DescentBB

flip wrote:There is only 2 of them. The son and the Father. One in body, one in Spirit, but in the future at the end of all things, Jesus steps down again and God will be above all.

I need clarification on your position
who is God?
who is Jesus on earth?
what is the holy spirit?

Please answer my questions so we can continue.

Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, The Holy Spirit is the presence and mind of God the Father.

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

The Holy Spirit is the Father, fully revealed.

EDIT: The Father and the Holy Spirit are exactly the same person.

What you have to understand Cuda is how God chose to reveal Himself over time.
The bible says to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He revealed himself as God-almighty, but not as the LORD. He appeared to them as "the angel of the LORD" or as "the word of the LORD" each time, because He is a Spirit, in the form of Christ. To Moses, he reveals himself as the LORD. You see Him as LORD over creation, (burning bush, pillar of fire, pillar of cloud, earthquakes,) but still revealed through Christ, His image. Then, Christ came in human form, to redeem man from his sins. He reveals the Father's mind and heart and by His sacrifice, God is free to dwell in human flesh. Every name of God reveals a limited aspect of Him, but the Holy Spirit is God fully revealed through Christ, because just as the fullness of God, His Spirit, dwells in the body of Christ Jesus, he can now also dwell in us. It gets better though but that is the doctrine. The better part is when it speaks of Jesus relinquishing the throne back to God

flip wrote:Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, The Holy Spirit is the presence and mind of God the Father.

was Jesus God while on earth??

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

The Holy Spirit is the Father, fully revealed.

EDIT: The Father and the Holy Spirit are exactly the same person.

John 14 wrote:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Christ spoke of another that will be provided by the Father. the Holy Spirit.. why would Christ say my Father would send another to you. if the Father was the Spirit?? why would Christ not say the father will come to you?? there appears to be a third. the Father. the Son, the Spirit

Edit: I still didn't get your answer. Who do you say Christ was while on earth? was he man? was he God? was he both? was he neither?

They can't even agree on the infallible. It's a thing of beauty.

vision wrote:They can't even agree on the infallible. It's a thing of beauty.

thanks for contributing nothing Vision. it seems the be the staple of your existence. and I'm sorry if we are talking over your head on a subject. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

well, I, for one, find the exchange fascinating. That's why I took an elective in Comparative Theology.....

I'm always open for correction. the Bible is EXTREMELY deep and I freely admit that I don't know everything. and I've studied it for about 40 years. and even when I think I know the answer I find a new way to approach a subject

don't sell yourself short(at least on this topic ) CUDA. People have been studying those Books(the Bible,as a whole) for a couple of millenia, and keep developing new thinking on it. If the 40 year process made you a more satisfied person, I say all the better.

OK CUDA and flip. Maybe I was a little general with my question. I was using the appearance of Jesus as time point in the Bible and a dividing line between the Old and New Testaments. I won't argue semantics as to whether Jesus, as a Holy Spirit, was always around through God's history, because all Christians believe He IS the embodiment of God on Earth. I'm not a deep Bible scholar or believer, nor can I argue for or against it, because there are no hard facts, only faith, and you can't argue against faith.

I guess I was chasing a thread as to WHY the Old Testament has a punishing God, and the New Testament has a loving God. But after doing some reading, I've found the connections and reasons, most of which you both have posted about. Yes, it does make sense, if you believe in the Bible and the reasons for God's deeds and motivations explicitly. But that's where we part ways. I believe the Bible a work of a fallible, fearful mankind trying to explain their own existence and the ways of the world. You both believe the Bible to be a work essentially from God explaining his ways through mankind. You have your beliefs, I have my disbelief's.

However, listening to PBS, because the right-wing station owner in Albany decided Country Music had a larger audience than Liberal Talk, I listened to a fascinating story the other day, that does directly address human nature and morals. It's called the:

"Rule of Reciprocity".

What's even more fascinating is that we also apply this reciprocity towards machines.

No Mercy For Robots

So in essence, if your computer is behaving nice to you, you'll treat it nice and have good feelings towards it. If it starts giving you BSODs and crashes to no end, you'll treat it like something that needs to DIE. Don't we do that to humans, morals be damned?

Jeff250 wrote:This is what laws are all about. Laws don't require that you agree with them, but you still have to follow them. (This is also why a free society should have as few laws as possible to keep people from harming each other.)

Yeah, but when those laws are laxly enforced due to budget cuts or some other reasons, people tend to ignore their scruples and start violating the law, because they don't think anyone cares and that they can get away with it. But when someone starts caring, the violators will suddenly cry out that their former "freedoms" are being taken away. They didn't have those "freedoms" in the first place, they took those "freedoms" because it suited them when the authorities weren't paying attention.

