Created immortal (indestructable)?

[JehovahsWitness]

To my knowledge "immortality" is only spoken of as being a reward for certain faithful. What is the scriptural basis for saying "humans" were originally created immortal*?

- do you believe Satan is immortal?
- do you believe the wicked are immortal?

- do you believe God can destroy them (as in put an end to their existence) but will never choose to do this?

- do you believe God cannot (does not have the ability to) destroy them (put an end to their existence)?

Why?


*by immortal I mean basically "indestructable"

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 210 by onewithhim]



[center]The wizard of Goz[/center]

True, it is illogical by non-spiritual standards, or, by solely physical, purely scientific standards. But even Science says that there are things that cannot be explained by physical, scientific means. So...can we say that something other than science could possibly explain certain phenomena?

I read a lot of books.. some of them include magic.
Never a word about science in them.

Actually, the idea that something other than scientific hard facts could explain some things that can't be explained by the scientific method is a logical idea.

Be sure to let us all know of that fantastic science beating method as soon as you hear about it, ok?

I'd like to be the second to know.

Could it be that something non-physical is involved?

Sure, why NOT?

Magic. Alakazam.

Fairies.... ghosts.. god.. goddess .. wizards, witches ... books always with the magic books.

Magic wizard of Oz.. why not?
Take your pick.. oh yeah.. you picked already.

Right?
No doubt?

Could it be that certain things really did happen because of some unknown-to-science Force that operated on a plane higher than the physical?

May the Force be with you.

I do not think this idea is illogical.

Yep, it's logical, alright. Lots of fiction is logical.
But that's not enough.

We would also need a bit of "evidence".
By what I read, you are are being gullible about certain kinds of religious claims.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 210 by onewithhim]



[center]The wizard of Goz[/center]

True, it is illogical by non-spiritual standards, or, by solely physical, purely scientific standards. But even Science says that there are things that cannot be explained by physical, scientific means. So...can we say that something other than science could possibly explain certain phenomena?

I read a lot of books.. some of them include magic.
Never a word about science in them.

Actually, the idea that something other than scientific hard facts could explain some things that can't be explained by the scientific method is a logical idea.

Be sure to let us all know of that fantastic science beating method as soon as you hear about it, ok?

I'd like to be the second to know.

Could it be that something non-physical is involved?

Sure, why NOT?

Magic. Alakazam.

Fairies.... ghosts.. god.. goddess .. wizards, witches ... books always with the magic books.

Magic wizard of Oz.. why not?
Take your pick.. oh yeah.. you picked already.

Right?
No doubt?

Could it be that certain things really did happen because of some unknown-to-science Force that operated on a plane higher than the physical?

May the Force be with you.

I do not think this idea is illogical.

Yep, it's logical, alright. Lots of fiction is logical.
But that's not enough.

We would also need a bit of "evidence".
By what I read, you are are being gullible about certain kinds of religious claims.

I have not been talking about religious claims. I have been talking about FACTS. There are many things that scientists admit they cannot answer. They don't attribute these situations to "God"---they just say that they cannot answer the questions as to how these things came about, like where the first molecule came from, or even the first atom. They are still trying to figure out just how LIFE actually got started. They have their theories, but they will admit that they cannot explain it. They cannot even OBSERVE it according to the scientific method.

Scientists I have read have said that mindless development of complex biological machinery is impossible, in accordance with the principle of irreducible complexity. They say that they are NOT saying that "God" created; it is not a RELIGIOUS issue for them, but is a scientific issue. They can't say just "who" put all these things in motion, and they don't insist on a god. They say merely that there is no physical scientific explanation that they can understand.

I have read many books by scientists, so I'm not getting my ideas from "religious" literature.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 204 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Logic vs reason
The definitions[/center]

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

I've never heard that one before.

I use the word "reasoning" to mean "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way"

Bad reasoning, of course, is bad logic and vice versa.

