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.
Oh, it does not. Man decides his own destiny because God gave him the ability to choose; God gave man the free will to choose.
You make my main point when you say that man decides his own destiny. If you say it is because God wanted it that way, then by necessity God has then delegated part of His sovereignty away, and man is the sovereign in this case. That is just definitional. Man decides and God makes it happen. God follows man, even if by His own choice (as you seem to say). I disagree and say that God never delegates away His sovereignty and He makes the choices concerning the destinies of all men.
God allowing man to choose does NOT make Him subservient to man or His creation.
YES, it certainly does, for that subject. I am not overreaching and saying it means God is subservient on everything. But if man decides his own destiny then by definition God is subservient to him on that issue. The claim that God wanted it that way changes nothing. If men decide then God does not decide. God goes with whatever men decide. That makes man the sovereign on this issue.
In the same way, I am the sovereign over my daughter's curfew because I decide when it will be. If I think she is old enough (or don't care) and say she can stay out as long as she wants, then I have delegated away my sovereignty on that issue, and my daughter then becomes the sovereign and I am just a follower. I may or may not decide to retain my sovereignty with regard to other issues, but as to curfew I have lowered myself to my daughter's wishes over any opinion I might have. I do not believe God ever does this.
God did everything in His power to give us the opportunity to come to Him, even to dying the death we should have to pay for the sins that we can't pay for.
If omnipotent God really did everything in His power then He is by definition a colossal failure, is He not? Doesn't the Bible tell us that narrow is the road to Heaven, implying that most will be lost? If this is really everything of God's power then it would be pathetic.
But the one thing He will not do is force anyone to accept Him who doesn't want to.
He never has to. How many Christians have you ever seen come kicking and screaming to faith? Me too, none. :) We say that by God's grace He makes it possible for His chosen to come to Him, and they WILL come to Him because His grace is so powerful and clear. At first I did not want God and I was blind. Then God changed my heart so that I could see the irresistible Truth. Then I wanted God. Is this order of events really so terrible sounding? :)
"Acts 17: 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'" ----- By your literalistic interpretation of Scripture then, this verse says that the whole world is saved since it says we are all God's children.
Nah, Paul is using a standard technique of assuming the other side's position for the sake of argument (the listeners thought they were believers) and then showing them wrong (he went into the resurrection story). In addition, it is likely here that Paul was not showing them that all are saved, since he is clear elsewhere that that is not so, but rather that all are without excuse. See:
And Paul is absolutely clear elsewhere that not all are God's children. See Romans 8:12-30; Galatians 3:1-9, 26-4:7; Romans 9:6-13. So, the great weight of evidence just from Paul would go strongly against the interpretation you suggest I might have for the passage in Acts.
No, everything in the Bible is correct. It is just that with certain interpretations of the many verses, the "odd verses" conflict and one is forced to choose which of God's word is correct and which is not (or not AS correct). This is true under the free will view. However, with a different interpretation of the many verses, the odd verses are in agreement and the Bible is completely internally consistent. That is the Reformed approach.
When Jesus, in the Gospels, says *whoever*, He didn’t really mean *whoever, whoever* but rather those whom He had already selected.
Yes, Jesus was not thinking of a random "whoever", God already knew the names of all of them because they had been chosen.
He just said *whoever* to give people the impression that they had a choice so that those who accepted Him thought they had a choice in following Him and those who rejected him were led to believe that they had a choice in not following Him.
Perhaps in part, but I doubt that was the main reason. More likely is that God's word, in this case the literal words of Christ, is used to bring people to faith (faith comes by hearing), so the intent was to use a tool to reach the unbelieving elect and bring them to faith. Jesus spoke in terms people could relate to, and people certainly experience coming to faith by their own free will. The irresistible grace the elect receive makes them eligible to receive the truth, but they still must receive it. Jesus' teachings accomplished that.
It’s then somehow part of God’s plan to mislead people into believing something about themselves that isn’t true and then blame them and punish them for something they had no control over.