CUDA wrote:...and I've studied it for about 40 years. and even when I think I know the answer I find a new way to approach a subject

So let me get this straight... The bible, which is the infallible, immutable word of God, and allegedly the blueprint for morality and a guide book for all humans who want to go to heaven -- can't be understood by a grown man after 40 years of study? Well, either there is something wrong with the book or something wrong with you. My guess is the book.

Here is one of my favorite "deep" passages of the bible:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. ~Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV

Delivered by Moses, as the word of God, in the chapters just after the 10 commandments. Pretty deep stuff. It must be over my head because it seems to say if I rape an unengaged virgin I have to pay her father about $15 and marry her, never to divorce. That sounds totally immoral, so I guess I must be missing something.

Do you have a explanation CUDA? Please enlighten this poor lost soul.

You have your beliefs, I have my disbelief's.

if you think for a moment that anyone of us doesn't have times when we question you're sadly mistaken. our belief is a choice based on many MANY things, and is personal to each and everyone of us. I would never ask you to believe because I told you so. just as I would expect to not get criticized for my beliefs as I do by certain forum members.

vision wrote:Do you have a explanation CUDA? Please enlighten this poor lost soul.

Matthew 10:14 wrote:If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

you dont really care to know, and I don't care to waste my time with you

ok, CUDA, I have to call you on that one. That's a dodge, because the example vision gave spoke directly to both morality, and the Biblical, or God-based roots of morality. It doesn't take too much to read into that passage exactly what vision said: A rapist who gets caught pays a few bucks and has to marry the woman for life. Marvelous message for all of us, wouldn't you say? As I said above, the Bible is ripe for all kinds of interpretation. Personally,
I feel it should be viewed as an intact work, as opposed to individual books, or passages, but there are some really, really disturbing 'rules' set forth within it. For those of you bent on defending God's role in morality, a bit of explanation of such odd bits would only be fair......

maybe pertinent, maybe not, but I read this earlier today, pondered the matter, and felt I should paste a copy in this thread:

"I think the whole idea of Christ being crucified for our sins proves a point. Better he should suffer than we should lose a single drop of blood, although we are just as guilty as he. Christ felt his own guilt, being more sensitive no doubt than those around him, probably because he regarded himself as one of the perpetrators of the collective crime. Rather than destroy the collective criminal, mankind, with a deluge such as occurred in Noah’s day, he was chosen to pay the penalty for society’s criminality. The people who punished Christ actually believed only he was guilty and never for a moment thought of themselves as anything but fine, upstanding righteous citizens. The lesson implied is that it took a Christ-like individual to understand the meaning of collective crime and to accept the consequences of his understanding by offering himself as a sacrifice or, hopefully, as the sole bearer of retributive justice that was actually due all mankind. Although he was able to convey his knowledge to a handful of his followers, and how well they grasped the concept is still debatable, he failed to enlighten the mass of men, including those who profess adherence to his teachings today.

Time and again society is confronted with its own guilty conscience through one of its more sensitive members, or perhaps even one who is totally oblivious to the role he is playing, who usually ends up in what commentators view as the scapegoat’s noose. If only society was purified by these crucifixions. But instead, the exact opposite seems to be the case more often than not. The collective crimes grow increasingly vicious, while society concocts new and cleverer slogans day by day to assure itself of its own immaculate superiority."

J.Lindemann(2013)--Thoughts of an Unquiet Mind, pt VII

ok, CUDA, I have to call you on that one.

what was his intent with the question?? do you really believe for a second it was to further his knowledge??? or do you believe it was just a way to find criticism.

he doesn't care. and I don't care to indulge his attempts to goad me

CUDA,care to indulge me? That was a passage I always wonder about. Take it to PM if you want to avoid it veering off on an unwanted tangent.

23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.

25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

29 Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

What you have to understand is that Jesus spoke figuratively and in parables. The Bible says also in John that God is a Spirit and those that worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth. See, before Jesus died on the cross, the whole world was without God. Sometimes His Spirit would come upon people, but even then only the prophet, priest or king. He was kept in a Temple they built here on Earth. Well, when Jesus died on the cross, that Temple Curtain, that was 3 inches thick, tore from the top to the bottom. Now, the Spirit of God was no longer confined to that temple but had made human beings His Temple, because He is a Spirit. The biggest thing to remember is to take Paul's teaching as more literal, and Jesus' as figurative.

callmeslick wrote:maybe pertinent, maybe not, but I read this earlier today, pondered the matter, and felt I should paste a copy in this thread:

