Question about the Resurrection

[Tassman]

You're conflating the idea of a perfect resurrection body (true) with the idea that a "spiritual" resurrection body is not physical (false).

Neither is true, in my view, and you can't prove otherwise but that’s not the discussion. The discussion is whether or not the resurrection accounts we get in Paul are of the same order as those we get in the gospels.

In the gospels we get overt references to a fleshly resurrection in Paul we get neither direct references to a fleshly resurrection, nor indirect ones either in my view – despite the best efforts of apologists to argue otherwise.

[The Pixie]

Mountain Man

I keep waiting for you to provide a superior source that contradicts their research. So far... *** crickets ***

I assume you also accept their view that Paul preached only to Jews, not to gentiles - you know, with them being the great authorities that they are.

Oh no, wait. You reject them as authorities where they disagree with you, and hold them up when you need their support. Such cherry-picking may help you convince yourself, but does squat for the rest of us.

I take it by your trying to reframe the argument that you agree that it would be just for God to punish the willfully rebellious, steadfastly unrepentant, or irredeemably evil.

Yes, it would be just to punish them. To punish them with suffering for all eternity for finite sins? No, that is not just.

However, with regards to reframing the argument, absolutely I am doing that. The point where the contradictions are clearest is in the way God will supposedly handle those who have lead, by-and-large, good lives, and for some good reason reason do not believe in the Christian God - but I can well understand why you want to frame it so we consider the fate of sinners.

I'll also point out that if God is perfectly just then nobody will go to hell unless they deserve it.

So to be quite clear, you are saying that only people who deserved to suffer an eternity in hell will be sent to hell, right?

I say this, because most Christians take the view that only by believing in Jesus can you avoid hell. Or perhaps you think everyone who is not a Christian actually deserves to go to hell, from Gandhi to Gaddafi?

Please clarify exactly what you mean here, MM.

I'm sure people have any number of excuses for refusing God's grace, but they'd better make sure they actually have legitimate reasons that leave them innocent. Anybody who thinks they'll fall into that category needs to do conduct some serious introspection. During the judgment, God is going to make it painfully clear that everyone is without excuse.

Not sure what your point is here. We are discussing how judge will judge and sentence people; for the sake of the discussion, we are assuming that some people do have legitimate reasons.

Pix: I can think of a number of ways in which this analogy fails.

MM: But it succeeds in that it is just to punish those who deserve it.

Right, so it succeeds to prove a point we both agree on, but fails to support you with regards to anything we disagree on.

Yeah, well done on that one, MM!

[Andius]

What I do is use words in English to mean what those words conventionally mean. I apreciate this is just my hubris, but that is how I am.

And stocking yourself in monopolistic fashion the "conventional" meanings in a debate betrays what poor intellectual ploys you are even able to execute. Oh well, no correction for the incorrigible.

I was arguing about the common Christian view. If you do not subscribe to that, you need to make that plain before taking offence at people assuming you, a protestant Christian, subscribe to that view. A little tolerance can go a long way.

Common Christian view? Right.... Hehe. Me? A Protestant?? BAHAHAHA,

The Anglo phonic Christian world is the entire constitution of "The Common Christian View"? Me make my postures clear first? Yeah sure. And while I'm at it, do continue to arrogate yourself the authority of presuming in a priori declarations on WHAT are the beliefs of others, cuz you know, we gotta spread love and peace and tolerance and all mad stuff.

The common Christian view is that god loves everyone. All-loving.

You refer to the "God so loved the World", " deal from John 3:16 no doubt.

The expression of God loving the world, is effectively this; "For God sought out the well-being of the world". Even in maintaining a committed action to grant well being to one's in-group, it does not exclude EXTENDING the hand of fellowship to outsiders, and welcoming them into the in-group (and hand you can either accept or reject). God executing agapeos to the World, is extending his hand of in-group fellowship to those who are dwelling in the world. He is effectively offering integrating those who are of the world into his in-group.

Oh, as an addendum; The use of the world World (Kosmos) does not entail everyone in the context of the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus. The love (agape) of God extends to pas (all or anyone) that pisteuo (commits their loyalty based on evidence). Verse 18 reveals the destiny of those who cast their pisteuo/pistis towards Christ, and those who do not, followed by a contrast between Light and darkness and their respective seekers in verses 19 to 21. Jesus' point was plainly stating that you are either in (The Light) or your out (darkness), but ALL have the opportunity to choose. Those who choose OUT are officially out of the picture, ergo, The so called "all-loving" paradigm with it's clumsy English understanding of "love" effectively collapses.

