SoL@R : No questions are daft questions!

Since I've done the whole online debate/discussion, this is the biggest problem I see. Christians cling to the bible, but only follow the last 27 books. Its not true. I wanted to post in an area where non-Christians read to either spark debate or inform the audience.

The last sentence is "However, those that even lack all 3 of these still are resurrected". And yes, you are still given a resurrected body even if there is no relationship with God. The resurrection is before the separation of goats and lambs. Lambs get glorified bodies. I assume goats do not, but it actually doesn't say that anywhere. My main reference would come from 1 Cor. 15. Specifically, verse 22 is where you'll get most definitely that "All are made alive". However, while the non-Christians will get a resurrected body, it does not mean they are saved by any regard. The bare minimum is a relationship, but to those without he will say, "I do not know you".

When I say, "...the end will come when the Christians all die out", I mean any Christian left alive is so corrupted by the world that they can no longer teach the faith AND that any means to get to the truth has been destroyed. Until then, there is still an opportunity to have more saved, and the end times will not come. So, yes, when Christians become extinct and will never be ever again. Then it happens.

However, there is no rapture. In fact, I would advise you to completely abandon everything you've been taught on the book of Revelation. Its not a timeline. Not even close. Numbers in Hebrew are not always quantitative. Seven means complete, rest, special. 144,000 is 12x12x1000; 12 is power, importance, and complete, 1000 is a general estimate of  "a bunch". Jesus isn't going to come out of the sky with a sword in his mouth. That would, at the minimum, hurt him tremendously. He is the Word, and so his tongue is described as a weapon. Hell has no fire or brimstone, its just a place that is no fun to be in. Chapters 1-13 have already happened. Again, I completely deny any truth to a rapture theology.

Legally, until the child is 18 or has become an emancipated minor, he/she cannot even legally own property. There, it is never the child's cell phone, even if bought with his/her "own money" or even if gifted to them.

Even if we ignore all governmental laws, the parents still have a right. The parents are to instruct the child how to live life. Punishments for poor behavior is not only allowable but a good deed of the parent to the child. I know I'm thankful for my spankings and timeouts when I was a kid.

I completely deny any sort of truth to Rapture Theology. Rapture theology was never taught by anyone until the 1800s, and all the sudden now Revelation is not the most talked about book. A lot of Revelation has already happened (mainly chapters 1-13). The rest is imagery where some may be metaphorical and some may be literal, but there is absolutely no way to know. The whole things could be a parable. We have no idea until it happens. Instead, lets just love our God and love his children.

However, I would love to clear up one thing. The number "666" is not an evil number. It is not Satan's number. John tells us it is a human number in the verse. In Hebrew, the letters are also numbers. So, a=1, b=2, c=3, etc.. In this, the Jews use numerology. David, when spelled in Hebrew and added together, equals 14. This, actually, is what John is referencing when he says, "he who can calculate the number"; They have to know the system. Nero, in Hebrew, when multiplied, is 666. However, there are other manuscripts of Revelation that have 616, not the standard 666. Nero, in Aramaic, using the same system, is 616.

Emperor Nero is the beast of the earth.

"You can believe in something but that doesn't necessarily make it real"

What scientific study says this? It's true, no doubt, but this conclusion isn't reached by modern science. Even if there were a study to try and prove this, it's conclusion could, technically, could just be altered by what those scientists believed.

Some things need philosophy, not modern science.

Eirinn : Awww.... I love you too! =)

I hate the phrase. A lot. Technically, yes, but only because he chose us before the foundation of the world. We were saved the moment we existed because God loved us first. That caused our salvation. Once we were saved, we were always saved. However, the way people act doesn't mean they are saved. Also, we shouldn't really be concerned with guarantees of our salvation. We have baptism and Christ's body and blood to confirm it. We don't need some doctrine of "OSAS", especially since we cannot judge the hearts of those around us. Most of the time we don't even know our self. Here's the rule: love God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. Don't worry about it further.

ender44 : Then you're not Christian. And, if you take your view and add Christianity, you'll actually end with mine. In Christianity, you get a body again. If God has the power to poof matter into existence, surely he can re-assemble a body.

Eirinn : Yes, I believe in a heaven and a hell. However, just to specify, while the goats go to hell, Christians do not go to heaven. Heaven comes to us. New Jerusalem will descend. We'll have immortal physical bodies, and God will dwell with us on Earth rather than we dwell with God in heaven. Heaven still exists through this whole time though.

