Posted on 04/03/2010 9:50:37 AM PDT by betty boop
Review of Life After Death: The Evidence
by Stephen M. Barr
Life After Death: The Evidence
by Dinesh D’Souza
Regnery, 256 pages, $27.95
While much apologetic effort has been spent arguing for the existence of God, relatively little has been spent defending the reasonableness of belief in an afterlife and the resurrection of the body, despite the fact that these are among the hardest doctrines of biblical religion for many modern people to accept. D’Souza brings to the task his renowned forensic skills. (By all accounts, he has bested several of the top New Atheists in public debate.) He understands that persuasion is less a matter of proof and rigorous argument than of rendering ideas plausible and overcoming obstacles to belief.
One obstacle to belief in bodily resurrection is the difficulty of grasping that there could be places that are not located in the three-dimensional space we presently inhabit, or that there could be realms where our intuitions about time, space, and matter simply do not apply. D’Souza rightly points out that modern physics has broken the bounds of human imagination with ideas of other dimensions—and even other universes—and has required us to accept features of our own universe (at the subatomic level, for example.) that are entirely counterintuitive. He shows how blinkered, by contrast, is the thought of many who think themselves boldly modern, such as Bertrand Russell, who asserted that “all experience is likely to resemble the experience we know.” Another impediment to belief in life after death is our experience of the disorganization of thought as sleep approaches and the mental decline that often precedes death. While near-death experiences do not prove as much as D’Souza suggests in his interesting chapter on the subject, the discovery that many have a surge of intense and coherent experience near the very point of death does counteract to some extent the impression of death as mere dissolution.
D’Souza approaches his subject from many directions. In two chapters, he gives a very accessible account of recent thought on the mind-body problem and the reasons to reject materialism. In the chapter “Eternity and Cosmic Justice,” he bases an argument for an afterlife on our moral sense. Our recognition that this world is not what it objectively ought to be suggests not only that there is a cosmic purpose, but that this purpose is unfulfilled and unfulfillable within the confines of this world. Some of his philosophical arguments, however, are less happy. In particular, his use of Hume and Kant to undermine what he regards as the pretensions of science will provoke not only scientists, but all those who have a strongly “realist” epistemology. D’Souza can also be faulted for sometimes claiming to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated. Nevertheless, even those who find loose ends in his arguments will be rewarded with many fresh perspectives on the only question that really is of ultimate importance.
We all have eternal life....it is our free will choice on where we spend it.
WELL PUT.
MUCH AGREE
Certainly about OThuga-ism, Globalism, Communism, Socialism, etc.
Human invetion can go very, very wrong; without following God’s rules it always goes very wrong.
As you know ,the Church teaches free will of angels.
Without the free will of lucifer to rebel against God one would have to blame God for programming lucifer to sin,thus making God imperfect having both good and evil in him
The Church teaches the good angels freely follow God's will and are not forced.
Hope you had a Blessed Easter,dear brother?
Sure. Be nice to each other. Do no harm. Recognize that everyone is a citizen of this earth. Respect and consideration go a long way. We could have a world without fear or wars. It's a matter of choice. It's not that we can't make this world a paradise, we don't want to.
Man takes the responsibility for what happens after this. Christ comes to redeem him from the wreckage he creates
Was man's fall according to God's will or not? Are you sauggesting that God does not exercise control over things but is forced to "fix" things? It is a very unhappy God you are describing.
Christ comes to redeem him from the wreckage he creates. Man accepts or rejects the divine sacrifice. That's what Judgment Day is all about
If you do something right, you don't have to constantly fix it.
So, I'm really looking forward to seeing your plans for "a better human future."
What future? I am talking this life, here and now. That's what matters. If you are good in this life you won't have to worry about the next life or the Judgment Day. Yes, we can have a better world, if we choose to. Humans don't have to be inhuman. But they choose to be.
The same can be said about various ideas of what constitutes "heaven" or "paradise."
Whose God and which rules? The world will never agree on one God and one rule. If they did, they could just as easily agree on what's good for the world and follow that rule.
bb did say *seemingly*, indicating that that's what it appeared to her. She did not state it as absolute doctrine, or even claim that it was church doctrine, but that's what it seemed to her. More along the lines of an observation.
It is one that does have some Scriptural support, however....
Psalm 103: 19-22 The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.
20 Praise the LORD, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word.
21 Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will.
22 Praise the LORD, all his works everywhere in his dominion. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
Hebrews 1:14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
Daniel 10:12-14 12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."
