Thread: Life after death... by scripture

Lol
i agree w/this dancing buisness

All those dancing/flashing emotes are gonna give me a seizure.

Oh boy seizures!

"I want 2 be dental floss....& i want 2 be 2 balls of glue....2 BE MY FRIENDS!

.....& i want 2 go dancing NAKED!!!!

& i want a chair made out of cheese & i table made out of cheese!"

I hear ya!

Lezz go dance on the cheese tables! Naked!
Nothing but soft skin and cheese! (...kinky)



And, I love these blinking stuffs!

logik, if I was a mod I'd delete some of these senseless posts.... I'll ask someone to.

Anyway, I think I know what you mean by not having a memory of our, what you called "past life". If I understand correctly, I think a better term would have been "earthly life." I remember reading a passage somewhere (and for some reason I also can't recall it) where it mentions something about your memory of past sins being erased. I was confused on this for a while, but it would make sense that when we're in Heaven, to keep us from temptations or sadness our memory of our wrong-doings would be gone, but the memory of our triumphs and times of joy would still be available.

I agree with some people that the notion of an "afterlife" can't be proven because you'd have to be dead and then live again (which if that happened you'd probably be considered crazy... sound familiar?). I, however, believe that Heaven and Hell exist. Why? Because I believe in the infallable truths of the Bible. Again, this is my opinion and I won't force my beliefs on anyone unless they ask.

Evangel:

-Amé

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
I, however, believe that Heaven and Hell exist. Why? Because I believe in the infallable truths of the Bible.

Sigh.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

Here's a quick example of contradtion:

Rom. 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

VS.

Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers (2Chron.25:54) :every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (2 Kings 14:6)

Time for another?

Rom. 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

VS.

Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Originally posted by bradybaker
Here's a quick example of contradtion:

Rom. 5:12 \"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:\"

VS.

Deut. 24:16 \"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers (2Chron.25:54) :every man shall be put to death for his own sin.\" (2 Kings 14:6)

Time for another?

Rom. 3:10 \"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.\"

VS.

Gen. 6:9 \"Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.\"

Hmm...Romans is in the Greek Testament, is it not? Are there any contradictions within the Torah, the Pentateuch alone?

I checked the link you provided, and I didn't seem to find any. Unfortunately, however, some of the links were broken.

The Torah alone?

Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

VS.

Exod. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Gospel will keep the world going in circles forever fighting over interpretation.

I think if an external "God" exists, he's laughing pretty hard at us.

Originally posted by Awaken
Gospel will keep the world going in circles forever fighting over interpretation.

I think if an external \"God\" exists, he's laughing pretty hard at us.

Scripture is like a puzzle -- all the pieces in all of the boxes alone make no sense, you have to find how they fit and put them all together before you can see the big picture, or the whole elephant, if you prefer.

God cannot laugh for he is an entity of pure energy, an infinite orb that lies outside the multiverse (universe), and is technically no more sentient or sapient than a protazoa.

Originally posted by bradybaker
The Torah alone?

Num. 23:19 \"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.\"

VS.

Exod. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Is that all?

Well yes that's exactly what I understand God to be. The infinite energy of the Universe. Seems people fight over whether he has a beard or not. *shrug*

Ah, I see...



Well, to each their own I guess.

Isolated scriptures are always used to "demonstrate contradictions" yet all they do is demonstrate bad interpretational methods (i.e. reading them out of context). ANYOINE can take isolated phrases, passages, verses, etc. and impose meaning upon them, and create strawmen which are then torn down... The quoted verse in Romans 5 clearly states that ALL have sinned, so regardless of what "the fathers" did, all are still accountable for their own sin. If we're talking about the teaching of original sin, all your gripe is saying is that the leopard can't change his spots (which is true!). All Genesis says about Noah is that he was a good man. If you want to say that the english word "perfect" means perfect (we already know WITHOUT scripture that no one is "perfect" in an absolute sense) in the same sense that 1800 .BC. Hebrew meant perfect you would at least be hard-pressed.

Originally posted by Ramu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ramu)</div>

Is that all?[/b]

I dunno. Probably not. It's all that I had the time to find before tennis.

<!--QuoteBegin-evangel
Isolated scriptures are always used to \"demonstrate contradictions\" yet all they do is demonstrate bad interpretational methods (i.e. reading them out of context). ANYOINE can take isolated phrases, passages, verses, etc. and impose meaning upon them, and create strawmen which they proceed to tear down...

