U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2016, 07:20 AM
 
3 posts, read 879 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

I am curious why you believe animals, other than the human kind, do not think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2016, 08:16 AM
 
9,169 posts, read 2,788,318 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Peace indeed. Paul was the "Romanized version" not the "equivalent (if you mean equivalent by meaning or sound)."
He literally writes that he Romanized it (as in "used the Roman equivalent"). Here, check out this explanation -->



Little =/= Asked for

He Romanized his name, as many Jews were often doing depending on circumstances in order to fit in better (I doubt using "Saul" was illegal or unspeakable in Greece).

I stand corrected. It appears it's Latin in origin. What I don't see is what difference it makes in the grand scheme of things, unless this is yet another attempt to discredit Paul and his writings, which I won't belabor with you since IF you have taken that stance you are in the Lord's hands already in judgment, if that be the case. Peace indeed....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:04 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
6,930 posts, read 4,307,305 times
Reputation: 1157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Age-enduring View Post
No. Truth just IS.

Read Schopenhauer.
I agree, Truth just is. But I feel in full confidence (as in aesthetics and emotional preferences) that it is illuminating; therefore, Luminous Truth. I don't feel the same about endurance nor aging, both point to an intrinsic quality of impermanence and change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:06 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
6,930 posts, read 4,307,305 times
Reputation: 1157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livelystone View Post
Trying to get you to see the differences in types of death in the Bible and what is the resurrection

God calls those as though they are even though they are not YET

Because man is born already condemned unto death they remain "dead in their sins" to Him until through His Son they may pass from death unto life
Oh, I see. I saw your drawn-out contextualization as redundant (as I've heard it many times before), tangent, and ultimately increasing confusion/delusion. I wasn't writing about how Yahweh is portrayed as seeing the children that didn't worship him Biblically, but more about what Paul was writing to that one particular Church, which I didn't think was talking about "disbelievers" sleeping until Judgement, but about the "believers" sleeping (as in unconscious) until the resurrection.

I assume what you are trying to say is that the post-death teaching is mysterious and/or subjective for all, and that most likely neither the consciousness of believers nor disbelievers "sleep" but their bodies do, and that even though disbelievers are also conscious after their death, they are "dead" but only in a sort of metaphorical sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:39 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
6,930 posts, read 4,307,305 times
Reputation: 1157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1 View Post
I stand corrected. It appears it's Latin in origin. What I don't see is what difference it makes in the grand scheme of things, unless this is yet another attempt to discredit Paul and his writings, which I won't belabor with you since IF you have taken that stance you are in the Lord's hands already in judgment, if that be the case. Peace indeed....
Peace furthermore. We each question all the idols we choose not to be uncritical of. Yet Paul changing his name in order to fit in more with the Roman culture he was focusing on (or to outline a more understandable label for himself) is hardly a discrediting factor. I simply thought it was an interesting note to add the context of Paul's Roman-focused writings that one would think would taylor more to Aristotle/Pharasee ideas of the soul than Plato's. However, on a second look, famous Persian philosophers such as Avicenna had already tried to bring back Plato's idea of the undying consciousness as the necessary part of human identity instead of just total_form = total_function.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:55 PM
 
9,169 posts, read 2,788,318 times
Reputation: 658
I see. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection, though. So wouldn't that by necessity mean they thought the soul was "left behind"? Peace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 07:30 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
6,930 posts, read 4,307,305 times
Reputation: 1157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1 View Post
I see. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection, though. So wouldn't that by necessity mean they thought the soul was "left behind"? Peace
No, not necessarily. They might have believed in "unconsciousness of the mind during death" (e.g. "death-sleep" "rest in peace") or in resurrection through reincarnation*. Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Christians describes that the earthly body is changed into a spiritual body (realistically in resurrection and metaphorically in baptism?). But I'm sure there was a diversity of views upon that subject even within circles labeled as Pharisee, and even as one particular person changed their minds, whether aware of it or otherwise.

That Paul calls himself the "once the most Pharisee of Pharisees" points to the idea that even among Pharisees each individual or subgroup might have seen themselves as "more correct" than others. The Pharisees resisted the Hellenization (that is, the Greek/Roman philosophical influence) upon Israel, so they saw the Essenes as Hellenized liberals and the Sadducees as Hellenized conservatives. They thought the Sadducees were too tied to only scripture (and Hellenized interpretations of it) and that the Essenes were too untied to scripture as they rejected Bibliolatry of the Mosaic books, rejected anti-angel-veneration Monotheism, and believed in the immortality of the soul through the immaterial after-life.

The Sadducees didn't believe the "soul (conscious identity)" was immaterial/supernatural and they didn't believe that the "vital substance/breath/spirit" was a person's consciousness nor identity (i.e. Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, God-Breath to God-Breath)... some Pharasees probably shared that sentiment except that they believed Yahweh could still recreate their "form=function=soul" through a resurrection and in that way the wider Abrahamic covenant aspects could be kept even though war, partial genocide, or dispersion seemed to break them (the royal line never ending, the lines of the priest caste, etc).

