heritage, was (at least in part) overcome by the kindness shown to his brother, recorded starting at Gen Ch.Ch 32. As a result, his "spiritual standing" must have been increased, from what it would have been if he had never lived out his life, and made corrections in his character.

So, when you abort a person, you have aborted their chance at overcoming whatever failings that led to their not being among the "chosen"

GOLDENEAGLES,

RcoField, obviously the Lord Christ taught us to pray for the incoming Kingdom. If it was not for the purpose of bringing in the Kingdom, for what PURPOSE did he teach us to pray for the incoming Kingdom?

As I understand it, for the purpose of teaching us to align ourselves with the will of the Father (which will shall always accomplish its purpose). The Father has willed that His Kingdom shall come. When we pray that His Kingdom come we are aligning ourselves with that which cannot fail to happen, and thus we become participants with the Father in establishing His Kingdom upon this present earth.

I gave more detail of this purpose for which I believe Christ taught us to pray thus in parts 2 and 3 of my prior post.

Peace.

RCofield,

"Consistent appearances of confusion eventually become admissible evidence of confusion."

Admissible evidence?

Are you continuing to prosecute me on behalf your imaginary god?

"Yet you have admitted—repeatedly—to knowing nothing with certainty."

Again, nothing gets by you, does it?

"Simple observation."

With "simple" being the operative concept, I presume.

"And again, by definition a human fetus is a young, unborn child in the earliest stages of development."

And, again, you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe, or are told to believe.

Just as I am free to not believe what you choose to believe, and what you tell me to believe.

"And my question still stands: How do you know that a fetus is not a child?"

As does my question: How do you know that a fetus is a child?

"I asked: “How do you know that taking the life of a fetus is not murder?”"

Yes, you did.

"Wrong."

No, really, you did.

"See Laci Peterson case."

A single attempt at a particular prosecution is not equivalent to U.S. law.

Did I not suggest earlier that you might want to attempt to learn how your government works?

"Sure you do."

How do you know what I know and think?

Does your imaginary god tell you what I know and think?

Does you magical book of fiction tell you what I know and think?

What am I thinking right now?

"Figure of speech, as you well know."

Here we go again...

"That is the nature of delusion."

I'll have to take your word on that.

"Nor cares, right?"

Now, now, pouting isn't going to help any.

"So you are reconsidering your position?"

What makes you choose to believe that?

"And you’re still dodging, and still arguing for the non-voluntary relinquishment of human life."

You have written that enough times, that I would think that by now you would have convinced yourself of it.

Are you having a difficult time believing it?

(fin)

The Master’s Teaching on the
Lord’s Prayer is a Very Bright Light
Discussion Continued - Part 1

Thank you, Rcofield, for responding to my 8-point observation on the essential meaning of the Lord’s Prayer. We have common ground on point #1. And we have common ground on point #2. You have problems with my conclusion in Point #3, and thereafter. I would like to see if we can come to an agreement on Point #3, as the remaining points build upon it.

As I noted before, as recorded in Matthew 6, the Son of God, the Master Jesus Christ, whose words represent the Highest Wisdom, and whose words are spoken for the accomplishment of the Highest Purpose, teaches the children to pray for the incoming Kingdom.

Matthew 6

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

(more)

The Master’s Teaching on the
Lord’s Prayer is a Very Bright Light
Discussion Continued - Part 2

In the eight basic points of understanding which I believe are conveyed by this light, we agree on point #1, and point #2. I would like to see if we can come to an agreement on Point #3, as the remaining points build upon it.

1. Why did Jesus Christ give this teaching? Because he wanted the people to give this prayer.

Rcofield says to this, “#1 Agreed.”

2. Why did Jesus Christ want us to give this prayer? Because it is necessary for the accomplishment of some purpose.

Rcofield says to this, “#2 Agreed.”

3. For the fulfillment of what purpose does Jesus Christ require us to give this prayer? For the purpose of bringing in the Kingdom of God on the earth.

Rcofield says to this, “#3 I have reservations about your conclusion here. I don’t think it is our prayers that bring the Kingdom of God on earth. Further, Christ’s instruction concerning the proper mode of prayer in no way indicates that it is our prayers bring the Kingdom of God to earth. My reasons for this will become evident as I proceed. ”

[additional points cropped]

In interpreting the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer, it would be useful to incorporate into our analysis, other key teachings which the Lord Christ has given to us on the subject of prayer. At the top of this list, would be this teaching, found in Matthew 21

Matthew 21:22 - And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Here, the Lord Christ teaches the Children of God to pray for what they don’t already have. He promises us that if we ask, for what we do not have, that we will receive it, from the Father.

When you place this template over the Lord Prayer, the Master is saying (in effect), “it is obvious that you do not have the Kingdom of Heaven on the earth, but that would be a good thing to have. So I would like for you to pray for it. And what you pray for, believing, as I have told you, that you will receive.”

Indeed, if you want the Kingdom of Heaven on the earth, you can pray for it. And God will give it to you.

Given the teaching of the Lord Christ on prayer itself (asking for what we don’t have, and receiving it from the Father) the conclusion I have reached (if the Kingdom of Heaven is to come to the earth, we must pray for it) appears to be the most readily discernable conclusion that can be reached concerning the purpose for which the Lord Christ required us to speak this prayer.

RcoField, obviously the Lord Christ taught us to pray for the incoming Kingdom. If it was not for the purpose of bringing in the Kingdom, for what PURPOSE did he teach us to pray for the incoming Kingdom?

(end)

That was for PH, but I would welcome any other thoughts on the subject.

I only have a minute between chores here, but I thought of a better way to explain.

The fourth beast has been alive, but dormant since the fall of the Roman empire.

Dan Ch.7

16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.

17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Just the fact that the kingdom hasn't been taken, much less possessed, indicates that we are still living in the time of the fourth beast.

PEREGRINE,

Appearances can be deceiving.

Consistent appearances of confusion eventually become admissible evidence of confusion.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Yet you have admitted—repeatedly—to knowing nothing with certainty.

How, precisely, do you know then that a fetus is a child?

Simple observation. And again, by definition a human fetus is a young, unborn child in the earliest stages of development.

And my question still stands: How do you know that a fetus is not a child?

I asked: “How do you know that taking the life of a fetus is not murder?”

U.S. law.

Wrong. See Laci Peterson case.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure you do.

So now you are the prosecution for your imaginary god?...Did your imaginary god tell you to prosecute me?...Are you going to send me to your imaginary hell?

Figure of speech, as you well know.

I'm not quite convinced;

That is the nature of delusion.

One never knows.

Nor cares, right?

What a well crafted argument you have there.

So you are reconsidering your position?

No I'm not; but you appear to have fallen back to your old, superstitious beliefs. I should have known that your learning was too good to be true.

And you’re still dodging, and still arguing for the non-voluntary relinquishment of human life.

RCofield,

"At best, you appear to be confused."

Appearances can be deceiving.

"At worst, you appear to know nothing with certainty."

Appearances can be deceiving.

"How, precisely, do you know then that a fetus is not a child..."

How, precisely, do you know then that a fetus is a child?

"...and that taking the life of a fetus is not murder?"

U.S. law.

"This is not surprising given that you constantly admit to self-induced agnosticism. When your entire position is predicated on maintaining a state of ignorance at all costs, all forms of logic have to be discarded."

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sounds like more of your beliefs.

Again, your beliefs have no power over me, just as your imaginary god has no power over me.

"Because human governments have a rather long and sordid history of enacting inhumane laws. I, unlike yourself, am not forced to deny knowledge of this."

Again, your beliefs about me have no power over me.

"You do know that you can hold to agnosticism to the point you become nothing more than the village idiot, don’t you?"

No, I don't know that; I have no idea what you are believing at this moment.

"Oh, wait….I forgot. You don’t know that. Notice:
I asked: "Do you know that?" To which you respond:
No, I don't.
The prosecution rests."

So now you are the prosecution for your imaginary god?

Did your imaginary god tell you to prosecute me?

Are you going to send me to your imaginary hell?

"Very possibly. [Part of my favorite magic book of fiction] says that those who intentionally suppress the truth about [my favorite imaginary god] he will eventually give over to delusion of mind, so that they think a lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. I hardly ever read your posts without that passage coming to mind."

I'm not quite convinced; what does "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" have to say about that?

I don't remember reading anything like that in "The Lord of the Rings".

"On the question of whether you have ever had teenage daughters:
Not that I am aware of.
Perhaps because of the convenience of being able to abort “unwanted” children?"

One never knows.

"Because if you’ve never had teenage daughters your contention that their having an abortion is “completely up to the teenager” is utterly theoretical and speculative. In other words, you’re talking out of the top of your hat."

What a well crafted argument you have there.

"I said: "And you are still “most probably” arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life.""

Many times, if I'm not mistaken.

"Nope, no “desperation” here, and no “belief” here."

What, you have no beliefs?

Well, hallelujah!

Perhaps you're learning.

"One has but to read your own words."

Actually, that's completely optional; one can choose to ignore them if one wants.

More...

More:

"You are still arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life when you argue for abortion."

No I'm not; but you appear to have fallen back to your old, superstitious beliefs.

I should have known that your learning was too good to be true.

"Your contradictions are evident to all."

And we know that that is true because you see, believe, and speak for all, right?

Are you your own imaginary god?

(fin)

PH

I don't have much time right now, but let me add this to clarify;

The dissoltion of the Roman empire served as the foundation, from which the peoples of the former empire would base a new global system.
All you have to do is turn on the news and see how western leaders, and financiers are calling for a new world order, and setting economic conditions in such a way that a global government is necessary.

We could go in to deeper detail by discussing genealogies, ancient migrations, the rise and fall of governments, ect.

If it helps, you can think of the fourth beast as a revived Roman empire, but it's much more extensive than that.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 3

Thanks for the post. The civil tone is appreciated. I agree with much of what you are saying, but not all. I will try to disagree with civility.

All adherents to the Christian Faith, see this Teaching is as a Brilliant Light. This Light is supposed to enter the mind, and produce therein important realizations, and levels of understanding.

I agree to that statement without reservation. I’ll respond to each of your 8 points without reposting what you stated.

#1 Agreed.

#2 Agreed

#3 I have reservations about your conclusion here. I don’t think it is our prayers that bring the Kingdom of God on earth. Further, Christ’s instruction concerning the proper mode of prayer in no way indicates that it is our prayers bring the Kingdom of God to earth. My reasons for this will become evident as I proceed.

#4 I agree with your premise, but your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Again, I don’t think our prayers, in and of themselves, possess any particular power or ability, let alone the ability to bring the Kingdom to earth.

#5 Again, I don’t agree that God’s accomplishment of bringing His Kingdom to pass is dependent on our prayers.

#6 Agreed.

#7 Agreed. Now I know that will seem contradictory to you. But the fact remains that people have prayed this prayer for 2000 years. The Kingdom of God is coming, but not because people have prayed that it will come. It is coming because God has purposed that it will come. And because He has both purposed that it will come and commanded that we pray that it will come, His purpose is being accomplished and His commandment is being obeyed.

Remember a few of the passages I offered earlier concerning the fact that God reveals himself as a God whose purposes and plans cannot be thwarted:

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 3

Da 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

Pr 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Job 9:4 He is wise in heart and mighty in strength –who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?––

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Ac 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

God has purposed that His Kingdom will come upon this earth. Everything that is necessary for that to happen has been predestined to take place by the Omnipotent, Omniscient God who causes all things to fall out according to the counsel of His will. Whether we pray or not, His Kingdom is coming. The fact that we do pray that His Kingdom come is evidence that His Kingdom is coming, but it is not the cause of His Kingdom coming.

I think this is the kernel of the true essence of Christ’s teaching his disciples how to pray. Keep in mind that He was not giving them some “magical” formula whereby the mere repetition of the words would somehow yield results. Their request was “Master, teach us how to pray.” Christ was giving them a framework upon which they should build their prayers.

Consider this. The opening statement of the Lord ’s Prayer is “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.” Was Christ teaching them to pray so that the Father’s name would thereby be rendered holy (hallowed)? I don’t think that was the point, do you? Wasn’t Christ teaching them to acknowledge the holiness of the Father?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 3 of 3

Likewise, when Christ teaches the disciples to pray “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven” isn’t He teaching them still how to pray? There is no indication either here or elsewhere is scripture that the coming of the Kingdom of God is dependent on our prayers. Rather, Christ is here teaching the disciples what I believe to be the most important element of true Christian prayer: alignment of our wills with the will of the Father. Has the Father decreed that His Kingdom will come? Certainly. Where is the will of the Father established? In heaven. What should we pray? “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is already established in heaven.

Christ is simply teaching His disciples that to pray effectively they must pray that which is the will of the Father. Notice the emphasis that John—who who would have been present when Christ spoke these words—later places on this concept of our aligning our prayers with the will of the Father:

1Jo 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Here John sums up exactly what Christ meant when He repeatedly told his disciples to “ask in my name.” To ask in the “name” of Christ is to ask (pray) according to the will of Christ, whose will is in perfect accord with that of the Father. ONLY those prayers prayed according to the will of the Father can we expect to be answered.

So, the essence of Christ’s teaching in the Lord’s Prayer was that we are to align our prayers with the will of the Father. The Father has willed and purposed that His Kingdom come. We align ourselves with that will when we pray “Thy Kingdom come.” And thus we have the unspeakable privilege of participating with the Father in the coming of His kingdom upon earth as we live and pray in obedience to the very words of Christ.

#8 I can agree to that with exuberance if you grant the above stated distinction.

Do you see the concern I have with statements that seem to place limitations on an Omnipotent God? If He possesses all power, no mere creature (or any number of creatures) is able to keep him from accomplishing that which He has purposed.

Peace

PEREGRINE,

I'm pretty sure….I'm pretty sure…. Again, I have no idea…. I don't know that.

At best, you appear to be confused. At worst, you appear to know nothing with certainty. How, precisely, do you know then that a fetus is not a child and that taking the life of a fetus is not murder?

Your belief-logic is meaningless to me.

This is not surprising given that you constantly admit to self-induced agnosticism. When your entire position is predicated on maintaining a state of ignorance at all costs, all forms of logic have to be discarded.

No I'm not, I'm stating that I do not know that the statement that you made is true.

Like I said, when you pretend to not know whether or not any government has ever instituted inhumane laws, you are dodging the issue. I again remind you that the Latin term for an agnostic is ignoramus.

How do you know that?

Because human governments have a rather long and sordid history of enacting inhumane laws. I, unlike yourself, am not forced to deny knowledge of this. You do know that you can hold to agnosticism to the point you become nothing more than the village idiot, don’t you? Oh, wait….I forgot. You don’t know that. Notice:

I asked: "Do you know that?" To which you respond:

No, I don't.

The prosecution rests.

Who is forcing me (to doubt the obvious)? Your god?

Very possibly. Romans 1 says that those who intentionally suppress the truth about God he will eventually give over to delusion of mind, so that they think a lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. I hardly ever read your posts without that passage coming to mind.

On the question of whether you have ever had teenage daughters:

Not that I am aware of.

Perhaps because of the convenience of being able to abort “unwanted” children?

Why do you ask?

Because if you’ve never had teenage daughters your contention that their having an abortion is “completely up to the teenager” is utterly theoretical and speculative. In other words, you’re talking out of the top of your hat.

I said: "And you are still “most probably” arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life."

No, I'm not; but it appears that you desperately want to believe that for some reason. So, feel free to believe that if you must; your beliefs have no effect on reality, so it really doesn't matter.