No, there is no need to mislead here. When we accept Christ we choose and it is literally real to us. Did we literally make a decision? Yes, we literally did. Therefore, the free will impression is valid, even though it does not explain everything about how that decision came to be. It is "milk" and good enough for a start. Learning about the sovereignty of God and what happens behind the scenes usually comes later, during sanctification. That is the "meat".
And that’s your idea of justice?
I'm not entirely sure how justice fits in here, but I do think it is perfectly fair for God to save those He has chosen in the manner He does. I certainly have no complaints, and am unaware of any Reformer who does either. :) Instead of resenting God for not letting me make the most important decision of all, I am forever thankful to Him that it was He and not me. I could have blown it. :)
When and where did this happen?
Sometime after the sixth day of Creation. John refers to this status twice in 12:31 and 14:30.
That's the trouble. There isn't any. Nowhere in Scripture.
These are some of the standard passages used in support of irresistible grace:
FK: Exhortation is one of many tools God uses to sanctify us. As believers we sure do need to be reminded because that is the way we are built, but this is included with God's promises to His children. This would be part of the doctrine of POTS.
Hardly. What this means it that the sacrifice of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon one is insufficient by itself. If POTS requires the intervention of ordinary men, then where is the programmer God of the Reformers?
I am surprised that this seems controversial. God uses people as instruments to carry out His will. He also uses His word. He also does it directly. In any cases He causes His children to be reminded to follow His ways. That is really all there is to it. It has nothing to do with anything else Jesus or the Holy Spirit have done being insufficient for anything.
FK: I usually approach these things from the perspective that God never takes any chances when it comes to implementing His plan, so whatever it takes to guarantee a result (and there could be choices) is what happens.
Plan? God is the Alpha and Omega. He already has experienced everything that there is to experience within Time. God is portrayed in the Bible as trying over and over and over to get through to the Jews and failing, so that He wound up issuing God v. 2.0 to the Christians via the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Jesus said to go only to the Jews, yet Peter and Paul had the most success going to the Gentiles. Everything that we know of God does not indicate that He is a micromanager. Rather, He is a loving Father who desires all men to be saved.
I don't believe a correct reading of scriptures shows God ever failing at anything.
While God is the Alpha and Omega, He still executes His plan within time. Jesus did not die on the cross yesterday, and prophecy would be meaningless without the component of time.
If I am thinking of the correct story, Jesus said to go only to the Jews THE FIRST TIME. This was a practice session, a dry run, a dress rehearsal. It was not meant as a permanent rule, since Jesus already knew that the Gentiles were next on the list. First to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
I agree that "[e]verything that we know of God does not indicate that He is a micromanager". However, we are given many clues that He is in full control. ...... And I agree that He is a loving Father, but if He truly wanted all saved, and they are not, then He is a failure as a Father. Many human fathers feel like failures when their kids don't turn out right. How much more should an omnipotent God be and feel like a failure if those He wanted to succeed did not?
Yet, no indication that He caused it to happen.
When Jesus speaks it is with full authority, so when He says "X" happened so that "Y", He does NOT mean "Luckily "X" happened which fortunately allowed "Y". No, instead He means that He guaranteed "X" and the reason He made it happen was so that "Y".
John 17 has Jesus praying specifically for the Apostles that He is sending out on the Great Commission.
But verse 20 takes away that theory of exclusion:
There is no mention of permanent reprobate, there is only a special blessing for the new officials of His Church.
Clearly there is much more starting at verse 20, and by definition all reprobate are so permanently.
Biblical Jesus didn't. That faulty belief comes from St. Augustine. At least Jesus didn't think it would stop them from inheriting the Kingdom.
The ROC, as far as I know, teaches that God does not "count" their (unintentional) sin until the "age of reason" (7 years old). As far as I know, the ROC states that baptized children are saved in God's eyes, and as far as the unbaptized ones are concerned, the Church is silent (now that the Limbo has been all but discarded).