*According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal [no resurrection of the "same" body?] and the souls of good people would be reincarnated and "pass into other bodies," while "the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 07:56 PM
 
598 posts, read 241,118 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Oh, I see. I saw your drawn-out contextualization as redundant (as I've heard it many times before), tangent, and ultimately increasing confusion/delusion. I wasn't writing about how Yahweh is portrayed as seeing the children that didn't worship him Biblically, but more about what Paul was writing to that one particular Church, which I didn't think was talking about "disbelievers" sleeping until Judgement, but about the "believers" sleeping (as in unconscious) until the resurrection.

I assume what you are trying to say is that the post-death teaching is mysterious and/or subjective for all, and that most likely neither the consciousness of believers nor disbelievers "sleep" but their bodies do, and that even though disbelievers are also conscious after their death, they are "dead" but only in a sort of metaphorical sense.
Spiritual resurrection follows immediately behind everyones physical death............. this I know first hand

Already been there and already done that but it was 5 years later before I found out everything I witnessed while on the other side is recorded as the resurrection of the dead by the apostle John where the obvious is you have to die before you can attend it................. I wish I would have qualified to stay but since I wasn't allowed to stay over there; if and when the scene should be repeated someday, hopefully this time there will be something that can be said for my benefit

You can read about it in my blog if you are interested

Last edited by Livelystone; 02-25-2016 at 08:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 11:04 PM
 
9,169 posts, read 2,788,318 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
No, not necessarily. They might have believed in "unconsciousness of the mind during death" (e.g. "death-sleep" "rest in peace") or in resurrection through reincarnation*. Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Christians describes that the earthly body is changed into a spiritual body (realistically in resurrection and metaphorically in baptism?). But I'm sure there was a diversity of views upon that subject even within circles labeled as Pharisee, and even as one particular person changed their minds, whether aware of it or otherwise.

That Paul calls himself the "once the most Pharisee of Pharisees" points to the idea that even among Pharisees each individual or subgroup might have seen themselves as "more correct" than others. The Pharisees resisted the Hellenization (that is, the Greek/Roman philosophical influence) upon Israel, so they saw the Essenes as Hellenized liberals and the Sadducees as Hellenized conservatives. They thought the Sadducees were too tied to only scripture (and Hellenized interpretations of it) and that the Essenes were too untied to scripture as they rejected Bibliolatry of the Mosaic books, rejected anti-angel-veneration Monotheism, and believed in the immortality of the soul through the immaterial after-life.

The Sadducees didn't believe the "soul (conscious identity)" was immaterial/supernatural and they didn't believe that the "vital substance/breath/spirit" was a person's consciousness nor identity (i.e. Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, God-Breath to God-Breath)... some Pharasees probably shared that sentiment except that they believed Yahweh could still recreate their "form=function=soul" through a resurrection and in that way the wider Abrahamic covenant aspects could be kept even though war, partial genocide, or dispersion seemed to break them (the royal line never ending, the lines of the priest caste, etc).

*According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal [no resurrection of the "same" body?] and the souls of good people would be reincarnated and "pass into other bodies," while "the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment."

Very interesting. I had no idea their views were so diverse. So it's actually a "credit" to Paul in light of those who think he was being somehow "crafty" and audience relevant to the extreme, that he DIDN'T parrot out the prevailing ideas of his particular sect about it. But, IMO, that would be because He was taught by the risen Christ, so got the Truth of the matter from the "horse's mouth" so to speak.


I know what I posted is Truth because the Word states it, but also because I experienced it. Peace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2016, 12:26 AM
 
1,489 posts, read 613,331 times
Reputation: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
I agree, Truth just is. But I feel in full confidence (as in aesthetics and emotional preferences) that it is illuminating; therefore, Luminous Truth. I don't feel the same about endurance nor aging, both point to an intrinsic quality of impermanence and change.
It's clear that you know plenty of stuff, Luminous, but I wouldn't say it was Truth, because it is not spiritually illuminated, yet. You refer to having 'heard it before' to Livelystone. The reality is you've never heard it, or seen it, or you did once, and have gone away from The Truth. As the good book says, knowledge puffs up - but love builds up. Your day will come.

Age-enduring is a slight modification of the translation of the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible to talk about the length of time, specifically where modern translations incorrectly use the word forever. Olam (hebrew) and Aion (Greek) meant age-during. So the Aion of a man's life was 70 years. The Aion of Gods dispensations is counted in 1000 years. Etcetera. Observation of the translation error is what began to move me from an already not so secure eternal torment view to a Christian universalism view.

Last edited by Age-enduring; 02-26-2016 at 12:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top