Edit: @eirinn, think garden of eden, rebuilt. God was with Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve weren't spirit beings in heaven with God.

What scientific data says the only way to truth is science?

I talked with some rabbis who were working at Jerusalem College for Hebrew Education for about 2 years. There were guys that claimed to be the Messiah before and after Jesus. They're all included in Jewish Oral Law (Talmud). However, if you'll notice, the teachings and actions of Jesus do not resemble the other "messiah's". All of the others either wanted the abolishment of the Mosaic covenant or they wanted to have a civil war with Rome (currently being occupied). These guys didn't actually fulfill the requirements for being a Messiah. Some weren't even of the tribe of Judah.

What makes Jesus' story more credible to me is the explosion of believer within 60 years. Christians went from non-existent to, according to Tacitus, the evil doers that burned down Rome, the ones that make Rome weak, and they should all be destroyed. Seems like they became a problem to the Romans leaders very quickly. The only reason for an explosion of something so radical and instantly persecuted would be because of eyewitnesses. Making it up doesn't really get past persecution. The reason I don't trust the Mormon church is the complications at their start. There was not an explosion, but a few guys out of Illinois. Then, because of illegal activities (not a "give to Caesar" situation...) they were kicked out. Now they are larger, but there was no explosion. Their witnesses of the golden plates all denied it later at some point in their lives, on record. Cowdery is the exception, but he said he only saw those plates with his "spiritual eyes" (also on record). The people of Jesus' day, if they heard such rumors, would not have grew. There were no rumors like this; there couldn't have been, they wouldn't have reacted in the way that history shows.

While kind of a morbid subject, this is one that is still good to talk about every once in a while. I wish to speak on everything that happens after one's personal death. Over history, there has been a development of different views which I will objectively present before stating my own thoughts. I'd love for you to comment which one you think is true and why.

The earliest starts with the Jewish concept of "Sheol". The ancient Jews were never revealed an afterlife until Ezekiel (chapter 37, if you wanna look it up). This means Moses knew nothing of a resurrection or anything of the like. However, they did think they would go to "Sheol", literally meaning "the grave". This is not a spiritual place, this is literally the tomb/burial chamber/whatever they put you in. Isaiah mentions "Gehenna", which is the trash heap outside Jerusalem where the Canaanites used to perform child sacrifice to Molek. This is where the bad go after death. This, while a physical place in name, is not simply a physical place. Gehenna is a place of suffering. The last mention of an after-death state is in Ecclesiastes, where it mentions the meaninglessness of various things because, at death, those do not come with us. Ezekiel revealed an afterlife, but did not reveal some place that the soul goes to upon death. This vision was simply a promise of bodily resurrection at the end times. Tiny tid-bit of cool info: the biblical Pharisees did believe in a resurrection, but the Sadducee did not.

As we enter into the Christian era, we have 3 different main views that emerge. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the most common belief was Purgatory. In a purgatorial system, while all sins are forgiven, penance is still necessary. Purgatory provides the ability to do penance after death by "suffering" temporarily for sins. After the sins have been, in a sense, "burned out of you", you go to heaven with the other saints. Some Christians that suffer lots during their life here or by other means make up for their sins may go straight to heaven and skip Purgatory all together. This is the system currently used by both the Roman Catholic and entertained by some in the Eastern Orthodox church.

The majority of Protestants believe in a straight shot to heaven. Once dead, heavenward you go, where you have no body and live happy getting all the stuff you want. Heaven is the place of happiness and communion with God. Anything necessary for one's own happiness is there, including family, pets, cheesecake, or whatever they need. They also have the ability to watch the people on earth. I know no biblical reference for this, nor a set point in time where it most evidently emerges.

Another, less common but notable view is of a 5 part reality (and everyone should know this has multiple variation, depending on the pastor. I am also not as well versed on this concept as the others). The five, in order of worst-to-best, goes as follows: Hell, Prison, Earth, Paradise, and Heaven. Using the Greek words of the NT, the system words as so: Hell is currently unoccupied, but a bad place to be. Prison and Paradise are the same place, but they are "different states of minds". Therefore, the thief on the cross could be in paradise with Jesus while Jesus had "descended into Hades (prison)". Heaven is where the Father has his throne, accompanied by the angels. This, to my experience, has always been tied up in rapture theology, and at the end, everyone will end up in Heaven or Hell.