For a Biblical example look to 2 Sam. 6:6-7. There, poor Uzzah put his hand out to keep the ark from falling and was zapped dead on the spot
Yeah, but someone who stole it, or hid it survived...how convenient.
Where does it say that in the Bible?
I don't know. You are the one who stated that God deprives some people from the ability to obey him. Maybe you can tell us where that comes from. :)
It was Adam who deprived us of the ability to obey God, so why should his sin act as a shield for us to use in claiming we have not sinned? God isn't going to fall for that! :) Sin is sin and its wages is death
You can be held liable only for the transgressions you commit. Even the Bible says so. You don't inherit sin, but the propensity for it (deformed will), according to the understanding of the undivided Church of the first millennium, St. Augustine's teaching notwithstanding.
If "God's satisfaction does not depend on anything or anyone" (including Christ since you reject Christ crucified as satisfaction) then it must be said that the Christian God is not a just God.
No he is not a just God at all. His a merciful God who is willing to forgive and forget and pardon those who do not deserve pardon. He is even willing to humiliate himself by becoming human and endure suffering for the guilty so that they may be saved.
By definition justice demands satisfaction
That's human justices, not God's, at least not the Christian God's justice.
Sin is sin and its wages is death
Yes, but as a consequence and not as punishment. The way the Church looks at God is that he is the source of life; those who separate themselves from the source (through sin) will die. We walk away from him, not he form us.
If they [Mormons] do not have faith in the correct Christ, then Holy Spirit does not dwell within them.
I like that "the correct Christ!" And who determines what is the 'correct' Christ?
I agree that I can only claim to be one who is not being fooled and that I cannot prove it to you.
That's for sure. :) That and $6.50 might get you a cup of latte.
In addition, the Christian faith is the only one I can think of that involves a personal relationship with the Deity.
No, ancient Greeks also had very personal relationships with their gods. Some even had children with them! :) The Greek pagan religion and Christianity share one thing in common: human deity.
That's not by accident but by design. The Christianity we know is heavily hellenized. This was the only way that ancient Greeks were going to "buy into" the Jewish sect that was preached to them.
They would have no understanding for a human messiah of Judiasm since they didn't see a need for one. But a human god, just like one of their own, who would make them immortal, now that was a different story! :)
I know. And Ephesians says that grace is the gift of God; 2 Timothy is about God granting repentence (through grace); ditto Acts; ditto Acts; 2 Chronicles alludes to it; 1 Corinthians no mention; John places the reception of Jesus as a precursor to becoming sons of God and so on.
Not irresistible grace.
How many times does God express despair in the OT (and the New) over the failure of the Jews to fully accept him? Could it be failure? If not, then why the elaborate history of Judaism? Why not just send Jesus directly to Adam and Eve in the Garden and be done with it?
I agree that "[e]verything that we know of God does not indicate that He is a micromanager". However, we are given many clues that He is in full control. ...... And I agree that He is a loving Father, but if He truly wanted all saved, and they are not, then He is a failure as a Father. Many human fathers feel like failures when their kids don't turn out right. How much more should an omnipotent God be and feel like a failure if those He wanted to succeed did not?
Paul is fully on board with God wanting all to come to salvation. I don't quite get why the Reformed are not.
Nope. Foreknowledge versus predestination. Jesus knew everything that would unfold and simply had Scripture inspired to be written to reflect what would happen with Judas.
John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
Yes, as we do especially at Easter, we pray specifically for specific groups, one prayer at a time.
Clearly there is much more starting at verse 20, and by definition all reprobate are so permanently.
Not by either Gospel or Church definitions. Calvin clearly wrote another Gospel. There may be those predestined to Heaven (which I am not arguing right now), but there are clearly none predestined to hell. I can recall no NT verses which indicate this.
Hi Dr. E. Great to see you here! :)
Kosta: He is talking about the king of Tyre (verse 12).
He is talking about both. The literal Tyre was a type of satan. But look at the next verses:
Clearly the human Tyre was never in Eden or Heaven as a guardian. Plus, we know that cherubs are angels. Therefore this part can only refer to satan and not to a human.
