Why disbelievers deny the Next Life
- Thread starter selfsame
- Start date
Twila did you know there use to be, not sure if it still exists , a group called atheists for Jesus? There's a reason for that.
It doesn't happen on the other boards I post it on so this is your imagination running wild again with your wishes now becoming your facts.
So you used to sit around bars and listen to drunks talk about God. No wonder your understanding is at the level it is at. You are letting too much of your life experiences out as it only slams yourself as far as having any authority to define what the book says.
Except LL got it wrong, Paul wrote that book, Jesus said the verse below.
Lu:3:6:
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
Ph'p:2:12:
Wherefore,
my beloved,
as ye have always obeyed,
not as in my presence only,
but now much more in my absence,
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Ph'p:1:1:
Paul and Timotheus,
the servants of Jesus Christ,
to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi,
with the bishops and deacons:
The Gospel of Matthew. Ch. 6 verse 34. NIV.
That is part of the Sermon on the Mount which is believed to be a part of the hypothetical Q source which I do believe in. I do not accept all of Matthew as it was written well after the epistles of saul and who knows what influence came from there.
Long has mankind pondered the reason for his existence. Religion fills the philosophical need to provide an answer to that question. We invented the afterlife/next life scenarios because we fear death. We are likely the only living organism that comprehends its own mortality, and from a fairly early age at that.I say bull sh*t! People should just be happy with what they have! We know what we have...................one life for sure on this planet- we should make the most of it. If and when we get another shot at it, we can concern ourselves with it then, just as we did with this one! Altogether too much time is being wasted on something that may never happen!
Being confronted with the finality of death scares a LOT of people. Believing there's something beyond our physical existence provides comfort to those who believe. And personally I have no problem with that. Whatever gets you through life, just so long as you don't expect or demand that others buy into it. It's simply a coping mechanism.
There is a next life but it's not ours, it's our progeny's. That's how we live on.
We exist for the same reason every other living thing exists, to reproduce before we die. That's it. That's the meaning of life distilled to it's most basic definition.
I say bull sh*t! People should just be happy with what they have! We know what we have...................one life for sure on this planet- we should make the most of it. If and when we get another shot at it, we can concern ourselves with it then, just as we did with this one! Altogether too much time is being wasted on something that may never happen!
there has never been, and isn't now, 'any' proof at all to the things he says will
happen when we die, he doesn't know, he just believes, so good for him, go ahead belief in whatever
he wants, but my logical mind needs something more intelligent and realistic, oh yeah, its called proof,
and none of these people have any.
they do lots of talking about souls, but of course then they say, we can't see the soul, again that is
not proof of anything, but something he believes.
oh yeah, then he says that the nonbeliever souls, when they get 'there', (wherever that is), will be
treated poorly, well, that just tells me that whomever is running the show out there is mean, and doesn't
have an open mind at all, lol.
how would he know all these things, he has never been there, he just believes, not good enough, I have
more respect for my own path thru life, and I will continue to follow that path. he can tell me whatever
he wants, but he doesn't know,he thinks he does, but he just believes.
Actually Dex it shows your version is the flawed one, especially the part about revelations being in code so the Romans could be tricked.
I'm pretty sure you don't believe in the resurrection of the dead but the grave is the 'land of the enemy' in the reference below. If you take any other meaning then it is a corrupt doctrine.
M't:2:16-18:
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof,
from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying,
In Rama was there a voice heard,
lamentation,
and weeping,
and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
and would not be comforted,
because they are not.
Jer:31:15-17:
Thus saith the LORD;
A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation,
and bitter weeping;
Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children,
because they were not.
Thus saith the LORD;
Refrain thy voice from weeping,
and thine eyes from tears:
for thy work shall be rewarded,
saith the LORD;
and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
And there is hope in thine end,
saith the LORD,
that thy children shall come again to their own border.
I doubt you can see Rome in these verses even though it covers all 500 years and that it is in the brass empire.
Da:8:9-12:
And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great,
toward the south,
and toward the east,
and toward the pleasant land.