There are other contexts to reasoning:

a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:
the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action

I should say that logic is not necessarily tantamount to reasoning as reasoning is subject to personal opinion which logic is not. That is purely objective.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking.

You are making a distinction between good reasoning and bad reasoning... not really logic and reasoning.

Logic and reasoning are really quite synonymous.

But I do like your definition of logic, though.
I'm not sure I'd call it a science... but maybe it is.

If math is a science, then logic is.
I call both math and logic thinking tools.. that science USES...

Not quite sure if I would call math and logic sciences... I'd have to look it up.

Reasoning based on personal opinion is not bad reasoning. It is just one aspect of reasoning. The other is used in logic as inductive reasoning.

Some say logic is a science, some say not. More likely that scientific methods are used in deductive logic.

Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

There you go.... logic uses reasoning.. reasoning uses logic.. yeah.
Same same.

Reasoning and logic are examples of good thinking.
I wonder if religious people care at all about that kind of thing.

It depends on the circumstances. Religious people aren't devoid of critical thinking. It's just that a person is going to get nowhere attempting to use logic to explain God. God is a supernatural being.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

There's my answer.
It doesn't seem that they do care very much.

It's not that that care; it's just that it can't be done.

So, reasoning and logic are out the door when we want to "find" God.
What's left?

Ouija board?

Emotional appeals?
Roll of the dice?

Ouija boards aren't going to help in attempting to reach God. That is done through prayer. All one is going to do in using ouija boards is risk opening a portal to evil spirits.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 213 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Prayer vs logic as a way of figuring it out[/center]

Religious people aren't devoid of critical thinking.

That's true.

But that's maybe because they didn't abandon logic.
Hard to do critical thinking without it.

It's just that a person is going to get nowhere attempting to use logic to explain God. God is a supernatural being.

So... logic is out, you seem to want to abandon it at the door.
What are you walking in here with?

It's not that that care; it's just that it can't be done.

So, fine.
People seeking God better get used to not using logic.

So much for apologetics and religious debates.

Ouija boards aren't going to help in attempting to reach God. That is done through prayer. All one is going to do in using ouija boards is risk opening a portal to evil spirits.

Just for the record, I don't believe in gods, goddesses, or evil spirits.

So.. your answer to seeking God is "prayer".
Not logic or reasoning.

Doesn't make a lick of sense.
I rather RELY on logic to make sense of things.

Does God make any SENSE to you?
Is the idea logical?

How can you tell if you left the logic outside the church?
I say.. go get it back.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  If one doesn't use logic, how does one KNOW that one has actually found God?
  
  

____________

[Benoni]

________________________________________

To my knowledge "immortality" is only spoken of as being a reward for certain faithful. What is the scriptural basis for saying "humans" were originally created immortal*?

I do not believe God has any reason to destroy those He never called in the end all will be made alive in Adam.

- do you believe the wicked are immortal?

Wicked will be punished/pruned in the Lake of Fire . The lake of Fire is spiritual not physical.

- do you believe God can destroy them (as in put an end to their existence) but will never choose to do this?

Why would do such an evil thing?

- do you believe God cannot (does not have the ability to) destroy them (put an end to their existence)?

Jesus died for all men’s sins be it the just or the unjust.
Why?

*by immortal I mean basically "indestructable"

Of course. There soul will need to be saved but their spirit will return to God who gave it.

- do you believe Satan is immortal?

Satan was never an angel and when He is done doing God’s will there will be no need of him.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 213 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Prayer vs logic as a way of figuring it out[/center]

Religious people aren't devoid of critical thinking.

That's true.

But that's maybe because they didn't abandon logic.
Hard to do critical thinking without it.

It's just that a person is going to get nowhere attempting to use logic to explain God. God is a supernatural being.

So... logic is out, you seem to want to abandon it at the door.
What are you walking in here with?

It's not that that care; it's just that it can't be done.

So, fine.
People seeking God better get used to not using logic.

So much for apologetics and religious debates.

