Define God

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
It’s not so cut and dried as you would have us believe, though.

According to Acts God saw to it that Jesus’ soul was not left in Hades, i.e. the abode of the dead. 1 Peter states that while in Hades he preached to the spirits there.

In Revelation it states that he was dead, but that now he is alive and holds the keys of death and Hades.
But he was, in fact, dead. Therefore, the sinner could not have been with him on that day.

As the word "dead" is used to translate the Greek "thanatos" i.e. the death of the body, the separation of the soul and the body; and also, as the word “Hades” is used, directly transliterated from the Greek, and oftentimes translated as “Hell” i.e. the abode of the dead, one thing is that he was dead, another is the assertion that the sinner could not have been with him on that day. You're making a leap of logic.

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your placement of a comma is self-serving. Other translators place commas after "I tell you", "I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
I hardly think the truth is self serving.

You’re mistaking your assertions with “the truth.”

Neologist wrote:

Many translators have the mistaken idea that the soul, or some part of the personality, survives death. I have presented ample evidence to the contrary and will continue to post it.

More precisely, many translators have ideas contrary to yours, which doesn’t make them “mistaken.” Merely, they’re not in agreement with yours.

Your claims of holding "the truth" and others' "mistaken ideas" are tantamount to Romeo saying you are not a true Christian.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini, quoting me, wrote:

"I'm no genius..One of my main reasons for posting here is to sharpen my understanding" (Neologist 21 Sep 013)[/i]

I've let this slide a few times, because it's not greatly important. But I was not talking about my understanding of the Bible. I was talking about my understanding of other points of view. I don't claim to understand more about the Bible than any of my brothers in the faith, but I sure understand more than you.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present era only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above).

I am incompetent to comment the physical interpretation at that level, but may I ask you s.th. about the math.

Quote:

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology

1. FLRW metric is one solution of the Einstein's field equations of general relativity. It is math solution and you don't know whether it is the only solution and whether it depicts and/or represents anything in the physical world. It might be for example simply some math solution without physical interpretation ... because to the imperfection of the math model.
2. FLRW claims homogenious, isotropic expansion and contracting of the universe, where the key word is 'and contracting' ... which means that the universe is not only expanding (with acceleration) ... but is some kind of a pulsar (contracting as well).
3. 'Homogenious' supposes 'of the same kind everywhere', and the key word here is 'everywhere' (throughout the universe) ... and this everywhere does not exclude the Earth, for example. Where can you observe the things you are talking about here down on the Earth? The homogeneous expansion for example.
4. Dark energy means 'unknown energy' ... in other words there must be some energy X here ... to fix the equations.

Quote:

valid on large scales

5. What does that 'valid on large scales' mean? Perhaps the claim is that the laws of physics ... and mathematics are scalable and might by valid with some scales ... and might be invalid with some other scales? What are we supposed to do now - maybe to put some fuzzy logic in the validation of the math and physical laws?
6. You are very good in changing the topic, but the main theme here was the Definition of God (not the physical models of the universe) ... and the point of divergence was at the CO2 math. Do you have the math of CO2 ... or we will continue changing the topics?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

Then he told them the consequence of their eating of the fruit would be death (Genesis 2:17)

Were there any rewards of consequences outside these pronouncements they most certainly would have deserved mention here.

Satan claimed God was lying in Genesis 3:4 "You positively will not die."

As far as the condition of the dead: There is ample evidence: When you are dead, you are dead:

Gen. 3:19: “In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Eccl. 9:5: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.”

Eccl. 9:10: “All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol"

Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.”

John 11:11-14: “‘Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.’ . . . Jesus said to them outspokenly: ‘Lazarus has died.’”

A side note on hellfire, Jeremiah recorded this quality of Jehovah regarding the false teaching: "And they have built the high places of To′pheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hin′nom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart." (Jeremiah 7:31)

Note that I have not mentioned the resurrection (Luke 14:14, John 5:29, Acts 24;15 ). Nor have I discussed those chosen for heavenly life.

3 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

Then he told them the consequence of their eating of the fruit would be death (Genesis 2:17)

Were there any rewards of consequences outside these pronouncements they most certainly would have deserved mention here.

Satan claimed God was lying in Genesis 3:4 "You positively will not die."

As far as the condition of the dead: There is ample evidence: When you are dead, you are dead:

Gen. 3:19: “In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Eccl. 9:5: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.”

Eccl. 9:10: “All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol"

Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.”

John 11:11-14: “‘Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.’ . . . Jesus said to them outspokenly: ‘Lazarus has died.’”

