-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Spirit in the sky
- Thread starter King Phenomenon
- Start date
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions.
There is only 1 true God, according to Jesus, and slowly over time I found that all Jesus said works as he said -- by repeated testing in varying conditions.
Gradually I found he knows what he is talking about, and I consider Jesus to have a superior knowledge of God.
I'd not rely on my own speculations above his teachings, nor would I rely on whoever else's ideas above those of Jesus, due to all of that testing I've done.
It's somewhat like how you'd trust Einstein to know how the math and workings of Special Relativity and General Relativity, though this is only an analogy that is partial.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I'll be in heaven with my family in spirit and I leave it at that. I don't fret the details.If you married three times, and each of your X-wives went on to marry twice more, what sort of family would you expect to have in Heaven?
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I'll be in heaven with my family in spirit and I leave it at that. I don't fret the details.If you married three times, and each of your X-wives went on to marry twice more, what sort of family would you expect to have in Heaven?
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
If you married three times, and each of your X-wives went on to marry twice more, what sort of family would you expect to have in Heaven?
Jesus was asked an instance of this question. It's kinda a fun one to hear --
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Matthew 22 NIV
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Did you notice, or have a pause as you wrote this, that you here in these words you wrote are asserting you know what I think and/or what evidences I have?
Now, when you suggested I'd claimed to know your thoughts, your own objection as you wrote above was:
See the problem there?
I don't think this is even just the typical pot calling kettle black even.
Whereas I don't ever think I know someone else's experiences or thoughts. I only try to guess, and don't assert....
But you've outright asserted, as if to know (telepathically?) my experiences and information re "evidence"....
Hmmm.... Now, who was it that is guilty here of that?....
This would be a good reason to rethink some things, when you find you've been accusing others of something you are doing blatantly.
Last edited:
Define "in spirit."
It strikes me as a facile dodge.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I respect that you think its superficial. Like I said I don't fret the details
ecco
Veteran Member
If you married three times, and each of your X-wives went on to marry twice more, what sort of family would you expect to have in Heaven?
That kinda brings to mind the whole concept of Islamic Martyrs. They start off with 72 virgins. In a comparatively short time, all they have is a "harem" of 72 nagging women - for all of eternity. I guess this is what some would call Karma.
ecco
Veteran Member
Since Jesus is 1/3rd of God, it would make sense that He knows about all three parts.
Care to share? I'd really like to know how you went about testing this.
Uh, no. It actually isn't anything like that. We can actually see some of the math that Einstein actually wrote in his own handwriting.
ecco
Veteran Member
Wow. Matthew's Sadducees were really easy to astonish. However, I would think a group of people who didn't believe in resurrection would not be that easy to convince.
Did no one ask...
What does it mean to "be like the angels"?
If two people are in a loving marriage for 50 years and die, they can't be married in heaven? That seems rather cruel.
It seems that those verses are nothing more than Matthew making up another "Jesus is amazing" story without really thinking it all through. But, I guess, if no one ever questions it, it works.
ecco
Veteran Member
"Others"? What "others"?
Let's compare apples to apples.
Here is what you posted...
Real question to you: Why limit yourself, your life, your experiences, so severely? I'm not suggesting a drug, though I don't try to judge that, but even just merely taking time to stare at the sky for a while or something (bath, music, running, whatever), can be helpful to people to better their conscious state. If life seems like you'd not want to continue it after 4.32 bn years or after 2.5 minutes (I'm serious here), perhaps the problem is not being willing to experience the new.
You, with no evidence whatsoever, stated that I was limiting myself, my life, my experiences. Then you took it upon yourself to tell me to stop and smell the roses even though you have no way of knowing how I spend my time, other than on RF.
I made it clear, in a way that any rational person would understand, why the concept of existing for eternity is repugnant. You, somehow, analyzed that and came to the nonsensical conclusion that I'm not "willing to experience the new".
Now, let's look at what I stated about you...
First, since you asserted that I just assumed that your god doesn't exist, I asked about your assumptions:
Why do you assume that I am making an assumption that gods don't exist? Is that your ego talking again?
Are you just assuming that Shiva is not a real god?