"I think the whole idea of Christ being crucified for our sins proves a point. Better he should suffer than we should lose a single drop of blood, although we are just as guilty as he. Christ felt his own guilt, being more sensitive no doubt than those around him, probably because he regarded himself as one of the perpetrators of the collective crime. Rather than destroy the collective criminal, mankind, with a deluge such as occurred in Noah’s day, he was chosen to pay the penalty for society’s criminality. The people who punished Christ actually believed only he was guilty and never for a moment thought of themselves as anything but fine, upstanding righteous citizens. The lesson implied is that it took a Christ-like individual to understand the meaning of collective crime and to accept the consequences of his understanding by offering himself as a sacrifice or, hopefully, as the sole bearer of retributive justice that was actually due all mankind. Although he was able to convey his knowledge to a handful of his followers, and how well they grasped the concept is still debatable, he failed to enlighten the mass of men, including those who profess adherence to his teachings today.

Time and again society is confronted with its own guilty conscience through one of its more sensitive members, or perhaps even one who is totally oblivious to the role he is playing, who usually ends up in what commentators view as the scapegoat’s noose. If only society was purified by these crucifixions. But instead, the exact opposite seems to be the case more often than not. The collective crimes grow increasingly vicious, while society concocts new and cleverer slogans day by day to assure itself of its own immaculate superiority."

J.Lindemann(2013)--Thoughts of an Unquiet Mind, pt VII

Except..... Jesus "has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15)

The sin the Jesus bore (and felt) on the cross wasn't his... it was everyone else's. The point isn't that He was our equal and had the wisdom to sacrifice Himself... the point was that He was God and sacrificed Himself for His enemies. The other point is that it reinforced the standard that has been set - absolute perfection. The part about our conscience convicting us is true, but it isn't a corporate issue, it's an individual issue - and Jesus was proof that there's no such thing as "good enough." The amazing part of it is that Christ's grace does give us an example to follow - not of sacrificing ourselves for our equals, but for the lowest, weakest, and dirtiest of our hated enemies. (Which, by the way we can't achieve - so there's no way around our need for Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us.) Our collective crimes aren't anything new or extraordinarily vicious.... and they are (and always have been) the product of individual's evil hearts... among which is mine.

Flip, I think you're thinking too much of the person of the father and the person of the son too separately. Clearly there is a single Yahweh...

TC, the whole Bible is a story about Christ. You have a good observation - the Old Testament is largely about the law & punishment.... the big takeaway that people should walk away with from the OT is that there's no hope of escaping God's punishment.... that it's impossible in our humanity. But, along the way, there are these glimpses of this Messiah who is permanently set things right... and in comes Christ - who satisfies the punishment & extends God's grace. So, God's justice (and punishment) is properly doled out... just not on us who deserve it. That's why the new testament is largely theme around grace - because the answer to man's hopeless situation is provided in Christ, permanently. If you look at the close of the NT, you see the final closing of God's judgment, permanently - where those who don't accept Christ's punishment for their sins are finally punished and banished from heaven & earth for good... leaving a sinless, perfect world.

No, the Son has always been in service to God the Father and that's why I post this. It says plainly in 1 Corinthians that God put everything under Jesus' feet, except God Himself who put everything under His feet. It says that God is the head of Christ, clearly establishing authority over Him. It also says the Son will eventually step down and relinquish everything being put under His feet, so that God takes His rightful place over all. They are clearly not the same, and there is a clear order. That's what Christians don't seem to realize and that addition is what gave the notion that obscures who Jesus is. Jesus was the "firstborn" the only "begotten" created in exact nature and being as God Himself. He made Himself a Son, but the Son is not the head of God. When Christians realize exactly who Jesus is, and that we are co-heirs of His, then they realize exactly who they are. Jesus eventually steps down and we are to be exactly like Him

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

callmeslick wrote:CUDA,care to indulge me? That was a passage I always wonder about. Take it to PM if you want to avoid it veering off on an unwanted tangent.

I would tend to believe it is more rabbinical laws. But I'll study up on it and get back to you

I avoided this topic until page 2 because I thought no good would come of it, but first we touched on the existence of God and now on the distinct aspects of God. This is a good topic.

That it is, Thorne.....further, I'd add that something touched on along the way, by CUDA and vision and others, is the concept of the teachings being a combination of rabbinical law versus God's absolute laws for man. Even the Ten Commandments can be seen a suspect, in one regard, as Jesus clearly abandoned his family and urged his followers to do likewise, in direct departure from the Commandment to "Honor thy Father and Mother". The Bible is at times a paradoxical read, open to vast ranges of interpretation.