Ouija boards aren't going to help in attempting to reach God. That is done through prayer. All one is going to do in using ouija boards is risk opening a portal to evil spirits.

Just for the record, I don't believe in gods, goddesses, or evil spirits.

So.. your answer to seeking God is "prayer".
Not logic or reasoning.

Doesn't make a lick of sense.
I rather RELY on logic to make sense of things.

Does God make any SENSE to you?
Is the idea logical?

How can you tell if you left the logic outside the church?
I say.. go get it back.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  If one doesn't use logic, how does one KNOW that one has actually found God?
  
  

____________

Do you have a comment on post #212?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 212 by onewithhim]



[center]ID vs science[/center]

Blastcat get real angry.

I have not been talking about religious claims. I have been talking about FACTS.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

There are many things that scientists admit they cannot answer.

I think it's very safe to say that humans don't currently know everything.
So, I agree.

They don't attribute these situations to "God"---they just say that they cannot answer the questions as to how these things came about, like where the first molecule came from, or even the first atom.

Right..
But it seems to have started around the time of the "Big Bang".

Ignorance of X or Y doesn't mean that Z is true.
That would be the argument from ignorance.

Just because scientists don't know X or Y.. means nothing about Z.
If they want to prove a designer exists, they actually have to prove that a designer exists. They haven't done that. They haven't even proven that a DESIGN exists.

ID is pathetic.. but.. apparently, good creationist propaganda.
You seem to be convinced by it.

It's good propaganda.

They are still trying to figure out just how LIFE actually got started.

Yeah, one thing about most scientists I know... they sure are a curious bunch.
I love each and every one of them for it, too.

I HATE people who pretend at it knowingly, and there are science frauds... so no respect to the fake ones at all...I'm already getting steamed.

Without a time machine.. it's going to be rather difficult to know that.
But we can perhaps form good theories.

ID is not EVEN a theory.
Look up scientific theory...

ID is not even one of those.. ID explains NOTHING.
ID makes NO predictions.

ID is perfectly USELESS to science.
ID is just not science.

ID is a religious FRAUD

It really gets my dander up, too.
I think it's just about as bad as ISIS beheadings. I'm not even exaggerating.
The damage that the ID people do to science hurts EACH AND EVERYONE OF US.

ID tries to interfere with scientific PROGRESS.
That's worse than Hitler in my book.


SHAME ON THEM.

They have their theories, but they will admit that they cannot explain it. They cannot even OBSERVE it according to the scientific method.

Right.
No time machines.

Just a lot of science.
Lots and lots of that.

ID is not that.
ID is creationism very thinly disguised.

They can't even admit they are talking about God anymore.
ID represents a huge waste of religious funding.

It could go to feed the needy at the very LEAST.
How about more funding to cancer research?
How about malaria?

These people with their God agenda disgust me.
You may be taken in by the clever propaganda, and I don't blame you.. it's very good propaganda.. I blame THEM.

They actually prey on people like you.
Because you are predisposed to like the designer idea... well DUH.. creationists like the creator idea.

FUND THEM.. don't fund actual SCIENCE.
And this is not mere speculation.

I urge you to watch the PBS documentary about ID.
I dare you to.

Scientists I have read have said that mindless development of complex biological machinery is impossible, in accordance with the principle of irreducible complexity.

Those are ID people.

ID may be promoted by scientists, ( even Isaac Newton one of the greatest sciencits promoted god ideas after he gave up doing science ) but ID itself is creationist propaganda.

The actual real scientific community calls ID "pseudo-science", I'm afraid. Religious propaganda disguised as science. It's not science.

It's religious propaganda.
It's very good propaganda.. so many people don't BELIEVE in evolution.. and that's the sole purpose of ID. ID people want to DISCREDIT the theory of evolution and support creationism by the Christian god.. because ID people are all Christians.

Each and every one of them.
And each and every one of them are supported by CHRISTIAN organizations.
Coincidence?

No.
Not a coincidence at all.

Sorry, my friend.