What I gather happened is when Satan rebelled, the angels had a choice of whether they would follow him or not. One third did. My understanding is that they only got to choose once and it was then. After that their fate was irrevocably sealed. I can't recall where I heard that, but that's the gist of it.
For some reason, God chose not to offer salvation to angels.
Yes, of course. Discussion is only with people who pat each other on the back. But those with opposing opinions are 'arguing.'
This is the answer Jesus gave and it still applies today.
Matt 22:34 - 40 34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Funny yuou should mention this. betty boop keeps reminding me that God only made the world "good" and not perfect...
Hope you had a Blessed Easter, dear brother?
No complaints. And yours?
On the other hand, there are fallen angels and there are ‘elect’ angels. Were the elect once saved?
One distinction between humans and angels is that angels had everlasting life prior to being condemned, while humans have condemnation prior to having eternal life.
Because in order to refine our souls so that we will advance spiritually and be of greater use to God, we need to be challenged morally so that we learn to make good choices. Our faith in God is no good to Him if it is never tested. Nor are intentions or actions enough -- what really matters is what is in our secret hearts and minds when we do good or evil things -- are we doing good without expecting a payback, or just to make ourselves look good? Are we doing evil inadvertantly or rebelliously? Regardless of who we may think we are fooling, including ourselves, God reads hearts and knows the reality of our souls' progress.
Yes, and I asked her where is she getting that from. Is that not a fair question? Or are you going to answer for her?
She did not state it as absolute doctrine, or even claim that it was church doctrine, but that's what it seemed to her. More along the lines of an observation. It is one that does have some Scriptural support, however....Psalm 103: 19-22
betty boop is Catholic and Catholics undergo catechisis as part of becoming Catholic. Catechism answers all questions regarding what Catholics ought to believe and what the Church in her wisdom teaches. Catholics are not free to interpret scriputures privately or to make doctrinal statements that are not in line with the Church teaching.
That being said, the Psalm you quote from does not suggest 'unfailing' angelic obedience to God's will. It only mentions those who do obey his will. No 'programming' suggested here.
It may be appropriate to mention here that Judaism does differ from Catholic faith on this issue. Jews believe that angels have been created as obligate servants of God and are not free to disobey him. That's why Judaism rejects any notion of Satan being a 'fallen' angel, or fallen angels in general. In Judaism, ha satan is considered a loyal son of God, and Lucifer (a Latin creation from the Latin word for light) refers to the Babylonian morning star god.
It’s not that I only want to debate with backpatters; I just don’t like to debate or discuss with people who scorn the very idea of the existence of God.
For instance, I know someone near and dear to me who considers herself an agnostic. I respect her lack of belief, and she respects my belief. At the same time, we can discuss topics such as those here because there is mutual respect. I don’t see such respect from you, so I don’t want to discuss with you. It seems to me that you view responses from “the opposition” as chances to scorn and ridicule. I don’t want to try to convince anyone against their will, or present my understanding of theism to someone who scorns the existence of God.
People can not agree and be respectful, and carefully consider the differing viewpoints. To be honest, I don’t see that attitude from you.
And, BTW, there is only one Supreme God. He has many names, and is understood variously by the people of the world. The rules I refer to are the ones Thomas Jefferson referred to. The basics.
Well and beautifully said. We have to choose to take the path of love for God. Love is not love if there is no way to choose to not love.
I love that.
That could be a factor. It’s a very intriguing concept.
Since angels already had eternal life, it could be that’s what locked them into their sinful state.
After Adam and Eve sinned, they were driven out of the Garden and an angel was put near the tree of life to guard it so that they might not eat of it and live forever. That would condemn them to be forever stuck in an eternally sinful state because death would then escape them. The tree of life would work as it was designed to do. The best thing God could do for them was to deny them access to it and allow them to die.
They could then make the choice to repent BEFORE they died and get a fresh start because the bodies they had would die and they could get new sinless ones, ones that would allow them to always obey God as they chose on earth. They could eat of the Tree of Life after that and live forever in perfection.
Obviously having an immortal body somehow locks you into what ever state you are in, either sinful or sinless.
That doesn't answer my question, AW. My question has to do with the idea that God is in control and if he is in control then nothing in the world is against his will and a reason for him to dislike because everything is just the way he wants it. Otherwise he is not in control. If he is not in control then he is not sovereign.
So, you are suggetsing it's the body that makes us sin, not our will? Hmmm, then why would there be fallen angels? They have no bodies to sin with?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.