Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[onewithhim]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

firstly the garden itself is presented as having been in a specific real location

Just because a real place is mentioned in a story does not make the rest of the story true.

Another is that the bible presents a genealogical list for Jesus

. . .

Further Jesus is reported to referring to Adam and Eve, not allegories for all mankind but in a discussion on marriage and divorce, indicating not only that they existed

You and Onewithin are writing to one who does not believe that the Bible is the word of God, without error, without contradictions, etc. The writers who, in the NT, wrote about Jesus, and Paul who wrote about the Christ, were both trying to make theological and ethical points. At that time, discussing the authentic historicity of the account would have made no sense. They were trying to free their people from oppressive beliefs--for example the Temple cult, hubris in the Roman church, immorality, etc.

Now we are discussing the possibility of a return to the Garden of Eden--which accepts the Garden/story as an historical fact. To me, this is a mistake--because everything I/we know about history tells us that God does not intervene in history. Such a thought does comfort in a time of turmoil, but it is a false hope--like a drug induced dream. Rather, to believe that we can make the world a better more fair place by working together, to me, seems far more believable. If we believe in ourselves, at least we have a fighting chance. If we believe in fantastic tells which do not, IMHO, seem believable, we have lost the battle already.

It seems to me, if one thinks critically about the Genesis account, and questions the point of God creating two literal trees to eat from and commanding the original couple to eat from one and not the other--the conclusions is that it is too fantastic to be true; however, again, to me, the story asks a deep moral question: "How are you 'feeding' your soul, spirit, mind, etc.--there are life consequences.

The point is not whether or not the story is literally true; the point is whether or not the meaning of the story can help us be better people, and I believe it has made me better by forcing me to question the way I feed my spirit.

I hear what you're saying. You have a kind-hearted outlook.

It is true that we can make the world a better place by being empathetic, merciful, helpful and kind. God expects his people to be this way. It alleviates misery and difficulty.

But it is also true that there will always be people who don't want to be merciful and kind, but who want to always be looking out for ways to take advantage of people (and even killing them, for various reasons). There are probably a majority of those kinds of people in the top 1% who are influencing the way the world is going. I have heard the 1% talk. They really don't care about the average Joe. The common people are beneath them and are like cattle to them. With men like this influencing the ruling of the world, the only hope for mankind is God's Kingdom---His own government (Isaiah 9:6,7; Daniel 2:44).

Before I forget (my mind goes blank sometimes)....God has intervened in history. He has stepped in many times in events associated with His name people, Israel, as well as Spiritual Israel in more recent times. I have been impressed by prophecy that has been fulfilled, the big one that comes to mind is the conquering of Babylon in 539 B.C.:

Isaiah wrote down a very interesting prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel to its homeland. The very ruler who would conquer Babylon and allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem was named over a century and a half before he was even born. Jehovah declared: "It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.'" (Isaiah 44:28, NASB) Isaiah wrote this prophecy around 732 B.C.

Cuneiform tablets found by archaeologists confirm that Babylon fell suddenly to Cyrus. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, in what was the final year of Nabonidus' reign, Cyrus attacked the Babylonian forces and defeated them (at Opis). A couple of weeks after that, Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. By means of this inscription, the date of Babylon's fall can be fixed as Tishri 16, 539 B.C.

So, Cyrus was named over a century and a half before he was born c.732 B.C.. The prophecy came true 539 B.C.. That's compelling evidence that (1) the Bible is historically valid, and (2) its prophecies have come true.

If we just believe in ourselves, we don't have a fighting chance.

[onewithhim]

LAKE OF FIRE:

This expression occurs only in the book of Revelation and is clearly symbolic. The Bible gives its own explanation and definition of the symbol by stating: "This means the second death, the lake of fire." (Rev.20:14; 21:8) So it symbolizes the death from which no one is resurrected.

It is further evident that this lake of fire is symbolic from the context of references to it in Revelation. Death is said to be hurled into this lake of fire. Death cannot, obviously, be hurled or burned. Moreover, the Devil who is an invisible spirit person, is thrown into the lake....and being a spirit he cannot be hurt by literal fire. (Rev.20:10; see also Exodus 3:2 where an angel is in a burning bush & it doesn't affect him.)


("Gehenna" and "the fire prepared for the Devil & his angels" are also symbolic. They mean basically the same thing as "the lake of fire.")