What exactly is the "act" of love? I have to assume you do not mean sex, but cannot think what else it could be.

You... assume correctly (Oversexed mentality, how convenient... ). Good man.

An act of love (agape) is any and all acts that strives for the well being of the group.

Okay, so God only loves his own in-crowd (i.e. Christians) and the rest can go to hell. I find that view at odds with mainstream Christianity, but certainly more coherent when it comes to hell.

Good man.

So God, who is love incarnate, will happily send to eternal suffering whose outside his group. Hmm, see that does not sound so coherent. What does it mean to be love incarnate, and yet to have such a relationship with non-Christians that he sends them to eternal suffering. It is like he is love incarnate for the in-crowd, and jerk incarnate for outsiders. I can see where you get your intolerance from...

4 Straw-men highlighted in bold in that one enunciation of yours alone. tsk tsk

1) - When it comes to sentences of judicial nature (as is the case of God choosing who enters the Kingdom of Heaven, and who doesn't), emotions are irrelevant.
2) - I already told you the definition biblical love (agape) In my previous. It means he grants that love to those want "in". The ones who want "out" (the non-Christian in your case) are not entitled to that grand benefit.
3) - Wrong Pixie. There is nothing jerk-like about a Patron who has an open doors entry policy to be inducted in the "in-group". At best, he could be considered a jerk incarnate if he held a closed doors policy and arbitrarily selected on who can go in.
4) - Intolerant? Me? Against the stupid yes. Second guessing my influences will get you nowhere. (And GOOOOOD JOB PIXIE!! Once again forcingly defining the beliefs of others!! Papa is sooo proud )

So how does that work with people who have never heard of the Christian God? Too bad, excluded from the in-crowd by being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, so God is jerk incarnate to you.

Wrong. I also sustain that all corners of humanity in all eras actually have had the chance of entering the in-crowd. The work The Discovery of Genesis, by C. H. Kang, states that the most ancient of Chinese revered and served a Deity not too different from the God of Israel (and most likely that it is the same one). Abraham and Melchizedek, two men of God's "in-group", hailed from 2 different locations, and entered his in-group via individual covenants with each in independent means and locations.

As I adequately stated above this text, God IS granting ALL the opportunity to enter the in-group.

How does that work with God being love incarnate? Is his love a conditional love? An intolerant love?

Still retaining your clumsy definition of love.....

It is neither conditional, nor intolerant, it IS available for all. Available being the key phrase here boy. God's love is being offered via a covenant. You can either accept it or rejected.

It is curious how you started by complaining about definitions, and yet you have so distoted the word "love" as to make it unrecognisable. Why say "God is Love Incarnate" if the word "love" means something else entirely? It comes across as wanting to have your cake and eat it. You want God to sound like a great guy, so you call him "Love Incarnate", but you want non-believers to suffer in hell (or you want to rationalise why they suffer in hell) so you corrupt and distot the word "love" into something unrecognisable.

Oh man you are so dense...

I already stated that the word Love in the Bible has a particular meaning. It doesn't matter into what language it gets translated into. It's concept and understanding is permanently locked in the original languages that it was written in (as is the case of ALL original writings that get translated to other radically different languages). The only distortion that has occurred are the morons like you who are forcing definitions into contexts where they don't belong. If you are unable to comprehend the original definitions and conceptualizations of a text, that's your own damn problem.

So say God is agape incarnate. He is the incarnation of looking after those in his in-group. That fits perfectly.

Eeyup.

This makes sense only if the deal is offered. What of people who have never heard of Christianity? What of people raised in cultures dominated by other religions? What of people who have sincerely studied the evidence and found it wanting? None of these people have received this offer. There is no shame about rejecting an offer you never knew or never believed existed.

See that bolded bit? That's EXACTLY what I've been trying to get through that thick skull of yours.

- Never heard of Christianity? Non-existent. And if that be the case, it's not like Christendom was the only exclusive covenant offer that has existed in the history of mankind. (See above)
- Dominant Religion Gig = Outsider Test Fallacy, no different from the Mormon nonsense of the internal witness test.
- Sincere Study and found wanting? Irrelevant. Sincerity is not what yields truth, only careful study and reasoning. You either accept or reject the evidence.

