Luke 12-13

[wolfpurplemoon]

So, you shouldn't fear someone who can 'merely' kill your body, because after that they can't do anything more to hurt you (that part's true). But you should fear the one with the power to throw you in to hell, after your death. As I've said before, no part of our concious mind can survive the death of our body, so it really is pointless to promise heaven or threaten hell to make people follow your religion.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Just a thought....how do you know for absolute certain that is true?

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

what is true? there is heaven or there is no heaven?

if I tell you there is an animal with 3 heads, 4 hands and 9 tails, you would want me to show and prove it. So when wolf talks about no heaven, why does he has to prove it? Is it not the one the affirms there is to prove it?

did anyone take any mansions in the heaven? is there any witness to one who went to heaven or hell besides "the biblical" jesus?

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

well, like paul says in his epistles, the scripture purposes, and it is written for people to believe. Did it says it is historical? 100% accuracy? I will not go into the discussion on the bible itself.

as to your feeling of the greater presence? me too. I feel that the god/father of jesus the God in the OT, YWHW is a tyrannical god with his killings for reasons as miniscule as a wrong fire, picking up sticks on sunday. Frankly how you feel does not make it real.

[shane jones (from livejournal.com)]

The point of the god of the OT being so "tyrannical" as you put it, was to prove that it was impossible for mankind to do anything to earn their way into heaven. There is no way for anyone to keep the law. By our standards, the punishment for breaking the law is rather harsh, but we are not judged by mans standards. We are judged by Gods standards which are perfect standards. Zero tolerance so to speak. However I do agree that our feelings do not make anything true. it doesn't matter what we feel. Something either is true or it isn't. I could very well believe that I have that 3 headed, 4 handed, 9 tailed animal hidden in my basement, but that doesn't make it true.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

Something either is true or it isn't

If you say something enough times, it becomes true.

What is true for you is not what is true for everyone.

If you're a parent, perhaps you'd know; when a child is afraid of the dark, afraid of the 3 headed, 4 handed, 9 tailed animal under their bed, nothing you say will make them believe otherwise. The monster is there for them, that is what they believe wholeheartedly. Now you, after years of experience, may say nothing is there, check under the bed, leave on a nightlight, etc. But what if you can't see it and the child can? Does that make it non-existent? Or just to you?

What if I could see a color no one else around me could? What if I chose to name it Kuala Lumpur and described it as a hazy red-green? What if science proved the color existed beyond normal human spectrum?

What is true for you is not true for anyone else, nor should it have to be.

Truth

[(Anonymous)]

Truth
n. pl. truths
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
Real truth is not subjective. The child can believe wholeheartedly that there is a monster under the bed, but that doesn't change the truth that there isn't a monster under the bed. There's a difference between truth and belief. You can believe something as hard and strong as you can, but that won't make it the truth. A truth is always true. Just a few hundred years ago, everyone believed the world was flat and that Sun circled the Earth. However, that didn't change the fact that the truth was that the Earth was a sphere and that the Earth orbited the Sun.

Marci

Re: Truth

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of the dictionary description. But let's break it down.

Conformity to fact or actuality. It is not a fact that heaven, hell, god, jesus, the bible, or any other part of the belief system is true. It's called a belief because there is no way to prove one way or another that it is actually true.

Here is where the black and white part of truth gets tricky, and why we need 'gray' areas of truth; if 99% of the population cannot see a certain color, but it exists, it is truth by conformity, not truth by fact or actuality. "You gotta see it to believe it" as the saying goes. But just because 99% of people cannot see this color, it doesn't mean it doesn't truly exist - only that this color is said not to exist via truth by conformity. And IF that color is shown to exist and becomes visible to the other 99%, then it becomes truth by fact or actuality.

god's laws are not truth by fact or actuality because they cannot be shown or proven to be true. They are truths by conformity to those who adhere to the belief system.

A truth is not always true; god's laws are an example of that. They are personal truths or conforming truths for those who believe/conform to them. Right now, we humans use science as a means of determining what is true and what isn't true. But science, unlike religion, changes constantly as it discovers new truths about the universe, so really, nothing is true. We'll always be exploring and advancing our knowledge, discovering new lifeforms like NASA did just last week, rewriting what was hesitantly described as "true... for the moment".

Re: Truth

[(Anonymous)]

Again, you're arguing between truth and belief. I believe that God's word is truth, you don't, and neither of us will find out 100% sure until we die. That is not to say that absolute truth does not exist. Yes science is changing, however, even scientists would say there were some truths. In science they are called laws, such as the law of gravity and the 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamics. By calling them a law, science says that they are always true and cannot be violated.