They say that they are NOT saying that "God" created; it is not a RELIGIOUS issue for them, but is a scientific issue.

Yes, that's one of their latest scams.
Nobody is buying that but creationists.

And of course, propaganda works best on the intellectually vulnerable.
People who bother to check both sides of the "controversy" know all about just where ID comes from and what it's intended for.

I have little respect, as you can see.
They actually get in the WAY to legitimate science.

You say you have many book on ID.. did you ever watch the documentary I'm talking about in here?

Wikipedia page here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_ ... n_on_Trial

Video here:


Yeah, the video is a long one.
It's great.

Anyone who has ANY interest in Intelligent Design needs to watch it.
Make up your own mind once you completed it.

It's damning to the ID movement.

They can't say just "who" put all these things in motion, and they don't insist on a god. They say merely that there is no physical scientific explanation that they can understand.

Yeah, they insist on a "design" so that they can insert a "designer" into science classes. They don't know WHO .. but it's a WHO.. it's not a WHAT.. right? Can't possibly be nature, right? There's just GOTTA be a planner making the plan .. oh what a coincidence.. just like in GENESIS...

Cute.

Oh, what a coincidence.. they are funded by CHRISTIANS.

Cute.


NOT.

FOOLING.

ANYONE.


And they got caught at it.
In their own WORDS they got caught at it.

IN PRINT.

Religious propaganda doesn't impress the scientific community. And it sure does NOT impress the cat. It does sound "scientific" to people who are a little less educated in science, though. And that's because it's intended to sound scientific.

Great scam.
Better than the faith healers.

Not good enough to fool the courts or the scientists or skeptics like us skeptic cats.
Because in actual science and in actual courts, they demand EVIDENCE.

ID is dead.. but they keep flogging it.. because it keeps working on the gullible. And they sure payed a lot of money for that.

Sorry, there is such a thing as expensive bogus science.

ID is one of the best funded pseudo-science religious money can buy.
I'm afraid you've fallen for their "pretty good tricks".

Just because someone is a scientist does NOT mean he is doing science, my friend.
He MAY just be more interested in doing RELIGION.

Actual real science is very rigorous.
Claims have to be demonstrated ... not just CLAIMED.

ID fails utterly as science. AND THEY KNOW IT. They aren't fools.
It's great religious propaganda, though.. I think it's a winner at that.
AND THEY KNOW IT.[/b ...they aren't fools.

This is one of those things I actually despise about religion.
It's way way worse than just the waste of good money.


It's the LIES.

They have been CAUGHT red handed at it.. and STILL continue.
Disgusts me.

The Discovery Institute that funds ID ... just hasn't proved any god exists by way of science. Even though they waste hundreds of millions of dollars EVERY YEAR in that "research" they do. ( they don't study nature.. they try to find clever ways to insert a designer into science classes ) And I think.. maybe NDE studies.. over and over and over.. doesn't come close to proving Christian God, but BOY do they ever have a ton of money to burn for Jesus !!

I think their very latest trick is "teach the controversy".. as IF .. the only controversy is .. well.. the one they make. We all should know by now that ID has been completely discredited as "science".

I have read many books by scientists, so I'm not getting my ideas from "religious" literature.

Sorry, but you are.
You have been hoodwinked by religious people.

If you are basing your ideas on the ID hypothesis, I'm sorry to say.. that's religious.
It's creationism disguised.

You may want to catch up on the news.


The above is a link to an award winning PBS documentary about Intelligent Design on trial..yes, an actual trial. The ID supporters actually went to court to be able to teach ID to kids in science classes as IF intelligent design was science.

The judgement is a classic, and so is the documentary.
ID basically got laughed out of court.

ID people wanted to prove that it was science.
That didn't work. What they PROVE was that ID is religion.

So now.. they want to "teach the controversy"
These people really get me steamed.

You might have noticed.
I'm not pleased.
Nor am I impressed.

That's a thing that I despise about religious people right there.

DESPISE..