Unawares of the existence of the deal? Hardly likely. However you are correct in stating that there is no shame in rejecting an offer that don't exist in the first place. If you believe that this offer is nothing more than delusion, then forget about the matter in the first place and go on and live life as you see fit.

Now if you worship the incarnation of looking after the in-crowd, you have no problem. Those born in non-Christian cultures just do not matter to him.

No problem for me. And wrong-o, because all cultures are never statically "set". The problem is non-existant because cultural groups are dynamically influenced with one another. Practically, bits and pieces of each other's culture's in-groups almost always seeps in the other's culture's in-group. Ergo, the offer always seeps in.

Actually, this fits well with the OT, where God only cares about the Israelites; his in-crowd at the time.

Yeah, but he never shut the door to those who wanted "in". Case in point, Ruth and Naomi, Moabite women that left Moabite society (their former in-group) and integrated in Israelite society (their new in-group).

Ah, I see. You use the word in the correct usage, the rest of the English speaking world, incluuding dictionaries, have got it wrong. Right...

When comprehending love found in Bible writ, yeah, they will ALWAYS be wrong (as will ALL other languages that attempt to import foreign concepts into the text).

Okay... So persuade Bible writers to use the word "agape" instead, and be clear that your God is the incarnation of looking after the in-crowd.

There be plenty of Bible commentaries for that already, and not outside the scope of anyone's understanding. A little mental effort goes a long way. And I am content that My God does look after His in-crowd and extend the opportunity to anyone to join, because it is not problematic in any way, and internally consistent. But will always be amazed how He will never turn you down if you want in and are in agreement to the terms of the covenant.

[Andius]

Such misfortune seems to be inescapable for anybody who talks to Christians. For everything that I've heard from any group of them, at least one other Christian will assure me that that group doesn't know what it's talking about.

Well I don't blame you Doug. One cannot expect every Christian to be an intellectual (Although personally, I wish it were that way). Nonetheless, a belief system is not bereft of being discovered in knowing what are it's correct postures in teaching. Case in point, my experience with Marxists. They are just as divided, yet it was not impossible to task for me to understand it's variations, and actually know which variations got it right.

I have not read any of Rothbard's works, and I'm afraid I cannot understand your paraphrase of his description.

I apologize. From this article is where I paraphrased him. Hopefully it will shed some light in where I am coming from, and avoid any misunderstandings.

http://mises.org/daily/2648

I guess it's time we got clear on what we're talking about when we talk about free will. I'll tell you what I think it means, and if you think it means something different, you can tell me. I believe an individual has free will with respect to some action if his willing the action is a sufficient condition for the action to occur. By "willing the action," I mean making a conscious decision to perform the action. Here is an example. At this moment, I am sitting in a chair. I can, at any moment, decide to stand up, and if I do so, then there is nothing to prevent me from standing up. At this moment, then, I have free will with respect to whether I stand or remain sitting. However, I do not have free will with respect to flying like Superman. No matter how much I will myself to fly, it will not happen unless I board an aircraft or use some other mechanical contrivance.

Actually, that's quite good. ^^ I myself also sustain that posture Doug. What you described is effectively what is known as "Negative Freedom". Although, Austrians (technically, Semi-Austrian, I am still learning about this school of Economic Thought) such as myself, consider the dichotomy between Neg. and Pos. Freedom to be a false dichotomy. For us, there is only will/opportunity and freedom to execute it.

Can we say hooray for agreement? ^^

[The Pixie]

Andius

Pix: What I do is use words in English to mean what those words conventionally mean. I apreciate this is just my hubris, but that is how I am.

Andius: And stocking yourself in monopolistic fashion the "conventional" meanings in a debate betrays what poor intellectual ploys you are even able to execute. Oh well, no correction for the incorrigible.

That is surely an interesting spin on it!

The Anglo phonic Christian world is the entire constitution of "The Common Christian View"?

When it comes to the use of a word in the English, then the Anglo-phonic world does indeed hold the monopoly. We would not dare to tell the French-speaking how to use a French word, or the Germam-speaking how to use German. But on the English language, the English-speaking people are the experts.

Seriously, how else would it be?

The expression of God loving the world, is effectively this; "For God sought out the well-being of the world". Even in maintaining a committed action to grant well being to one's in-group, it does not exclude EXTENDING the hand of fellowship to outsiders, and welcoming them into the in-group (and hand you can either accept or reject). God executing agapeos to the World, is extending his hand of in-group fellowship to those who are dwelling in the world. He is effectively offering integrating those who are of the world into his in-group.

