Originally posted by @apathistThe evidence in the created universe for God's eternal power and divine nature.
What basis do you have for your claims?
The Bible with its track record of fulfilled prophecy.
The integrity and moral approved-ness of Jesus.
The experience of many saints down through the centuries
My own personal experience covering some over 40 years.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @apathistSo what did evolve into a thinking mind? A piece of protoplasm that washed up on the beach?
It has everything to do with it. What else, other than here now, are we supposed to use as we try to understand reality (and as we weigh ethics)? What else [b]is there?
Btw i don't believe rock and dust evolved into thinking minds. But you misrepresented on purpose, didn't you.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshipAre the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?
So we're talking about literal and even degrees of literalism in the Bible.
Are the beings on other worlds you referred to, literal or allegorical?
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfAre the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chains" should just be thought of as confinement.
They lost are not free.
Their consequence has become a kind of prison of confinement.
Instead of "non-Christians" I would say unsaved.
"Other worlds" I have said multiple times is only hypothetical.
Multiple times I have said in essence "Don't take me to mean that I know for certain that either now or in the future there will be beings on other planets."
"Other worlds" strictly speaking does not have to mean "other planets".
"Worlds" and "ages" I am pretty sure can be represented by the same word in NT Greek.
Maybe when God creates all things new as promised there will be other lives.
But, for the umpteenth time, I don't know that.
Now the one matter that I have thought on much is the matter of "deterrence".
It is obvious that "deterrence" was used here and there throughout the history of God involvement with people. Punishment as a deterrence to others obviously is seen both in the OT and the NT.
Where I have further developed my thinking sense I wrote that paragraph (loosely paraphrashing a paragraph in Govette's book which was too long to quote exactly), is that the main humans as recipients of salvation will probably need no deterrence.
There is no OUTWARD need for influence to go along with God.
God now lives in them and is one with them and they are in such harmony, that a fearful "deterrence" is not needed.
And as for "other" beings or "other lives" in new "other worlds" it is to speculative for me to say much about that.
I don't think there will EVER be another rebellion.
I think God arranged things so that there would only be ONE - long and prolonged, but only ONE.
Those saved are gladly in harmony with God by life and nature for eternity.
Will newcomers to the new heaven and new earth need deterrence of viewing what a miserably failed rebellion resulted in for them ? I don't know.
The prophet Daniel viewed that the lost would be an abhorrence to the saved.
But that does not have to mean that the sight of their abhorrent condition is needed as an deterrence. It just is an abhorrence.
" And many of those who are sleeping in the dust of the ground will awake, some to life eternal and some to reproach, to eternal contempt." (Dan. 12:2)
Their contemptible situation may not mean it has to be a deterrence to these witnesses.
The same may apply to the prophet isaiah speaking of the future age.
"For as the new heavens and new earth, which I make, Remain before me, declares Jehovah, So will your seed and your name remain.
... Then they will go forth and look on the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; For thier worm will not die, Nor will their fire be quenched;
And the will be an abhorrence to all flesh." (See Isaiah 66:22-24)
They are confined.
They are punished.
They are an abhorrent sight.
They are a contemptible sight.
Witness by other being on other planets? I don't know.
Function as a deterrent vision that there be no more rebellion? Maybe not necessary as to that age. .
Are the beings on other worlds you referred to, literal or allegorical?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purely speculative at this point if literal.
I cannot say definitely Yes or definitely No.
It is not as important to me as it seems to critics of my paragraph.
Lastly, it is better always to give priority to the Bible's words.
Placing greater priority on prose of poetic interpretation of biblical words should not be defended as infallible.
Originally posted by @sonshipSo in answer to the question "Are the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?" you are saying 'allegorical', and you are saying 'they are not real', is that right?
[b] Are the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chains" should just be thought of as confinement.
They lost are not free.
Their consequence has become a kind ...[text shortened]... iority on prose of poetic interpretation of biblical words should not be defended as infallible.[/b]
And in answer to the question "Are the beings on other worlds you referred to, literal or allegorical?" you are saying 'don't know', and you are saying you don't know whether it's even true or not, is that right?
Originally posted by @sonshipWhat "deterrence" effect can something possibly have on people who don't believe that the thing/deterrent you're describing exists and to whom you can provide no evidence that it exists?
Now the one matter that I have thought on much is the matter of "deterrence".
It is obvious that "deterrence" was used here and there throughout the history of God involvement with people. Punishment as a deterrence to others obviously is seen both in the OT and the NT.
6 edits
Originally posted by @fmfDisbelieving in God's existence is at best a temporary condition.