There is no excuse for it as far as I'm concerned.
This kind of thing sets ALL OF HUMANITY BACK

Yeah, the cat is angry now.
You don't have facts if you are talking about ID.. you have PROPAGANDA and LIES.

I hate when people lie in order to promote religion.
Religious people usually take the high moral ground.. when they lie.. it's more disgusting than people who do not.

Moral?

No.. lying is NOT moral.

Science?

No.. Intelligent Design is NOT science.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 213 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Prayer vs logic as a way of figuring it out[/center]

Religious people aren't devoid of critical thinking.

That's true.

But that's maybe because they didn't abandon logic.
Hard to do critical thinking without it.

It's just that a person is going to get nowhere attempting to use logic to explain God. God is a supernatural being.

So... logic is out, you seem to want to abandon it at the door.
What are you walking in here with?

It's not that that care; it's just that it can't be done.

So, fine.
People seeking God better get used to not using logic.

So much for apologetics and religious debates.

Ouija boards aren't going to help in attempting to reach God. That is done through prayer. All one is going to do in using ouija boards is risk opening a portal to evil spirits.

Just for the record, I don't believe in gods, goddesses, or evil spirits.

So.. your answer to seeking God is "prayer".
Not logic or reasoning.

Doesn't make a lick of sense.
I rather RELY on logic to make sense of things.

Does God make any SENSE to you?
Is the idea logical?

How can you tell if you left the logic outside the church?
I say.. go get it back.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  If one doesn't use logic, how does one KNOW that one has actually found God?
  
  

____________

You really didn't address my post #212. And I skipped #214 because you were replying to Claire Evans regarding reason and logic, and I thought you already knew from MY posts that I am all FOR reason and logic.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 212 by onewithhim]



[center]ID vs science[/center]

Blastcat get real angry.

Scientists I have read have said that mindless development of complex biological machinery is impossible, in accordance with the principle of irreducible complexity.

Those are ID people.

ID may be promoted by scientists, ( even Isaac Newton one of the greatest sciencits promoted god ideas after he gave up doing science ) but ID itself is creationist propaganda.

The actual real scientific community calls ID "pseudo-science", I'm afraid. Religious propaganda disguised as science. It's not science.

It's religious propaganda.
It's very good propaganda.. so many people don't BELIEVE in evolution.. and that's the sole purpose of ID. ID people want to DISCREDIT the theory of evolution and support creationism by the Christian god.. because ID people are all Christians.

Each and every one of them.

They say that they are NOT saying that "God" created; it is not a RELIGIOUS issue for them, but is a scientific issue.

Yes, that's one of their latest scams.
Nobody is buying that but creationists.

And of course, propaganda works best on the intellectually vulnerable.
People who bother to check both sides of the "controversy" know all about just where ID comes from and what it's intended for.

I have little respect, as you can see.
They actually get in the WAY to legitimate science.


Just because someone is a scientist does NOT mean he is doing science, my friend.
He MAY just be more interested in doing RELIGION.

Actual real science is very rigorous.
Claims have to be demonstrated ... not just CLAIMED.

ID fails utterly as science. AND THEY KNOW IT. They aren't fools.
It's great religious propaganda, though.. I think it's a winner at that.
AND THEY KNOW IT.[/b ...they aren't fools.

This is one of those things I actually despise about religion.
It's way way worse than just the waste of good money.


It's the LIES.

They have been CAUGHT red handed at it.. and STILL continue.
Disgusts me.

The Discovery Institute that funds ID ... just hasn't proved any god exists by way of science. Even though they waste hundreds of millions of dollars EVERY YEAR in that "research" they do. ( they don't study nature.. they try to find clever ways to insert a designer into science classes ) And I think.. maybe NDE studies.. over and over and over.. doesn't come close to proving Christian God, but BOY do they ever have a ton of money to burn for Jesus !!

I think their very latest trick is "teach the controversy".. as IF .. the only controversy is .. well.. the one they make. We all should know by now that ID has been completely discredited as "science".

