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.
One of our posters invited me to start another thread if I wanted to question her post. Okay. Thank you for the invitation.
The post in question is the following:
"it is already a spirit. a spirit from God. put into the human infant. and then it leaves the human when the physical body dies. that is what you have described. it is not new when it goes into the human infant. it is not new when it leaves the dead human body. it is the same spirit. it has just briefly inhabited for a short time that human body.
the spirit is not new so it can't be a "born as a newborn upon our death." the only thing that is newly born is the physical human infant.
you have mentioned that energy simply changes states and you are calling that birth. well, when ice is formed from a bowl of water, no one says "ice was born." when clouds appear in the sky no one says "clouds are newborn." they are simply water changing form. but it is not "new water." it is the same water just changing shape and form. puddle to ice to steam to clouds to rain back to puddle.
the water does not die. the water is not born. the water does not grow and reproduce.
same with a soul or spirit.
if you walk into a store or put on raincoat, and then after a while leave the store or take off the raincoat, you are not "born as a newborn." you simply removed or exited from a physical covering.
when you describe the mechanics of a soul which is part of God entering the body when a baby is born and then leaving the body when the physical body dies, that is exactly the mechanics i also understand and describe."
My question was: What is the actual evidence for the bolded?
So, what do you all think? Is there significant evidence for this? Or is this another example of confusing faith and fact?
I think many believers believe what they do because they want it to be true - not because they think it is true.
And to me that's okay, as long as they realize it's based on faith, not facts. There's nothing wrong with faith, as long as it's realized that's what it is.
Believer who are born of water and of Spirit through Jesus Christ will see the kingdom of heaven ....... people must first be born on the earth, but the born of water is baptism with water with repentance to the ethics of God, which means turning away from the sin against God through faith and to continue to turn away in the dark world .... Born of spirit is the profound experience of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and enduring this spirit of God throughout their lives, will on the end of life, the Spirit of God will collect His own and receive the spirit and soul in to heaven ... The soul has all the memories of life on the earth, and the spirit is there at birth on the earth for all people and animals ..... The baptism of the Holy Spirit is added to the soul ..... The only evidence of the soul baptism in God is for people personal experience ............. The evidence of the spirit is the experience of the interaction with foreign spirits like demons who infest people spiritual space with their influences on peoples health and mental influence of ideas of sin, whether people can see these spirit, but they can feel them with like pain, and infirmaries of the flesh and thoughts of selfishness and evil
The only problem I have with comparing water with a soul or spirit is that water can be broken down further into its elemental parts. When given the right conditions, those elements together have the potential to form water so in that case, water is created. The creation is less complex than that of a human but it is one nonetheless. Using "newborn" or "born" would distract in this conversation.
If you were to wait until you had some kind of "scientific" proof of God before you believed, then it would a curse rather than a blessing.
Ozzy, that's not what this is about. It's not about whether you should believe. You have freedom of thought. You can believe as you wish. The thread is about whether or not there is clear evidence to back up your belief.
Faith is okay. However, faith and fact are two different things. It's important to know the difference.
Let me give you an example -- in communion in some churches you drink some wine or grape juice and you eat a wafer or a piece of bread. There are people who see this as a symbolic act to reaffirm their belief in Jesus and God, and that's fine. I personally know at least one person who truly believes that when the wine enters his mouth it literally turns into blood, and when the piece of bread enters his mouth it literally turns into flesh.
The former is a faith matter, the latter he is representing as an actual fact.
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.
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.
