The Resurrection Body--Heaven

lady of shallot · Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:25 pm

4 granted:


	Quote: Some in this forum seem to not accept the Bible as truth-

This is 100% true. Most on this forum are not delusional. Looks like you make three who are.

Azrael · Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:54 pm


	4granted wrote: An excellent book on this topic is Heaven Revealed by Dr. Paul Enns. He clearly explains what the Bible says about heaven. Some in this forum seem to not accept the Bible as truth--but heaven itself is a biblical concept. Dr. Enns book says we will recognize and be reunited with loved ones in heaven.


	Quote: Some in this forum seem to not accept the Bible as truth--

And what truth does it contain? There's not one christian here among us that live strictly by biblical code it's impossible. The way the book is written your damned if you do and damned if you don't it's a no win situation. The only people here who are not questioning it are those that have been brainwashed into thinking its some solve all the worlds problems book and its anything but that! The lies, murder and other vile acts created in that book do little to support any resemblance of a life style any one would want to live. Xtians are under the distinct impression its their way or hell and your sadly, sadly mistaken friend. If this book and the christian faith were all its touted to be then the whole world would follow it. Sad part is the whole world is not following it. Why? Explain to me why out of the billions of people on the face of this planet why all of them do not buy into your fantasy world? If this is so perfect a faith and I stress the word FAITH why can't you sell it to the whole world? Bible truth yeah right, horses ass would be more like it!

stahrwe · Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:35 am

Robert Tulip wrote:

stahrwe wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: Of course we have ultimate answers. Science gives ultimate answers. The coherence of scientific understanding means it is ultimately true. For example, there are absolute statements about the distance from earth to other bodies in the universe. The margin of error in these calculations is so small that it does not detract from their ultimate or absolute truth.

Don't be so dense. At least Interbane is honest. If you want we can initiate a discussion of measurement in a relativistic universe and I can show that one can never be sure where anything is, or how fast it is moving, or ...

I believe that your ego is affecting your objectivity. Perhaps you should stick to singing. You seem better at that.

Just again giving the rather amazing full context of Stahrwe's abusive rudeness. He argues that my belief that science gives ultimate answers is "dense". Instead, he would invite us to find ultimate answers in false dogmas that have been abundantly refuted by science.

In place of the beauty and coherence of the scientific understanding of the universe, Stahrwe would like to enslave everyone with lies. No wonder he objects to me ridiculing him.

Stahrwe accuses me of taking his statements out of context. I must admit, it is fun to mine his ridiculous posts for gems of idiocy and deception. As Interbane has said, it is a front row seat on the workings of delusion. I thought it was fairly obvious, when I used his statement above "one can never be sure where anything is" to ask if he had found his glasses yet, that this discussion is about entertainment. (For new readers, Stahrwe is blind but denies it, or something like that).

And I always thought my grasp on logic was far better than my singing...

You did not answer the question about the boat. It is relevant as it directly relates to your claim of certainty.

And again, Robert you are taking what I said out of context. Your statement above is, "...Stahrwe is blind." I never said that. My words were, "What if I told you I was blind?"

Your inability to distinguish was and is is difficult to understand given that you have stated that you examine text for hidden meaning. I also stated that I have publicly asserted on hundreds of occasions that I, "once was blind". That is a true statement.

As for being rude, I dispute that. I have never been vulgar or abusive toward you or any BT member.

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:05 am

rude |roōd|
adjective
1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered

Absolutely you are rude Stahrwe.

stahrwe · Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:28 am


	lady of shallot wrote: rude \|roōd\| adjective 1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered Absolutely you are rude Stahrwe.

Perhaps there are different standards for Christians and atheists as to what constitutes rudeness. I have never been vulgar, wished anyone ill, threatened violence to anyone, implied anyone on BT was retarded, etc.

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:40 am

Some of us rely on books called dictionaries to define words. If we can't agree on the meaning of words how can we communicate at all?

Rude need not be vulgar, ill wishing, violence threatening or intelligence disparaging. You are rude.

Oh, and I can be on occasion also. Not so much in real life, but on this forum.

Dawn · Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:38 pm


	4granted wrote: An excellent book on this topic is Heaven Revealed by Dr. Paul Enns. He clearly explains what the Bible says about heaven. Some in this forum seem to not accept the Bible as truth--but heaven itself is a biblical concept. Dr. Enns book says we will recognize and be reunited with loved ones in heaven.

Welcome 4granted to the wild and wordy world of BookTalk. There's a lot of bark here, and sometimes we forget we're here to talk about books... Thank you for this introduction... But usually the bark is worse than the bite and the dialogue is valuable. Hope you'll have a look around and find some friendly folk and helpful discussion, and of course share some good books!

stahrwe · Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:34 pm


	lady of shallot wrote: Some of us rely on books called dictionaries to define words. If we can't agree on the meaning of words how can we communicate at all? Rude need not be vulgar, ill wishing, violence threatening or intelligence disparaging. You are rude. Oh, and I can be on occasion also. Not so much in real life, but on this forum.

I did not say that vulgarities were examples of rudeness. In fact, I think they and the other items are much worse. You are entitled to your opinion.