I have read many books by scientists, so I'm not getting my ideas from "religious" literature.

Sorry, but you are.
You have been hoodwinked by religious people.

If you are basing your ideas on the ID hypothesis, I'm sorry to say.. that's religious.
It's creationism disguised.

You may want to catch up on the news.


The above is a link to an award winning PBS documentary about Intelligent Design on trial..yes, an actual trial. The ID supporters actually went to court to be able to teach ID to kids in science classes as IF intelligent design was science.

The judgement is a classic, and so is the documentary.
ID basically got laughed out of court.

ID people wanted to prove that it was science.
That didn't work. What they PROVE was that ID is religion.

So now.. they want to "teach the controversy"
These people really get me steamed.

You might have noticed.
I'm not pleased.
Nor am I impressed.

That's a thing that I despise about religious people right there.

DESPISE..

There is no excuse for it as far as I'm concerned.
This kind of thing sets ALL OF HUMANITY BACK

Yeah, the cat is angry now.
You don't have facts if you are talking about ID.. you have PROPAGANDA and LIES.

I hate when people lie in order to promote religion.
Religious people usually take the high moral ground.. when they lie.. it's more disgusting than people who do not.

Moral?

No.. lying is NOT moral.

Science?

No.. Intelligent Design is NOT science.

OK. I see that you are not up for any discussion about irreducible complexity. I asked you to explain how it is NOT possibly true. I guess that's not going to happen. Just your raging about how you hate ID people. Hmmmm.

You say that any scientists who are for indications of ID are "ID people," spewing propaganda and lies, and that they all are Christians. I disagree. They are NOT all Christians. Michael Behe has stated that he does not say in any of his books that "God" is the who or what of ID. He says merely that ID is evident by scientific standards.

Mindless evolution cannot be backed up by applying the scientific method. There is NO WAY TO PROVE IT by observation! (Do you know the steps in the scientific method?)

YOU are the one who has fallen for lies and dark schemes. You can't even see what true science really is, and that I have been interested in good science. You accuse me of falling for lies, being gullible, and promoting some evil agenda by "creationists." That is highly insulting, esp. since I have explained what I believe in scientific terms, not religious ones.

I agree that "just because someone is a scientist it doesn't mean that he is doing science." There are a majority of scientists out there that heap scorn on ID, and just because they are the majority it doesn't mean that they are doing science. I have seen percentages published that indicate that it is about equal---scientists who reject ID and those who accept it.

It is true as you say, "claims have to be DEMONSTRATED, not just claimed." Scientists who eschew ID cannot demonstrate mindless evolution. Despite what propaganda they have disseminated into the world, there has been NO OBSERVATION OF A LIVE CELL COMING FROM NON-LIFE. The scientists you admire are pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of you and many others. How do their claims fit into the rigors of the scientific method?

Scientists who accept ID are not people that "KNOW" they are spreading lies. They really do see evidence of Intelligent Design. You say that "they don't study nature." That is exactly what they do! They REALLY study nature, and have found the scientific existence of irreducible complexity.

I have YET to have any discussion by ANYONE about how the idea of irreducible complexity can be dismantled. All there is from people like yourself is ranting and raving.

This is a very short comment by Michael Behe in his book, "Darwin's Black Box." Apparently Richard Dawkins has conceded that biochemical systems CAN be designed, and "since Dawkins agrees that biochemical systems can be designed, and that people who did not see or hear about the designing can nonetheless detect it, then the question of whether a given biochemical system was designed boils down simply to adducing evidence to support design. We must also consider the role of the laws of nature. The laws of nature can organize matter---for example, water flow can build up silt sufficiently to dam a portion of a river, forcing it to change course. The most relevant laws are those of biological reproduction, mutation, and natural selection. If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it was designed. Throughout this book, however, I have shown why many biochemical systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: no direct, gradual route exists to these irreducibly complex systems, and the laws of chemistry work strongly against the UNDIRECTED development of the biochemical systems that make molecules such as AMP.