Nope, no “desperation” here, and no “belief” here. One has but to read your own words. You are still arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life when you argue for abortion.

Your contradictions are evident to all.

Hi MrMeaner,

Sorry about the missing section of thought. I must have typed over it before I copied and pasted. Oh well, no time, but I was referring to Daniel 9:24-27 concerning the Messiah and the fourth kingdom in regards to Rome or the Roman Empire.

RCofield,

"Are you absolutely sure that you don’t know anything absolutely?"

I'm pretty sure.

"Are you absolutely sure about that?"

I'm pretty sure.

"It is rather evident that logic itself is meaningless to you."

Your belief-logic is meaningless to me.

"You’re dodging the issue."

No I'm not, I'm stating that I do not know that the statement that you made is true.

"I do know that."

How do you know that?

"Do you know that?"

No, I don't.

"Now that you mention it, I have noticed that logic seems to conveniently elude you when you have no idea how to defend your position."

No, your belief-logic is simply meaningless to me.

"You have no idea (as in “not a clue”) whether or not a fetus can volunteer to give up its life?"

Again, I have no idea.

Do you?

"You may need a room with padded walls."

Hmmm... sounds like fun.

"Yeah, a “bit” sounds about right."

Well, good.

"Sure we are."

No, we aren't.

"You’re just not capable of making logical application of what you wrote."

I'm not capable of deluding myself into believing your belief-logic.

"You’re not choosing to doubt, you’re being forced to doubt the obvious."

Who is forcing me?

Your god?

"Sure they can."

No, they can't.

"We all did so quite comfortably for about 9 months, on average."

Not as children.

"You’ve never had teenage daughters, have you?"

Not that I am aware of.

Why do you ask?

"And you are still “most probably” arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life."

No, I'm not; but it appears that you desperately want to believe that for some reason.

So, feel free to believe that if you must; your beliefs have no effect on reality, so it really doesn't matter.

(fin)

Hi MrMeaner,

I have a few minutes here. I think you will find some of the answers to your first three responses.

"The kingdom has been established, He came in judgment of the Jews, and we are awaiting His final coming" - Me

He came in judgment of the Jews? I thought that his judgment was his coming to smite the nations with a rod of iron. - MrM

I'll draw you up some Scriptural quotes when I get time. In the mean time, please watch this in relation to judgment of the Jews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmATWkT1nGA

"When/who do you place the fourth kingdom to be that Daniel makes reference of numerous times? (Dan. 2:36, 39, 40; 7:17, 23-24 - Me

A future world empire. - MrM

I think you can do better than that. The Bible is specific and I'm not getting into it now, not Anointed One, the Messiah, being cut off/put to death, and that the 'people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and sanctuary.' "The end will come like a flood.' 'Wars will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.' 'he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decrees is poured out on him.'

Matthew says, 'so when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel, let the reader understand.' (Matthew 24:15)

Do you understand as the readers of the first century were commended to?

I would suggest you watch the following videos 5 through 10, 14 and 21 also before you make too hasty a judgment, and then come with your ammunition.

Here is your starting point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r19EBDxH0Y4&feature=relmfu

GOLDENEAGLES,

Just saw your post below. Will try to reply tomorrow.

PEREGRINE,

I simply state that I don't know anything absolutely.

Are you absolutely sure that you don’t know anything absolutely?

And, you are probably wrong on most things that you have chosen to believe, or have been told to believe.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Only according to your belief-logic; your belief-logical is meaningless to me.

It is rather evident that logic itself is meaningless to you.

I don't know that. Do you know that?

You’re dodging the issue. I do know that. Do you know that?

I'm not following your belief-logic.

Now that you mention it, I have noticed that logic seems to conveniently elude you when you have no idea how to defend your position.

No idea.

You have no idea (as in “not a clue”) whether or not a fetus can volunteer to give up its life? You may need a room with padded walls.

Well, I'm not a biologist, OB, or GYN, but I've read a bit.

Yeah, a “bit” sounds about right.

No, we aren't agreed.

Sure we are. You’re just not capable of making logical application of what you wrote.

You can choose to believe that if you wish; I can choose to doubt that.

You’re not choosing to doubt, you’re being forced to doubt the obvious.

A human child cannot survive inside the womb; it would suffocate.

Sure they can. We all did so quite comfortably for about 9 months, on average.

That is entirely up to the teenager.

You’ve never had teenage daughters, have you?

And you are still “most probably” arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life.

RCofield,

"Does thinking about your over-used, antiquated clichés count?"

Yeah, sure, why not; so, what is it, yes or no?

"Yet you confess that you are not certain of either reality or the law….but you’re quite certain I am wrong."

I confess nothing; I am not a confessor.

I simply state that I don't know anything absolutely.

And, you are probably wrong on most things that you have chosen to believe, or have been told to believe.

"Then you are “most probably” arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life."

Only according to your belief-logic; your belief-logical is meaningless to me.

"Yes, Professor, and we all know that no government in the history of governments has ever enacted an inhumane law, don’t we?"

I don't know that.

Do you know that?

"Your inexorable appeal to the “law” borders on the mindless."

My, my.

"Maybe you’ve lived too long in close proximity to the law-making hucksters who are now running our fair country into the ground."

I'm not following your belief-logic.

"No idea?"

No idea.

"Really?"

Really.

"You really are quite ignorant of the human gestational process, aren’t you?"

Well, I'm not a biologist, OB, or GYN, but I've read a bit.

"You believe the delusion that you have no beliefs, thereby negating your claim that you have no beliefs. This seems to be rather over your head."

Again, only by your belief-logic, which is meaningless to me.

"Then we are agreed that the human fetus is both human and alive."

No, we aren't agreed.

You can choose to believe that if you wish; I can choose to doubt that.

"Right. Let’s call it anything under the sun except what it is—a human child."

A human child cannot survive inside the womb; it would suffocate.

"Really?"

Really.

"What about her husband?"

What about her husband?

"His thoughts on the matter should not be considered?"

That is entirely up to her.

"How a teenager living at home—her parents should not be consulted?"

That is entirely up to the teenager.

"You have mindlessly bought into the feminist propaganda to the point that you are robotically just regurgitating their inane arguments for them."

Oh, my!

"Do you ever think before you type?"

More often than not, I'd guess.

"Yeah."

Yeah?

"About all the helpless child in the womb can do is..."

Suffocate; that's why most doctors do not return helpless children to the womb.

"...experience pain, so by all means let’s tear it limb from limb or scald it to death with a saline solution."

How do you know that this is true?

Did your god tell you this?

Did you read it in your bible?

"Darn well serves it right, being so pitifully “unequipped” to make decisions and communicate…."

Do you need to take a couple of minutes?

"You give every evidence of being one sick puppy."

Oh, yeah, does a sick puppy know how to use a semicolon, or diagram a sentence?

More...

More:

"One is left to wonder why all of your “noble” sympathy and concern is directed toward the mother without even an apparent twinge of concern for the utterly helpless unborn child."

Just try thinking about it for a while (not believing), and see how that feels.

(fin)

typo:

How a(bout a) teenager living at home—her parents should not be consulted?

The Master’s Teaching on the
Lord’s Prayer is a Very Bright Light

Here, the Son of God, the Master Jesus Christ, whose words represent the highest wisdom, and whose words are spoken for the accomplishment of the highest purpose, teaches the children to pray for the incoming Kingdom.

Matthew 6

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

All adherents to the Christian Faith, see this Teaching is as a Brilliant Light. This Light is supposed to enter the mind, and produce therein important realizations, and levels of understanding. I see eight basic points of understanding conveyed by this light.

1. Why did Jesus Christ give this teaching? Because he wanted the people to give this prayer.

2. Why did Jesus Christ want us to give this prayer? Because it is necessary for the accomplishment of some purpose.

3. For the fulfillment of what purpose does Jesus Christ require us to give this prayer? For the purpose of bringing in the Kingdom of God on the earth.

4. Because this prayer was given to us by the Son of God, and because the Son of God speaks only those things that are of the highest purpose and importance, we must conclude that the giving of this prayer is essential for fulfilling this purpose, of bringing in the Kingdom of God upon the earth.

5. Because this prayer was given to us by the Son of God, and because the Son of God speaks only those things that are of the highest purpose and importance, we can conclude that if the process of bringing in the Kingdom of God upon the earth, did not require the people to give this prayer, then Jesus Christ would not have given us this prayer.

6. If the people give this prayer, the Kingdom of God will come upon the earth.

7. If people refuse to give this prayer, the Kingdom of God will not come upon the earth.

8. Whatever progress Christian civilization has made, from the time of Jesus Christ, in its rise out of the barbarism of the dark ages, would be attributed to the giving of this prayer.

Rcofield, would you agree with each of these eight (8) points? If you have problems with any of them, please explain. And would you have any additional points to add?

PEREGRINE,

Part 1 of 2

Do you ever think before you type?

Does thinking about your over-used, antiquated clichés count?

It's not up to me, it's up to reality, and the law….etc.

Yet you confess that you are not certain of either reality or the law….but you’re quite certain I am wrong.

The fetus is most probably a human fetus, as it is in a human uterus….The fetus most probably consists of living cells… I have no idea if they can volunteer or not…. I have no idea if they have any sort of consciousness, and if they do, they have no way of communicating with the world.

Then you are “most probably” arguing for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life.

But, the bottom line is what I have been attempting to teach you: Abortion is legal in the U.S., and is not considered murder by any jurisdiction, except, perhaps, if it is not carried out as prescribed by law.

Yes, Professor, and we all know that no government in the history of governments has ever enacted an inhumane law, don’t we? Your inexorable appeal to the “law” borders on the mindless. Maybe you’ve lived too long in close proximity to the law-making hucksters who are now running our fair country into the ground.

I have no idea if they can volunteer or not.

No idea? Really?

PEREGRINE,

Part 2 of 2

I have no idea if they have any sort of consciousness, and if they do, they have no way of communicating with the world.

You really are quite ignorant of the human gestational process, aren’t you?

I have no beliefs to force on you….You seem to be unable to comprehend that.

You believe the delusion that you have no beliefs, thereby negating your claim that you have no beliefs. This seems to be rather over your head.

And, probably, because Laci Peterson, as far as anyone knows, intended to bring her pregnancy to completion.

Then we are agreed that the human fetus is both human and alive.

As long as the zygote, embryo, or fetus ….

Right. Let’s call it anything under the sun except what it is—a human child.

….is inside the woman's body, she is the only person who can make decisions concerning her pregnancy;

Really? What about her husband? His thoughts on the matter should not be considered? How a teenager living at home—her parents should not be consulted? You have mindlessly bought into the feminist propaganda to the point that you are robotically just regurgitating their inane arguments for them. Do you ever think before you type?

…the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not equipped to make any decisions, let alone communicate any decisions, therefore it is up to woman alone how to handle her pregnancy, it cannot be left to preachers or politicians.

Yeah. About all the helpless child in the womb can do is experience pain, so by all means let’s tear it limb from limb or scald it to death with a saline solution. Darn well serves it right, being so pitifully “unequipped” to make decisions and communicate….

You give every evidence of being one sick puppy. One is left to wonder why all of your “noble” sympathy and concern is directed toward the mother without even an apparent twinge of concern for the utterly helpless unborn child.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, in your stated opposition to non-voluntary human experimentation, side by side with your repeated support for the non-voluntary relinquishment of human life, we have caught you flat footed at the bottom of a gigantic sink hole of hypocrisy."

Oh, my, what shall I do?

"Now, the question is, what force is operating on your mind, in this particular area, that has made dysfunctional those faculties of perception and reason and common sense, and simple decency, wherein you are rendered incapable of appreciating your own hypocritical predicament?"

Well, I just don't know; do you?

"Here, most people understand that they were in the womb at one time, and that not a single one of them would have ever consented to the relinquishment of their life."

How do you know that?

"And that includes you."

Again, how do you know that?

Perhaps I was one of the volunteers.

"These gears of cognition ought to turn freely within your own mind."

OK, now you lost me.

"But they do not."

Who do not?

"What is it that has thrown a wrench therein, and brought that particular aspect of moral functionality to a screeching halt in you?"

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

"What is it, that slaps your own hand, when you feel around in there, and feel the wrench of utter insanity, and you try to pull it out?"

How much have you had to drink today?

(fin)

Psolus, in your stated opposition to non-voluntary human experimentation, side by side with your repeated support for the non-voluntary relinquishment of human life, we have caught you flat footed at the bottom of a gigantic sink hole of hypocrisy.

Now, the question is, what force is operating on your mind, in this particular area, that has made dysfunctional those faculties of perception and reason and common sense, and simple decency, wherein you are rendered incapable of appreciating your own hypocritical predicament?

Here, most people understand that they were in the womb at one time, and that not a single one of them would have ever consented to the relinquishment of their life. And that includes you. These gears of cognition ought to turn freely within your own mind. But they do not. What is it that has thrown a wrench therein, and brought that particular aspect of moral functionality to a screeching halt in you?

What is it, that slaps your own hand, when you feel around in there, and feel the wrench of utter insanity, and you try to pull it out?

RCofield,

"Careful, you'll get your knickers knotted."

Do you ever think before you type?

"So which is it for you: Is the fetus not human or not alive? Or both?"

It's not up to me, it's up to reality, and the law.

The fetus is most probably a human fetus, as it is in a human uterus.

I don't know whether a human fetus is considered a human being in the biological sense, but I think that a human fetus is generally not considered a human being in the legal sense. (I could well be wrong on either or both.)

The fetus most probably consists of living cells.

Again, I don't know whether a human fetus is considered alive, as a human being is alive, in the biological sense, but I think that a human fetus is generally not considered alive, as a human being is alive, in the legal sense. (I could well be wrong on either or both.)

But, the bottom line is what I have been attempting to teach you: Abortion is legal in the U.S., and is not considered murder by any jurisdiction, except, perhaps, if it is not carried out as prescribed by law.

"Or are all these fetuses "volunteering" to give up their lives?"

I have no idea if they can volunteer or not.

I have no idea if they have any sort of consciousness, and if they do, they have no way of communicating with the world.

"You did, after all, state that you don't argue for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life."

Nothing gets by you, does it?

"And the getting a haircut/getting an abortion equivalency? Please."

You're welcome.

"Really?"

Really.

"Then why are your beliefs being forced on me?"

I have no beliefs to force on you.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that.

"My tax dollars are paying for abortions which you--and a minority of the population of this country--believe is not murder."

First, I do not charge you any taxes; the government does.

Second, you're tax dollars are also paying for wars, espionage, to support many religions, some of it goes to the Vatican, some goes to Israel, some to Egypt, and some goes to places and programs that you don't even know about.

Third, I live in DC, which has no representation in Congress, so I have zero power to force anything on you via the U.S. tax code.

"I'm certainly not stupid..."

Can we have a show of hands?

"...and I most assuredly didn't "let" the government use my tax dollars for abortion."

You might want to attempt to learn how your government works.

More...

More:

"And, just out of curiosity, why do you think Scott Peterson was charged with double murder for killing his wife who was pregnant at the time?"

Probably because the district attorney's office thought that they could successfully prosecute on that charge.

And, probably, because Laci Peterson, as far as anyone knows, intended to bring her pregnancy to completion.

In my opinion, if a pregnant woman intends to bring her pregnancy to completion, it is the duty of the government, and the society at large, to respect her wishes and to provide her with all possible aid and protection.

Also, in my opinion, if a pregnant woman intends to end her pregnancy, for any reason, it is again the duty of the government, and the society at large, to respect her wishes and to provide her with all possible aid and protection.