Then we come to my thoughts. The concept is called soul sleep, and while has the necessary theological supports, I argue for using philosophy. A person goes into surgery. She waits 45 minutes before getting in the chair and prepped. It feels like 45 minutes. The prepping takes another 30 minutes. It feels like 30 minutes. She is given anesthesia and is worked on for 3 hours. It feels like 3 seconds. The anesthesia has affected her ability to perceive the passage of time. This would lead me to believe time is physical. Even more so, theory of relativity also says time is a physical component of the universe and has multiple examples of time being affected by speed and the like. So, if we conclude time is a physical thing, when we lose our physical body at death, can our immaterial soul still perceive time? No. Anesthesia proves it. The soul does not comprehend time. Therefore, when we die, we aren't going to feel the passage of time. Basically, we will "sleep" until we wake up at resurrection.

Note: There are some people who think they agree with me but actually don't. Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Advents think that the soul only "sleeps" because it no longer exists. That is not the case. The soul doesn't just magically disappear. The atoms that made the body are still around, they just aren't in a functioning body any more. I do not preach annihilationism.

Thank you for reading my extremely long post! State your belief, state why my belief is wrong, state why I should be the next pope, and, most importantly, correct any mistakes I may have made.

This is just N. Korea's style. They want to make as big of a scene as possible because they think they'll get more stuff. We give them food because their people starve. They have gotten into the habit of demanding more from us. Finally we're imposing more sanctions on them for being buttholes. We can't stop giving them food, but I would love a full on blockade, not allowing anything in but food. Problem is the 1.3 billion people next door who, until recently, blocked a lot of sanction stuff.

Anything to make the N. Korean aristocrats feel uncomfortable is a good thing. Luxury items was a step, but I would like to see more restrictions on that upper class that is constantly causing problems.

It escapes me why anyone would question this being in a debate forum subtitled with religion.

In some situations, when the guy comes in crazy, a bystander is carrying a gun and kills him before he does even more damage than he could have potentially dealt. Crime goes down whenever the potential offender has a fear of having a gun turned on them. Guns may cause harm, but they are only tools that people use. I'd rather everyone own and be trained on how to use a gun. Who would mug someone? Who would rob a store? Violent crime would be met with great opposition by those actually being preyed on.

Serious example, if Rome had violent crime, do you think it would be smart for them to ban swords? Or maybe the sword can only be so large, and can't be made of material that makes it extremely sharp. That's ridiculous.

All Christian holidays are focused on Jesus, whether it be his birth or his resurrection or his time in the desert or whatever. Christians eat meat and dairy together. Christians worship on the day after the Sabbath and do work on the Sabbath. All of these are against the rules of traditional/Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and all of these are commanded in the Old Testament (OT). However, Christians are not abandoning the inspiration of the text nor their holiness. The OT is kept for a reason.

If we go chronologically, we'll note that before any laws against murder are given, Cain is punished for it. Cain broke no law, not of the government (because there was no government) nor one that God gave. Murder is naturally known of people to be wrong. In fact, according to the Garden of Eden story, all people know right and wrong for everything. So, if we know right and wrong, why does God have to give us specific commands? Well, basically, because we're really bad at keeping it. The first law God gives is "don't eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" to Adam and Eve. The next person to receive laws is Noah in Chapter 9. The Jews call these the "Noahide" laws. Verses1-17 are the set up of a covenant (agreement, literally means "to cut"). Humans are to fill the earth and "not eat flesh with it's life". Basically, the animal must be dead before we can eat it. Common sense, right? What happens through the rest of the OT is establishments of covenants with God and people.

The next covenant established is with Abram (renamed Abraham during this giving of the covenant). He has no restrictions on his covenant. He is promised a son (Isaac) and land (Israel/Palestine) and given no restrictions within it. That same covenant continues through Isaac into Jacob, then from Jacob into his sons. This is why even Christians will use the phrase, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".