Your point of view is purely JW. I am not alone in believing that it is for purification, the burning up of the beast, the egotistical twin of the spiritual person. The ancients were in awe of the assayers fire--the burning up of impurities and the resulting fine metal that remains. There is a long history of this point of view in the region in that period of history.

How does literally burning up the Beast purify it? And do you believe the Beast is a literal monster that comes out of the literal sea?

Fire can certainly refer to purifying, but in more cases than not, it refers to total destruction.

[gordsd]

[Replying to Blastcat]

I suggest "humanism".

Well, that is how I view myself! But, here, on this thread we were debating the possibility about a returning Garden of Eden. Then you asked me to define "spiritual" as I meant spiritual referring to the way I interpret the early Genesis account. I thought I did that relating it to a moral teaching, but now you have a hard time accepting the "notion" (you can look up the word in the dictionary) that some have the notion that consciousness and conscience may be shared with a greater other.

Of course there is no evidence of this, and you can believe that everything you think comes from within you as many atheist/agnostics do. But, I say, again, I am just not sure.

I'm an agnostic, and yet, I have not arrived at the same kind of "notion".

Of course not. I'm not sure if you have had the religious influences as you have grown up, or took many post graduate and graduate classes related to the occupation of minister, but I have. So maybe that explains why I have certain notions and you do not.

By spirit you might mean something like "Ghost in the machine". I use that terminology because one of the secular meanings for "Spirit" is "Ghost". The "machine" here would be the universe to stretch the metaphor to the extreme. Maybe "Ghost in the universe" would be better.

Am I close?

After what I consider carefully explaining what I meant, I think this response and question is un-called for. You can change words around all you want for your own entertainment if you want.

I can make a case that agnostics are also necessarily atheists !!
Do you agree with me?

IF not, would you enjoy taking a look at the argument?

I have already done the discussion with others. I agree. There is no need for me to discuss it again. I will just add that the word "God" has been used mostly, it seems to me, in the Judea/Christian sense, and to think of something else at all is to replace it with something other than God in the traditional sense. So, in that sense, there are a lot of atheist who do not even know they are atheist!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 70 by catnip]

[center]
Where the Kingdom be at?
Part Five: .. Clarification and evidence demand completely ignored. Instead, more incomprehensible text.[/center]

As with the study of psychology, the evidence is encompassed by human experience and testimony.

It isn't of the intellect.

You seem to think that the study of psychology has nothing to do with the intellect. How very peculiar.

I've given up on my brain.
I've torn the cloth to shreds
and thrown it away.

--Rumi

What a very pretty poem.

Rumi seems to have given up on his brain.
Pity him.

I tried showing you that it isn't found only within a religion and you didn't like it. *shrugs*

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Your shrug doesn't explain anything, either.

If I were speaking of psychology, it is a science and it does not rely on anything but the study of the mind and behavior--so I don't know what more you should need.

I can assure you that I have NO idea what you are talking about.

You claim to be Taoist, then you should understand.

I understand Taoism the very peculiar and particular way that I understand it.
I don't know how YOU do, or what you might mean by that comment.

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 71 by onewithhim]

I do appreciate your response, and I thoroughly enjoyed your point about the 1%!

I have heard the 1% talk. They really don't care about the average Joe. The common people are beneath them and are like cattle to them.

I could not agree more!

However:

If we just believe in ourselves, we don't have a fighting chance.

Well, fine, you can believe in God, but please believe in others and doing something too! To just believe in God and do nothing is not the answer either. Right?!?!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 73 by gordsd]


[center]Understanding what is meant by the word "Spiritual"
Part Five: Still no understanding. And.. no idea how to test for "universal consciousness", either. [/center]

I suggest "humanism".

Well, that is how I view myself!

Ok, then why use the word "spiritual" to quite secular ideas such as the ones espoused in humanism? I don't get it and you aren't saying. What is it.. some kind of a secret?

But, here, on this thread we were debating the possibility about a returning Garden of Eden. Then you asked me to define "spiritual" as I meant spiritual referring to the way I interpret the early Genesis account.

And here, in this thread, I thought that you would like to be understood by others.

I was just wondering why an agnostic would use the word "spiritual" to denote quite secular ideas. I'm still not getting what you MEAN by "spiritual". And it's been about 5 kicks at that particular can...

You used the word.. what did you MEAN by the word?

And here I thought it was a very simple question with a very simple answer.
Look at us now:

Knee deep in words and me no way near to understanding what you mean by one religiously loaded term. I'd love to benefit from your fine education, after all. I'm asking for your definition.