Read just like a legal document ... a 'will' with names of some already predestined to inherit...
Excellent! It all fits together showing that the Book of Life was completed and finished before the foundations.
I saw my mother experience hallucinations throughout her last month going thru the dying process.
She was sitting on the edge of her bed and wanted to know if their were sirens going off because she could see the reflections of their lights in the room...there were no lights.
Another time she had taken all her belongings out of her stand and wrapped them together in a towel and tied them to a rod she found somewhere, like a hobo would carry over their shoulder. We were all surprised to find her with this by her bedside as well the nursing staff. She said she was going on a trip. Never determined where she got the rod for this.
A nurse took me aside later as these happenings and others occured saying that in her opinion the medications they had her on were responsible. That Dr.s sometimes do not understand or realize the affects on dying patients though they are told of such.
So of course we requested her medication be decreased and possibly changed....both were done and these episodes ceased completely and she was actually better all around...further she suffered no discomfort for having these decreased. We were able then to enjoy her and she us those final weeks.
Here are some helpful lists:
The Angelic Hierarchy
The Orders of the Celestial Hierarchy
According to Various Sources and Authorities
ST. AMBROSE
(in Apologia Prophet David, 5)
1. Serpahim
2. Cherubim
3. Dominations
4. Thrones
5. Principalities
6. Potentates
7. Virtues
8. Archangels
9. Angels
MASEKET AZILUT
1. Seraphim
2. Ofanim
3. Cherubim
4. Shinnanim
5. Tarshishim
6. Ishim
7. Hashmallim
8. Malakim
9. Bene Elohim
10. Arelim
ST. JEROME
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Powers
4. Dominions
5. Thrones
6. Archangels
7. Angels
GREGORY THE GREAT
(in Homilia)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominations
5. Principalities
6. Powers
7. Virtues
8. Archangels
9. Angels
DANTE
(The Divine Comedy)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominations
5. Virtues
6. Powers
7. Archangels
8. Principalities
9. Angels
PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS
(in Celestial Hierarchy)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominations
5. Virtues
6. Powers
7. Principalities
8. Archangels
9. Angels
CONSTITUTIONS OF
THE APOSTLES
(Clementine Liturgy of the Mass)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Aeons
4. Hosts
5. Powers
6. Authorities
7. Principalities
8. Thrones
9. Archangels
10. Angels
11. Dominions
BARRETT
(The Magnus)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominations
5. Powers
6. Virtues
7. Principalities
8. Archangels
9. Angels
10. Innocents
11. Martyrs
12. Convessors
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE
(in Etymologiarum)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherbuim
3. Powers
4. Principalities
5. Virtues
6. Dominations
7. Thrones
8. Archangels
9. Angels
MOSES MAIMONIDES
(in Mishne Torah)
1. Chaioth ha-Qadesh
2. Auphanim
3. Aralim
4. Chashmalim
5. Seraphim
6. Malachim
7. Elohim
8. Bene Elohim
9. Kerubim
10. Ishim
JOHN OF DAMASCUS
(De Fide Orthodoxa)
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominions
5. Powers
6. Authorities
7. Rulers
8. Archangels
9. Angels
THE ZOHAR
(Exodus 43a)
1. Malachim
2. Erelim
3. Seraphim
4. Hayyoth
5. Ophanim
6. Hamshalim
7. Elim
8. Elohim
9. Bene Elohim
10. Arelim
Here’s another good list of the angelic choir. (just for sharing)
THE NINE CHOIRS
The Building Blocks of Creation
Though there are many differentiating versions, the most commonly accepted model of the angelic heirarchy is the Throne of Glory model, as found in the Celestial Hierarchies of Dionysius, and the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas.
This model deals with the idea that God is the center of all creation, encompassing the universe as a whole. The nine ranks of angels are split into three triads, which radiate outward from God’s focal point at the center of all being.