As long as the zygote, embryo, or fetus is inside the woman's body, she is the only person who can make decisions concerning her pregnancy; the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not equipped to make any decisions, let alone communicate any decisions, therefore it is up to woman alone how to handle her pregnancy, it cannot be left to preachers or politicians.

(fin)

PEREGRINE,

Wrong; your, and other people's beliefs do not apply to me, or to anyone else who does not hold to those beliefs...If I were silly enough to believe that cutting one's hair is murder, would you be guilty of murder every time you got a haircut?

Careful, you'll get your knickers knotted.

So which is it for you: Is the fetus not human or not alive? Or both? Or are all these fetuses "volunteering" to give up their lives?

You did, after all, state that you don't argue for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life.

And the getting a haircut/getting an abortion equivalency? Please.

You are free to hold to any beliefs that you want to dream up, but you cannot enforce your beliefs onto other people unless they are stupid enough to let you...

Really? Then why are your beliefs being forced on me? My tax dollars are paying for abortions which you--and a minority of the population of this country--believe is not murder. I'm certainly not stupid and I most assuredly didn't "let" the government use my tax dollars for abortion.

And, just out of curiosity, why do you think Scott Peterson was charged with double murder for killing his wife who was pregnant at the time?

RCofield,

"Sure you do. Every time you argue for abortion."

Wrong; your, and other people's beliefs do not apply to me, or to anyone else who does not hold to those beliefs.

If I were silly enough to believe that cutting one's hair is murder, would you be guilty of murder every time you got a haircut?

You are free to hold to any beliefs that you want to dream up, but you cannot enforce your beliefs onto other people unless they are stupid enough to let you.

PEREGRINE,

"Why do you argue for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life itself?"--GE

I don't.--PSOLUS

Sure you do. Every time you argue for abortion.

hahahaahahahaahahahaa.... whew... thanks guys... eschatology always cracks me up!

"The kingdom has been established, He came in judgment of the Jews, and we are awaiting His final coming"

He came in judgment of the Jews? I thought that his judgment was his coming to smite the nations with a rod of iron.

"When/who do you place the fourth kingdom to be that Daniel makes reference of numerous times? (Dan. 2:36, 39, 40; 7:17, 23-24 -
A future world empire.

"When will be the time of the eternal kingdom?" (Dan. 2:44; 7:27)

As soon as this happens:

23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

"When is this judgment upon Daniels people to happen? (Dan. 9:24-27)"

During the seven years that is the seventieth week. But it's not just Daniel's people.

"When is the 'time of the end' spoken of in Daniel 12:4? What is it the end of?"

the period of time before the seven seals of the book are loosed in Rev. Ch. 6

"What do you make Jesus' references to the kingdom being in their midst, near, at hand? What does this mean?

Hmmm. We know that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So it would seem to me that until Chrsits returns, the only hope we have of seeing the kingdom of heaven is after death

"‘Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power’“ (Mark 9:1; cp. Matt. 16:27; Luke 9:27)
Who are these people?

That's where we're going to have to discuss.
As I mentioned, it's written that no flesh can inherit the kingdom of God.
Either he was using the phrase "taste of death", as a metaphor for bowing to sin, or he was telling them that they would be alive when he returns to establish his kingdom on Earth.
You can decide.

part 1

"What does Jesus mean by His “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36)
It's not of this world. This world belongs to Satan, until he is destroyed at Christ's coming.
If it wasn't how could he offer rule of it to Christ, if he just would worship him?

"What does this mean?
“For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13)"
It means that the Father has made us joint-heirs with Christ, and has taken away the penalty of sin, with our repentance.

"Or this"
"And God raised us up with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions...and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms?" (Ephesians 2:5a,6b)
Bad translation
Should be "And God (quickened, made alive) us with Christ...."
the next verse actually completes the thought
vs 7 "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ JEsus"

"Notice the similarities of Daniel 9:26-27 with the Olivetti Discourse in Matthew 24."
Yes. I believe they're referring to the same events.

"What do you mean MrMeaner? It was completed in Christ's sacrifice, and shown in His Resurrection. He said, "It is finished." The requirements of God had been met, finally and fully. The Book of Hebrews is all about how it was met in Christ. You should read it. "By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13 "

The sacrificial laws were fulfilled. but the rest still is very much in effect.
The definition of sin is transgression of the law.
Some of the most detailed prophesies dealing with the last days are in the law..

And that link contains some very poor scholaship.

Rev.20 might not discuss the change mentioned in Isaiah 11, but I Cor. Ch. 15 goes in to great detail describing the different bodies.

end

GoldenEagles,

"Why do you argue for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life itself?"

I don't.

Psolus says, "That's why I have never advocated for non-voluntary human experimentation."

Why do you argue for non-voluntary relinquishment of human life itself?

Hi RCofield,

Good deal. If you are a partial Preterist you're well over half the way to becoming an Amillennialist. :-) -RCO

Funny you say that. (^8
I purchased 'A Case for Amillennialism' by Kim Riddlebarger.

Great reading, that John Owen and James White, eh? Owen is one of my favorite Puritan writers. Have you read James White's "The God Who Justifies"? Extraordinary tome. Maybe the best defense of the doctrine of justification in the modern era. The Eagle would do well to read it. - RCO

GoldenEagles would do well to read it.

John Owen's, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ - wow, hard to read but that guy knew his stuff.

Yes, actually, I like James White and have read many of his White's books, The Potter's Freedom, The Forgotten Trinity, The King James Only Controversy, The God Who Justifies, The Same Sex Controversy, his exegetics of John 6:35-44 (I forget the title off hand and don't want to search for it).

John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, is good too. I love A.W. Pink. His Exposition of Hebrews was great. So was The Sovereignty of God. James Boice, R.C. Sproul, John MacArther, Al Mohler Jr., John Piper, John Owens, Lorraine Boettner, B.B. Warfield, Norm Geisler and Frank Turek and the list goes on.

Along the lines of presuppositional apologetics Greg Bahnsen, Van Til, John Frame, Ron Nash, Gordon Clark, Robert Reymond, Francis Schaeffer, as some of the more well known ones, mostly Reformed writers.

When I was younger I read many of the Dispensational crowd. Prophesy did not seem to make sense until I read Gary Demar's, 'Last Days Madness.' That is when things started fitting into place.

Lots of evidential and creation writers also.

I will probably not be able to respond for the next couple of days with working the weekend.

Blessings in Christ, RCofield!

Hi MrMeaner,

I have to say that I am totally confused as to what you believe. Let me back up Do you believe that Christ has already returned, established his kingdom, and left us here to carry on without him?

The kingdom has been established, He came in judgment of the Jews, and we are awaiting His final coming.

When/who do you place the fourth kingdom to be that Daniel makes reference of numerous times? (Dan. 2:36, 39, 40; 7:17, 23-24 - The interpretation as to three of these kingdoms are supplied in the Book of Daniel)

When will be the time of the eternal kingdom? (Dan. 2:44; 7:27)

When is this judgment upon Daniels people to happen? (Dan. 9:24-27)

When is the 'time of the end' spoken of in Daniel 12:4? What is it the end of?

What do you make Jesus' references to the kingdom being in their midst, near, at hand? What does this mean?

“The kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:14–15; cp. Matt. 4:12–17)

‘Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power’“ (Mark 9:1; cp. Matt. 16:27; Luke 9:27)

Who are these people?

“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28)

What does Jesus mean by His “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36)

What does this mean?
“For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13)

Or this?
"And God raised us up with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions...and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms?" (Ephesians 2:5a,6b)

Notice the similarities of Daniel 9:26-27 with the Olivetti Discourse in Matthew 24.

One more thing;
How can the "old covenant" be brought to a close, when it hasn't been completed? -MrM

What do you mean MrMeaner? It was completed in Christ's sacrifice, and shown in His Resurrection. He said, "It is finished." The requirements of God had been met, finally and fully. The Book of Hebrews is all about how it was met in Christ. You should read it. "By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13

Where was I when Isaiah 66:15-16 happened? Or Malachi 4:1-3? -MrM

I don't recall hearing report of the LORD having returned with fire to consume all flesh. Do wolves dwell with lambs?... Read Isaiah Ch.11 -MrM

See these two links for explanations to your concerns:

http://americanvision.org/3603/what-does-peter-mean-by-the-passing-away-of-heaven-and-earth-a-study-of-2-peter-3/

http://americanvision.org/1740/subduing-nations-gospel/

RCofield,

"Do you think the “medical experiments” performed by the Third Reich on those they deemed undesirables (not unlike our practice of embryonic stem cell research on “undesirable” fetuses) was “appropriate” for their particular society and culture?"

No, I don't.

That's why I have never advocated for non-voluntary human experimentation.

And, I don't think that what happened in you favorite scapegoat christion government is even close to embryonic stem cell research.

By the way, are you and peterhuff shills for Mr. Godwin?

Is he giving you guys money every time you prove him smarter than your gods?

You two keep bringing up the nazis, but you never mention the Tuskegee syphilis experiment; does that hit too close to you christian home for comfort?

"Are you not deeming such practices “appropriate” for our society and culture when you support abortion?"

No I am not.

"No, not just “sometime in the future.”"

Then, when?

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven even now in that women who have abortions suffer from extreme guilt and shame."

Women who do not have abortions also suffer from extreme guilt and shame; why is your god revealing his wrath from heaven upon them?

"Further, they are highly susceptible to extreme bouts of depression, often around the recurring “anniversary” of their having murdered their children."

Women who do not have abortions also are highly susceptible to extreme bouts of depression, throughout the year; why is your god revealing his wrath from heaven upon them?

"The “fathers” who agree to abortions for their unborn children often suffer similarly."

Fathers who do not agree to abortions also often suffer similarly; why is your god revealing his wrath from heaven upon them?

"Our economy is now suffering because we are “missing” 50 million (+ their offspring, which would significantly increase the number) consumers, laborers, tax and Social Security payers, etc."

Do you really think that this country would be better off right now if our current population were 400 million plus, instead of 300 million plus?

"Additionally, in no small part due to abortion, the number of children per family nationally has fallen below the baseline of 2.1 considered necessary by sociologists to sustain a culture."

The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The above illustrates what is so compelling about having a make-believe world-view; it is so much easier to make things up to believe that to face reality.

"Make no mistake: The atrocity of “leagalized” abortion in this country is being “dealt with.”"

Then why are you getting your knickers in a twist; it appears that your god is dealing with the "abortion problem"; he's not stopping any, granted, but according to you, he's kicking asses and taking names.

More...

More:

"I dunno, Peregrine."

I know, PCofield, I know.

"Maybe direct his judgment towards those such as yourself [bibley stuff expurgated with prejudice]"

How many abortions do you think he'll prevent by doing that?

My guess is: zero.

But, it will probably make you feel good.

(fin)

RC and PH

Isaiah Ch. 66 implies that before the birth of the next age, there will be idolatry, followed by a tribulation in vs 4-5, which includes mass delusion, fear, and culminates in believers being hated and "cast out" by believers of another kind who think they're carrying out God's will. (or possibly carrying out the will of another god)
It even goes on to mock those who seemingly believe that a birth can happen without travail.

How do you explain this?

WALTER,

i meant to add: while science has filled filled most of the other gaps, i've long thought cause-of-the-big-bang is a great gap in which to place god.

....... :-) ...... Do go on...

Hey Peter,

Looks like a good discussion shaping up between you and MRMEANER. I'm with you 100% thus far. Excellent posts.

I am taking a partial Preterist position as making the most sense biblically of the text. I have not studied the Amillennialist case yet.--PH

Good deal. If you are a partial Preterist you're well over half the way to becoming an Amillennialist. :-)

Great reading, that John Owen and James White, eh? Owen is one of my favorite Puritan writers. Have you read James White's "The God Who Justifies"? Extraordinary tome. Maybe the best defense of the doctrine of justification in the modern era. The Eagle would do well to read it.

Peace, my dear brother.

PEREGRINE,

It is our responsibility to create laws, and enforce laws, that are appropriate for our society and culture.

Do you think the “medical experiments” performed by the Third Reich on those they deemed undesirables (not unlike our practice of embryonic stem cell research on “undesirable” fetuses) was “appropriate” for their particular society and culture? Are you not deeming such practices “appropriate” for our society and culture when you support abortion?

What I take from both of your most recent comments to me regarding each of your gods apparent unconcern about abortion, is that each of your gods seem to be aware of what is going on, and each has a slightly different plan in dealing with it, just sometime in the future.

No, not just “sometime in the future.” The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven even now in that women who have abortions suffer from extreme guilt and shame. Further, they are highly susceptible to extreme bouts of depression, often around the recurring “anniversary” of their having murdered their children. The “fathers” who agree to abortions for their unborn children often suffer similarly. Our economy is now suffering because we are “missing” 50 million (+ their offspring, which would significantly increase the number) consumers, laborers, tax and Social Security payers, etc. Additionally, in no small part due to abortion, the number of children per family nationally has fallen below the baseline of 2.1 considered necessary by sociologists to sustain a culture.

Make no mistake: The atrocity of “leagalized” abortion in this country is being “dealt with.”

If women were prevented from having the abortions that they require, what is RCofield's god going to do with his "sharp sword mouth" and his "furious winepress treading" when the time comes for him to implement those parts of his plan?

I dunno, Peregrine. Maybe direct his judgment towards those such as yourself who “give approval to those who practice such things”? (Romans 1:32)

PH

OK, I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from on some of this.
So am I right in thinking that our main difference is our positions on whether Christ's return will be preceeded by apostasy/tribulation?

Ah yes, the old "gap theory".

I lean toward accepting that theory.
I'm definitely not a fan of Darby, but the math does work.

Thanks to your link, I have learned that, apparently, I'm a Post-tribulational premillennialist.
I've never really sought out to categorize my beliefs, but at first glance, PTPM appears to be pretty close.

Another question comes to mind:

What does the phrase "resurrection of the dead" mean to you?

GoldenEagles,

"If you support abortion, and argue for its continuation, then, that which you advocate for others, will become your own experience."

Are you saying that because I advocate reproductive rights for women, your "god" is going to abort me?

How, exactly, is that going to happen?

When can I expect that to happen?

I kind of have plans for this weekend; do you think it will happen before this weekend?

"The Law of God will see to that."

Care to make it interesting?

"That Law is Absolutely Just in this regard."

Are you sure about that?
Posted by: GoldenEagles

GoldenEagles,

"Under the Law of God, abortion is a crime."

Who's "god"? Your "god"? RCofield's "god"? MrMeaner's "god"? Or one of the thousands of other gods that believers disagree about?

"On earth, the people have a choice as to whether they will conform the laws which govern their societies, to the Law of God."

To each believer, their own personal "god".

"To help people make the right choice in this regard, God our Father has made this clear,..."

This does not appear to be true; in this thread alone, there are at least 4 believers who are arguing about exactly what each of them believes that each of their personal gods says.

"And so, we have this built in incentive that will tend to steer the people in the right direction over time."

With you as the "decider"?

"Now, the punishment for allowing the extermination of 53 million innocent children is grievous."

What, exactly, is this "grievous punishment"?

"And so, the great bulk of the punishment for participating in the breaking of this law will fall on the people who are directly or indirectly involved, and this after they leave embodiment, as I have described below."

In other words, you have no idea that anyone has been punished, right?

Oh, hey

Guess I should check out those links, there

PH
I've re-read your last comments.
I have to say that I am totally confused as to what you believe.
Let me back up
Do you believe that Christ has already returned, established his kingdom, and left us here to carry on without him?