To Slick. after doing some research on the matter along with having a good discussion with my wife about to subject (smart woman she is)
I found this.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his day

after some searching this is what I come up with. it's not a perfect answer and I'm sure vision will not like it DON'T CARE. I could have PM'd this but I'm not afraid of the Truth

The problem comes from the interpretation of the Hebrew expression “Lay hold on her and lie with her”.

‘Taphas’ is the Hebrew word for “Lay hold on her”, and it can mean “to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield…”. It doesn’t necessitate a wrongful handling, or laying hold of.

‘Shakab’ is the Hebrew word meaning “to Lie down”. It is used of consensual, marital sexual relations in Leviticus,
What we have here is the law concerning seduction, not rape. In no way is rape condoned in any part of the Bible, a simple reading of the larger context of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 easily confirms this.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.(The Law concerning Rape)

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.(The Law concerning seduction)

Notice that verse 25 gives the Law regarding rape,but uses an entirely different word than that in verses 28-29. The word used in vs 25 is chazaq- “to force”.

In the other stories of the Bible that recount rape, none of them use the expression “taphas Shekahb” as in the Deuternomy 22:28-29 passage.


The Bible does not condone Rape. it is contradictory to the very nature and essence of it's teachings. I hope this clarifies what I believe on this subject. people like Vision will only see what they want to see in the matter. never taking the time or effort to look deeper. only wishing to see whats on the surface. and to look for a chance to condemn

so, in other words, if a man were caught SEDUCING an unmarried woman, he had to pay a dowry and marry her? Seems logical. Archaic, of course, to modern eyes, but much rabbinical laws does(we now know why they warned folks off of shellfish, etc, for simple management of public health). Thanks, CUDA.

Vision attempted to do what many critics do. they choose a verse and say AH HA the Bible condones rape. all they do it display their intent and lack of knowledge on what I have tried to say is a VERY complex collection of books. and at times I need to go back and look things up. as in this case. and I enjoy these type of discussions it forces me to grow

your welcome Slick.

vision wrote:so I guess I must be missing something.

obviously

good attitude, all around, CUDA.....it is the type of thinking around why I involve myself in these debates on a lot of topics. Forces one to re-think, or refocus one's arguments, at the very least. Now, if you could just try and convince Woodchip to read up on, say, basic math(see Tiger thread), we'd be getting something accomplished!

the beauty of the Bible and intrigue for me is both the simplicity and complexity of it's message

The simplicity

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The complexity is Understanding Who God is

Romans 11:34
"Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"

Cool, you clarified the rape versus seduction part, and I thank you for that. Now you have to contend with the subjugation of women in the bible, them being property to be bought and sold. Keep at it CUDA you are on a roll! GO! GO! GO!

vision wrote:Cool, you clarified the rape versus seduction part, and I thank you for that

don't flatter yourself. my response wasn't directed to you. I got the response that I expected from you. so as Slick likes to point out to members of a different forum. Run along the adults are trying to have a conversation

vision wrote:Now you have to contend with the subjugation of women in the bible,

and that pales in comparison to the stupidity and attitude of members like you. explaining a woman's role is easy. explaining your ignorance in life is going to take effort.
Slick is an Agnostic. I'm OK with that, he has questions and asked them in a respectable manner. you don't have questions. you snipe and pick thinking you're superior or even worse that I'm inferior, you have no intent or desire to actually LEARN something and better yourself and your understanding on a subject. that sir is a waste of a life. but I guess it is your life to waste.

vision wrote:so I guess I must be missing something.

and it seems you still are

In my opinion, the Bible must be taken as a whole, and not to go outside of it unless you are looking for historical evidence or the deeper meanings of words. Otherwise, the Bible completely interprets itself so why go elsewhere. In one place, something that is read is obscure and complex but if you continue somewhere else within that same collection the answer will be clarified. Anyone that does not see the perfect agreement within that book is not sincerely seeking and are most likely taking the opinions and interpretations of others. Alot of Visions problems in the Bible should actually be attributed to the nature and condition of the people God was dealing with at the time. Who were at best hardcore as hell. God was dealing with barbarians compared to how we know people today, but He was always looking forward to a better condition of man. Just like in the New Testament, in there we see slavery and subjugation of women neither condoned nor condemned. It is told to those 2 groups not to make an issue of it and to endure it for the Gospels sake because the authors knew that if the Gospel were to take root those things would fall away too, and have.

The Bible has been the most misused text in the history of the world, but everyone of it's misuses has been done by those that lack sincerity or a strong love of the truth.