Seems that it's a tough question for some reason.

I thought I did that relating it to a moral teaching, but now you have a hard time accepting the "notion" (you can look up the word in the dictionary) that some have the notion that consciousness and conscience may be shared with a greater other.

________________

FOR THE RECORD:

I don't find it at all difficult to accept the NOTION that some people have all kinds of NOTIONS.
________________

I deal with people's many many notions in here all the time.
Right now, I thought very much that I was dealing with yours.

After your many explanations, I'm lost.
How do you account for that?

Of course there is no evidence of this, and you can believe that everything you think comes from within you as many atheist/agnostics do.

I know I can believe anything that I want.
If you had to take a guess, why would you think that I believe that human thoughts come from human brains ?

What about those questions about the location of our thoughts?
No answers at all?

( not even a teensy little one? )

• Aren't human thoughts the products of human brains?
  Do we at least have SOME evidence to indicate that brains produce thoughts?
  What evidence do we have that the UNIVERSE has a mind or is a mind...?
  What evidence do we have that God is or has a mind?
  Is there any way at all to be sure about any of those possibilities?
  Are there other possibilities that I didn't mention?
  What should we believe about minds in the meantime?

But, I say, again, I am just not sure.

As an agnostic and a skeptic, neither am I.
Why entertain the thought of universal consciousness at all then?

What's the reasoning here?
Are we entertaining religious fantasies?

I'm an agnostic, and yet, I have not arrived at the same kind of "notion".

Of course not. I'm not sure if you have had the religious influences as you have grown up, or took many post graduate and graduate classes related to the occupation of minister, but I have. So maybe that explains why I have certain notions and you do not.

You seem to be WAY more educated.
So.. woo.

Should I now defer to your greater education, and not even try to figure you out?
Or should I perhaps ASK you for your actual answers? What's the deal here?

Are you the final authority?
In here?

Or are we trying to discuss your IDEAS?

By spirit you might mean something like "Ghost in the machine". I use that terminology because one of the secular meanings for "Spirit" is "Ghost". The "machine" here would be the universe to stretch the metaphor to the extreme. Maybe "Ghost in the universe" would be better.

Am I close?

After what I consider carefully explaining what I meant, I think this response and question is un-called for.

Let me see if I got you:

After YOU consider what YOU meant to say, YOU think that my guess AND question is uncalled for. Yeah, but the last time that I checked, I wasn't you. I was me. So, how about we check in with me for a second:

After I consider what you meant to say, I think that my guess and my question was very called for indeed.

I still don't have a clue what you mean.
Not the reasons for why you believe in universal consciousness ( or even if you DO )
Not what you mean by the term "spiritual".

I don't know what you mean.
Clarity.. I thought you were into that.

I'm getting skeptical in a hurry.
Maybe you aren't.

You can change words around all you want for your own entertainment if you want.

It really does entertain me to figure out what people want to say.
Did you read the part where I said it was just a guess?

If it's a bad guess, just correct me.
If you could express yourself clearly, I would not be tempted to guess so much.
I was just trying to move things along.

This is the 5th go around, and I STILL do not understand what you mean by that ONE word !! I don't even know if you believe in universal consciousness or not. What do you have to say about our track record so far?

After all of these words.
That's amazing !!

I was expecting a bit more from an ex-minister, frankly.
I thought you guys were really good at explaining complex ideas like "spiritual".

I can make a case that agnostics are also necessarily atheists !!
Do you agree with me?

IF not, would you enjoy taking a look at the argument?

I have already done the discussion with others. I agree.
There is no need for me to discuss it again.

Ok, I asked because I wanted to know if you also label yourself as an atheist.
Could you clarify that part? Atheist? Believe in a God?.. which is it?

I will just add that the word "God" has been used mostly, it seems to me, in the Judea/Christian sense, and to think of something else at all is to replace it with something other than God in the traditional sense.

I usually just ask the people what they mean by the term "God". In here, most theists are Christians of one kind or another.. since the website has it in the TITLE, it seems to attract a few. You might be an agnostic who believes in some kind of god.. how should I know? I'm not going to guess with you. That's a promise.

That's why I ask.

It's really hard for me to tell, and I won't EVER make the mistake of offering you a guess to speed things along.

Answer the questions or not.
Up to you.

Make yourself understandable to others in debates or not.
Same deal.