Are you just assuming that Allah is not a real god?
Are millions of Hindus and Muslims just assuming that your god does not exist?
Are you just assuming that Allah is not a real god?
Are millions of Hindus and Muslims just assuming that your god does not exist?
Why do you assume that I am making an assumption that gods don't exist? Is that your ego talking again?
You ducked all the questions and, when asked, said you thought they were rhetorical. That's kind of silly since a sixth-grader would know they were serious questions.
I then went on to assert...
You, without any evidence except some stories compiled into a couple of books, believe in a very specific god.
You, without any evidence except some stories compiled into a couple of books, believe in heaven and eternal life after life.
You, without any evidence, make up stories about what is or is not possible in that after life.
I know that you have no other evidence, because there is no other evidence. Anecdotes about your own personal experiences are not evidence. Are you going to assert that you have spoken to entities in heaven?
Bottom line, you made a number of assumptions about me. When I pointed that out and asked "why", you ignored the questions. I gave you an opportunity to support your assumptions. You didn't/couldn't.
On the other hand, I made provable assertions.
Of course, I don't expect you to understand the difference.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Good questions.
The crowd that was astonished wouldn't be mostly Sadducees, but all the interested crowds that pressed in on this amazing person they thought was a prophet with the power of God. The Sadducees would be a smaller group with their own philosophy, see.
We'd not think that souls that already loved each other here wouldn't there. But would continue to love each other. There are higher things (better experiences, states of consciousness/existence) than even the most exceptional or rare best experiences we have here in this temporary life most would think. (I do)
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
This is what I hope you will notice here -- assuming and then an outright unqualified assertion or claim that you know whether I have evidence....
How would you know what evidence any individual has in their life, someone not yourself?
That's what you ought to reconsider. When you assert you definitely know someone else's experience, it's a good moment to stop and reconsider.
It's one thing to speculate, and ask a question.... But here instead is in the above quote an outright assertion. See how it's going past a line -- a line past which you yourself objected when it seemed to you I'd crossed it?
Apply your own standard (which I share by the way
).
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
To find out about the crowds that came to whereever Jesus wa, you'd have to read the gospels.
Can you see that by assuming/asserting I would just make things up above, you are breaking your own rule against claiming to know what others think/understand/know?
Can you see? You doing what you accused me of doing.
(And, in psychology it's known that when anyone won't admit that they are doing something that they then "project" what they aren't recognizing in themselves onto others. They see it more in others than is actually there.
They feel it's happening, but it's actually themselves who is doing it. "Projection" is the term for this psychological process, and one can read up on it.)
ecco
Veteran Member
I did. I even quoted them to refresh your memory:
23The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him
See, it clearly says the Sadducees - came to Him. I don't see how you could have missed that since it even put those words in bold for you.It does not say anything about crowds that came wherever Jesus was.
Crowds are mentioned a few times for some specific events, but not concerning his meeting with the Sadducees.
Like where Luke quotes Jesus as saying people should hate their parents.
Luke14
25And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
25And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Or where John talks about what happened after some faith healing.
John6
1After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. 2And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased
1After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. 2And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased
But, ask yourself, if he had all these huge crowds following him everywhere, why did no one write about his deeds contemporaneously? No one, in private life or in the government, made any notations at the time.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
So, to learn whether or not local crowds came to hear Jesus at that time everywhere, came to him when they heard he was around, such as the crowd in this passage that marvels at his answer, you'd have to read in the gospels. Having done so, fully, I know what is in the text, see.
Now I can inform you what is in the gospels, and/or you can read one, such as Matthew, fully through, and see for yourself.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
This is so a far reaching assertion, since it has no qualifier.
To know that myself, so absolutely -- to know not one person wrote anything down in those 3 years -- I'd need a....well, an ability to see all things in a large region for years -- to know the contents of people's pockets and homes for thousands of people, over years of time.....
It's practically...well, a regional 'all-knowing'. Or a omniscience within a limited area spanning thousands of homes.
To know even what existed temporarily, and then was lost later, or discarded, or used in cooking fires....
Did you misword, or leave out an intended qualifier?