One more thing;
How can the "old covenant" be brought to a close, when it hasn't been completed?
Where was I when Isaiah 66:15-16 happened? Or Malachi 4:1-3 ?
I don't recall hearing report of the LORD having returned with fire to consume all flesh.
Do wolves dwell with lambs? Does the leopard lie down with the kid? Can a child play on the hole of an asp?
If Christ had returned, all of those things would have happened, and be happening.
Read Isaiah Ch.11

Hi MrMeaner,

You said:

one thing that strikes me when I read your examples, is that it appears you're trying to make GE's case. It's hard for me to accept it, but the examples you provide clearly indicate that those hearing those words in person would be alive to see the return of Christ. If you believe that it already happened during Christ's short return after the resurrection, then why aren't we all in heaven, enjoying eternity? - MrM

Yes, those hearing the words at that time. The time frame passages are important and Jesus refers to 'this generations' in a number of other passages in the Gospels. He also frequently refers to a time of wrath coming on the earth, a time of Israel's judgment.

I seldom read all of GoldenEagles posts so I'm not familiar with GoldenEagles case, but I am taking a partial Preterist position as making the most sense biblically of the text. I have not studied the Amillennialist case yet.

The partial Preterist position sees most of Jesus' prophesies fulfilled in the first century, but not Christ's final coming.

Premillennial Dispensationalism is definitely a position I reject. This is the stance made known by Darby and Scofield and is the most popular interpretation today. Much of it is based on a time gap in Daniel 9:24-27.

http://americanvision.org/mediafiles/daniel-11-and-12-seventy-weeks-of-years.pdf

http://americanvision.org/763/gap-that-wasnt-part-2/

Psolus says, “It is our responsibility to create laws, and enforce laws, that are appropriate for our society and culture.”

Yes, as I noted, the most appropriate laws to have on the books in any society and culture, are those that are congruent with the Law of God. This allows the equation of Divine Providence to operate at a very high output.

The Golden Rule, which says, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, is a superb guide in this area. If you support abortion, and argue for its continuation, then, that which you advocate for others, will become your own experience. The Law of God will see to that. That Law is Absolutely Just in this regard.

Psolus says, “Abortion is not a crime; it is legal.”

Under the Law of God, abortion is a crime.

On earth, the people have a choice as to whether they will conform the laws which govern their societies, to the Law of God.

To help people make the right choice in this regard, God our Father has made this clear, that the degree to which the people choose to conform their laws to his laws, the more prosperous, peaceful, and happy will their lives be. The degree to which their laws diverge from God’s Law, the more chaos, conflict, and poverty will grip their daily lives.

This is because one of the primary inputs to the equation of Divine Providence, is this obedience factor. If the obedience factor is high, the output of the equation of Divine Providence is abundant. If the obedience factor is low, the output of the equation of Divine Providence is reduced to a trickle.

And so, we have this built in incentive that will tend to steer the people in the right direction over time.

In our nation, in America, from the founding, the people of each of the 50 States, through their State Legislatures, made the choice to make their system of laws in this area, dealing with the life of the unborn child, congruent with the Law of God. Abortion was made a crime in every State of the Union. This was a wise choice for the above reason. Not the least of which was the fact that America grew up into the most prosperous and free and powerful nation the world has ever seen.

It is true, that in 1973, a misguided U.S. Supreme Court struck down all of these state laws as unconstitutional, making abortion “legal”. If the Court did not operate in a peculiar niche of absolute power, the people would have reversed this decision immediately, and abortion would have remained illegal in all states.

Now, the punishment for allowing the extermination of 53 million innocent children is grievous.

But delivering this punishment upon the people in the short term is complicated by the fact that, technically speaking, the people as a whole did not freely choose to defy God in this area. The U.S. Supreme Court defied God in this area. And because they operate beyond the Will of the People, the people were not able to reverse the decision, but rather, were put into a position of having to obey the decision.

God knows, that if the decision were returned to the states, where it properly belongs, many states would resurrect their statutes defending the unborn.

And so, the great bulk of the punishment for participating in the breaking of this law will fall on the people who are directly or indirectly involved, and this after they leave embodiment, as I have described below.

Nevertheless, the status quo directly impacts the equation of Divine Providence in a negative manner. Our nation would be far better off if we went back to the place where our laws are fully congruent with the Law of God in this area.

rco, i said:

anyway, for the purposes of continuing this discussion, and hopefully moving on to what you consider to be some specific qualities of the "Ultimate Cause", i'd grant you all those ASSUMPTIONS.

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch
--------------

i meant to add: while science has filled filled most of the other gaps, i've long thought cause-of-the-big-bang is a great gap in which to place god.

GoldenEagles,

"Freedom of choice does not extend to the commission of crimes against the innocent."

Can you please supply a comprehensive list of exactly what humans have the freedom of choice to do, and an equally comprehensive list of exactly what humans do not have the freedom of choice to do?

GoldenEagles,

"Freedom of choice does not extend to the commission of crimes against the innocent."

Abortion is not a crime; it is legal.

"There is no essential difference between murdering a child in the womb, or going to an elementary school and murdering a child in a classroom."

A child cannot survive in the womb; if a child somehow ended up back in the womb after he or she was born, he or she would die of suffocation.

Only zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (among other stages) can survive in the womb.

And, "murder" is legal term - you might want to learn how to use it before you again attempt to use it.

"It is our responsibility to create laws, and enforce laws, the protect the life of the innocent and defenseless."

It is our responsibility to create laws, and enforce laws, that are appropriate for our society and culture.

That is why abortion is legal, and killing children in classrooms is illegal.

Psolus asks, "Wouldn't making abortion illegal interfere with the freewill and choice that the gods have given us?"

Freedom of choice does not extend to the commission of crimes against the innocent. There is no essential difference between murdering a child in the womb, or going to an elementary school and murdering a child in a classroom. It is our responsibility to create laws, and enforce laws, the protect the life of the innocent and defenseless.

PH
I don't have time to make a full comment before I head out to work, but the one thing that strikes me when I read your examples, is that it appears you're trying to make GE's case.
It's hard for me to accept it, but the examples you provide clearly indicate that those hearing those words in person would be alive to see the return of Christ.
If you believe that it already happened during Christ's short return after the resurrection, then why aren't we all in heaven, enjoying eternity?

I'll make a full response this evening

So MrMeaner, you have to ask yourself who and what was Jesus referring to when He used these time passages, and what the end of the age or last days means.

Hi MrMeaner,

Do you agree with PH's stated opinion that the prophesy contained in Matt. Ch. 24, Mark Ch. 13, Luke Ch. 21, along with the Book of Revelations, came to pass in 79 AD, through Titus? -MrM

I don't know where you came up with the 79AD date. I was referring to the 70AD fulfillment of prophecy. Please notice the similarities of Scripture in these three passages, as told by three different people, when put in comparison, that R.C. Sproul notes in his book, 'The Last Days According to Jesus, p.35.

False Christ's - Matt. 24:5; Mark 136; Luke 21:8.
Wars and rumors of wars - Matt. 24:6; Mk. 13:7; Lk. 21:9.
Between nations - Matt. 24:7; Mk. 13:8; Lk. 21:10.
Between kingdoms - Matt. 24:7; Mk. 13:8; Lk. 21:10.
Famines - Matt. 24:7; Mk. 13:8; Lk. 21:11.
Pestilence, troubles - Matt. 24:7; Mk. 13:8; Lk. 21:11.
Earthquakes - Matt. 24:7; Mk. 13:8; Lk. 21:11.
Persecution of Christ's disciples - Matt. 24:9-10; Mk. 13:9, 11-13; Lk. 21:12-17.
Gospel preached worldside - Matt. 24:14; Mk. 13:10.
Abomination of desolation - Matt. 24:15; Mk 13:14; Lk. 21:20.
Great tribulation, distress - Matt. 24:21; Mk. 13:19; Lk. 21:23.
Astronomical phenomena - Matt. 24:29; Mk. 13:24-25; Lk. 21:25.

As for the parable of the fig tree, Jesus relates the sprouting of the fig trees leaves to the closeness of summer in the same way as to the coming of the kingdom - its close when you see the signs spoken of - wars, famines, persecutions, etc.

Most of these signs are spoken about in other passages of the gospels as well, as well as spoken of in fulfillment in the Book of Acts.

Jesus says that some of these very disciples will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt. 16:27-28)

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

This last generation of Jews were to see the coming of the kingdom and the end of the age of the Jewish economy of temple worship.

When Jesus commissioned the twelve He said,

"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On My account you will be brought before governors and kings...all men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm until the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one town, flee to another...you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Matt. 10:17, 22,23

Look at all the warnings of coming judgment spoken to the disciples and people of Israel by Jesus.

The evidence from Scripture that most was fulfilled in the first century is astounding.

Paul says,

These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the end of the ages has come." 1 Corinthians 10:11

Peter says, "the end of all things is near." (1 Peter 4:7)

John says, "It is the last hour." (1 John 2:18.

The list goes on.

Peterhuff says, “The same message is conveyed over and over again throughout Scripture that it is alone God who saves. Salvation is not a partnership.” -GE

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

Where do you see your ability to come to God on your own terms, by your own merits?

"All the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away." John 6:37)

"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39)

"I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those You have given Me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

"When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." Romans 9:16)

Salvation does not depend on your desires or efforts.

Shall I go on?

Peterhuff says, “The same message is conveyed over and over again throughout Scripture that it is alone God who saves. Salvation is not a partnership.” -GE

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

Where do you see your ability to come to God on your own terms, by your own merits?

"All the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away." John 6:37)

"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39)

"I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those You have given Me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

"When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." Romans 9:16)

Salvation does not depend on your desires or efforts.

Shall I go on?

GoldenEagles, RCofield,

What I take from both of your most recent comments to me regarding each of your gods apparent unconcern about abortion, is that each of your gods seem to be aware of what is going on, and each has a slightly different plan in dealing with it, just sometime in the future.

GoldenEagles even mentions freewill and choice, from which I infer that his particular god may well be pro-choice.

So my next question is, why are so many people attempting to make abortion illegal, thus potentially throwing a monkey wrench into the plans of the various gods?

Wouldn't making abortion illegal interfere with the freewill and choice that the gods have given us?

If women were prevented from having the abortions that they require, what is RCofield's god going to do with his "sharp sword mouth" and his "furious winepress treading" when the time comes for him to implement those parts of his plan?

To GoldenEagles, also MrMeaner,

Peterhuff, I would point out to you, that the foregoing question, "Why did Christ ask us to pray for the Kingdom of Heaven to come to the earth", and associated discussion, also speaks to the validity of the God/Man Partnership Principle. Active participation in this partnership is a prerequisite unto salvation. -GE

I believe that He was looking to the times that would shortly come to pass in which the Father would bring judgment upon the Jewish people for rejecting their Messiah. This is a time of great tribulation coming upon the whole earth or land in which the Old Covenant order would be brought to a close and the kingdom ushered in (spiritually at this time - John 4:24 - with the destruction of the Temple.

The sign of the 'end of the age', the old covenant and the consummation of the new was the destruction of the Temple.

Jesus warned His disciples that perilous times were about to follow (Matthew 24:9-22). So they were to pray for the hastening of the kingdom, just as we are today.

Remember, God's judgment was coming upon 'this generation.

"The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41)

"To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?" (Luke 7:31)

"This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11:29)

"For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation."(Luke 11:30)

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring an everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophesy and to anoint the Most Holy.....After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed...And on a wing of the Temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (Daniel 9:24, 26, 27b)

Remember, the everlasting kingdom will be set up at the time of the fourth kingdom, Rome, of Neb's dream (Daniel 2:36-45).

"There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:28

The fallen soul, who has this history of rebellion, must choose to return home by freewill choice. The only soul that can be brought back home to the heaven world is the soul who has freely chosen to be obedient to the Laws of God once again.--GE

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

If abortion is wrong, why does your god, and all other gods, for that matter, simply stand impotently by, and allow all the abortions to happen? Appears to me that it is just not that big a deal to them.--PSOLUS

Ec 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil. Ac 17:31 (But God) has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. 2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. Re 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

More on the Subject of Abortion - Part 1

Psolus asks (again), ”If abortion is wrong, why does your god, and all other gods, for that matter, simply stand impotently by, and allow all the abortions to happen?”

The answer to why abortion is “allowed” by God is found in the history of mankind’s rebellion, and God’s effort to bring these rebels home, not by force, but by freewill choice.

The fallen soul, who has this history of rebellion, must choose to return home by freewill choice. The only soul that can be brought back home to the heaven world is the soul who has freely chosen to be obedient to the Laws of God once again.

This universe (the whole thing) is like unto a gigantic insane asylum in which the inmates are allowed to run the show in the various wings, floors, wards and rooms. They are allowed to run the show, again, because freewill choice is the only path back home. The freewill of (rebellious) mankind rules here.

Mental health professionals (teachers of the heavenly way) are provided in all wings, floors, wards, and rooms. But the inmates are under no direct obligation to heed them.

The inmates in a particular wing, ward, or room, can group together and decide to base their internal government on God’s Laws, or something else (i.e. on the suggestions which serpent whispers into their ears).

They can choose to be obedient to God’s Commandment, thou shalt not kill, or not, it is their choice. As a general rule God will not interfere with their decision making process, or their choices. But all choices carry consequences. When the time comes for the consequences to fall on the people, you will not be arguing about the “impotence” of God at that point.

All impulses towards disobedience to God’s Laws originate in the manipulation of a demonic presence (serpent). This is true for homosexuals, this is true for Atheists, and this is true for people like RcoField, who continues to harbor hatred for ONE BILLION Catholics.

The challenge for God is to woo these souls away from the alliances they have made with the forces of evil, which are the forces of rebellion, and in this way, begin the process of wooing them away from their habit patterns of rebellion, and to retrain them in the ways of heaven. The choice to be retrained, can only be a freewill choice.

You can take RcoField as a good example of a soul who is having trouble coming to terms with this retraining program. Not only does the word "Obedience" still appear to be a dirty word for him, he still wants to carry his baggage of hatred back into the heaven world with him.

(more)

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield, in your response to my post on the importance of the Lord's Prayer, it appears that you are denying the essential nature of that prayer.

The "essential nature" of the Lord's prayer--no. The constant limitations that you place upon God--yes.

Mere creatures are in no way capable of limiting, frustrating, or thwarting the purposes of an Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator.

You are constantly telling us what God "can't" do. This simply does not comport with God's revelation of Himself in scripture:

Da 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

Isa 43:13 Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?”

Pr 21:30 No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD.

Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Job 9:4 He is wise in heart and mighty in strength –who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?––

Ac 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Isa 14:27 For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?

Isa 14:24 ¶ The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,

Ps 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

Ps 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Ps 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.

Job 23:13 But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.

More on the Subject of Abortion - Part 2

If the soul refuses to cooperate with the retraining program, the soul will find, that at the end of a given life, that it will pass, not into oblivion, but directly into the hands of the rebellion’s leadership, into a domain that is ruled totally by hatred and cruelty, and will begin a period of time under their direct control.

As it is written, they will know their teachers.

The idea here is to make sure the soul comes face to face with the forces of darkness that are behind the impulses towards disobedience.

Direct and conscious association with these forces is a terrifying experience, and the soul will call out to God for freedom from this domain.

When the thirst for freedom rises to the necessary crescendo, God will give the soul another opportunity to come into physical embodiment, to confront again, the choice to follow rebellious impulses, or to forge a new path back in the direction of respect and obedience unto God.