So to be clear, you do not hold to the view that God loves everyone, right?

I get that. It makes the hell thing far more coherent.

An act of love (agape) is any and all acts that strives for the well being of the group.

So eugenics then, which strives for the good of the species (albeit at the expense of the individual) is an act of agape-love.

Or ethnic cleansing, which strives for the good of the in-group, at the expense of the other people, is an act of agape-love.

1) - When it comes to sentences of judicial nature (as is the case of God choosing who enters the Kingdom of Heaven, and who doesn't), emotions are irrelevant.

So emotions like love?

3) - Wrong Pixie. There is nothing jerk-like about a Patron who has an open doors entry policy to be inducted in the "in-group". At best, he could be considered a jerk incarnate if he held a closed doors policy and arbitrarily selected on who can go in.

You forget the other side. There is very much a jerk when that patron builds a torture chamber for those not in the in-crowd.

Wrong. I also sustain that all corners of humanity in all eras actually have had the chance of entering the in-crowd. The work The Discovery of Genesis, by C. H. Kang, states that the most ancient of Chinese revered and served a Deity not too different from the God of Israel (and most likely that it is the same one). Abraham and Melchizedek, two men of God's "in-group", hailed from 2 different locations, and entered his in-group via individual covenants with each in independent means and locations.

Okay, so again I misunderstood your beliefs, I apologise.

Most Christians say you need to have faith specifically in Jesus to get to heaven (though I appreciate you are not unique in this view).

It is neither conditional, nor intolerant, it IS available for all. Available being the key phrase here boy. God's love is being offered via a covenant. You can either accept it or rejected.

I think this is me misunderstanding what you mean by "love" again. What sort of love is this that is "available"?

Let me illustrate my confusing thus: Are you married? Would you say your love is "available" to your spouse? Okay, you will not like that analogy, so let us talk about your feelings for your own in-crowd. Is your agape-love "available" to your friends? Or do you just agape-love them?

See this is what I mean by conditional. The way love works (any love, whether romantic, "bro-mance", agape, whatever) is that you feel it for another. You do not have it "available" for someone else, you just feel it whatever they do.

- Never heard of Christianity? Non-existent. And if that be the case, it's not like Christendom was the only exclusive covenant offer that has existed in the history of mankind. (See above)

Babies dying within weeks of being born are unlikely to have heard of Christianity. What happens to them?

Yeah, but he never shut the door to those who wanted "in". Case in point, Ruth and Naomi, Moabite women that left Moabite society (their former in-group) and integrated in Israelite society (their new in-group).

Was Naomi a Maobite? I was not aware of that.

Ruth was accepted because she married an Israelite, and so became an Israelite (little different to an Israelite buying a Moabite donkey, then considering it an Israelite donkey). Can you find examples of men becoming Israelites? I somehow doubt it.

[Andius]

When it comes to the use of a word in the English, then the Anglo-phonic world does indeed hold the monopoly. We would not dare to tell the French-speaking how to use a French word, or the Germam-speaking how to use German. But on the English language, the English-speaking people are the experts.

Seriously, how else would it be?

You are half right actually. In the case of English, English-speakers are the authority, they cannot impose to the French-speakers in how to handle French words. Aaah, but when French-speakers are handling a text that is of a English origin, and start mishandling it's conceptual framework by importing uniquely French understandings in a text that doesn't have them, then it is completely legit for English speakers to give stern correction to those French speakers. Case in point, the works of Shakespeare that have been translated into French or German. The works of Shakespeare are LOADED with idioms and concepts found only in 16th century England (Heck, even today's modern English writings require a commentary to be understood!). To comprehend Shakespeare, you HAVE to use the Old English definitions and concepts found in the text, there is no way around it.

This is the basic principle one has to stick to if correct understanding of a text foreign to one's known tounge is to be achieved, it doesn't matter what text or language it is.

So to be clear, you do not hold to the view that God loves everyone, right?

Correct. A God that is love (agape) does not mean an automatic execution of universal love (agape) towards all, but it can entail a universal offer of the love (in a manner of speaking, he to me is more accurately, All-gracefull.)

I get that. It makes the hell thing far more coherent.

Comprehension at last! Hurrah!