So, in that sense, there are a lot of atheist who do not even know they are atheist!

I'm not one of those. I know I'm an atheist.
I don't see your point.

I would prefer it if you could be clear as to your definitions, and your beliefs.

What I don't know, right now, is what you mean by the term "spiritual" and if you label yourself an "atheist" or not.

I could make a list of questions if you would prefer that. I was taking a break from those, but if you ask, I will provide.

Just for the sake of clarification, of course.
I'll find out perhaps by your answers if you care to be understood or not.

Some people actually go so far as to tell me quite bluntly that they don't CARE about that kind of thing. I really do hope that you aren't like those kinds of debaters.

[gordsd]

[Replying to Blastcat]

You seem to be WAY more educated.
So.. woo.

Should I now defer to your greater education, and not even try to figure you out?
Or should I perhaps ASK you for your actual answers? What's the deal here?

Are you the final authority?
In here?

I was merely explaining why I thought I had certain notions about using words with religious connotations and you do not. I had no intention of being arrogant. To me this is plain. You come across as very rude the way you dissect and question every sentence. I think I have been very kind and patient, while you have been too demanding asking for clarifications after I have already clarified. If you do not like this response, you can ask the moderators to judge for themselves.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 77 by gordsd]




[center]Understanding what is meant by the word "Spiritual"
Part Six: Blastcat gets blasted[/center]

You seem to be WAY more educated.
So.. woo.

Should I now defer to your greater education, and not even try to figure you out?
Or should I perhaps ASK you for your actual answers? What's the deal here?

Are you the final authority?
In here?

I was merely explaining why I thought I had certain notions about using words with religious connotations and you do not. I had no intention of being arrogant.

Ok .. I stand corrected.
Sorry about that.

I'm a bit too sensitive about that kind of thing due to my lack of formal education.. I really do seem to have a chip on my shoulder, and it makes me too sensitive. That's my problem, not yours, I assure you.

I'm actually quite jealous of educated people.. But I do love to learn.. and people with more education than I do have a lot to teach, so I am happy to ask them many questions in order to learn how and what they are thinking. And I've noticed that when I spend a little too much time in here in a day.. I get irritable. I should really know when to quit.

I was tired and cranky when I wrote that.
I think it shows.

Like you said.. if I practice long enough, I should get it right.. SOMEDAY.

And in my defense ( debates are in my blood ) I'd say that sometimes, it's hard to tell the intent of what people write because we don't get the body language in here.. I think I get misunderstood a lot because when I communicate orally, I depend a great deal on timing, inflection, intonation, volume, faces, hand gestures, body movements and so on. That's why, when I speak I usually have a strong desire to stand up.

Can't really do that in here.. I'm just starting to learn how to write.
One of my greatest complaints to Christians that I debate with is how vague their language is... and that's a LANGUAGE problem... not really a theological or logical one.

I'd say language difficulties are my number one problem in here... so many times the debate turns out to be : "What do you mean by THAT?"

And that is precisely the problem we are facing now: Language difficulties.

What do you mean by "Spiritual"?

To me this is plain. You come across as very rude the way you dissect and question every sentence.

______________

FOR THE RECORD:

I want to make it very clear that I try my best to dissect and question each and every PROPOSITION that I have a problem with. It's not really the sentences at all.. propositions can be only parts of sentences, or span over many sentences. It's the IDEAS and only the IDEAS that I am trying to figure out, and then if I can, debate.

______________


You might think it's plain, but it's still not plain TO ME. You are trying to communicate your ideas TO ME, and to all of the silent witnesses in here reading these words. I still don't get it. So, I kept asking. I suppose you might want me to stop. If so, just let me know.

Yes, I've been told that I am rude many times before.
I want to get to the point, and I take what everybody writes very seriously.

My intention, of course, is not to be rude, but thorough, clear and thoughtful.
And I have a lot of thoughts. I take a lot of trouble to express them as clearly and as understandable as possible. I quote what someone writes, and right below.. questions and comments.. on to the next statement and so on. All too many times, what people write is FULL of propositions that are in need of clarification and challenge.

I simply respond to what I am presented with.

If I was trying to write a book or an essay, I would spend WAY more time editing those. But in here... I usually edit only two or three times. I do my best to cover as much material as possible. A half dozen or so Christians have decided to put me on ignore because I suppose that they could not tolerate my approach. It's tough. I ask tough questions and I challenge almost each and every fantastic claim. An example of what I think is a fantastic claim is what I describe as "Universal consciousness" a concept, that I have quite a bit of experience with, by the way. New Age thinking is all the rage around these parts, you see.