The Mosaic covenant, the one with Moses, has many restrictions. These are the rules for the Jews and what the majority of the misunderstandings come from. If the Jews keep the covenant, God will bless them. This is not made with any Gentiles (Non-Jews). No gentile ever has to follow these. In fact, some of the rabbis I've spoken with look upon Gentiles who try to keep kosher as disdain. However, this still is an issue with Christianity because:

1) There are Jewish Christians
2) Christians claim to be "God's people" like the Jews do

There is another covenant in between, but I will be skipping to David. Samuel was a prophet soon after the nation of Israel was formally set up. One of the tasks he is more known for is picking a new king. The current king was Saul, and, well, lets just say he was bad at his job. David was the one to take his place, not Saul's sons. David, too, received a covenant with God (2 Sam. 7:4-17). His, too, was unconditional. He would have a "house forever" and out of this house will come the messiah (verse 16). However, Solomon (the son) does not have the same covenant. He must follow the commands (verse 14). And, lo and behold, he didn't. (1 Kings 11:11). Solomon does not get the messiah covenant passed on. Instead, it was given to a "servant". In this case, Nathan (not the prophet!).

The Mosaic covenant is still kicking and this is how the Jews operate for a long time.

When Jesus was born... nothing changed. The covenant was still there. Although the Messiah has been born, that means nothing.

When he started teaching though... nothing changed. He preached exactly what the rules were. There were a few fights about working on the Sabbath (his disciples picked grain to eat, he healed people, he didn't wash his hands, etc.) but either these are "oral law" (not mosaic law, but a guide to help you not even get close to breaking a mosaic law) or cleanliness law (which isn't a sin, it just means you can't sacrifice). None of these are ultimately problems.

While Jesus is on the cross though... still nothing.

After Jesus died.... Nothing.

Resurrection? Yes! There we have it. What this did is fulfill the Mosaic covenant. The covenant of Moses was not given just because God felt like imposing restrictions; it was given because someone had to do exactly what Christ did. Paul explains it best: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:21-22). The mosaic covenant purified and forgave, but both the forgiveness and the cleanliness were temporary. Once you got sick, ate shellfish, touched a dead body, had your period, or shook hands with a girl on her period, it was over. Extremely temporary, and I promise you, there would rarely be a week you'd go without breaking one of the 613 laws set up. What was necessary was actually a similar structure. Instead of washing hands, we wash our hearts. Instead of resting on the Sabbath, we rest every day in the Lord. Instead of sprinkling blood on the forehead in the name of God before entering the holy of holies, we are sprinkled with water in the name of God before death/going to heaven. As for the sacrifice: instead of a lamb every week, an infinite sacrifice undid the effect of sin placed on us in Genesis 3.

The sacrifice made us redeemed and made the mosaic covenant obsolete and set of the covenant of Christianity. This includes baptism, communion, and a relationship with God. However, those that even lack all 3 of these still are resurrected. Christ's sacrifice undoes the consequence of death in the garden. However, since there is no relationship with God, the choice of death will befall again. Those whom God loves and who love God will not die. Life literally resides within them.

Christians live in the final covenant with God. The next steps of time will take place as soon as no more Christians can ever come into the world. Basically, the end will come when the Christians all die out. This is when Christ will judge lambs from goats, and they will not live with one another.

I don't even read the books assigned for class... I'm such a bad student...

There was this one teacher in 9th grade that was totally hot. Health teacher. Taught volleyball. She was like 27. It was wonderful. Never paid more attention in a class before.

janus : With that presupposition, I would have to prove to you a physical God existent from eternity. God is not physical, so because of your limitations on my means of proofs, I cannot do as you ask. The whole "God must be physical" is probably why you don't believe in him (my guess, correct me if I'm wrong). There is more than just the physical, and that I can prove with physicality.

I'm going to use 2 examples, both on the small side.

I wish to look at a proton. Not smaller than an electron, but still pretty small on anyone's scale. This proton, like all others, has a positive charge and a weight of 1.67x10^^-27. Then comes along a second proton. It has the same charge and weight. As does the third. And the fourth. And, in fact, all the protons. This actually shows us two different ways to get to immaterials. The first, most difficult to understand, is in the protons. All the protons have the same "arrangement". If a proton has a different weight or charge, it actually isn't a proton. The proton has this immaterial thing that is it's make-up. The weight is physical. The charge is physical. All it's other descriptions are physical. But an "arrangement" is not physical. The combination is what is innate to the proton. If one thing changes, it is no longer a proton. That was the hard one to understand, and I'm stealing from Plato. This easier one to understand I steal from Aquinas.