So eugenics then, which strives for the good of the species (albeit at the expense of the individual) is an act of agape-love.

Che cosa!? Of course not! Eugenics erroneously presupposes the false premise that entire species can be socially engineered to be "perfected". Individuals labeled as "imperfect" do NOT constitute a threat to the collective whole of a species. And in all the incidents where it has been executed, it has failed to bring about a "good of the species". Just look at the eugenics program of the USA throughout the first half of the 20th Century. 64,000 women sterilized against their will, infecting many of them with diseases! Where's the good in that!? There is no love (agape) being carried forth because it is DIRECTLY attacking the common good called life. And if allowed to fester, it lead to explicit genocide.

Or ethnic cleansing, which strives for the good of the in-group, at the expense of the other people, is an act of agape-love.

Again, no it does not . Striving for the well being of the in-group does not NOT legitimize initiating an act of violence against those outside of it! Within Christian virtuosity (as well Deutoronomical ((Jewish)) Virtuosity found in the Old Testament, the Christian forerunners) Love (agape) is the maximum value, but it is still complemented with condemnations towards initiating acts of violence (case in point, Matt. 26:52). Extending the hand the fellowship to outsiders to God's ingroup does NOT go hand in hand with attacking directly other in-groups.

Besides, acts of ethnic cleansing, have NEVER ushered a collective well being for any in-group that has initiated it. In my country, 250,000 maya peoples were murdered throughout the course of the Civil War, it has not brought about well being for ladinos such as myself (There was ONLY destruction, NEVER production).

So emotions like love?

love (agape) is not an emotion, it is an act. No emotions are necessary (but not excluded of course).

You forget the other side. There is very much a jerk when that patron builds a torture chamber for those not in the in-crowd.

Wrongo. Your analogy fails because Hell does not function like a torture chamber (Hell is not some sort of prison where one will be poked with pitch-forks in boiling cauldrons for all of eternity. ). More accurately, Hell functions more as a form of Exile, a state of exile where Shame is felt throughout all of eternity.

Okay, so again I misunderstood your beliefs, I apologise.

Good man ( ")d

Most Christians say you need to have faith specifically in Jesus to get to heaven (though I appreciate you are not unique in this view).

Well, the word faith (pistis, pisteuos), like love, also has a highly delineated definition within Bible writ. Pistis means loyalty based on evidence, a concept that is actually more akin to when one says that you are faithful to your spouse (a marriage covenant consists of constant mutual accounting and loyalty). I do abide by the New Covenant that states that faith towards Jesus is the one path to Heaven. However, I do acknowledge the existence of other covenants God may have had with other peoples in past in order to give them a fair chance in being saved. (For example, in the Old Covenant found in the OT, the question was framed in a more simplistic fashion, choosing God is choosing life, rejecting God is to accept death. A terminology that is still in use in even in NT writ with Jesus being equated with Life).

I think this is me misunderstanding what you mean by "love" again. What sort of love is this that is "available"?

The kind that simply offers my commitment to be on the lookout after the well-being of others. In rough analogy, it is something like this; (I hope you like nonsensical humor ) ;



Of course, in the case of God, and myself including. Replace the CAKE or DEATH bit, Want me to CARE for you or not NOT CARE for you?

Let me illustrate my confusing thus: Are you married? Would you say your love is "available" to your spouse? Okay, you will not like that analogy, so let us talk about your feelings for your own in-crowd. Is your agape-love "available" to your friends? Or do you just agape-love them

Oh the marriage illustration is good. Available no, because my hypothetical spouse (single hombre atm ) officially has my love, my commitment to love her is effective immediately once bethrothed. Same deal with my in-group of friends, the prior availability before they became my friends is rendered null once integrated immediately into the in-group of friends, because I am currently loving my friends. The offer of my love is potentiality, and my acts of love are execution. The unlit car engine, changing to an activated car engine.

See this is what I mean by conditional. The way love works (any love, whether romantic, "bro-mance", agape, whatever) is that you feel it for another. You do not have it "available" for someone else, you just feel it whatever they do.

Oh dear, guess that pretty much screws me over for being such an emotionless automaton when I engaged in agape, oh the horror! What will I ever do!??????

As I stated earlier, availability of my agape is a state of potentiality that applies only to those who are not in my in-group. Feelings... are.... IRRELEVANT. (Same deal with God).