What "deterrence" effect can something possibly have on people who don't believe that the thing/deterrent you're describing exists and to whom you can provide no evidence that it exists?
It is impossible to extend disbelief in God being, forever.
I quoted someone already - "No lie can live forever."
I am talking here about the very basics of God being.
I am not extending Romans 1:10 below over hundreds of lesser doctrinal points.
But to the basic existence of a Supreme Being, I have no doubt it applies.
If someone tells me -
"But God judgment doesn't deter me because it is impossible that God is."
I would say that that is a temporary thought that time and conscience will eventually erode. It is impossible rather that God does not exist.
"For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they would be without excuse."
If anything exists then something has to have always existed.
And that One must have a will which willed all other things besides His eternal self, to come into existence.
I think there is a difference between saying "There is no divine deterrence." and "I will not be deterred." I take your attitude as the latter saying.
Originally posted by @sonshipI read what you wrote twice. I think it's addressing a question that I didn't ask. Please have another go. Please answer the question I asked.
Disbelieving in God's existence is at best a temporary condition.
It is impossible to extend disbelief in God being, forever.
I quoted someone already - "No lie can live forever."
I am talking here about the very basics of God being.
I am not extending [b]Romans 1:10 below over hundreds of lesser doctrinal points.
But to the basic ...[text shortened]... ne deterrence." and "I will not be deterred." I take your attitude as the latter saying.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by @fmf
I read what you wrote twice. I think it's addressing a question that I didn't ask. Please have another go. Please answer the question I asked.
I think there is a difference between saying "There is no divine deterrence." and "I will not be deterred." I take your attitude as the latter saying.
That's your answer. The question is minus the loaded part which premise I reject, that there is no evidence of God's existence. Evidence is not persuasion.
What "deterrence" effect can something possibly have on people who don't believe that the thing/deterrent ....
Originally posted by @sonship[b] I think there is a difference between saying "There is no divine deterrence." and "I will not be deterred." I take your attitude as the latter saying.
That's your answer. The question is minus the loaded part which premise I reject, that there is no evidence of God's existence. Evidence is not persuasion.
What "det ...[text shortened]... t can something possibly have on people who don't believe that the thing/deterrent ....[/b]You still have not answered my question which is about the supposed deterrence effect of a threat against someone who does not believe in the existence of that threat.
Originally posted by @fmfsonship, I'll try again. It's interesting that you always dodge this question and have been doing so for almost 10 years. What "deterrence" effect can something possibly have on people who don't believe that the thing/deterrent you're describing exists and to whom you can provide no evidence that it exists?
What "deterrence" effect can something possibly have on people who don't believe that the thing/deterrent you're describing exists and to whom you can provide no evidence that it exists?
Did Dasa's 'threats' about you being reincarnated as a cockroach have any deterrent effect on you (in terms of his urgings that you adopt his religious beliefs or face the supposed consequences)?
The concept of a god terrorising and threatening the beings he has made and loves with a fate so unbelievably horrible, so that they will somehow be attracted to him and love him back, is either:
a) tyrannical and infinitely worse than the worst horrors of ISIS, or
b) the ludicrous imaginations of the Pharisee mindset, and deeply flawed in its construct.
1 edit
Originally posted by @velnsThe concept of a God whose kingdom is pure love, who is Holy, who can forgive the
The concept of a god terrorising and threatening the beings he has made and loves with a fate so unbelievably horrible, so that they will somehow be attracted to him and love him back, is either:
a) tyrannical and infinitely worse than the worst horrors of ISIS, or
b) the ludicrous imaginations of the Pharisee mindset, and deeply flawed in its construct.
sinner through Jesus Christ blood is what is being presented.
The notion that people who actually are terrorizing others, being hating to one another,
murdering, raping, having lust, lying, stealing, cheating, being unthankful, belittling God
and man, rejecting God as King of Kings, and so on would think themselves worthy of God
and His Kingdom in their own righteousness as if God owes them regardless is
unbelievable. Not to mention that they will escape the justice of God for the things they
have done in this life.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI love you, but if you don’t love me back I will burn you alive forever.
The concept of a God whose kingdom is pure love, who is Holy, who can forgive the
sinner through Jesus Christ blood is what is being presented.
The notion that people who actually are terrorizing others, being hating to one another,
murdering, raping, having lust, lying, stealing, cheating, being unthankful, belittling God
and man, rejecting God as K ...[text shortened]... to mention that they will escape the justice of God for the things they
have done in this life.
This is the essence of it.