You know that the protons are all the same weight and charge. Have you observed all the protons? How do you know? They were only first observed in the 20th century. How do we know that all protons have the same qualities? We haven't looked at all of them. Further, how do we know that all water acts the same? Or iron? Or anything??? When we toss magnesium into water, it bubbles and hisses with a semi-violent reaction. How do we know that ALL magnesium/water reactions will act the same way? This is actually what David Hume (English Philosopher) proposed, and wanted to do away with science. But anyone in their right mind will just laugh at this and know that all protons have the same qualities and all magnesium reacts with all water. Its just obvious. But we don't have empirical (physical) data for it. We learn this through a limited experience. Yet, we have universal knowledge. This means that we received more than what was experienced physically. This means we understand "proton"ness and "water"ness, both of which you will not find empirical data for. Those are immaterials. More so, We receive these immaterials. We have an immaterial part to receive these. This part of us that receives immaterials I call a "soul".

Really when you think about it, we shouldn't have universal knowledge on particular experience. I have eaten wheat bread before. I know that eating wheat bread will not ever harm me. Those don't actually link. I've only experienced some wheat bread. What if the next time I eat wheat bread it sears my stomach lining and I die? Of course that isn't going to happen, but I have no data to say it wont. I'm assuming the future will act like the past. But I'm not just hoping that it does, there is a certainty within me that it will. I haven't experienced all of the future either. How do I know this? Universal knowledge does not make sense. Particular knowledge needs no soul or whatever, its just a collection of data. However, I'm making decisions off data that hasn't been collected. As do scientists and everyone else in the world.

play4fun: Aquinas didn't say the exact same thing, but it's in the same category of argument. This is what Aquinas said:

"Tertia via est sumpta ex possibili et necessario, quæ talis est. Invenimus enim in rebus quædam quæ sunt possibilia esse et non esse, cum quædam inveniantur generari et corrumpi, et per consequens possibilia esse et non esse. Impossibile est autem omnia quæ sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est. Si igitur omnia sunt possibilia non esse, aliquando nihil fuit in rebus. Sed si hoc est verum, etiam nunc nihil esset, quia quod non est, non incipit esse nisi per aliquid quod est; si igitur nihil fuit ens, impossibile fuit quod aliquid inciperet esse, et sic modo nihil esset, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo omnia entia sunt possibilia, sed oportet aliquid esse necessarium in rebus. Omne autem necessarium vel habet causam suæ necessitatis aliunde, vel non habet. Non est autem possibile quod procedatur in infinitum in necessariis quæ habent causam suæ necessitatis, sicut nec in causis efficientibus, ut probatum est. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquid quod sit per se necessarium, non habens causam necessitatis aliunde, sed quod est causa necessitatis aliis, quod omnes dic*** Deum."

This is what he said in English (Wikipedia Translation):

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

From my understanding of Latin, the translation looks very good.

I say treat it exactly the same as alcohol. This isn't important enough that the government needs to decide for the person. I have smoked before, and it wasn't a bad experience, but I still really don't understand the hype. Have it so kids can't use it; but let adults. Tax it heavily, of course, and only allow sell from licensed companies. All penalties of alcohol go to this one. No driving high, no getting high in public places, no selling to minors. Done and done.

I have a strange stance on minimum wage that corresponds with immigration. (This is from an American stance)

I don't think minimum wage should change at all. Leave it at where it is. An economy loves consistency anyway, so lets not throw curve balls. If we increase minimum wage, it will only cause inflation. I'm much more partial to tax increases/decreases than minimum wage increases. If we instead lower it, many people will be hurt by the drop in income and their expenses remaining constant. Just leave it as is. Inject money into and withhold money from the market and the side effects will be dramatically less.

However, any sort of minimum wage is bad for a small business. In a small business, the portion of people hired will be hired for the more menial (not derogatory) jobs. Clerks and or paper pushers or waiters or whatever. These guys are the ones getting paid minimum wage. If you raise minimum wage, you GREATLY increase the costs of a small business because the large majority of the people hired will receive a pay raise. Small business want to pay as little as possible for those jobs because, while necessary, they are the largest expense.

However, if we left it Laissez faire, those towards the bottom would hurt. I would love if we kept the minimum wage for citizens, but non-citizens have no minimum wage restrictions.

This would allow illegal immigrants to be legal, but have less benefits until they become citizens. It would be helpful to small business because they pay whatever is the market's natural value. Also, this may lower immigration. Currently, an illegal immigrant will be paid the $7.25, but now they may be paid $4.00 an hour. If more immigrants show up, the supply has increased and therefore the demand will decrease, lowering pay to $3.00 an hour. As the pay decreases, the option of immigrating looks less and less appealing. However, once here, receiving citizenship will allow all rights of citizens, including the higher pay.