THE HIGHEST TRIAD
Choir One: The Seraphim
Seraphs are accepted as the highest ranking angel in God’s service. They have several reported duties, prime among which is ceaselessly chanting “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth if full of His Glory”. The reason for this monotony is to perpetuate the song of creation, which reverberates love in His kingdom.
In appearance they are quite unsettling. The prophet Isaiah saw a Seraph, who was reported to have six wings - two covering the face, two covering the feet, and two used for flying. They earned the popular title of “fiery flying serpents of lightning”, who roar like lions when aroused. They are more equated with dragons or serpents, which may bring proof of Satan’s position as a Seraph when he was an angel in Heaven.
HERBREW ORIGINS:- ser (doctor, surgeon) rapha (higher being)
CHOIR TWO: THE CHERUBIM
Newcomers , the Cherubim have managed to find their place in the celestial heirarchy. This is because of a famous quote, stating that God stationed “East of Eden the Cherubim and the Ever Turning Sword to guard the way to the Tree of Life”.
Immortalized also by common dipiction found in Baroque ceilings, as I have stated earlier their image in historical lore is less than demure. Other reports state that a Cherub has four faces and four wings. As fearful as they may appear, the Cherubim are beings of great knowledge and wisdom. They are also known as God’s charioteers.
HERBREW ORIGINS:- kerub (one who intercedes)
CHOIR THREE: THRONES
In Jewish lore the Thrones are also known as the great wheels, or “many eyed ones”. While the Cherubim are God’s charioteers, the Thrones seem to be the chariots themselves.
Their appearance was initially explained only as “like buring coals of fire”. Later sightings proved them to be a fiery wheel with four faces. Such sightings have caught the eyes of UFO buffs, for they can closely mirror such sightings of flying saucers.
The Thrones are to express God’s Divine Will as constantly flowing waves of creativity. The ruling prince of the Thrones is said to be the angel Raphael, though is later found in the ranks of the Archangels.
HERBREW ORIGINS:- galgal (pupil of the eye) (alternate name of the Thrones - Galgallin)
THE MIDDLE TRIAD
CHOIR FOUR: DOMINATIONS
Described as Dominations, Dominions, Lords, or by the Hebrew “Hashmallim”. According to Dionysius, the Dominations regulate the duties of angels. Some say that they are channels of mercy within the second Heaven.
CHOIR FIVE: VIRTUES
Known as the Malakim, Dunamis, or the Tarshishim, these angels bestow blessings from God, usually in the form of miracles. They are associated with heroes, and are said to instill courage into the hearts of those who fight for good.
CHOIR six: POWERS
Also called the Dynamis, Potentiates and Authorities, they are said to be the first angels created by God. They are the spirit guides who assist those who have left the body and have lost their way in the astral plane. Perhaps a divine aide to misguided ghosts?
THE lower TRIAD
CHOIR SEVEN: Principalities
Princedoms are the protectors and regulators of earthly boundaries, as well as crown kings, emperors, and powerful rulers, if only in sublime ways. Later they were also reportedly charged with the preservation of religion, and were subsequently forced to take an objective veiw of the concepts of good and evil.
CHOIR eight: ARchangels
Archangels are a confusing breed. They encompass what has been referred to as “the magnificent seven”, yet these names are held in such high esteem that you would think they belonged in the highest rank (known as the Seraphim). Some beleive they do, whilst others maintain that their place is among the Archangels. Nevertheless, the Archangels are God’s messengers, who carry out His decrees. They are also His warriors, for it was the archangels who battled Satan’s uprising.
The “magnificent seven” include the following Archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Sariel, Uriel, Raziel, and Metatron.
CHOIR nine: Angels
Though used as a generalization for the species as a whole, an Angel is the simplest depiction and presence of God’s servant. They are messengers, emissaries, and mediators. They guard mankind from evil influences, and their sheer numbers are incombrehensible. The Talmud speaks of there being one thousand angels assigned to every one child born. Christian tradition, however, is uncharacteristic in their surprising leniency. They state that there are only two angels assigned to each man, woman, and child - one for the right hand, inspiring goodness, and one for the left, influencing him with evil.