Truth be told, emotion is not a pre-requisitte to engage in agape love. I have clients in a parking lot and apartments that I manage. I show them agape love by insuring their cars will be safe and apartments stay in tip top shape, and in effect, they show love me and the business by paying their monthly rents first thing month, mutual voluntary benefit, a beautiful thing. Yet I don't sustain any sappy sentimental attachments with my clients, but I invest and insure in their well being every single day (Since my clients are also another in-group of mine, where I exercise the role of a Patron).

Emotions and Agape are not mutually exclusive, but it is sure as sunrise that they are not necessary components of each other. Such is the by-product The modernistic notion of love prevalent in today's Western societies (English-speaking world being naturally one of those societies) embraces a sappified concept of love that never says a mean word when there is a wrong, and it is this very conception, when imported into the context of Bible writ, it unleashes all sorts of chaotic misunderstanding that ends up distorting comprehension (Just as I alluded earlier that one cannot use one's modern English to comprehend Shakespeare, you must comprehend it in Old English to understand Shakespeare correctly, and there be plenty of commentaries that aid non-Old English speakers).

Babies dying within weeks of being born are unlikely to have heard of Christianity. What happens to them?

They don't head for Hell, that's for sure, this fun video will explain it to you:

Ruth was accepted because she married an Israelite, and so became an Israelite (little different to an Israelite buying a Moabite donkey, then considering it an Israelite donkey). Can you find examples of men becoming Israelites? I somehow doubt it.

Actually, the mere act of Ruth merely engaging in the harvest of Israel's grain is validation enough to be accepted. Boaz, as her patron, accepted her to enter in a patron-client relationship with him, automatically inducing her into Israelite society. No Marriage required. Such were the customs in ancient times. Ancient Israel is NOT the Modern United States of America with their green cards.

In regards to men, check it out;

Exodus 12:38 Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.

If you look up in the original Hebrew, the word found in this verse ereb, is a term usually referring to outsiders. Since people will always include both men and women, (it would be an insane far cry to actually imply that the crowd consisted solely of women), there's your men.

[37818]

Neither is true, in my view, and you can't prove otherwise but that’s not the discussion. The discussion is whether or not the resurrection accounts we get in Paul are of the same order as those we get in the gospels.

In the gospels we get overt references to a fleshly resurrection in Paul we get neither direct references to a fleshly resurrection, nor indirect ones either in my view – despite the best efforts of apologists to argue otherwise.

Well your view is not Christian. And as for the reading of the documents patently false. Paul explicitly taught that the resurrection was bodily (see Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:36) , from mortal to immortal (see Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthian 15:53), and that Jesus the Man being the sole mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5.)

You can insist on your view if you want to, but that is not the Christian understanding. So to argue your drivel is in vain. The only ones you are convincing are those who what any excuse not to believe the truth.

[Daniel7:14]

I was just wondering, as it is probably already been stated here, but can someone tell me why there is a question about Gods' love, when it comes to eternal beings being found in eternal torment, or eternal redemption? As I understand the "free will" that God ingrained into the man (and subsequently the woman), why would there be a question as to those that have rejected him...ALL... their lives, not having that rejection hold fast once they pass from this life? We see the two thieves, the one held fast, through his "free will, to continue to reject God. He willingly embraced his judgment, in the very prescence of God, rather than accept redemption.

Should God then "negate" this created trait in man, and "force" eternal life upon this person? If you look at the example given between Lazarus and the rich man, my text does not show where the rich man "voiced" a plea to be ...REMOVED...from his torments. He certainly desired a drop of water on his tongue, but do you notice he never expresses any desire to be moved into the presence of Abraham? Don't read anything into the text, let it speak for itself.

So those "positions" that those in torment would want out of hell and permitted into heaven, are not necessarily supported by this account in Luke 16.

As the righteous will wear the garment of redemption, the wicked will wear the garment of judgment. Each according to the exercise and embracing found in their "free will".

Bless

[The Pixie]

Andius

Che cosa!? Of course not! Eugenics erroneously presupposes the false premise that entire species can be socially engineered to be "perfected". Individuals labeled as "imperfect" do NOT constitute a threat to the collective whole of a species. And in all the incidents where it has been executed, it has failed to bring about a "good of the species". Just look at the eugenics program of the USA throughout the first half of the 20th Century. 64,000 women sterilized against their will, infecting many of them with diseases! Where's the good in that!? There is no love (agape) being carried forth because it is DIRECTLY attacking the common good called life. And if allowed to fester, it lead to explicit genocide.