And it is not truth by conformity. If you read the definition it says that truth conforms to actuality or reality. That means that a truth must be actualor real. The people who cannot see the color believe that it doesn't exist. However, that doesn't change the truth that it does. Just because the people could suddenly see the color doesn't make it a truth by actuality. It was always true. We conform to what we believe is true, but truth never conforms to us.

Re: Truth

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

The people who cannot see the color believe that it doesn't exist. However, that doesn't change the truth that it does.

I don't believe god exists. He cannot be proven to be absolute truth, nor can his moral standards for human behavior. He is not gravity or thermodynamics; he does not control or manipulate anything around me, despite what Christians say. And until he is proven to be true, god is not real except to those who choose to believe that he is truth. Why push others to conform to a truth that is not a law of the universe, but a belief? Why make him out to be a fact of actuality when he is a fact of conformity? I really don't mind people believing whatever they wish, it's when they start trying to control institutions of government or wage wars against innocent people who don't believe equally that it grinds my gears. Conform to what you want. But don't start messing with actuality.

Here's (http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/) a good site that lists (most) of its scientific sources and is an easy read about the bible and why it's a farce. Perhaps it'll give you some perspective on where I'm coming from.

Re: Truth

[(Anonymous)]

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to force you to believe in God. No one can force belief on anyone else. The arguments I was stating had nothing to do with God or His truth. I was merely disagreeing with your statement that there is no absolute truth. Again, as I stated earlier, none of us will know the truth about God 100% until we die, but one way or another, one of our beliefs will be the truth, or possibly someone else's. But I really was not thinking about God or His standards when I posted my comments. I fully agree that this is my belief and that it cannot be scientifically proven. I was merely debating your wording and how you defined truth.

And I don't believe in judging those who don't believe what I do, nor do I believe that I can force them to behave the way I think a Christian should act. The only people I feel I should judge are those who say they believe what I believe and then act differently. That is, those who claim to be Christian and then go out and do something that is clearly not.(i.e. child molesting priests, adulterous pastors, abortion clinic bombers, etc.)

Marci

Re: Truth

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

And I don't believe in judging those who don't believe what I do, nor do I believe that I can force them to behave the way I think a Christian should act. The only people I feel I should judge are those who say they believe what I believe and then act differently. That is, those who claim to be Christian and then go out and do something that is clearly not.(i.e. child molesting priests, adulterous pastors, abortion clinic bombers, etc.)

And you have my respect for that. Thank you.

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

what is the christian value?

woman shut up in church?
treat your slaves peoperly?
do not be unequally yoke?
leave your family and follow jesus, let the old folks take care of themselves?
sell all your possessions and give to the poor?

WHAT is exactly your "supposedly" christian value? No gathering of twigs on sabbath?
Stone the adultress to death?
Like Noah or his daughters, committing incest?

Take your pick, christian values according to OT or NT.

[shane jones (from livejournal.com)]

Statement after statement, made without ANY understanding of the context in its completeness, only shows ignorance. I don't mean that as in insult, but unless you put all of those things into context and understand what is being said, maybe you shouldn't say anything at all.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's quite possible zen_says understands each of those in their original context; the fact he/she chooses to lump them together isn't an indicator of... well, anything. You don't HAVE to put each of those points (women in church, slave treatment, etc) "in context" to make a point.

Also, there is nothing more irritating than being told not to speak (or in the case of wolfpurplemoon, to stop reading the bible entirely). So far, we're all entitled to free speech - stop trying to police it because you don't like what's being said. Answer questions, discuss, debate - you'll look less like an asshole if you attempt these things with those who disagree with you than telling them to shutup.

Christian values

[(Anonymous)]

Paul told the women to be respectful and quiet in church. They had a problem in that particular church with a few women being very disruptive and also acting like they knew everything. Don't forget that at this time in history women were not educated. However, in many other passages, women are commended and held in high respect. Phoebe is called a deaconess by Paul. Women are considered joint (equal) heirs with Christ as well as men, something unheard of at that time.
Masters be just and fair to your slaves. With modern eyes, we look and say "How horrible to own slaves." And slavery is horrible. However, at this point in history slavery was common and accepted by all. Also, many of the new converts would already have owned slaves. And there really wasn't any concept of paid servants for your house or emancipation. The fact that Paul tells masters to treat their slaves well and that God would judge them on how they treated their slaves was a radical concept. But instead of Masters and slaves, these verses today could easily say Bosses treat your employees justly and fairly. I think you're getting hung upon it talking about slaves and missing the point of how it tells you to behave.