NOTE: Some consider the Nephilim to be the one and only rank among the supposed Tenth Choir, though there is little to support this thought. The Nephilim are cross-breeds - half human and half angel.
The Nephilim - Grigori (The Watchers)
In Hebrew lore they were known as giants, the offspring of fallen angels (”the sons of God”) and the daughters of men. (Genesis 6). Apparently not a pleasant merging of species, the Nephilim - or Grigori, which means “one who watches” - created havoc upon the earth, going so far as eating people. Some say it was this attrocioty that urged God to create the flood that Noah saw out.
Information on the angelic hierarchies chart are from Gustav Davidson’s “A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels”, copyright 1967. The Free Press - A Divison of Macmillan, Inc.
This is a very recommended book.
In depth information found after was drawn from Malcom Godwin’s “Angels - An Endangered Species”, copyright 1990. Simon and Schuster Inc.
A great book covering both sides of the story, so to speak.
A hallucination is by definition an occurrence where our imagination and reality become indistinguishable. A person who hallucinates cannot know he or she is hallucinating. It's a dream state while being awake. Just as we are not aware that we are dreaming, we are not aware that we are a hallucinating.
Possibly some otherwise "normal" people are more prone to it than others, especially the elderly with compromised circulatory system, and often on a myriad of medications, but it seem also to be more prevalent in some personality types, just as susceptibility to hypnosis is.
That's why verification and objective testing is so important. Especially because people who are in the same "frame of mind" could very likely have similar hallucinations. The evidence for this can be found in what is described as "mass hallucinations."
This is very relevant when it comes to tales of "religious experience," and other psychosomatic phenomena, "spiritual awareness," and the like. Awareness of our hallucinogenic tendencies is the first step to avoiding the pitfall of forming our beliefs based on them, but holding on to verifiable, testable reality as our anchor lest we drift away into delusions.
It truly is amazing what the mind can do and where it can go or imagine apart from the reality of the moment. When you add medication to the equation and the difference in how an individuals mind might be affected, well it would seem many things could be imagined and seem quite real.
In his memoirs some 18 or so years later, he describes a horrifying scene which seems to have been 'burned' in his mind of a British paratrooper with a red beret (part of paratroop daily uniform) kneeling and taking aim with his rifle directly at this reporter. The moment was recorded by a nearby photographer unbeknownst to the reporter.
When his memoirs were published the photographer published his photograph which shows the British soldier wore a helmet as would be expected in a combat situation. After seeing the photograph which clearly shows that the solider did not have a red beret, the reporter's mind still refused to accept it as fact! When he thinks about it, he still 'sees' in his mind a British soldier wearing a red beret!
We must never trust our memory or "spiritual" experience as something we can bet our life on. Our visual field's blind spot is the source of hallucinatory experience every day; the nervous system simply "fills in" what the eye could not record in order, apparently, to "complete" the picture or "make sense" of it.
......”the reporter’s mind still refused to accept it as fact! When he thinks about it, he still ‘sees’ in his mind”.......
Yes, and I read an article on how witnesses see a crime or car accident, that the stories cover a broad range of how this is seen with many often “adding” information which simply wasn’t there and proven so, but they insist and believe what they saw.
Scripture does say we walk by faith...and that without seeing. I believe it is always wise to question these so called spiritual experiences...
My mother’s actual departure was very tramatic to observe and took me months to get beyond as I couldn’t understand how someone could be so still and seeming asleep and then go thru what I saw in her departure. I spoke with clergy and a surgeon friend to get a grasp of what was occuring then. Most interesting was what the surgeon had to say as he had seen people leave during operations etc.
What I am convinced of, from this experience with her and that of those I spoke with is it does appear there can be a clear defined moment when one leaves this world to go to the other side....some do not go quickly out and can resist the transition in such a way that it is quite obvious that whoever has come for them, and what they see that you cannot...well from the observers point of watching this along side of them you know you are witnessing that transition. There was time to buzz the nurse and phone my sister that mom was leaving....she heard me tell my mom to just let go and I would see her when I got there...as I watched my mothers body finally relax and she was gone.