The basis of eugenics is right. It is exactly the same porincipal that has been used to breed cattle, dogs, sheep, etc. It is rejected because we recogniose that it is morally wrong. We know that it is wrong to ignore the rights of the individual, even if that benefits humanity as a whole.

The "love" of eugenics is apparent because its purpose is for the benefit of humanity - just as God, as you describe, is acting to benefit humanity. The motivation, the goal, is identical; make things better for the group. In both cases the concerns of the individuals are ignored. You express horror at: "64,000 women sterilized against their will, infecting many of them with diseases!" and rightly so, but this was done with the intention of imprioving mankind, the same noble sentiment you say God has. God, of course, sends people to eternal suffering, with the same justification.

It is curious - but entirely expected - that you cannot see the parallel here.

Again, no it does not . Striving for the well being of the in-group does not NOT legitimize initiating an act of violence against those outside of it!

Absolutely.

And yet you are advocating just that. God sending people to eternal suffering is the ultimate act of violence, and you are saying that his so-called "love" makes this acceptable because he is only doing it to those outside his in-group.

Again, it is entirely expected that you would not see the parallel.

[Doug Shaver]

Nonetheless, a belief system is not bereft of being discovered in knowing what are it's correct postures in teaching.

It seems to me that that would depend on the criterion of correctness and who is authorized to say what that criterion is. If Christian themselves cannot agree on those issues, then I see no basis on which I should adjudicate their disputes.

Case in point, my experience with Marxists. They are just as divided, yet it was not impossible to task for me to understand it's variations, and actually know which variations got it right.

If someone calling himself a Marxist tells me that I should believe such-and-such, I don't much care whether Marx himself would have told me the same thing. There either is or is not a cogent argument for such-and-such, quite regardless of who propounds the argument. If I want to know what Marx himself actually believed, I can read him for myself, and if what he says makes sense, I'll accept it, and otherwise I won't.

[Doug Shaver]

Can we say hooray for agreement? ^^

Works for me whenever I can get it :-)

[Andius]

The basis of eugenics is right. It is exactly the same porincipal that has been used to breed cattle, dogs, sheep, etc. It is rejected because we recogniose that it is morally wrong. We know that it is wrong to ignore the rights of the individual, even if that benefits humanity as a whole.

Eugenics is nothing more than another form of counterfeit doctrine ultimately derived from "Manifest Destiny" philosophies that arrogated themselves as the"discoverers of the Weltgeist (such as, G.W. Friedrich Hegel).

Exactly the same principle? Oh now you're the speaker of cattle breeders around the world? What is only self-evidently true is that cattle breeders manipulate the genetics because they have a personal preference in manipulating cattle genetics, simple as that. There is no universal interest in breeders to "improve a species" in the objective sense. Oh by the way, what a laugh you using breeders as an example. Last I checked, breeders in general don't modify species with the intent to loving the species as a whole, they modify them to suit their ends their own ends that will usually mean ill for the species (Fatter cattle are not exactly beneficial for the cattle itself... ). But do continue believing that little fantasy of yours, that a species can be "perfected", whatever that means in the genetical way.

We know that is wrong? You now also speak and know about the all the humans of this planet? Aside from ignoring the diverse motives people have to reject eugenics, some individuals still embrace eugenics in subtle fashions (The Dutch State for example). You're a failure to comprehend the human species.

And makes you think trampling on individual rights (oh, for the record, I don't believe in Natural Rights. It is a superstitious fantasy by my reckoning) equates to benefitting humanity? I don't support such a hysterical thesis or posture in the first place. In truth, all attempts to execute YOUR understanding of "love" (By this point, you have now turned it into a Strawman of my understanding of agape, devoid of it's meaning) have actually injured general welfare instead of improving it. (the unwarranted attack to individuals, under the pretext of "universal human improvement" ).

The "love" of eugenics is apparent because its purpose is for the benefit of humanity - just as God, as you describe, is acting to benefit humanity.

It is only apparent in it's superficial level, yet it's purpose has ultimately failed in all it's cases. There is a key difference that separates the actions of Eugenecists and God. The actions of Eugenicists wants to benefit mankind via coercive means, it is not giving humanity (wether part of it or it's whole) the choice. The actions of God wants to benefit mankind via a voluntary offer.