What is there to interpret? One passage says that all of humanity is to be punished for original sin, other passages say that no person is to be judged based on the sins of others. I don't care how you interpret that or what context you take it in. Those statements are in direct conflict with one another.

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Ah, I see...



Well, to each their own I guess.

The beard isn't long enough!!! God is gonna put a hit on your arse!!!

Originally posted by Awaken
The beard isn't long enough!!! God is gonna put a hit on your arse!!!

*Valley girl accent* Tch, well DUH...I said it wasn't to SCALE!

Well sheesh! God expects us to be perfect! You sinner!!!

edit: well at least MY God does, and MY God is the only correct one!

Infalliable truths of the bible?

1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.[/b]

The bablyonians did better 12 centuries beforehand. Pi doesnt == 3 in case you dont know maths.

You dont have to look for contradictions in the bible, a lot of them can be interpreted 1000 different ways after all. It's much easier just to look for stupid!

(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
(b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
© Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
(d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
(e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
(f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
[/b]

From the (awesome) site that brady linked to.

-spoon

Originally posted by bradybaker

What is there to interpret? One passage says that all of humanity is to be punished for original sin, other passages say that no person is to be judged based on the sins of others. I don't care how you interpret that or what context you take it in.

My point exactly. Not only do people isolate and apply their own interpretations, they also have no clue about good literary interpretational method. Furthermore, most of the usual "contradictions" pointed out have little if anything to do with core Theological truths, and are therfore, to me, not worth wasting time arguing about. When one uses "conventional wisdom" (which is not wisdom at all) such as science as the end-all source for authoritative or absolute truth comparison or standard, we cannot even see things on the level since you are basing all your arguments on the assumption that God does not exist.

Originally posted by evangel+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(evangel)</div>

we cannot even see things on the level since you are basing all your arguments on the assumption that God does not exist.[/b]

And you on the assumption that God does.

<!--QuoteBegin-evangel
Furthermore, most of the usual \"contradictions\" pointed out have little if anything to do with core Theological truths, and are therfore, to me, not worth wasting time arguing about.

Is scripture not said to be "the word of God"? If so, even the smallest contradiction calls the merit and validity of the entire text into question.

Argh, both science and spirituality are so finely intertwined that it won't solve anything to ignore one side or the other. It's just that when people start making stuff up about Jesus being the saviour, or the idea that we evolved from one-celled organisms (how did those evolve from nothing btw? Irreducible complexity??), and when each is dwelled upon exclusively, well, it's easy to see why people get offended.



Oh yeah and sorry if I offended anyone

Originally posted by evangel
My point exactly. Not only do people isolate and apply their own interpretations, they also have no clue about good literary interpretational method.

How is inerrancy in any way, shape or form a basis \"good literary interpretational method\"?

Furthermore, most of the usual \"contradictions\" pointed out have little if anything to do with core Theological truths, and are therfore, to me, not worth wasting time arguing about[/b]

Besides what brady said (it's all true or it's all suspect), there's also the large amount of problems with the passion narrative. I dont know, can you get any more "core" than the cruicifixion?

-spoon

Originally posted by Awaken
It's just that when people start making stuff up about Jesus being the saviour, or the idea that we evolved from one-celled organisms (how did those evolve from nothing btw? Irreducible complexity??),

Well, inventing jesus from the claims of a (errant) book is a far cry from drawing a hypothesis from valid scientific observations. And it's not like we (humans) evolved from a single celled organism. We evolved from something, that evolved from something, that evolved from... you see where this is going.. that evolved from a single celled organism, that evolved from....... Well. I'm struggling to remember here - there's a few different theories. One I can remember is (and feel free to correct me):

So you have newly (millions of years newly) formed earth that has finally cooled down, finished being bombarded with leftover crap from the formation of the solar system, formed itself an atmosphere and rained for a looooong time. Pretty much a still warm, extremely volcanically active, volatile rock with lots of water on it. No life. In the seas there are volcanic vents - which is where this hypothesis kicks off. A reaction between the heat of the vents and some chemical or another in the water formed very simple molecules ( protenoids? ) - not yet life, but the precursor to (or building blocks of) life. Then they start bonding, certain strands hold together better and attract more of "like stuff" - rna is formed, dna is formed ----> life.

Something of this scope really makes you feel like an idiot. I'll never understand this as well as the enormity of it's concept deserves. This stuff I'm attempting to explain happend billions of years ago. I can't even remember last year that well .

I may or may not be talking about the RNA world hypothesis which I just found a link to. Seems like I might be.

-spoon