Don't be unequally yoked whether in marriage or business. This is just common sense. Do you really want to be married to or be in a business partnership with someone who doesn't believe in the same things you do or who has completely different values?
Leave your family and follow Jesus. Jesus wasn't saying not to take care of your parents. When Jesus was on the cross, one of the last things He did was ensure that His mother was taken care of. But, Jesus is saying that you need to put Him first. Additionally, the person Jesus said this too was not really concerned with taking care of his parents, he was just using them as an excuse not to follow Jesus.
Sell all your possessions and give to the poor. Not sure what your problem with this is. Helping the poor sounds like a pretty good thing to do to me.
Oh, and Noah didn't have daughters, he had sons. I think you may be thinking of Lot and his daughters, and this was not condoned in the OT. Incest was one of those things, like adultery that would get you stoned. And stoning the adulteress (and don't forget the man, he was included too)may seem harsh to us, but don't forget that these people were living agrarian lives where the strength and integrity of the family was essential for survival. Protecting at all costs was necessary for them.

But I think true Christian values can be summed up like this:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind," and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Marci

Re: Christian values

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

Paul told the women? except 1 woman phoebe is mentioned as deaconess, where is the respect of paul to woman. let's talk about it when we come to the epistles and discuss further.

jesus, paul and gang, they have the concept of masters/slaves, and this is non-deniable. You mentioned that it is culturally acceptable, so the bible is culturally biased or only certain parts as the christians deemed fit?

So the unequally yoked is just common sense and becomes God inspired forever etched into an everlasting book?

So did jesus practised double standards when he asked the followers to followers to leave their parents behind and follow him, whereas he make sure his old mother is taken care of by he "beloved" disciple? You leave the dead to bury the dead and let me take care of my old folks. Hallelujah haha

Did jesus qualify that only the rich must sell his possessions for treasures in heaven? He made a statement, pure and simple.

Christian Value: Love your God with all your heart and neighbours as yourself. What exactly does it mean? Still no picking up sticks on sabbath day?

Re: Christian values

[marci38.livejournal.com]

I will wait to discuss Paul until the epistles. However, I will use an example from the gospels. After the resurrection, Jesus told the women to go tell the disciples about what they had seen. He was making them witnesses that the disciples were to give credence to. The only thing is at that time in Jewish history, women could not be witnesses because they were not considered equals of men or independent of men. When Jesus made the women witnesses, He was making them the equal of His male followers.

Just because something is common sense does not mean it can't come from God. Many of the commands God gave were logical and full of common sense. For example, if a rat died on a blanket or piece of clothing, it was to be burnt(black death anyone?).

As I stated earlier, Jesus was not telling his disciples to abandon their families(in point of fact, most early christians were the ones who were abandoned and it still happens today, especially in the Middle East). He was telling His followers that He is to be first in their lives. Again, the man was using his family as an excuse to get out of the hard stuff, in all likelihood his parents were alive and well and needed no help.

Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give them to the poor. Jesus knew that this young man was putting his wealth before God. In a later passage we'll see a story of a rich man who put his wealth first and ignored the poor and what happened to him. This was not a blanket statement for all Christians. It dealt more with priorities and making God first in your life. However, Christians are told to help the poor and to give to whoever asks them. Unfortunately, many Christians do not follow Jesus' commands. Money is still #1 in many people's lives, and Christians aren't immune.

I'm not sure where you're not understanding love God and love your neighbor the way you love yourself. It sounds pretty self-explanatory to me. If you clarify what you don't understand, I'll try to answer. Also, it's more than just saying you love someone. Love requires action.

I like to study both sides of an argument and I try to be open minded which is one reason why I started reading this blog. Too many Christians condemn others without trying to learn anything about them and then wonder why people get upset.

Marci

Re: Christian values

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

when jesus told the girls to witness, he had got no choice, only the gals went to visit him early morning because none of his disciples believed him.

he even refered the gentile woman as "dog"? feed the children 1st and the dog eat the crumbs....

so much for being equal,,,,

[wolfpurplemoon]

If there were such things as human souls then why does brain damage cause people to lose the things you say will survive the death of your body? If there were souls then there'd be no dementia, a stroke wouldn't destroy a person's sense of self and indeed your body wouldn't be very important. But in fact there is no part of our sense of self that is in any way independent from the workings of our bodies and brains, our thoughts, memories and personalities are electrical firings between neurons and once those stop working then there is no more YOU.