The motivation, the goal, is identical; make things better for the group.

And as I have adequately put, the means are radically different (coercive and voluntary). The former fails, the latter is successful.

In both cases the concerns of the individuals are ignored. You express horror at: "64,000 women sterilized against their will, infecting many of them with diseases!" and rightly so, but this was done with the intention of imprioving mankind,

Intention alone does not bring about intended consequences. Choosing correct means is indispensable, if not more so.

the same noble sentiment you say God has. God, of course, sends people to eternal suffering, with the same justification.

Another straw man, you just don't run out of hay don't you?

Wrong. God gives humanity the choice of wanting "in" and benefitting acceptant. Wherest eugenecists did not give humanity a choice, and it truth, effectively threatened it.

It is curious - but entirely expected - that you cannot see the parallel here.

Because, like Lao Tzu, there is no parallel.

Absolutely.

And yet you are advocating just that. God sending people to eternal suffering is the ultimate act of violence, and you are saying that his so-called "love" makes this acceptable because he is only doing it to those outside his in-group.

Caught yah. It is my duty to report to you sir that you are now officially riding the "Positive Liberty" bandwagon.

You may as well call the act of every employer that has rejected you an act of violence. The employers that have refused to hire you effectively reduced your range of opportunity, but he is not depriving you of anything that you have, nor is he violently attacking you (To paraphrase a description Murray Rothbard in quoting Professor Parent).

Again, it is entirely expected that you would not see the parallel.

Truth be told, it is too easily expected of your part to invent cheap fantasies of other's arguments, devoid of what they are in reality.

[Andius]

It seems to me that that would depend on the criterion of correctness and who is authorized to say what that criterion is. If Christian themselves cannot agree on those issues, then I see no basis on which I should adjudicate their disputes.

Ah, but what is the correct criterion to select and determine the criterion of correctness and individuals to weild it! 0.o (tun tun tun) And more importantly; WHAT is the correct criterion to select the correct criterion to determine the criterion of correctness and individuals!!!??? (DUN DUN DUUUUUUN).

Hehe, joking aside, that's a good point. However, the criterion itself has to be demonstrated to be a proper criterion in the first place, and fortunately, that is never an impossible task. :)

Actually... just because there are disputes, it doesn't make it a proper pretext to declare "There is no correct posture, ONLY ZUUUUL" (Sorry, I be in a joky joky mood today) ^^

EDIT: Actually, what you said below regarding cogency is actually quite a good point. A posture that is not internally cogent is definitely a problematic posture, very likely to be un-true and devoid of reason.

If someone calling himself a Marxist tells me that I should believe such-and-such, I don't much care whether Marx himself would have told me the same thing. There either is or is not a cogent argument for such-and-such, quite regardless of who propounds the argument. If I want to know what Marx himself actually believed, I can read him for myself, and if what he says makes sense, I'll accept it, and otherwise I won't.

Fair enough, a posture I myself also have. Except with the slight difference that I sometimes, out of pure whimsy, still like to see postures I myself don't hold or have just for the sake of sating my inquisitive nature It won't matter to me if the posture is true or not, cogent or non-cogent. Besides, it sure as hell makes co-existence a LOT more easier with those who do not share my postures. :)

Works for me whenever I can get it :-)

Agreed!! I don't get the procedure in how to successfully transplant a kidney from one person to another!! Thus I disagree with their posture that allows those surgeouns to execute their procedure! Cuz I don't get it so HAH!! :P (Sorry, I didit again, couldn't resist mate).

Heheh, in all seriousness. I do trust though that it is not your sole criteria in agreeing postures. You are definitely a fresh breath of air compared to... ugh, The Pixie.

[Doug Shaver]

why would there be a question as to those that have rejected him...ALL... their lives, not having that rejection hold fast once they pass from this life?

It isn't God that we're rejecting. What we're rejecting is the claims of certain people to be speaking to us on God's behalf.

[The Pixie]

Andius

I think I owe you an apology here. Looking back, I think I may have confused your and Mountain Man's arguments. He is also arguing for agape love, but has said "Very simply, if it is necessary for the greater good that 40% of humanity go to hell, then 40% of humanity will go to hell". I was therefore thinking that you too believe that same agape love, i.e., of humanity as a whole, ignoring the individual. Looking back, I realise your agape-love argument is significantly different (and my eugenics argument is entirely unappropriate to you).