A side note on hellfire, Jeremiah recorded this quality of Jehovah regarding the false teaching: "And they have built the high places of To′pheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hin′nom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart." (Jeremiah 7:31)

Note that I have not mentioned the resurrection (Luke 14:14, John 5:29, Acts 24;15 ). Nor have I discussed those chosen for heavenly life.

You neglected to mention that "the fruit"...was the fruit of the "KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL", Neo.

Until they ate that fruit...they had no idea of the difference between good and evil.

Any reason you neglected to mention that?

1 Reply

@Herald,

No, you are wrong. What this expansion does is it refutes Einstein's theory of relativity. Rather than objects moving closer together, the expansion of space shows that they are moving apart. Do you really understand Einstein's theory?

Quote:

Direct Quote:
For much of the modern era, scientists followed Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton in believing the cosmos to be eternal and unchanging. But in 1917, when Albert Einstein applied his theory of relativity to space-time as a whole, his equations implied that the universe could not be static; it must be either expanding or contracting. This struck Einstein as grotesque, so he added to his theory a fiddle factor called the "cosmological constant" that eliminated the implication and held the universe still.

It was an ordained priest who took relativity to its logical conclusion. In 1927, Georges Lemaître of the University of Louvain in Belgium worked out an expanding model of the universe. Reasoning backward, he proposed that at some definite point in the past it must have originated from a primeval atom of infinitely concentrated energy. Two years later, Lemaître's model was confirmed by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, who had observed that the galaxies everywhere around us were receding. Both theory and empirical evidence pointed to the same verdict: The universe had an abrupt beginning in time.

Einstein overcame his metaphysical scruples about the big bang not long before his death in 1955, referring to his earlier attempt to dodge it by an ad hoc theoretical device as "the greatest blunder of my career."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You neglected to mention that "the fruit"...was the fruit of the "KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL", Neo.

Until they ate that fruit...they had no idea of the difference between good and evil.

Any reason you neglected to mention that?

Probably the main reason was this being a reply to Blue's seeming defense of the concept of life after death.

I know this is an important issue for you, Frank and I would not want to dismiss it lightly. But I wonder:
If God pronounced his works at the end of the 6th day "good" and all Adam and Eve ever knew was "good", what reason would they have to know what was not "good" unless to assert independence from God? As I've said before, the issue of independence from divine sovereignty became and still is the central issue in the universe.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You neglected to mention that "the fruit"...was the fruit of the "KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL", Neo.

Until they ate that fruit...they had no idea of the difference between good and evil.

Any reason you neglected to mention that?
Probably the main reason was this being a reply to Blue's seeming defense of the concept of life after death.

I know this is an important issue for you, Frank and I would not want to dismiss it lightly. But I wonder:
If God pronounced his works at the end of the 6th day "good" and all Adam and Eve ever knew was "good", what reason would they have to know what was not "good" unless to assert independence from God? As I've said before, the issue of independence from divine sovereignty became and still is the central issue in the universe.

First allow me to acknowledge that I treat the story as I would a religious myth or legend of Greece or Rome.

Having said that, however...how do we know from the story that they "knew" "good?"

We don't.

What we do know is that they did not know the difference between good and evil...and while that MAY presuppose that they had to know both "good" and "evil"...it MAY also mean that they did not know either "good" nor "evil."

The latter seems the more sensible for the myth, but the story is an absolute catastrophe as an object lesson of any sort...except that the god is arbitrary and capricious and is willing to punish for suspect reasons.

As for all that other speculation on your part...it seems to be here mostly as an attempt to justify the unjustifiable...the conduct of the god in this particular story.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

It seems to be a scientific fact that social groups living a more advanced life than that of a jungle clearing have a story. Which suggests it is a necessity for such a life.

Given that fact, which of the many stories that have been used in human history do you prefer?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It seems to be a scientific fact that social groups living a more advanced life than that of a jungle clearing have a story. Which suggests it is a necessity for such a life.

Given that fact, which of the many stories that have been used in human history do you prefer?

Spendius...I thought I made this clear. If you want to discuss movies or music or television with me...fine. I would love to do so.

If you want to discuss more serious matters with me...I want your assurance that you will treat me respectfully though the discussion.

Give me that assurance...and I will gladly discuss any subject with you.

2 Replies

Neologist said:

Quote:

@romeo - I don't claim to understand more about the Bible than any of my brothers in the faith, but I sure understand more than you

If you keep picking fights with me mate I'm glad to accomodate you.. Wink

For example you JW's let your kids die rather than have blood transfusions-
"I would answer yes to refusing a blood transfusion for myself or any of my dependents" (Neologist Aug 16 2006)
You've admitted before that you're sometimes wrong, so maybe you and your JW chums are wrong there too.. Wink

"When I'm wrong, I fess up to it" (Neologist 21 Sep 013)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...how do we know from the story that they "knew" "good?"