Even to this day I do wonder about all I saw at those moments....it took a long time to understand and find peace with.
Biblical Jesus didn't. That faulty belief comes from St. Augustine. At least Jesus didn't think it would stop them from inheriting the Kingdom. The ROC, as far as I know, teaches that God does not "count" their (unintentional) sin until the "age of reason" (7 years old).
I'd have to disagree. Jesus backed the OT and while we are no longer under the Law because He fulfilled it, I cannot find where Jesus modified the OT principle in:
While I would agree that it cannot be absolutely certain what happens to children who die before reaching the age of accountability, where does Jesus indicate that any sin would "get a pass" when it comes to getting into Heaven?
I would also disagree with the ROC if her position is that when conceived we have the presumption of going to Heaven until the first accountable sin is physically committed. That would contradict many passages of scripture describing our condition as a result of Adam:
FK: If "God's satisfaction does not depend on anything or anyone" (including Christ since you reject Christ crucified as satisfaction) then it must be said that the Christian God is not a just God.
No he is not a just God at all. His a merciful God who is willing to forgive and forget and pardon those who do not deserve pardon. He is even willing to humiliate himself by becoming human and endure suffering for the guilty so that they may be saved.
The Bible tells us all about it:
FK: If they [Mormons] do not have faith in the correct Christ, then Holy Spirit does not dwell within them.
I like that "the correct Christ!" And who determines what is the 'correct' Christ?
The correct Christ is the one described extensively in the Holy Bible. For example, some who profess to be Christians believe that Christ was a created being. Since that is in stark contradiction to the Christ described in the Bible, their Christ is not the correct one. They believe in something else and wrongfully give it the name of Christ.
FK: In addition, the Christian faith is the only one I can think of that involves a personal relationship with the Deity.
No, ancient Greeks also had very personal relationships with their gods. Some even had children with them! :)
Well, you got me there. :)
I know. And Ephesians says that grace is the gift of God; 2 Timothy is about God granting repentance (through grace); ditto Acts; ditto Acts; 2 Chronicles alludes to it; 1 Corinthians no mention; John places the reception of Jesus as a precursor to becoming sons of God and so on. Not irresistible grace.
Yes it's irresistible grace, where is the contradiction? Where is the rule that says a gift cannot be irresistible? When your children are young, within the bounds of the law you have full sovereign authority over them. You can give the irresistible gift of an immunization shot to them for their own good, even if they do not want it. (They are not free to decline the gift and their objection does not alter the fact that it is indeed a gift.) How much more authority does God have over us to give us irresistible gifts since He IS the law?
How many times does God express despair in the OT (and the New) over the failure of the Jews to fully accept him? Could it be failure? If not, then why the elaborate history of Judaism?
It could not be God's failure, all was His plan all along since, presumably, Gentiles would have been forever excluded. I would think that one reason for the elaborate history of Judaism would be to sanctify future Christians through its teachings. Through the OT history we learn much of our God and His nature.
Why not just send Jesus directly to Adam and Eve in the Garden and be done with it?
We're not told directly, but we do know God wanted His children on earth to be His people, giving glory to Him here, and He wanted to be their God.
Paul is fully on board with God wanting all to come to salvation. I don't quite get why the Reformed are not.
You are probably referring to passages like 1 Tim. 2:3-4 (3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth..). We have no problem with this statement, but distinguish between what is sometimes called God's perfect will vs. His permissive will. It is analogous to God's inward vs. outward calling. God's perfect will is according to His nature and so we have verses like:
However, God's permissive will is in accordance with His plan so we have verses like:
So, when we talk about what God "wants" we have to be careful of the context in which we are speaking. There are many many Biblical questions such as "Did God want Jesus to die on the cross" that can be legitimately answered "Yes and no".
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.