The (repetitive) physical embodiment scenario is structured to allow the fallen soul to experience both sides of the equation, on the one hand, the impulses towards disobedience, and on the other, that of the call of God’s Messengers to return to the soul’s native allegiance to the ways of the heaven world. Having both inputs, the soul then will freely choose who he will serve. This decision making scenario is only available in physical embodiment.

While not in physical embodiment, the soul is experiencing the consequences of its past choices. Only in physical embodiment does the soul have the opportunity to choose, and to weave a new tapestry of obedience unto the ways of heaven.

In this manner, physical embodiment can be seen as the soul’s entry upon the loom of regeneration. Only here can the soul make the choice to work with God to weave anew the tapestry of freewill choice, forging its way back into the domain of the heaven world.

Those who have been directly involved in the murder of the innocent, these will have a very tough time ahead of them. Notwithstanding the time spent into the domain of hell itself, when they return to embodiment, the law will require that they themselves lose their lives in the same manner they inflicted death on another. There is no escaping this fate. The law requires the lesson to be branded upon their hearts. To kill another, will always result in the loss of one’s own life opportunity to work upon the loom of regeneration in physical embodiment. Once the soul has paid the price for its disobedience in this regard, it will then be given another opportunity to cooperate with the retraining program.

When back in embodiment, these souls will be placed in the situation where the temptation to kill the innocent will come upon them again. They must choose to allow their intended victim to survive. In this way is freedom from demonic manipulation forged over several lifetimes.

(end)

Hi RCofield,

I noticed your quote from John Owens. Since this ties in with GoldenEagles theme I'll include it for him also. James White wrote a superb article on Christ's atoning sacrifice in which he quoted John Owens here:

"To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:---God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3....If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)"

GoldenEagles, you state:

On the truth side, yes, it is God alone who saves. God alone has that power. On the falsehood side, it is also true that salvation is a God/Man partnership. And there are many scriptural references that support this partnership principle. I will present one of the most important in this section.

GoldenEagles, you are missing that God is sovereign. Do you understand what that means? Please read this article in its totality here,

http://vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

Rcofield, in your response to my post on the importance of the Lord's Prayer, it appears that you are denying the essential nature of that prayer. Moreover, you appear to be denying this important principle taught by Jesus Christ, embodied in the commandment, ask and ye shall receive, which tells us that that God can do very little for the people unless they pray for his help. Is that correct? Are you denying these essential principles?

GoldenEagles,

"God gave man four things. First he gave man freewill. Second, he gave man the law. Third, he gave man the knowledge of the consequences of breaking the law. Fourth he gave man the commandment to obey the law. ..."

That does not answer the question, even if it were true.

If abortion is wrong, why does your god, and all other gods, for that matter, simply stand impotently by, and allow all the abortions to happen?

Appears to me that it is just not that big a deal to them.

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

Peterhuff, I would point out to you, that the foregoing question, "Why did Christ ask us to pray for the Kingdom of Heaven to come to the earth", and associated discussion, also speaks to the validity of the God/Man Partnership Principle. Active participation in this partnership is a prerequisite unto salvation.

Why Did Christ Ask Us
To Pray for the Kingdom
of Heaven to Come Upon
the Earth?

RcoField says, "A 'god' who is characterized by 'hopes and dreams' is no god at all. And a 'god' whose 'hopes and dreams' are under the threat of being 'wrecked' by a mere creature is no god at all."

The Master Jesus Christ teaches us about the nature of the Father. He teaches us that God our Father has a Heart, and that he has Great Hopes and Dreams for the people of this planet. For example, Christ teaches us that God our Father has the Hope and Dream that His Kingdom can come upon the earth.

The Master Jesus Christ actively tried to engage us in the fulfillment of these very Hopes and Dreams, when he taught us to pray, as follows:

Matthew 6

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Why did the Master Jesus Christ command us to Pray for the Kingdom of Heaven to Come Upon the Earth?

Is this like a request to sit in a chair and to twiddle our thumbs in a meaningless manner to fill the empty minutes of the day? NO!

He asked us to pray in this manner, because this is what is required for the Kingdom of Heaven to come to the earth. If people do not so pray, the Kingdom will not come. If people do pray, the Kingdom will come.

And in this we have another example, of where “mere creatures” can wreck the hopes and dreams of God, as they continue to choose rebellion, over obedience.

For people who are in a state of disobedience, and who understand that they must move into a posture of obedience to receive the Gift of Salvation, the giving of the Lord’s Prayer, as the Master set it before us, is the primary way in which the Power of God is invited into our Life (ask and ye shall receive) wherein it will begin to dawn upon us, regarding the wisdom inherent in the posture of obedience to the commandments of Christ, as opposed to the insanity inherent in continued rebellion against the commandments of Christ.

God, Man, and Freewill

In regards to the hopes and dreams of God our Father for the living of the full life God has planned for every soul aborning in the womb, and referring to the shattering of those hopes and dreams as abortionists and mothers hold hands in this ritual of the murder of the innocent, specifically regarding the murder of more than 4,000 children in the womb in each day in America alone, Psolus Asks, “Why, do you think, does your [GOD] stand impotently by, allowing this to happen?”

God gave man four things. First he gave man freewill. Second, he gave man the law. Third, he gave man the knowledge of the consequences of breaking the law. Fourth he gave man the commandment to obey the law. Man can choose to obey, or not. If he chooses to obey, he will reap the reward associated with obedience, which is the return to the heavenly kingdoms, which is freedom from the conditions of pain and suffering that is so widespread on this planet. If he chooses to continue in his rebellion, he will reap the consequences thereof. I believe MrMeaner referred to that in a shorthand manner below.

As a general rule however, man’s assignment into the domain of hell at the end of a given life, as a consequence of his continued rebellion, is not eternal as RcoField so gleefully hopes, desiring in his heart to see souls roasting on spits forever and forever. Happiness in the suffering of others is not an attribute of the Christ Mind.

After spending a sufficient amount of time in “hell”, and this is not quality time, to have born again, within the heart, a desire to try again to learn how to be obedient to the laws of heaven, the soul is given another opportunity to embody on earth wherein, it will be given another chance to learn the essential lessons, and to take the essential tests. God our Father has both infinite love for his children, and (nearly) infinite patience. To those who are sincerely trying, he will give as many opportunities as necessary for them to get it right.

Biblical references to eternal damnation point to the VERY END of this redemption process, wherein God our Father has tried everything he can think of to regain the allegiance of the fallen soul. At this FINAL END, those who have cooperated with the redemption process, and learned how to be obedient once again to the laws of heaven, will live on, eternally, in the heaven world. Those who have steadfastly refused to adhere to the laws of heaven, these will be cast into the lake of fire. They will not suffer therein eternally. Their lives will be canceled out. This is the second death referred to in Revelation.

As long as the universe is expanding, this tells us that this FINAL END, is far in the future, perhaps hundreds of billions of years. God has plenty of time after all.

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

- George Orwell

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." --John Owen

http://www.monergism.com/

More on the Subject of
the Man/God Partnership- Part 1

Peterhuff says, “The same message is conveyed over and over again throughout Scripture that it is alone God who saves. Salvation is not a partnership.”

This statement is a classic half-truth - half-falsehood. On the truth side, yes, it is God alone who saves. God alone has that power. On the falsehood side, it is also true that salvation is a God/Man partnership. And there are many scriptural references that support this partnership principle. I will present one of the most important in this section.

Invoking my Golden Ladder metaphor for salvation, we see that the Golden Ladder itself does not even appear unless man calls it down from heaven. We are commanded to ask, if we are to receive. We are commanded to knock, if it is to be opened. This is the Teaching:

Luke 11:9-10

9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

It is important to BELIEVE that the Master is giving us essential information here. It is important to have FAITH that the Master is helping us to understand how to inherit eternal life. In these passages, Luke 11:9-10, the Master is giving us the most basic element of the Man/God partnership that leads to the goal of salvation. If one does not enter into this basic level of cooperation, this basic level of partnership, one cannot be saved.

(more)

More on the Subject of
the Man/God Partnership - Part 2

Peterhuff says, “The same message is conveyed over and over again throughout Scripture that it is alone God who saves. Salvation is not a partnership.”

Again this statement is a classic half-truth - half-falsehood. On the truth side, yes, it is God alone who saves. God alone has that power. On the falsehood side, it is also true that salvation is a God/Man partnership. And there are many scriptural references that support this partnership principle. And I will present two more in this section.

The beginning point for the deepest understanding of this principle of partnership is found in the definition of salvation, which the Apostle John gives to us as follows:

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

This tells us, that when the Master Jesus Christ has successfully transferred to us the power to be a Son of God, only then are we “saved”. In this state of empowerment, we are no longer subject to manipulation by, and enslavement to, the forces of evil.

Let us look to the definition of what it means to be a Son of God, so we can prepare ourselves to receive that power.

By his personal example, and by his explanation of his own inner identity, the Master Jesus Christ defines for us what it means to be a Son of God. When we have that definition ALIVE IN US, then we will know we have been saved. And the Master makes clear, that one of the hallmarks of the identity of the son, is the Son/God PARTNERSHIP, as follows:

John 5:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Here we see that there is a close partnership between the Son and the Father.

This will be the definition we have within ourselves, once the Lord Jesus Christ transfers into us the power to be a Son of God. And only then will we be sure that our salvation is secure, as it is the Power of the Father alone that defeats darkness.

(more)

More on the Subject of
the Man/God Partnership - Part 3

Peterhuff says, “The same message is conveyed over and over again throughout Scripture that it is alone God who saves. Salvation is not a partnership.”

Again this statement is a classic half-truth - half-falsehood. On the truth side, yes, it is God alone who saves. God alone has that power. On the falsehood side, it is also true that salvation is a God/Man partnership. And there are many scriptural references that support this partnership principle. And I will present one more.

As the example of Peterhuff, and Rcofield demonstrate, human beings can hold a wide variety of delusions regarding what it means to be saved. People adopt these delusions, first by the force of the serpent’s temptation.

Note, that the goal of the serpent is to defeat the work of Christ in us. And so the serpent will argue in our ear for a particular belief structure that will defeat the purposes of Christ. Clearly one of the greatest challenges we face, is to cut off this inner communication with serpent, and receive only the inner communication of Christ.

People receive these (serpent originated) delusions into their hearts, and adhere to them, secondly, because they somehow serve the personal agenda of the individual. The human ego has a particular agenda, and the serpentine delusion dovetails with this agenda. There is something about their sense of life priority which creates a receptive inroad for the serpentine delusion.

In general, this has to do with pride, which as we are taught, goeth before the fall. In general, the serpentine delusion has two goals. First, it is geared to support the pride structure of the fallen soul psychology. And second, it works to defeat the work of Christ in the individual who has ingested it.

Rcofield for example has the self-image of a Baptist Pastor, and whatever belief structure he entertains, he has a vested interest to defend it, in order to maintain the appearance of his spiritual authority before his congregation. If he loses that authority, he loses his job. Indeed, he stands before every choice to repent before wrong doing frozen by fear that he may lose the respect of his congregants, and thus his job. And thus, the spirit of repentance is never given expression by his lips, lest he lose everything. And so he continues to argue falsehood, and of course encourages his congregants to adopt the same falsehoods, so they can maintain the proper posture of respect for him. He probably has them shaking in their boots as well, fearful of receiving his judgment that they too will face eternal damnation for disagreeing with his views, as do ONE BILLION Catholics, who, in his imagination, continue to slowly spin and roast on a vast array of spits over the glowing embers of hell.

(more)

More on the Subject of
the Man/God Partnership - Part 4

All people are subject to the temptation of serpent, and all people will have some residual pride which works to receive and hold that temptation as sacred, and thus, all people will tend to have a less than perfect conception of what the Master Jesus Christ is really trying to do with them.

Therefore, knowing this well, that man is vulnerable to the temptation of serpent, especially in regards to the ingestion of serpentine belief structures, the Master Jesus gave to his True Disciples, a REALITY CHECK, a standard and a criteria by which they would know that HIS WORK in them had come to fruition, and that they had met his definition of belief, and his definition of salvation. It is the promise given and recorded in John 14:12.

John 14:12 - “Verily Verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.”

Those who can fulfill this promise, are those who have understood the Teachings of Jesus Christ properly. And have incorporated those teachings into their lives in a manner sufficient unto salvation, which means, they can then return to the domain of eternal life, and live in a harmonious manner, in the heaven worlds, alongside and in perfect cooperation and partnership with the other citizens of heaven.

To BELIEVE on Christ, is to believe in the promise he made here. To BELIEVE on Christ, is to believe he made this promise in good faith, and that he is able and ready to fulfill this promise in all who have properly prepared themselves.

Those who do not believe that they can even fulfil this promise, they are the people that are at the greatest distance from understanding the true meaning of the Teaching of Jesus Christ.

Those who do not believe still have this serpent whispering into their ear, no, no, no, no, when it comes to fulfilling this promise, and when it comes to fulfilling the other requirements unto salvation that the master has set upon the record.

Someday, as they stand before this promise, and as they soberly ponder their feelings of revulsion, these individuals will have to come to this understanding, that they are being manipulated by serpent, and they must move to cut off this alliance, and in that way put an end to this double-minded way of life in which they are currently trapped.

The above four scriptural references form a coherent and logical continuum:

1. Luke 11:9-10 - Jesus explains that we must Ask if we are to receive.
2. John 1:12 - Jesus Goal is to make of us Sons of God.
3. John 5:19 - Jesus Explains the Father/Son partnership.
4. John 14:12 - Jesus explains that once the Father/Son Partnership is restored in us, we can do the same works he did, and even greater works. This is the ultimate definition of salvation.

(end)

"That both the apostles and all christians who proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ will be persecuted. Verse 10 indicates that this persecution will take place because of the preaching of the gospel, and that the gospel will be preached to all nations before the second advent of Christ."

Why is verse ten situated between nine and eleven?
It seems a bit disjointed to make a side note out of the proclamation that the gospel must be published among all nations, in between the two other staements.
Verse 9 seems to deal with some being delivered before councils, beaten, and brought before kings to make testimony against them.
Verse 11 instructs them to take no thought as to what will be spoken, because it is the Holy Spirit that will speak through them.
Doesn't that seem to suggest that this testimony in the cloven tongue of the Holy Spirit, which is clearly understood by all who hear, in their own language, is the time that the gospel will be published among all nations?

If not, don't you think that if something like what is described in verse 11 had ever happened, (other than the one time in Acts, which was among themselves, not kings and rulers) we would be reading about it somewhere?

"Vss 25-28 are filled with allusions to Old Testament prophecies which are repeated in the book of Acts and declared by the Apostles to have been fulfilled in the explosive early days of the church."

If that's true, then why isn't Christ ruling from Jerusalem today?

What does verses 29-32 in Lk 21 mean to you?
When do you believe the fig tree began to shoot forth, which marked the season when these things would begin to occur?

WALTER,

you asked about the size of my serpent... heh heh heh......etc.

Careful, now. :-)

Quite impressive. Lots of planning, design, and labor involved.

Now, imagine a husband and wife driving past your yard and noting the well-crafted "serpent" and having the following the following conversation:

Husband: Impressive. No doubt it created itself.

Wife: Silly. Nothing can create itself. It is eternal. It has always been there.

Husband: Well, who can possibly know?