And you know what? Your assertion that your body is only a vessel and not YOU sounds like a dangerous starting point that could lead to some awful things like suicide bombings.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

I'd never thought of human souls in that manner before. That's really cool!

[wolfpurplemoon]

Yeah, it's thought that sprung out of an article (or a blog - can't remember now!)I read that wondered whether our souls would go to heaven in the state they were in when we die so therefore all the souls of dementia and stroke victims would be mere shadows of their true selves. It's funny though, I've asked a couple of my commenters about this and I never seem to get any answers from them!

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

Haha, good luck trying to get those answers.

[zteccc.livejournal.com]

Chapter 12
The soul is a point of much discussion. It is loosely defined as the eternal will and consciousness of a person. Eternal because, in Christian belief, the soul never ceases to exist. Scripture supports this concept. When Elijah resurrected the widow's son (1 Kings 17:17-24) he asks God to let the child's soul (Hebrew nephesh) return to him. When Jesus is crucified, he tells a thief on another cross that they will be together in paradise (Luke 23:43). Revelation 6:9-10 has the souls of martyred saints as conscious and extant. These scriptures attest to the soul surviving death. Of course none of them carry the weight of the following examples:

Jesus resurrects a little girl (Luke 8:41-56). This was witnessed by many people. The event told of in the three gospels we've read so far describes a pressing crowd following Jesus. They didn't just turn away when he got to the home, they would have waited and seen the little girl resurrected who had been certified dead. There were his disciples, but also the girls parents, mourners, presumably even some who didn't follow Jesus and they all saw the girl live. Not only this, but it was the same girl, mentally and physically. If her consciousness, her will, her soul, wasn't eternal, then she wouldn't have been the same after being resurrected.

Jesus resurrects Lazarus (John 11:17-44). Certainly, if one thinks that the girl was perhaps just in a coma and not really dead, then we can consider Lazarus. He was dead and buried for 4 days. It is important to know that the Jews used to wrap the dead in linen and then coat the dead in spices, actually a paste made of water and spices and myrrh. The myrrh was sticky and would adhere the burial wrappings to the body, but would also seal off the air passages. It wasn't uncommon to use 75 pounds of spices, plus this sticky substance to coat the body. This encasement, including the linen, spices and myrrh would probably have been around 90 pounds of material on the dead person. If one were accidentally buried alive (e.g. in a coma), they would die within minutes because they wouldn't be able to breathe. Lazarus also had no water or food when buried. A person will typically die of dehydration in 2-3 days, so Lazarus buried for 4 days would have been truly dead. When Jesus resurrects him, he was the same person. There were many people there when Lazarus was resurrected and they saw it happen. The decomposition of the body for 4 days could have been reversed miraculously, but the soul returned as well making Lazarus the person that they remembered.

Finally Jesus resurrected himself. Literally hundreds of people saw Jesus after he was dead for three days.

If the soul weren't eternal, these things couldn't happen. Of course people simply deny the witnesses and say they didn't happen. That, of course, is anyone's right, but the apostles believed and went to their deaths believing.

Verses 6-7 God cares about you, don't fear.

Verses 15-21 Accumulation of material wealth is meaningless, we all die and the wealth isn't worth anything, we should instead focus on what is eternal (God, our souls, salvation).

Verses 35-40 Be prepared for the coming of God, you won't know when it will happen, so don't put off choosing to follow God.

Chapter 17
Verses 22-30 Jesus refers to the Narrow Door. Many people believe that there are many paths to Heaven. The Narrow Door suggests that this is not so. If there were other paths, people wouldn't have to crowd through the narrow door, but there is one path.

-- Jeff

Thought thru?

[(Anonymous)]

You say that this scripture is only half true. May I suggest that it is all truth or no truth. If there is a here after then why fear anyone who can kill the body. We keep on living. But, if this is it then we should fear anyone who can kill this body. Once this life is gone then we are no more. we need to fight to survive. It's like the movies where the computer comes to life and will fit to keep from being unplugged.

Re: Thought thru?

[wolfpurplemoon]

I meant that it's true that someone who kills you can't hurt you any more once you are dead, and you should definitely fight to survive as this is indeed the one life we have. The scripture says that we shouldn't fear someone who wants to kill us and that's wrong, so it is just part right I guess.