"Alternatives to gradualism that work through unintelligent causes, such as symbiosis and complexity theory, cannot (and do not even try to) explain the fundamental biochemical machines of life....Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work; further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.

"Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant."



Do you find this non-boring enough to actually read what this scientist said? Maybe even without attacking his reputation and credulity? Just sticking with the discussion?

[Claire Evans]

To Claire Evans:

Just wanted to reply to a few of your comments.

(1) You wrote that the Trinity concept is in the Bible. Where?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So we see here that the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 4:10New International Version (NIV)

10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

We know that Jesus is our saviour so Jesus and God are interchangeable.

Likewise...

Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1


..the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14


"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

1 John 5:7

(2) You say that we "won't find logic associated with faith." I disagree. Logic is always a good thing to appeal to.

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

(3) Regarding your statement about the number of atheists: I say that there are atheists in spite of logic that is indeed associated with the ways of the Lord. He gave us the ability to reason, and it's my opinion that He wants us to do that. He never does things that have no logic.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)

Reason isn't logic.

(4) In response to your question of "how did Satan get his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained?".....I ask how did you arrive at the conclusion that he needs human suffering to be sustained? Where did that come from? Satan, according to the Scriptures, was created as a good angel and, since he had free will, eventually decided to become independent of God and to run his own show. He convinced a part of the good angels to switch sides, if you will. Then we had demons---bad angels. That's not difficult to understand.

I am looking forward to your comments and answers to my questions.

Have you not experienced that for yourself? That the more Satan manages to torment a person, the stronger he gets? I know that from experience. Demons need negative energy to replenish their energy:

http://www.spiritdaily.net/emotionsspirits.htm

Satan's presence in the Garden of Gethsemane was strong because Jesus was tormented by fear. Satan was feeding off the negative energy of fear. Once God gave Jesus peace, Satan left because he can't feed off positive energy exuded by peace.

First of all, in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says that the Spirit was OF the Lord; In fact, there are TWO implications of "spirit" in that verse. The first implication is that God IS Spirit---that means He is a spirit Person, not a physical one. ("God is a Spirit..." John 4:24) Then, afterward, it mentions the Spirit OF God, which means the force with which He does things. He creates, He anoints, He blesses, He relates in many ways to humans and the rest of His creation by way of His force, or, spirit.

Anyway, this does not show that the Spirit is a third member of a trinity of Gods.

Isn't God as a spirit also called the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not physical. The Holy Spirit is considered our intermediary to God through Jesus Christ who is now a spirit. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are different facets to one entity? John 4:24 refers to people who must be filled with the Holy Spirit to worship Him.

Are we to say that God stopped dwelling in Jesus once Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when He was baptized?

Furthermore, Corinthians goes on to say that Jesus is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Jesus was a physical being.

Secondly, Jesus and God are NOT interchangeable. God says that he is Jehovah and there is no one else that is God. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; Isaiah 43:10,11; Psalm 36:9)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, KJV)

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:10,11, Darby)

"For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9, NWT)

If God thought the Jews understood God, then why did Jesus come to witness for the truth if the Jews had the truth already? The OT Yahweh contradicts the Father so badly that one has to wonder why.

Jesus also said that his Father, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) He didn't say "we are God."

Jesus said He and the Father are one so we didn't have to say "we".

Now, if Jehovah is the only God, and He is the Savior, how can Jesus be the Savior? He can be the Savior because JEHOVAH CHOSE HIM to do the job of coming to Earth and giving up his human life for mankind. Jesus was ANOINTED to do these things and represent Jehovah on the earth. Jesus was God's MEANS of saving mankind. The SOURCE of that plan was Jehovah. It was Jehovah who instructed Jesus as to what to do.