....:-)....

rco,
you asked about the size of my serpent... heh heh heh...

well it's over 50 feet long if you were to pace it off from head to tail, but much of it is implied as being under water. it's actually built in three distinct parts. the nose on the head part is about 4' high. the tail and midsection were pretty darn easy to make. the head took some time/thought/imagination. overall it took about 6 hours to make including collecting and piling up the snow. we only had about 6" of snow here, but it was very very wet snow (it had the liquid equivalent of over a foot of typical snow), which doesn't compact as much as dry snow, so i was able to make something pretty darn big.

anyway...since you asked...

rco,
"4) The cause of the universe exists outside of time"

"exists outside of time" doesn't make any sense to me. i know you're used to it because that's the biblical concept, but to me it's like saying "i knew you before i was born". so, i don't think you can present this as a definitive conclusion. besides, people are now talking about anti-matter fluctuations and so forth and probably various other "causes" of the big bang. so, we really DON'T KNOW what caused the big bang. as far as we know, time began with the big bang. but, if something existed "before" then and was the cause of the big bang, then time did exist before the big bang, but we just don't know that because of the inherent limitation imposed on our knowledge of "time" "before" the big bang. but if something did exist "before" the big bang, then time existed before the big bang. i think we're (i know i am) getting in way over our heads. i aced high school physics and had several physics and astronomy courses in college, but all this "before the big bang" stuff is highly theoretical and speculative. so, it's pretty hilarious to me that you think you've got it all figured out here in your 7-step proof here.

"5) Existing outside of time, the cause of the universe is necessarily eternal"

see my nit-pick to #4.

"6) Being eternal, the cause of the universe is necessarily without beginning"

we have not established that the universe is not eternal or that the cause of it is eternal. i don't think we have any way of establishing those things. that's why i find all these preliminary steps you trying to lay out extremely tedious and why i refer to my comments as nit-picking.

"7) Therefore, the cause of the universe is the Ultimate Cause from which all that exists came into being"

well, the cause of our universe may have been just the cause of our universe. there may be other universes with different causes. maybe our universe has one god. maybe his name is even yahweh. maybe other universes have their own gods with their own names and characteristics.

anyway, for the purposes of continuing this discussion, and hopefully moving on to what you consider to be some specific qualities of the "Ultimate Cause", i'd grant you all those ASSUMPTIONS.

rco, you said,
"1) Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal"

do you think you've proved this somewhere? that's an assertion, and the second part doesn't even necessarily follow from the first.

the universe we experience could be just one of an infinite (or finite, who knows?) number of "uni"verses. our only experience of this universe and begins with the big bang. you can't make all these assertions about what was before the big bang and think they have ANY basis in reality. these assumptions certainly can't be the foundation of any "proofs". furthermore, just because one cannot count to/from infinity, does not "prove" that the universe has a finite age... sheesh. that's silly. good try, sort of... furthermore, the "laws" of science you (pretend to) love also state that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics), but just converted from one form to another... so this would argue for an eternal universe. and, "infinite" and "eternal" are not inextricably bound together. the universe could be eternal, but infinite, or it could be finite but eternal.

**anyway, IF you want to ASSUME the big bang was the start of everything, AND ASSUME that our universe is all there is, THEN you can infer those things you concluded, based on conventional big bang theory (which you don't really believe in...).**

"2) Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves"
"3) Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause"

ok. seems reasonable, except for your inclusion of "time". according to highly esoteric cosmological theory which i can't even pretend to understand, "time" began with the big bang. in fact, as i understand it, you can almost think of time as an effect of matter/energy.

MrMeaner,

"Why does there need to be a hell?"

Is there a hell?

(Other than other people.)

MRMEANER,

What is your take on these passages from Mk. 13, and Luke 21, respectively?

Mk. 13:9-11
That both the apostles and all christians who proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ will be persecuted. Verse 10 indicates that this persecution will take place because of the preaching of the gospel, and that the gospel will be preached to all nations before the second advent of Christ.

Lu. 21:12-15

This passage seems to be focused more on the persecution that the disciples of Jesus who were then living would face. That this would happen to them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. seems evident from vss 20-24. The coming of the Son of Man (Christ) in vss 25-28 seems to be referring back to Daniel 7. These verses may be alluding to the inauguration of Christ's kingdom on earth after His ascension to the right hand of the Father as evidenced by the astounding growth and power of the church as recorded in the book of Acts.

Vss 25-28 are filled with allusions to Old Testament prophecies which are repeated in the book of Acts and declared by the Apostles to have been fulfilled in the explosive early days of the church.

"Why, do you think, does your god stand impotently by, allowing this to happen?"

Why does there need to be a hell?

GoldenEagles,

"Since the “advent” of Roe v. Wade in 1973, these hopes and dreams, associated with children that God our Father have created in the womb, have been dashed over 53 million times."

"This act of a “mere creature” in dashing the hopes and dreams of God our Father happens more than 4,000 times every day in America, many more times than that world-wide."

Why, do you think, does your god stand impotently by, allowing this to happen?

RC
What is your take on these passages from Mk. 13, and Luke 21, respectively?

[9] But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
[10] And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
[11] But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

and

"[12] But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
[13] And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
[14] Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
[15] For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

MrMeaner,

"Oh this is fun"

You're welcome.

"Oh wow! Do you know 'Cat In The Hat"?"

Yes, I read it as a child.

"How should I respond?"

However you wish.

"Why, you're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel."

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you respond by quoting from a work of fiction.

Get it?

"Sometimes it's necessary when you're doing that rebuking thing."

Really?

"Are you really that stupid?"

Hmmm, that sounds like a trick question...

Oh this is fun

"You are a mean one; godly mean."

Oh wow! Do you know 'Cat In The Hat"?
How should I respond?
Why, you're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel.

"Oh, I see, you are under instructions of your god to be mean."

Sometimes it's necessary when you're doing that rebuking thing.

"Not sure that I follow; how do you receive these instructions?"

"Which word?"

Are you really that stupid?

MRMEANER,

Do you believe in a pre-advent "rapture"?

No.

"There seems to be a duality of meaning in that passage with inferences both to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Advent."

I can buy that. There may have been a typology relationship in the 79 event, but I believe the meaning that was intended to be carried forward, is to be applied to the events preceeding the 2nd advent.
Whew!... I'm glad we can sort of agree on that.

"Not sure about what you are referring to in referencing Mr. 13, Lu. 21, and the Book of Revelation"

Before I answer that, one more question;
Do you believe in a pre-advent "rapture"?

MrMeaner,

"Yes."

You are a mean one; godly mean.

"If I were using God's words, I would have given reference."

Well, that seems only fair.

"Why? For doing as he instructs?"

Oh, I see, you are under instructions of your god to be mean.

"I can be sometimes."

You certainly can be.

"Good thing I can repent when I fall short."

Well, that's convenient.

"It's one of the reasons I avoid religious discussions with people hostile to religion."

I don't blame you.

"I am instructed to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with patience and doctrine."

So, where does the mean part come in?

"I am also instructed to shun those who babble in vain, in the same book, as a matter of fact....[expurgated (ask RCofield)], I believe."

Not sure that I follow; how do you receive these instructions?

"It's not my faith, hope or charity that can answer your skeptisicm."

You know, I'm beginning to notice that.

"It's the Word that you mock."

Which word?

I've been known to mock "nuance".

"If you have no interest in what is revealed there, you can never be convinced in any way that doesn't require blind, stupid faith."

That's kind of what I've been thinking.

"YHVH is his name in the Hebrew text."

How does one pronounce that?

Is it all guttural, like "challah"?

"He took on flesh in the form of Jesus Christ,...:

Ouch, sounds painful.

"...The last Adam,..."

Is there also a "last Steve"?

"...The only begotten Son of God"

Were there any "unbegotten" sons?

Any daughters?

MRMEANER,

Do you agree with PH's stated opinion that the prophesy contained in Matt. Ch. 24, Mark Ch. 13, Luke Ch. 21, along with the Book of Revelations, came to pass in 79 AD, through Titus?

If you are referring to Titus' sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., I think that Mt. 24 was at least partially fulfilled in that event. There seems to be a duality of meaning in that passage with inferences both to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Advent.

Not sure about what you are referring to in referencing Mr. 13, Lu. 21, and the Book of Revelation.

"So, those were your words?"

Yes.
If I were using God's words, I would have given reference.

"Aren't you afraid of making it jealous?"

Why? For doing as he instructs?

"You're a mean one, MrMeaner."

I can be sometimes. Good thing I can repent when I fall short. It's one of the reasons I avoid religious discussions with people hostile to religion. I am instructed to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with patience and doctrine. I am also instructed to shun those who babble in vain, in the same book, as a matter of fact....2nd Timothy, I believe.

"I'm not sure that my skepticism can stand up to your christian faith, hope, and charity."

It's not my faith, hope or charity that can answer your skeptisicm.
It's the Word that you mock. If you have no interest in what is revealed there, you can never be convinced in any way that doesn't require blind, stupid faith.

"Now, really, which god is it?"

YHVH is his name in the Hebrew text.
He took on flesh in the form of Jesus Christ, The last Adam, The only begotten Son of God

RCofield,

"Well, that was predictably anticlimatic."

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

"Are you sure you are not suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's?"

Well, I was until you mentioned it; thanks a lot, I really need one more thing to worry about.

"You are confusing me with someone else."

Perhaps someone else is posting using your login.

"Effects which have a beginning that can be traced to a moving cause:"

[Long list expurgated because I am lazy, and because I may well be suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.]

I think that you left out a few things.

"The point being that virtually everthing we are aware of is tracable to a moving cause."

The operative words being "virtually everything we are aware of".

How many things that we are not aware of can you add to that list?

"Now why don't you produce one example of an effect that has been proven to be without cause."

Because I don't have to.

And, because I may well be suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.

Oh, damn, where did this lump come from?

"Otherwise you should acknowledge the validity of my conclusion and admit you have no idea what you are talking about."

Oh, wow, I guess that I have no alternative.

Anything that I am unaware of, or cannot prove exists, simply cannot exist.

Sorry, all of you people living in that country that I am not aware of, and cannot prove exists.

Sort of wish that I'd read more as a kid.

MrMeaner,

"Like a two-edged sword", goes the saying."

Oh, my.

"My words are just my words."

So, those were your words?

Not your god's words?

Aren't you afraid of making it jealous?

"I really don't care what you think about either."

You're a mean one, MrMeaner.

I'm not sure that my skepticism can stand up to your christian faith, hope, and charity.

Now, really, which god is it?

PEREGRINE,

You stated: "All of this begs the question...", and I agree with you on that.

You believe in your god, and as proof of the existence of your god, you present your bible, which states that your god does indeed exist.....etc., etc.

Well, that was predictably anticlimatic.

Are you sure you are not suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's? You are confusing me with someone else.

Show us that evidence.

Effects which have a beginning that can be traced to a moving cause:

You; your father; your mother; your dog; your cat; your shoes; your watch. Your pasta; your wine; your dentist; your proctologist; your grocer. The snow in your yard; the bush in your flower bed; the glass in your windows the cabinets in your kitchen; the carpet on your floor.

Your computer; this forum; your last post. The Constitution; your evening news paper; the books on your shelves; the mail in your box.

The warmth of summer; the cold of winter; the tree in the woods; the grass in the yard; the clouds in the sky.

The point being that virtually everthing we are aware of is tracable to a moving cause.

Now why don't you produce one example of an effect that has been proven to be without cause. Otherwise you should acknowledge the validity of my conclusion and admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

"Your god's words cut to the bone."

"Like a two-edged sword", goes the saying.

My words are just my words.

I really don't care what you think about either.

MrMeaner,

"Maybe I have the force."

Perhaps.

"I'm not interested in exchanging barbs with mockers and scoffers."

So, which am I, a mocker or a scoffer?

"If you have any legitimate interest in this subject, I suspect you'll frame a question or response in a respectful way."

Well, we'll just have to see about that.

"If not, you can go hang it, bud."

Ouch!

Your god's words cut to the bone.

"I'm not hard-up for friends, and God isn't hard-up for worshipers"

Even those with cash in hand?

Now, exactly which god is that again?

allah?

vishnu?

jebus?

Posted by: peterhuff | January 19, 2011 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It was one of the earlier exchanges in that last thread

MRMEANER,

Let's start with this; Do you agree with PH's stated opinion that the prophesy contained in Matt. Ch. 24, Mark Ch. 13, Luke Ch. 21, along with the Book of Revelations, came to pass in 79 AD, through Titus?

I'll need to read what Peter said. Where did he post on that issue?

Maybe I have the force.

I'm not interested in exchanging barbs with mockers and scoffers.
If you have any legitimate interest in this subject, I suspect you'll frame a question or response in a respectful way.
If not, you can go hang it, bud.
I'm not hard-up for friends, and God isn't hard-up for worshipers

MrMeaner,

"Which means I wasn't talking to you."

Ouch!

Which was that, fire or brimstone?

"I'm pretty sure you don't know each other"

Ouch again!

Is my "immortal soul" in danger?

"Why do you care?"

Thricely burned!

Another victim of "christian charity".

You wield the words of your god as a Jedi wields his lightsaber.

Well
Let's start with this;
Do you agree with PH's stated opinion that the prophesy contained in Matt. Ch. 24, Mark Ch. 13, Luke Ch. 21, along with the Book of Revelations, came to pass in 79 AD, through Titus?

MRMEANER,

Why don't you "Christians" try debating doctrine, rather than debating whose debating skills are more logical?

This thread is not exactly over-run with Christians. To my knowledge I am the only Christian that has posted on this thread thus far.

So, what do you want to debate? The hypostatic union of Christ? The propitiation of Christ? The divinity of Christ? The kingly office of Christ? The priestly office of Christ? The prophetic office of Christ? The attributes of God? His eternality? His immutability? His omniscience? His omnipresence? His omnipotence? His holiness? His goodness? His dominion? Pauline justification by faith? The Christology of the Old Testament? Anthropology? Ecclesiology? Eschatology? Pneaumatology? Soteriology? Systematic Theology?

Let me know.

Peace.

"Dude, I'm not a "christian"."

Which means I wasn't talking to you.

"Which god do you believe in?"

I'm pretty sure you don't know each other

"What are its words?"

Why do you care?

What can be gained by "matching wits" with someone who doesn't respect you, your God, or his Word?

hmmm
something about pearls and swine...I dunno

MrMeaner,

"This may be the most pointless, boring, uninspired debate I can ever remember."

You may be right there.

"I've lurked here for a couple of weeks now, in hope that someone would begin discussing an interesting topic, but I find absolutely nothing of value being discussed here."

Sorry for your disappointment.

"Here's an idea;"

I can't wait.

"Why don't you "Christians" try debating doctrine, rather than debating whose debating skills are more logical?"

Dude, I'm not a "christian".

"There were a number of contributions I could have made, if any Bible-related discussions had materialized."

Perhaps I should "count my blessings" (heh, heh).

"I think you people are more interested in reading your own words than discussing God's"

True, that.

Which god do you believe in?

What are its words?

RCofield,

"When you suggest that effects can cause themselves you have 0 evidence."

I never suggested that effects can cause themselves - I asked you how you know that effects cannot cause themselves, as you stated in one of your "premises/conclusions".

Asking a person how he/she knows a fact that he/she states absolutely, is not a judgement on that absolutely stated fact.

If you say that you are 6'10", and I ask you how you know that you are 6'10", I am in no way saying that you are not 6'10" - I am simply asking you to verify that what you say can be backed up.

Understand?

"When I contend that effects which have a beginning can be traced to a moving cause, there exists more evidence than you could ever possibly contend with."

Show us that evidence.

"That you are intentionally avoiding any meaningful dialog on this issue seems to indicate that your contrarian schtick may be all you have to offer."

Your point being?

"And again I ask you: Do you find the concept of spontaneous generation credible or no?"

I have no idea, and, more importantly, I don't care.

"I've been around long enough that I recognize a sucker-punch coming when I see one. But, I've got a pretty good chin, so swing away."