We don't.

Read it again, Frank: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

According to the story, everything was good. That sort of lets out anything that was not good. Just my opinion, Frank. Don't be upset if that's what it says.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
...how do we know from the story that they "knew" "good?"

We don't.
Read it again, Frank: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

According to the story, everything was good. That sort of lets out anything that was not good. Just my opinion, Frank. Don't be upset if that's what it says.

But the fact that the god said everything was "good" does not mean that Adam and Eve knew everything was "good."

Don't be upset if you actually have to think a bit, Neo.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

I, responding to Romeo, wrote:

I don't claim to understand more about the Bible than any of my brothers in the faith, but I sure understand more than you

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

If you keep picking fights with me mate I'm glad to accomodate you..
For example you JW's let your kids die rather than have blood transfusions-
"I would answer yes to refusing a blood transfusion for myself or any of my dependents" (Neologist Aug 16 2006)

If I, or if the rest of a2k continues pounding you, you may seek a transfusion for yourself. But, aside from the Biblical admonition, it would not be wise to expose yourself to the likelihood of pathogen transmission.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But the fact that the god said everything was "good" does not mean that Adam and Eve knew everything was "good."

Don't be upset if you actually have to think a bit, Neo.

I thought I had simply said they knew of nothing other than good. I don't know about you, Frank, but if Carole and I had our foxy young and healthy bodies again - in a "paradise of pleasure", as the term Garden of Eden may be translated. I think we would have been perfectly happy to have kept things as they were.

Especially if we were only a little bit smarter, as no doubt would have been the case.

2 Replies

@neologist,

For those of us who have enjoyed a pretty good life on this planet, which I might say are very few, my lifespan thus far has been rewarding - even as my body begins to fail me in many ways.

In my 'short' lifespan, I could never understand any god who claims to love humans, but is ready to destroy the world with a flood. Those simple contradictions don't need much intelligence or speculation to comprehend.

I've questioned the teachings of the church since I was a young teenager, and never looked back, and have been relatively happy as an atheist.

I know that when my time comes to leave this life, there will only be death and nothing more.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

For those of us who have enjoyed a pretty good life on this planet, which I might say are very few, my lifespan thus far has been rewarding - even as my body begins to fail me in many ways.

In my 'short' lifespan, I could never understand any god who claims to love humans, but is ready to destroy the world with a flood. Those simple contradictions don't need much intelligence or speculation to comprehend.

They would need an explanation, right? Would you listen to one? Or, are you content with the license of disbelief?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I know that when my time comes to leave this life, there will only be death and nothing more.

So we agree on something. But suppose you were to learn that God has promised a second chance at life for all those who never knew Him?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Give me that assurance...and I will gladly discuss any subject with you.

Go **** yourself. Anybody who posts this--

Quote:

Don't be upset if you actually have to think a bit, Neo.

deserves zero respect. And that sort of thing is a permanent blot in all posts where you have no answer which is usually the case because you are completely stupid.

I've never started flouncing around like a big girl's blouse appealing for respect.

And when did I say I wanted to discuss movies and suchlike tripe with you? That's a creature of your own devising for similar evasive purposes.

If you answered a few questions for a change instead of engaging in flim-flam evasions you might start earning some respect.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Spendius...I thought I made this clear. If you want to discuss movies or music or television with me...fine.

And that's a barefaced lie. Another thing you say you never do and you don't know how to stop yourself doing.

I never said I wanted to discuss movies or music or television with you. It was you who suggested discussing those things with me. When you were evading one of my simple questions.

But here we are with new viewers to the thread who haven't seen that exchange being lead by another of your lies to believe it was my idea. The silly sods having believed you in the quote above.

Well--they know better now.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But the fact that the god said everything was "good" does not mean that Adam and Eve knew everything was "good."

Don't be upset if you actually have to think a bit, Neo.
I thought I had simply said they knew of nothing other than good. I don't know about you, Frank, but if Carole and I had our foxy young and healthy bodies again - in a "paradise of pleasure", as the term Garden of Eden may be translated. I think we would have been perfectly happy to have kept things as they were.

Especially if we were only a little bit smarter, as no doubt would have been the case.

Bottom line, Neo: Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil. That is the point of the story. I obviously pains you to the point where you simply cannot acknowledge it.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know