God without Jesus cannot be the saviour. Was it believed in the OT that God could only save by sending His Son? And I mean generally accepted by the Jews. If animal sacrifices were enough to redeem sin, then what was Jesus for? Consider that Jesus was incarnate of God so that He could come to this earth in physical form. Jesus wasn't just a representative. He said He was one with God! Any messiah can say they represent God.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus; Luke 4:16-21], because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart, to proclaim to captives liberty, and to bound ones an opening of bands. To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all mourners." (Isaiah 61:1,2, Young's Literal Translation)

Did Jehovah anoint himself?

"Jesus therefore responded [to those who accused him of making himself equal to God] and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son doeth in like manner; for the Father doth love the Son, and doth show to him all things that He himself doeth." (John 5:19, Young's) So....Jesus LEARNED from the Father. God does not have to learn from anybody.

Jesus said: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50) It doesn't look like Jesus and the Father, Jehovah, are one and the same. Jesus took orders from the Father.

Let's look at the egg analogy. We see the egg as one unit. Taking out the yolk, albumen and peel off the shell doesn't make them suddenly separate not related to the same unit. You can't see yolk and think it never came from the egg. It is the same. You cannot think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings when they were one with the Father in the form of an egg. The various parts that make up an egg have different functions as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have yet are still one with the Father.

You are being, inadvertently I'm sure, deceptive in your presentation of Titus 2:13 as showing that Jesus is God. Versions DIFFER in its rendering! For example, the New American Bible puts it this way: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God [Jehovah] AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Totally different meaning than what you presented. (That word "of" means a lot.)

Us who believe in the trinity also say God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Yet this doesn't mean we are viewing them as three separate entities but rather three aspects of the one God. We cannot see God and so we can only see God when He is the form of Jesus. Seeing Jesus is seeing God.

John 1:1---"and the word was God"---is a mess of a translation, and I imagine St. John, who is now in heaven, cringes at the meaning trying to be conveyed by most Bible translators. The King James translation committee was so extremely biased by their own religious up-bringing that they made out the words of John to mean something he never meant! He was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "the" God and the Word. In Greek, "the" god had the definite article in front of "god." That showed that it was the only God that was being referred to. In the phrase "and the word was God," there is no definite article in front of "god," so it is correctly rendered "a god." So the Word was NOT the God. It is difficult to understand if a person doesn't know that in the Apostle John's time "god" meant any powerful, important person; the people thought of judges and political figures as "gods."

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


.

The mistake people make is that they assume that just because there is no definite article (the) in Greek then is must mean that it must have be an indefinite article (a/an). This is not always the case. When the indefinite article is omitted, then the English translation has to include the correct meaning:

"Literally in Greek, John 1:2 says: ‘He was in beginning with God.’ Notice that in Greek there is no definite article before the word ‘beginning’. It makes sense to include the definite article ‘the’ in our English translation for the sake of clarity and English idiom. Thus, ‘He was in the beginning with God.’

We take take John 1:6 for example:

"There was a man sent from God whose name was John"

Just because there is no definite article, doesn't mean this should automatically include an indefinite one. We don't translate this as, "There was a man sent from the God..."

" In fact, if the over-generalization of ‘lack of definite article makes an indefinite meaning’ is applied to other words in the first few verses of John 1, the following phrases would be found:
1:1,2 ‘a beginning’ rather than ‘the beginning’
1:4 ‘a life’ rather than ‘life’
1:6 ‘from a god’ as noted above
1:6 ‘a John’ rather than ‘John’
Thus if an implied indefinite article (‘a’) is assumed to be present in every place where no definite article (‘the’) appears in Greek, it can often change the intended meaning of a passage.
These are clear instances that exemplify the fact that Greek cannot be translated according to some imposed English equivalent. The use of the definite article in the two languages has separate meanings and uses altogether."

So even though there is no indefinite article in Greek, there is a way to convey the indefinite article by including the word "tis"

"Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective."

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm


It was crucial you address all points which you tend not to do and that is why I'm reluctant to debate with you. So I post it again:

"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

Why are people so reluctant to talk about evil and Satan? You are the second person I've come across that has glossed over the mention of Satan.