Who do you think you are, Leno?

You stated: "All of this begs the question...", and I agree with you on that.

You believe in your god, and as proof of the existence of your god, you present your bible, which states that your god does indeed exist.

And, as proof that what your bible says is true, you present the "fact" that your bible was indeed written by your god, and therefore, everything written in it must be true.

So, your belief-system consists of your bible, which proves that your god exists, and your god, who wrote the bible, and therefore proves that what your bible says is true.

You then state several "premises", which you assert to be true because they are "self-evident", and then you magically convert these "premises" to "conclusions".

You then use these "self-evident" "premises/conclusions" to develop additional "conclusions", all of which point to the existence of your god, and the truthfulness of your bible, which is exactly what you had convinced yourself of before you even started this little exercise.

You then get your knickers in a twist when I question your "premises/conclusions".

WALTER,

Thanks for getting back to me. The snow sea serpent is way cool. It's hard to get exact proportions from the photos but it looks huge. How long does it take to sculpt something like that?

i'm working on nit-picking my way through your 7 conclusions... or are they premises...

Hmmmm...."nit-picking"? I want to have a rational conversation here....ah, well. Maybe "nit-picking" means something entirely different where you are from.

Peace.

This may be the most pointless, boring, uninspired debate I can ever remember.

I've lurked here for a couple of weeks now, in hope that someone would begin discussing an interesting topic, but I find absolutely nothing of value being discussed here.

Here's an idea;
Why don't you "Christians" try debating doctrine, rather than debating whose debating skills are more logical?

There were a number of contributions I could have made, if any Bible-related discussions had materialized. I think you people are more interested in reading your own words than discussing God's

PEREGRINE,

But, you are mostly without evidence, right?

When you suggest that effects can cause themselves you have 0 evidence. When I contend that effects which have a beginning can be traced to a moving cause, there exists more evidence than you could ever possibly contend with. That you are intentionally avoiding any meaningful dialog on this issue seems to indicate that your contrarian schtick may be all you have to offer.

Again, my not being aware of something does not prove anything about that thing.

And again I ask you: Do you find the concept of spontaneous generation credible or no?

Are you aware of the potential for agreement between us concerning that statement?

I've been around long enough that I recognize a sucker-punch coming when I see one. But, I've got a pretty good chin, so swing away.

RCofield,

"That you would whine about unanswered questions is genuinely comical."

Glad that I could be of help.

But, most of your beliefs are truly too embarrassing to articulate, aren't they?

"I'm not the one completely without evidence here."

But, you are mostly without evidence, right?

Care to speculate exactly how little evidence that you have?

"So do you think the myth of spontaneous generation is credible?"

Again, my not being aware of something does not prove anything about that thing.

Why do you put such a premium on my awareness or lack of awareness of things?

Am I your new god?

"And again, you are dodging."

And you are believing; that seems to be your only strong point.

Now, do you care to expand upon your "All of this begs the question..." comment?

Are you aware of the potential for agreement between us concerning that statement?

rco,
i'm working on nit-picking my way through your 7 conclusions... or are they premises...

anyway, i expect to answer them by this evening or tomorrow morning. after i answer them, i'll go through and read psolus' and sara's comments. i don't want their comments to influence mine too much.

btw, we finally had a snowstorm here last week. look what i made:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

More on the Hopes
and Dreams of God

RcoField says, "A 'god' who is characterized by 'hopes and dreams' is no god at all. And a 'god' whose 'hopes and dreams' are under the threat of being 'wrecked' by a mere creature is no god at all."

It is the hope and dream of God our Father, that each mother obey the Commandment, Thou Shall Not Kill, and allow His Child, aborning in the womb, to be born, and to take the first breath, and to suckle at the mother’s breast, and to grow, through childhood, into adulthood, and to wax strong in every heavenly virtue, and to contribute thereby to the incoming Kingdom of Heaven on the Earth.

In this manner, God our Father has hopes and dreams for every Child aborning in the womb. A mighty plan, for the unfolding of heavenly virtues, and for the establishment of the heavenly kingdom, accompanies every soul sent into physical embodiment.

Yet, as the pregnant mother conspires with the abortionist, to murder the child, these hopes and dreams in the Heart of God are dashed.

And indeed, “mere creatures” have dashed these hopes and dreams.

Since the “advent” of Roe v. Wade in 1973, these hopes and dreams, associated with children that God our Father have created in the womb, have been dashed over 53 million times.

This act of a “mere creature” in dashing the hopes and dreams of God our Father happens more than 4,000 times every day in America, many more times than that world-wide.

GoldenEagles

PEREGRINE,

I can understand your reluctance to answer the more difficult questions that I throw your way, but not the easy ones.

That you would whine about unanswered questions is genuinely comical.

There are many things of which I am unaware; does my being unaware of something prove to you that that thing is impossible?

I'm not the one completely without evidence here.

No, I am not aware of that.

So do you think the myth of spontaneous generation is credible?

Again: No I don't have to.

And again, you are dodging.

RCofield,

"You may be hyperventilating. Try breathing into a paper bag. (I wouldn't recommend plastic for obvious reasons.)"

I can understand your reluctance to answer the more difficult questions that I throw your way, but not the easy ones.

Are the answers to those questions too embarrassing for public consumption?

"Actually your belief that you believe nothing is confusing you."

I can understand you needing to believe that.

"Start counting from infinity minus zero. Post me when you're done."

Do you not realize that that proves nothing?

"Are you aware of anything that caused itself to exist?"

There are many things of which I am unaware; does my being unaware of something prove to you that that thing is impossible?

Hint: I am unaware of there existing any magical gods, including yours.

"You are aware that spontaneous generation is a myth, aren't you?"

No, I am not aware of that.

"You have yet to offer any evidence of that."

There is no need for me to offer any evidence of anything.

"You're dodging. You have but to offer one proven example of something causing itself to exist."

Again: No I don't have to.

"Some things are self-evident."

The nonexistence of magical gods, for example?

"You would know better than I. I am only pointing out the evident fact that it did happen."

No, it is simply your belief.

"I've not offered my beliefs as clear evidence."

You appear to consistently confuse the two.

"You buyin'?"

Think about it some more.

WALTER,

Did you see my post to you @ January 29th, 11:36 AM?

PEREGRINE,

How do you know what I believe?....Does your god tell you what I believe?....Do you read what I believe in your bible?....Did your god assign you as my guardian angel?....Are you trying to save me?...Are you trying to earn your wings?

You may be hyperventilating. Try breathing into a paper bag. (I wouldn't recommend plastic for obvious reasons.)

You're confusing yourself.

Actually your belief that you believe nothing is confusing you.

How do you know that (time had a beginning)? Simply writing it does not make it so.

Start counting from infinity minus zero. Post me when you're done.

How do you know that (that something that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist)? Simply writing it does not make it so.

Are you aware of anything that caused itself to exist? You are aware that spontaneous generation is a myth, aren't you?

I realized the nonsensical nature of your "premises/conclusions" the minute I read them.

You have yet to offer any evidence of that.

Can one "prove" something to a believer, if that believer does not want to believe what is proved?

You're dodging. You have but to offer one proven example of something causing itself to exist.

Don't call me Shirley.

I didn't.

Did your god tell you that.

Some things are self-evident.

When, exactly, did that happen?

You would know better than I. I am only pointing out the evident fact that it did happen.

Your beliefs are not clear evidence.

I've not offered my beliefs as clear evidence.

Thank you, Socrates. Want a drink?

You buyin'?

RCofield,

"All of this begs the question..."

Do you appreciate the full irony of you writing that statement as you did?

RCofield,

"You believe that you believe nothing. Erroneously so, but you obviously do believe that."

How do you know what I believe?

Does your god tell you what I believe?

Do you read what I believe in your bible?

Did your god assign you as my guardian angel?

Are you trying to save me?

Are you trying to earn your wings?

"What makes you beleive I have knickers or that they are in a twist?"

I believe nothing.

"Have you read any of yours?"

All of them.

"The belief that you have no beliefs is itself a belief."

On what do you base that belief?

"Otherwise you don't believe that you believe nothing."

You're confusing yourself.

"Because if time did not have a beginning and were infinite we could never reach the present."

How do you know that?

Simply writing it does not make it so.

"I've already explained this."

I'm sure that you believe that you have.

"Because something that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist."

How do you know that?

Simply writing it does not make it so.

"It would have to exist before it caused itself."

How do you know that?

Simply writing it does not make it so.

"If you had thought for more than 5 seconds about that question you would have realized its nonsensical nature."

I realized the nonsensical nature of your "premises/conclusions" the minute I read them.

"Have you ever witnessed anything causing itself to exist?"

Why do you ask?

Am I the arbiter of what is possible?

What happened to your god?

"You would have only to offer one proven example of such to completely undermine my argument."

Can one "prove" something to a believer, if that believer does not want to believe what is proved?

"Surely that wouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong."

Don't call me Shirley.

"Because an effect cannot cause itself."

How do you know that?

Simply writing it does not make it so.

"Have you ever witnessed anything that has a beginning that was not caused by something outside itself?"

Why do you ask?

Am I the arbiter of what is possible?

What happened to your god?

"You would have only to offer one proven example of such to completely undermine my argument."

Can one "prove" something to a believer, if that believer does not want to believe what is proved?

"Surely that wouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong."

Again, don't call me Shirley.

"You only believe that you chose not to believe it."

Did your god tell you that.

"You have been told by Pyrrhonian skepticism that you can't believe it (or anything)."

When, exactly, did that happen?

"Your choosing not to believe..."

So, you finally understand that I choose not to believe.

Congratulations.

"...clear evidence..."

Your beliefs are not clear evidence.

"...is not a free choice on your part but is rather a choice forced on you by your own skepticism."

Did your god tell you this?

Or did you read it in your bible?

More:

"In philosophy this is known as agnosticism, the Latin term for which is ignoramus."

Thank you, Socrates.

Want a drink?

Hi SARA121,

Part 1 of 3

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Not infinite, I'll buy. But matter and energy at least also can't be destroyed, or created. Does that not make them eternal?

We don't know that matter and energy cannot be created. That is an assumption being made by the scientific community at present. However, the Second Law of Thermodymanics seems to indicate that matter/energy are being diffused and diluted (principle of entropy) inexorably. At the least this seems to tell us that the universe (at least as we know it) will eventually collapse. All of this begs the question of a first cause that must exist outside the universe itself.

Again, no interest in the back posts, but this is a proposition that seems neither supportable nor refutable, so has no real worth as a conclusion.

We know that the universe (consisting of time/matter/energy) had a beginning. Reason tells us that anything which has a beginning of existence cannot be said to have caused itself to exist. Something that does not yet exist can never be said to be the cause of its own existence. That would be nonsensical.

I am currently unaware of any known effect that caused itself. Obviously only one example of such would be sufficient to undermine my conclusion. Surely that would not be too difficult if my conclusion is wrong. The bottom line is that there are almost numberless examples in support of effects (those things which have a beginning) being dependent upon prior cause.

Reason itself demands that everything that has a beginning came into existence as the result of a prior cause, all known evidence supports this conclusion, and there is exactly 0 evidence to the contrary. So I'm sticking with the conclusion that the universe (consisting of time/matter/energy) did not cause itself.

Hi SARA121,

Part 2 of 3

Since this follows from 2, and 2 is on shaky ground at best, 3 is no good either.

Again, you have but to offer one contrary example to undermine #2. Hence #3 is every bit as solid as the insurmountable evidence that supports #2.

Not sure why this (that the cause of the universe exists outside of time) should be necessarily so either.

Simple deduction. If the time/matter/energy universe had a beginning it had a cause. Said cause (whatever it may be) would have had to existed prior to time. Therefore the cause of the universe must exist outside of time, else the time/matter/energy universe caused itself. We have 0 evidence of anything that had a beginning causing itself.

And intriguing possibility is the idea (as opposed to a full fledged theory) of the universe collapsing on itself and re-expanding in a new "big bang" or whatever term you prefer. Since matter and energy can't be destroyed, perhaps the universe, or many of them in succession, are eternal.

This assumes that time, matter, and energy are eternal. If time is infinite (eternal) it would be impossible to ever reach the present moment in time. Obviously we have, therefore time cannot be eternal. (This is where you really should see the prior post to which I referred PSOLUS). Here:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2011/01/political_monotheism_and_the_slippery_slope_to_tucson.html
@ January 20th, 6:45 PM

It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. If matter and energy have been eternally (infinitely) collapsing and re-expanding it would be impossible to ever reach the present universe. Hence, matter and energy collapsing and re-expanding eternally (infinitely) is a rational impossibility because we have indeed reached the present (unless, of course, one wants to argue that the present is an illusion).

Hi SARA121,

Part 3 of 3

Unless of course, the universe is eternal. (Referring to #5)

I have already demonstrated the irrationality of an eternal universe or infinite series of universes. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series and arrive at the present.

Since this (the cause of the universe is necessarily without beginning) follows from the previous and they were, again, shaky, this one is as well.

Unless you can demonstrate how it is possible to traverse an infinite series to arrive at the present, #6 is not “shaky” at all.

Again, unless the universe is itself eternal.

As I have demonstrated the irrationality of “eternal universe(s),” conclusion #7 remains yet unchallenged.

As to "knowing everything," I find such a prospect boring. What if I did know everything? What would I do after that? I much prefer to keep learning and discovering. It's way more exciting.

I couldn't agree more. Traversing all the knowledge available in a finite universe would, at some point, become boring. Which is precisely why the prospect of an Infinite Being from which all that exists came to exist is irresistibly fascinating. It would be impossible to “learn” and “discover” all that can be learned and discovered of an Infinite Being. Some of us call that Heaven.

Peace, sister(?)

PEREGRINE,

I believe nothing.

You believe that you believe nothing. Erroneously so, but you obviously do believe that.

Then, why are you getting your knickers in such a twist?

What makes you beleive I have knickers or that they are in a twist?

Have you not read any of your comments?

Have you read any of yours?

I have no beliefs.

The belief that you have no beliefs is itself a belief. Otherwise you don't believe that you believe nothing.

How do you know that had a beginning? Were you there to witness their beginnings?

Because if time did not have a beginning and were infinite we could never reach the present. I've already explained this.

How do you know that something that does not yet exist cannot cause itself to exist?

Because something that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. It would have to exist before it caused itself. If you had thought for more than 5 seconds about that question you would have realized its nonsensical nature.

Have you witnessed everything that does not exist continually fail to cause itself to exist?

Have you ever witnessed anything causing itself to exist? You would have only to offer one proven example of such to completely undermine my argument. Surely that wouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong.

How do you know that everything that has a beginning is the effect of a cause?

Because an effect cannot cause itself.

Have you witnessed every cause of every beginning to everything that exists?

Have you ever witnessed anything that has a beginning that was not caused by something outside itself? You would have only to offer one proven example of such to completely undermine my argument. Surely that wouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong.

No, I chose not to believe it.

You only believe that you chose not to believe it. You have been told by Pyrrhonian skepticism that you can't believe it (or anything). Your choosing not to believe clear evidence is not a free choice on your part but is rather a choice forced on you by your own skepticism. In philosophy this is known as agnosticism, the Latin term for which is ignoramus.

RCofield,

"Yet you can't resist the urge to try and convert me to your "belief in nothing.""

I've never tried to convert you to anything that I'm pretty sure that you are incapable of.

I've simply challenged and questioned your beliefs.

"No, you dismiss them because you have chosen to believe--or have been told to believe--..."

I believe nothing.