I'm tough.
I think that's a GOOD thing to be in debates.
Why would I ever want to be WEAK?.. so, if you think that I too tough.. its a good sign. Good for me, possibly, good for you. Hope you fare well.

Get past me, and you have accomplished something, I think. That's my reasoning, you see. If you force me to agree with one of your ideas, we both won something.

Agreements are one of my primary goals in here.. my holy grail, if you will.

That's my way of thinking anyway. I don't need to be sweet.. I need to be as clear, as thoughtful, thought provoking and tough as I can be, and allow my opponent to deal with it the way that he or she chooses. This is debate not fireside chat.

But believe it or not, I have some objective proof that I have softened my approach since I started in here. I used to JUST blast them all... Now.. someone has kindly described my approach as using a scalpel. I really LOVE to be flattered like that.

It goes right to my kitty kat head.
Rapier wit is what I'm striving for.. not there yet, but always be tryin'
( Blastcat be very very trying )

I think I have been very kind and patient, while you have been too demanding asking for clarifications after I have already clarified.

Yep, to many, I am just too demanding.
I like to call it "Keeping them to the fire".

When I think that someone is EVADING a question, and that, repeatedly, there's a problem. I'm interested in those.

I don't think that you have been unkind or impatient.. but I would say unclear and somewhat, if not very elusive. It's like for some reason, you can't seem to spit it out.

I thought the question "What do you mean by the term "Spiritual" would have been quite simple for someone like yourself to answer. Turns out to almost started a war in here.. Woo.. Sorry I asked?

When I don't understand things people write, I ask what they mean. That's what happened in here. I kept on asking because I kept not getting what I considered an answer. I'm actually quite puzzled by that, frankly.

Thank you so much for attempting to clarify what you meant by "Spiritual" and "Universal consciousness". Didn't work out for me.

You never have to feel that you must answer any of my questions.
I just put them out there... I don't expect answers.

I notice them when I get em.. and I notice it when I don't get em.
In this case, I didn't, and I've noticed.

That's it.

If you do not like this response, you can ask the moderators to judge for themselves.

Always.
The same goes for anyone. Thanks for the reminder.

I might inadvertently break a rule in here.. It wouldn't be my intention, but I make a lot of mistakes. That's what the report button on the side of each and every post is for. I think that's PRECISELY what makes this forum so very special. The moderators have helped me a lot so far. I thank them all for their hard work.

Keeps people more honest.
And unfortunately, it's really needed.

A stroke of genius on the part of Osteng, if you ask me.

______________

Questions:

• 1. By the way, I still do not know what you really mean by "spiritual" and the discussion about universal consciousness hasn't even started.
  2. Is it rude of me to remind you of that?

_______________

[gordsd]

[Replying to gordsd]

I am going to try this on my phone, so if the punctuation really sucks just try to understand. Words are like a map, they are good or trying to explain where something is at, but they can never be The reality itself. Words like ethical and morality and what it means to be humane are hard to explain sometimes. And some words do have different connotation, so sometimes when I think I have lost the meaning of a word, I just look it up in the dictionary again and try to understand maybe a new meaning. So, I am just saying that I understand. Words are just symbols which represent something else, too, they can never be the reality itself.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 79 by gordsd]




[center]Understanding what is meant by the word "Spiritual"
Part Seven: What language be like[/center]

I am going to try this on my phone, so if the punctuation really sucks just try to understand.

Blastcat is always very trying !

Words are like a map, they are good or trying to explain where something is at, but they can never be The reality itself.

Agree.. words are labels.
"The map is not the territory."

Words like ethical and morality and what it means to be humane are hard to explain sometimes.

Agreed.

And some words do have different connotation, so sometimes when I think I have lost the meaning of a word, I just look it up in the dictionary again and try to understand maybe a new meaning.

I've always had my nose in a dictionary since I can remember. Still do.. many times a day.. always being SURPRISED, too! Words can have more than one meaning. Agreed.

So, I am just saying that I understand. Words are just symbols which represent something else, too, they can never be the reality itself.

"The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon."

Got it.

______________

Questions:

• 1. By the way, I still do not know what you really mean by "spiritual" and the discussion about universal consciousness hasn't even started.
  2. Is it rude of me to remind you of that?

_______________