And it waxed great,
even to the host of heaven;
and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground,
and stamped upon them.
Yea,
he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,
and it cast down the truth to the ground;
and it practised,
and prospered.
So a non-believer has the insight into what makes a believer tick. Perhaps your guesswork or what makes sense in your 'little world' applies to your world rather than that of a believer. You don't believe so the whole thing must be made up or you would be wrong and that is a concept that you can't admit is a possibility.
Any flesh is aware of it's 'thin hold on life' and that is why each one will fight tooth and nail to hold onto it for as long as they can. Most animals go off on their own when they know they are dying, I would say that makes them quite comfortable with death. It is man alone that will try and extend life for the few that call themselves the elect and at the same time they will kill millions of others without batting an eye.
Maybe it would be a good idea that you do study the basics and stop embarrassing yourself on the computer. You've obviously done what many do . Disregard the fundamental teachings of Jesus in the four gospels and went straight to Revelation, the epistles and some major and minor prophets of the old testament and you've not a bit of structure in your studies. You don't even know the basics. I know children who have more knowledge than you.
Maybe you should start posting some of that knowledge you claim to have, so far all you have done is slam the Bible with the exception of one loosely translated NT verse. You seem to unaware that all the books after the Gospels were pretty much narrated by Jesus to the Apostle that wrote the various books.
I doubt very much you even know the Gospels and the cross is the completion of the bruise to the heel from Ge:3:15 and the rest of the NT deals with prophecies (and a few events) about the bruise to Satan's head.
Go ahead post some of your 'thoughts' on any scripture but use the Gospels if that is what you are most comfortable with.
How about starting with the bolded part of this verse since you left this part out.
M't:6:34:
Take therefore no thought for the morrow:
for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
I doubt very much you even know the Gospels and the cross is the completion of the bruise to the heel from Ge:3:15 and the rest of the NT deals with prophecies (and a few events) about the bruise to Satan's head.
Go ahead post some of your 'thoughts' on any scripture but use the Gospels if that is what you are most comfortable with.
How about starting with the bolded part of this verse since you left this part out.
M't:6:34:
Take therefore no thought for the morrow:
for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
It shows nothing of the sort, it shows only that you take the scriptures as literally true and I don't.
You're right about that much at least.
All religious doctrines are corrupt. The grave is just the grave, the place we get put when we die, and that's the end of things for us. As usual your sole argument is based on a literalist view of scripture and long citations from it that you think prove your point. You know I reject the literalist view as unsupportable, illogical, and deeply at variance with reality. You've built up a huge and elaborate explanation of things based on your view that scripture is literally true and inerrant, and surely you've noticed that nobody here but you thinks it makes much sense. Not even another fundie like Motar thinks you've got it right. Your core premise is simply false, scripture is not literally true and inerrant, and to believe otherwise is to reject the entire body of what science has discovered about reality over about the last four centuries.
Megabutt. You didn't even know the difference between the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse. Little children learn that in Sunday School. The game is over Maynard. At least be honest enough to admit your ignorance. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. There is something wrong with being intellectually dishonest.
This is now bordering on inane. You should stop now before they pass you the village idiot hat.
If the Bible referenced either of the sermons by those terms I would have had a different answer. as it is you are changing 'mountain' for mount and that is where the Matt:24 sermon took place. Is that how 'your kind' dismissed the book, by changing everything it says??
M't:5:1:
And seeing the multitudes,
he went up into a mountain:
and when he was set,
his disciples came unto him:
M't:24:3:
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives,
the disciples came unto him privately,
saying,
Tell us, when shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?
You say the Gospels were not written soon after the cross, if that was the case the verses from Luke:21:12-24 would be written as hindsight as they cover the Apostles from the time of Stephen's death until the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Prophecy is not written in hindsight toad.
Would you miss the hat being as you have had it so long? Care to explain both sermons as to what their contents are or do you draw a blank when it comes to that part of the program. Which would be the more important of the two in that 1 is found in 1 book and the other in 3 books and each is slightly different?