CUDA wrote:...you don't have questions.

Oh indeed I do. I want to know why you guys claim to have moral superiority because of a bronze age religious text. Why you think by studying a work of fiction your opinions have more weight than someone who studied Star Trek all their life. Star Trek has moral lessons superior to those in the bible and has filled the lives of millions and millions of people with joy and wonder, and to the best of my knowledge, has never been used to justify crime of any sort. Personally I would love to adopt the morality of a glorious future than one of a dreadful past, you know, when slavery was Ok and people got stoned to death and stuff.

Yeah. I'm the one missing something. Riiiiiight....

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:...you don't have questions.

Oh indeed I do.

No you don't, you just want justification for your vilification

vision wrote:I want to know why you guys claim to have moral superiority

you said that. neither I, nor the Bible ever has. but I see that you don't need a Book to exhibit the Characteristics of Moral superiority your doing just fine without it.

Peter 5:5 wrote: Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Proverbs 11:2 wrote: When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.

vision wrote:Yeah. I'm the one missing something. Riiiiiight....

I'm glad you recognize it

personally I don't care if you like the subject or not. personally I don't care if you like Christians or not. personally I don't care if you like me or not. your Opinion of those things matter not. if you wish to judge me then that is your choice, your right. but make no mistake it makes you the same as those that you want to condemn for their "Moral Superiority" and your putting it on display for the entire forum.

Here is my impression of every Christian on this board, from what I've seen over and over again.

1st party wrote:Some sort of argument they want to refute, like denying they are imbued with divine superiority because of an imaginary skygod. Because you know, they are humble and don't judge, but I am wrong, a lost soul, and don't see the glory of said imaginary skygod.

A response, something along the lines of "I'm a humble servant of the skygod and I don't judge, but he will, I just want to tell you that. You know, because I pity you and you shouldn't go to imaginary hell because I hear it is really awful. Says so in this book I have. Here look:"

the bible wrote:22 Yes, this passage purportedly reveals a lot about the nature of reality and especially morality, more so than anything we can come up with today. 23 This is special because it is in the book, and if you see the same thing from another, older source, it must be wrong. 24 And forget all the other stuff in this book that is downright atrocious, because that is just "historical" or "needs interpretation" (ie, rationalizing).

Let's not forget quotes by some dead person to add perceived weight to the non-argument given, like this one:

famous dead guy wrote:"Oh, here is something we should take as a fact of life even it is trite and vapid. Because, you know, I said it and people know me.

And this concludes the non-argument.


If you make the claim that the Bible is a good foundation for morality and I show examples of how it fails to live up to that claim, this is not me showing moral superiority. This is me telling you the claim is false. However, if you think the subjugation of women, the abuse of children, slavery, murder and genocide (all advocated by the skygod), then unfortunately we will have an idea war. So far your team is losing.

Okay, boys. If you want to dialogue on one of the topics, feel free.

But if you're going to just take shots at each other, drop it.

it WAS actually a good thread, filled with some decent discussion. I wouldn't mind continuing that line, with anyone that wants to have a discussion. but as I stated when Vision first posted

you dont really care to know, and I don't care to waste my time with you

and I was right. he didn't and doesn't care to know. and I should have stuck to my original thought and not wasted my time.

My bad Foil

snoopy wrote:If you look at the close of the NT, you see the final closing of God's judgment, permanently - where those who don't accept Christ's punishment for their sins are finally punished and banished from heaven & earth for good... leaving a sinless, perfect world.

Wouldn't you have to banish all people to have a sinless world? It's hard for me to conceive of a sinless world with people in it.

Well, the discussion really only makes sense to those who believe it Jeff, but according to the doctrine, those that overcome will also take on the very nature of God and in fact by His Spirit in them presently, are being transformed to that image now.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

For some background on why I'm asking this, many Christians deal with the problem of evil by arguing that some evils are necessary to make certain higher goods possible. And it's an argument that I think has merit. But this seems at odds with the idea that heaven is better for us than here because it has no evils. I realize I'm derailing this thread even further here.

I don't think there is any biblical basis for any such argument really, or not one I have found. It's interesting you ask this though because it's a topic that I've actually pondered recently. I think sin at it's core is sin because it is self-destructive. In the garden, the sin that Adam and Eve commit is actually to gain a conscience. At that point, they realized their imperfection and their thoughts changed in such a way they actually started destroying themselves. There is no sin without the conscience of sin, but once they realized they were naked, they started having destructive thoughts. I don't have a lot yet in the ways of what sin actually is, but it is something that I want further education on.

EDIT: It all hinges on this verse:

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.