"...that the evidence I have offered is inconsequential."

No, not inconsequential; nonexistent.

"This is evidenced by the fact that you are too lazy to even try to rebut or refute what I have offered."

Then, why are you getting your knickers in such a twist?

"You have disclosed that you are old enough to frequent the local "gentlemen's club"..."

How do you know that I'm not just using a fake ID?

"...and that you are of sufficient age to need regular prostate exams."

How do you know that I simply don't just enjoy prostrate exams, rather than need them?

"Yet your arguments resemble those heard on a junior highschool playground."

I'll have to take you on your word about this.

"I have nowhere stated that I "know the ultimate, absolute truth about everything.""

Could this be because you do not believe that there exists an "ultimate, absolute truth"?

"Nor have I claimed it my job to "convince others" of anything."

Have you not read any of your comments?

"You have simply chosen to erroneously believe these things."

I believe nothing.

"I do. Despite your beliefs..."

I have no beliefs.

"...and the beliefs of the vast majority of the hack politicians running this country, some of us still believe sloth is not a virtue."

On what do you base that belief?

"Because they had a beginning."

How do you know that had a beginning?

Were you there to witness their beginnings?

"Because something that does not yet exist cannot cause itself to exist."

How do you know that something that does not yet exist cannot cause itself to exist?

Have you witnessed everything that does not exist continually fail to cause itself to exist?

"Because everything that has a beginning is the effect of a cause."

How do you know that everything that has a beginning is the effect of a cause?

Have you witnessed every cause of every beginning to everything that exists?

"All of this was spelled out in detail in the post to which I referred you. You simply chose to ignore it."

No, I chose not to believe it.

I have exactly zero desire to go and read all the back posts on this, wherever they might be, but posting on these kinds of pages is rather addicting...

1) Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal

Not infinite, I'll buy. But matter and energy at least also can't be destroyed, or created. Does that not make them eternal?

2) Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves

Again, no interest in the back posts, but this is a proposition that seems neither supportable nor refutable, so has no real worth as a conclusion.

3) Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause

Since this follows from 2, and 2 is on shaky ground at best, 3 is no good either.

4) The cause of the universe exists outside of time

Not sure why this should be necessarily so either. And intriguing possibility is the idea (as opposed to a full fledged theory) of the universe collapsing on itself and re-expanding in a new "big bang" or whatever term you prefer. Since matter and energy can't be destroyed, perhaps the universe, or many of them in succession, are eternal.

5) Existing outside of time, the cause of the universe is necessarily eternal

Unless of course, the universe is eternal.

6) Being eternal, the cause of the universe is necessarily without beginning

Since this follows from the previous and they were, again, shaky, this one is as well.

7) Therefore, the cause of the universe is the Ultimate Cause from which all that exists came into being

Again, unless the universe is itself eternal.

As to "knowing everything," I find such a prospect boring. What if I did know everything? What would I do after that? I much prefer to keep learning and discovering. It's way more exciting. I came across this interview with physicist Brian Greene today, and I really liked his answer to whether we're close to understanding the universe or not.

Q: How close are we to really understanding the nature of the universe?

A: Sometimes I think the final theory is just around the corner. Sometimes I think such thoughts are naive. The bottom line is I don't know, but what we're learning is so startling, that in a way it doesn't matter. When or if we reach the deepest understanding, it will be a major moment for our species. But until then, making progress at unraveling the cosmos is its own reward.

Brian Greene, Interview on BnN.com under Icaraus at the Edge of Time

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Icarus-at-the-Edge-of-Time/Brian-Greene/e/9780307268884/?itm=1&USRI=icarus+at+the+edge+of+time

PEREGRINE,

I have no interest in converting anyone, or forcing anyone to agree with me.

Yet you can't resist the urge to try and convert me to your "belief in nothing."

No, I dismiss your conclusions on the basis that they appear to be based only what you have chosen to believe, or have been told to believe; they are not based on evidence.

No, you dismiss them because you have chosen to believe--or have been told to believe--that the evidence I have offered is inconsequential. This is evidenced by the fact that you are too lazy to even try to rebut or refute what I have offered.

I don't remember ever disclosing my age on this forum.

You have disclosed that you are old enough to frequent the local "gentlemen's club" and that you are of sufficient age to need regular prostate exams. Yet your arguments resemble those heard on a junior highschool playground.

What I actually wrote is: "Your "discussions" appear to be based on the premise that you believe that you already "know" the ultimate, absolute, truth about everything, and that it is your job to convince others,...

I have nowhere stated that I "know the ultimate, absolute truth about everything." Nor have I claimed it my job to "convince others" of anything. You have simply chosen to erroneously believe these things.

You write that like it's a bad thing.

I do. Despite your beliefs and the beliefs of the vast majority of the hack politicians running this country, some of us still believe sloth is not a virtue.

How do you know that "Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal"?

Because they had a beginning.

How do you know that "Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves"?

Because something that does not yet exist cannot cause itself to exist.

How do you know that "Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause"?

Because everything that has a beginning is the effect of a cause.

All of this was spelled out in detail in the post to which I referred you. You simply chose to ignore it.

RCofield,

"Indeed, you do not."

Correct.

"But the fact that you will not renders your opinions meaningless to anyone but yourself and those who already agree with you."

That is perfectly alright with me.

I have no interest in converting anyone, or forcing anyone to agree with me.

"Which would appear to indicate that you dismiss my conclusions on the basis of nothing more than the fact that they are my conclusions."

No, I dismiss your conclusions on the basis that they appear to be based only what you have chosen to believe, or have been told to believe; they are not based on evidence.

"How old did you say you were?"

I don't remember ever disclosing my age on this forum.

"Please. The "you think you know everything" bit is rather sophmoricisn't it?"

What I actually wrote is: "Your "discussions" appear to be based on the premise that you believe that you already "know" the ultimate, absolute, truth about everything, and that it is your job to convince others, and, perhaps, yourself, of this ultimate, absolute, truth.

Do you not believe that there exists an "ultimate, absolute, truth", and that you know that "ultimate, absolute, truth", based on your belief in your interpretation of your bible, and your belief in your god?

"As you are unwilling to debate the argument as a whole,..."

I am unwilling to debate your beliefs, as that would simply be an exercise in futility.

"...that amounts to nothing more than you just lazily stating your opinion."

You write that like it's a bad thing.

"And we all know that to which opinions are comparable."

Yes, indeed.

Back to your "premises/conclusions":

How do you know that "Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal"?

How do you know that "Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves"?

How do you know that "Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause"?

PEREGRINE,

No I don't.

Indeed, you do not. But the fact that you will not renders your opinions meaningless to anyone but yourself and those who already agree with you.

Your "conclusions" are meaningless to me, as they appear to simply be your beliefs.

Which would appear to indicate that you dismiss my conclusions on the basis of nothing more than the fact that they are my conclusions. How old did you say you were?

Your "discussions" appear to be based on the premise that you believe that you already "know" the ultimate, absolute, truth about everything, and that it is your job to convince others, and, perhaps, yourself, of this ultimate, absolute, truth.

Please. The "you think you know everything" bit is rather sophmoricisn't it?

As you are unwilling to debate the argument as a whole, that amounts to nothing more than you just lazily stating your opinion. And we all know that to which opinions are comparable.

RCofield,

"They don't. The conclusions are drawn from the premises and their supporting arguments."

To me, your "premises" look identical to your "conclusions.

"If you disagree with the conclusions, you have but to demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow the premises or disprove the premises themselves."

No I don't.

Your "conclusions" are meaningless to me, as they appear to simply be your beliefs.

"This process of reasoning may be utterly foreign to you given your Pyrrhonian skepticism."

You just may be on to something there.

Your "discussions" appear to be based on the premise that you believe that you already "know" the ultimate, absolute, truth about everything, and that it is your job to convince others, and, perhaps, yourself, of this ultimate, absolute, truth.

.
.
.. ______________ . . . . _________
.. |HUFF IN G T O N| ..... |"Adrianna"|
.. |P O S T Sukks!!!!| ......| Is An AIR- |
.. |______________| ..... |HEAD Ya.!.|
............. \./ .................... |.________.|
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \./. ...
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|| . . . .
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . , . . .||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . . . . v..
.
.
.
Note: Dear Ms. Sally Q. & CO., Please excuse me for being a "Prodigal Blogger" (not only a son; or Daughter) But i[WE] just had to 'TEST" the HUFF HUFF and a PUFF PUFF Bullacrapa "R-E-L-G-i-O-N" section.

Example: When i tried blogging (Yesterday was me 1st day registering) and They DID NOt post me subject line on the Phony Xrstian Conspiracy for trying to Satanically Sneakin {Into our Public Schoools Systems} that superStupidStitious (un)iNTELLigent Schemea (opps Design). And (me tricked them; but ize learned somethn by Sneaking in me comment) ON: The Discovery Of one of Albert Einstein's {pbuh] Lost/Stolen Papers about him RECANTING his statement during ww-II about that BIG LIE: "Science w/out Religion lalala stuff was only about Saving JEWs and the hope that Germany Nazi (and Ishlami's) would go easier on their poor Victims. And WHY A.E. {pbuh} Really Refused being Israels 2nd President etc..
__

Note: What's good about "Huff Huff and a Puff," besides Recognizing some Ex-Moderator's (break aways) from here or whatever, that WE[i]'m impressed to see that all that Content (landing Page) , Large pics etc.. Loads Very Fast On 4 major Browsers. Otherwise ADRIANNA & Staff are Copy Cats & yes, Plagiarizers too. OYE...! Note: me thinks Their Anti-MORMON et al?

iMORTANTANTO: 'HUFF Huff in the PUFF' is being sued by an Insider (who Made Adrianna Famous; but Stole The Concept, not Only Credit). Please See: HUFFINGTON POST "STOLE WEBSITE IDEA" [And From This Site; And some of me Ideas from me ex web site).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45168.html

AND [See How Pigeons pooopoo on Arianna & Co.]

http://www.aboutyourbreakup.com/arianna.html

AND

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2010/11/18/huffington-post-lawsuit.html

- PS: WE [i] will Start Recommending [THIS] Bless'th "ONFAITH" Neewsweek Blog and Patheo's sometimes. Please Start Buying Xtra SERVERS for the beginning of MARCH! Note: Me is Only Volunteering to do this. Free Will, Free Spirit & TRUTH (opposite MYTH)! Soo, LET THE BATTLE BEGIN! YAYA!

Praise The HOLYi NO MAN/WOM!

[THIS] WAPO's "ONFAITH" site is the Greatest Blogg On Earth! Yea! Ya! SE! DA! CAN!!

HUGG's -n- KiSS's To ALL/Every/Any "O-N-F-A-i-T-H" Bloggers (New & Old and future)!

PEREGRINE,

How did those "premises" suddenly become "conclusions"?

They don't. The conclusions are drawn from the premises and their supporting arguments.

If you disagree with the conclusions, you have but to demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow the premises or disprove the premises themselves.

This process of reasoning may be utterly foreign to you given your Pyrrhonian skepticism.

RCofield,

"See here:"

[Link to comment of January 20th, 6:45 PM]

"So, here we go:

The Premises of the First-Cause Argument"

How did those "premises" suddenly become "conclusions"?

PEREGRINE,

See here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2011/01/political_monotheism_and_the_slippery_slope_to_tucson.html

@ January 20th, 6:45 PM

RCofield,

"I established the following conclusions in my last post:"

"Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal"

On what are you basing that "conclusion"? To me, it sounds more like a belief than a conclusion.

"Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves"

On what are you basing that "conclusion"? To me, it sounds more like a belief than a conclusion.

"Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause"

On what are you basing that "conclusion"? To me, it sounds more like a belief than a conclusion.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

Good to hear from you again.

basically, my thinking is that sure you can do all that logical analysis/synthesis and build a seemingly air-tight case for "uncaused cause caused the universe". then after all that, i would still think... well... "what caused the uncaused cause..." and couldn't that have just gone ahead and caused the universe instead of the uncaused cause.

I am really not following your reasoning when you query “what caused the uncaused cause.” That question is utterly contradictory within itself. IF there is an “uncaused” cause, then that cause does not have a cause! What do you think “uncaused” means? If, as you say, I have built a “seemingly air-tight case for” an uncaused cause of the universe your question is nonsensical. You rebut by saying that whatever “caused” the uncaused cause…???...could “have just gone ahead and caused the universe instead of the uncaused cause”…I’m dizzy.

I could just as easily (and nonsensically) ask “what caused the cause of the uncaused cause?” Of course, this creates an infinite regression of causes, which is utterly illogical, and which I gave more than adequate reason to reject in my last three-part post to you. How that escapes you I do not pretend to know. You then state:

we've been over this. i'd like to get cranking too. will you please move on?

Ok. I’ll move on. But we will be forced to revisit your “cause of the uncaused cause” irrationality over and over again. We will be forced to do so because it is an utterly circular and illogical postulation that completely contradicts itself.

So, here we go. I established the following conclusions in my last post:

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

1) Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal
2) Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves
3) Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause

We all know that something that has a beginning of existence exists as the result of a cause. If ever “nothing” existed, then now nothing would exist. For something to come into existence there must have been something else that already existed that was capable of bringing that “something” into existence. The fact that the universe had a beginning of existence therefore implies that something brought it into existence…that the universe had a Cause or a Creator.

The First Cause Must be Uncreated/Eternal

If this First Cause/Creator were a thing like the universe, a thing that exists in time, the first cause could be said to have a beginning, and therefore would be the result/effect of a cause outside itself. Hence, because the first cause of the universe necessarily exists outside of time (time began with the universe coming into existence), this first cause must never have come into existence. In other words, because the cause of the universe exists outside of time, it must necessarily be uncreated/uncaused, and therefore eternal with neither beginning nor end.

If this first cause exists in time, it had a beginning, and could therefore be said to be part of the universe (which universe exists in time). If it (first cause) exists outside of time, it cannot be said to have a beginning. Nor can it be said to be part of the universe. Hence, the first cause exists outside the universe, transcending time, and is therefore eternal—without beginning.

Therefore, the cause of the universe, whatever that cause may be, is the Ultimate Cause. Whatever exists has its genesis/beginning in or from this Ultimate Cause.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

Summation of Conclusions

If my arguments are rational thus far (and you have yet to offer any rational rebuttal), we can conclude the following:

1) Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal
2) Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves
3) Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause
4) The cause of the universe exists outside of time
5) Existing outside of time, the cause of the universe is necessarily eternal
6) Being eternal, the cause of the universe is necessarily without beginning
7) Therefore, the cause of the universe is the Ultimate Cause from which all that exists came into being

Do you accept these 7 conclusions? If not, which of them do you reject, and on what specific grounds do you reject them?

Peace, brother.

rco, i'm still here. thanks for scouting out new threads...

basically, my thinking is that sure you can do all that logical analysis/synthesis and build a seemingly air-tight case for "uncaused cause caused the universe". then after all that, i would still think... well... "what caused the uncaused cause..." and couldn't that have just gone ahead and caused the universe instead of the uncaused cause.

we've been over this. i'd like to get cranking too. will you please move on?

WALTER,

Are you still with us?

Our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2011/01/political_monotheism_and_the_slippery_slope_to_tucson.html

I agree that they do waive their rights to deny medical treatment for religious reasons when they hold themselves out as public facilities, but they certainly don't want to admit it.

The bishops want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's a shame. I know so many good people who happen to be Catholic, but almost every bishop in this country comes across as a careerist who cares more about power than about the people who are members of his congregations. Maybe the members will finally decide that they have had enough and choose to start new congregations without the bishops. It would be wonderful for all.