Robert Tulip · Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:07 am

Interbane wrote:


	Robert wrote: What about force = mass x acceleration, or energy = mass x the speed of light squared? These are examples where our language reflects the reality. Words reflect facts, and can do so with a great deal of precision.

Those are words, they are not the forces themselves.

In this case the forces themselves do act in accordance with the words, with force as a product of mass and acceleration, all of which can be objectively measured.

You are saying that the reflection of things by ideas involves a loss of information. I do not see what that has to do with the ultimate truth of the words, as the implication of your argument is that we can never have accurate certain knowledge. It is as bad as Hume saying we don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow.

Just say a meteor was definitely headed for the earth on a trajectory that gave no room for doubt. In this case, the statement 'a meteor is headed for the earth' would be ultimately true, and would be proven as such when the meteor did in fact hit the earth. The lack of detail about the exact size and materials of the meteor is irrelevant to the fact that the statement about it can be absolutely and ultimately true. From this we can also say all the most simple statements of fact, eg the earth is beneath our feet, are ultimately true. Ultimate just means objective, it does not mean comprehensive and exhaustive.


	Quote: It is enough of a different that the "truth" cannot be ultimate. It's expressed in a different medium. It's the best we can do, and if indeed true, then an infinitesimal sliver away from ultimate.

You are suggesting the difference between words and things is one of degree, when it is actually a difference of type. A conceptual representation is not a thing. We find out ultimate truth in the unfolding of history. As in, 'it ultimately proved true that the USA and its allies had greater resources to deploy in the second world war than their enemies'.


	Quote: There is also the problem of induction. If that formula proves true at this point in time, what 'absolute' guarantee do you have that it will be true tomorrow? We don't have a guarantee. The problem is not our expression of reality, the problem is the expectation of reaching some ultimate 'ideal'. It is an unreal expectation, and I'm not sure why you feel as if it's fulfilled, if you truly understand the magnitude of "ultimate".

You are suggesting the laws of physics are likely to change? This is more of David Hume's extreme doubt that we can see a necessary connection between cause and effect. Induction tells us that causality is universal. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a compelling proof that the laws of physics have operated consistently since the dawn of time. Imagining the laws might change, and especially on short human time scales, is absurd.

Quote:


	Robert wrote: Science rejects all faith on principle, as you have outlined here regarding absurd infinitesimal margins for error which mean perhaps everything we see is not real.

You're making me into a champion of that infinitesimal margin for error. I'm no such thing, it's my enemy. But if you think you are able to avoid it, I would like to know how. Even Heidegger begins with faith. That is a margin for error if I've ever seen one.

Heidegger's use of faith is not a margin of error. His faith is that the world exists much as we see it, informed by scientific knowledge. Where Heidegger does move into areas with margin for error is in his claim that existential faith requires involvement in history, making decisions that go beyond the scope of evidence. It is however possible to see existential faith as not having margin for error, if we stick to fundamentally axiomatic claims, such as that the world exists, that humans exist among others, and that care for others is fundamental to human existence.

Interbane · Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:41 am


	Quote: You are suggesting the laws of physics are likely to change?

I wrote a decently lengthy reply then it was lost. This question makes a straw man out of me. No, I am not saying the laws of physics are likely to change. The question is, do you think it's impossible for them to change? Utterly impossible?


	Quote: Induction tells us that causality is universal.

What do we use to ascertain that induction is an absolutely flawless reasoning technique?


	Quote: Just say a meteor was definitely headed for the earth on a trajectory that gave no room for doubt.

Could you show me that it was absolutely impossible there was human error, or any other mistake? Or that the meteor wasn't a spaceship. Or a god turd. Better yet, show me that I'm not stuck in a perfect representation of reality in a video game from the far future. Absurd, absolutely. Stupid and silly too. I'm not sure how to absolutely rule out every rogue hypothesis. Though it seems you are able to, by using faith. But faith doesn't change the state of affairs. It merely changes your perception of the state of affairs. It would blind you to the infinitesimal uncertainty, rather than getting rid of said uncertainty.

lady of shallot · Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:19 pm

Stahrwe: April 29 9:40 a.m.


	Quote: Perhaps there are different standards for Christians and atheists as to what constitutes rudeness. I have never been vulgar, wished anyone ill, threatened violence to anyone, implied anyone on BT was retarded, etc.

lady of shallot wrote:


	Quote: rude \|roōd\| adjective 1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered Absolutely you are rude Stahrwe.

Stahrwe: (later the same day)


	Quote: lady of shallot wrote: Some of us rely on books called dictionaries to define words. If we can't agree on the meaning of words how can we communicate at all? Rude need not be vulgar, ill wishing, violence threatening or intelligence disparaging. You are rude. Oh, and I can be on occasion also. Not so much in real life, but on this forum. I did not say that vulgarities were examples of rudeness. In fact, I think they and the other items are much worse. You are entitled to your opinion.

Maybe Stahrwe knows what he is talking about but I think this is a conversation from the Twilight Zone.

Forum rules

The Resurrection Body--Heaven Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!