PDA

View Full Version : God and guns [sf gun control]



Desmond
03-01-2011, 10:37 PM
Igor, I believe that Jesus Christ will return to the earth and set up God's kingdom on earth. At this time human nature will be changed. I don't think it is going to happen because of any humans do, impossible.
Scott
What's to set up? He already made it as he chose to. He's already all-powerful. What else is there to do; charge taxes?

Also, how much of what makes you you will God have to destroy change? At that point will you still be you.

Oepty
03-01-2011, 10:50 PM
What's to set up? He already made it as he chose to. He's already all-powerful. What else is there to do; charge taxes?

Also, how much of what makes you you will God have to destroy change? At that point will you still be you.

Okay we are going way way off topic so I will be brief and not comment on this after this post.
God allows man to govern himself, in the future God will be the government.
God will remove the tendancy people have to be attracted towards doing evil things from those who have served him faithfully. He will also give them immortality and the ressurection to life of dead will occur.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2011, 10:57 PM
Of course if God existed and was serious about stopping us from shooting each other then God could just turn all guns into ping-pong balls covered with fairy floss. That God has not done so suggests very strongly that there is no God, that God is very limited in power or that God really isn't all that fussed about gun violence. Yes I've heard the excuses about how if God did not allow us to choose "evil" we would be deprived of free will but it sounds like Scott is saying God will eventually step in and make the big decisions for us anyway so that can't be such a big benefit if it is going to be taken away.

By the way if this off-topic tangent goes on too long it can easily be moved; it's no big deal to do so.

Oepty
03-01-2011, 11:28 PM
By the way if this off-topic tangent goes on too long it can easily be moved; it's no big deal to do so.

I will reverse your post and comment on this part first. Seeing you are happy to split the thread if it continues off topic I will post again even though I said I wouldn't.


Of course if God existed and was serious about stopping us from shooting each other then God could just turn all guns into ping-pong balls covered with fairy floss.

Of course He could.



That God has not done so suggests very strongly that there is no God, that God is very limited in power or that God really isn't all that fussed about gun violence.


To put it quite blunty. Everyone (excuding young children/babies) does the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing earns death like doing a job earns wages. Everyone who dies of gun death has earned death.
Life is a gift from God, sometimes the gift is shorter than other times, but it is still a gift. We are only alive because God allows us to be in His love and mercy.
If a person who has served God dies from gun death then they will be resurrected, death is like a long nights sleep, no big deal at all.
I have absolutely no problem with God allowing humans to die.
It is totally and utterly wrong for any human to take a gun and kill another person with it. It is murder.



Yes I've heard the excuses about how if God did not allow us to choose "evil" we would be deprived of free will but it sounds like Scott is saying God will eventually step in and make the big decisions for us anyway so that can't be such a big benefit if it is going to be taken away.


Yes in a time in the future God will step in, the earth will become a place were only God's will is done. It will be done by those in their life showed they wanted to serve God and do His will, but could not because overcoming human nature perfectly is impossible.
I also don't think man has total free will, for instance I don't believe God would allow the earth to be blown to bits. So if you want to prove my beliefs wrong blow the earth to bits.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2011, 12:03 AM
I will reverse your post and comment on this part first. Seeing you are happy to split the thread if it continues off topic I will post again even though I said I wouldn't.

No problem.


To put it quite blunty. Everyone (excuding young children/babies) does the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing earns death like doing a job earns wages. Everyone who dies of gun death has earned death.

This just doesn't make sense, except when seen as a rationalisation to get God off the hook for not doing anything about it. In any other context it would not be considered that a person who does something wrong automatically deserves to die. You'd need to ask what they have done. You'd also need to ask, if they have done the wrong thing now and then, what is their overall record of behaviour like.

To say that doing the wrong thing earns death like a job earns wages is an interesting analogy. A job earns wages, sure, but nobody deserves to be paid one cent for working 100 hours in a week, or a million dollars for working for 15 minutes. To say that doing the wrong thing earns death as a general statement is like saying that working for 15 minutes earns you a million dollars, except that one case is negative while the other is positive. The concept of earning must be proportional. Yours isn't, unless you say that the worst thing we all do is offend against God. And even if that is the case it doesn't make the slightest sense, since if God exists and is all powerful, then God if offended against has the option of just getting over it.

Indeed, some people would argue that nobody deserves to die prematurely, at all. Others would argue that some people do deserve to die prematurely, but only those who have either harmed others in really terrible ways or else persistently been massively careless about their own safety.

Furthermore, if everyone who dies of gun death has earned death, then anyone who is shot is only getting what they deserve and it really doesn't matter that people are shot. It doesn't even matter if other people are affected since they either deserve to die prematurely or else will deserve that when they get older.


If a person who has served God dies from gun death then they will be resurrected, death is like a long nights sleep, no big deal at all.
I have absolutely no problem with God allowing humans to die.
It is totally and utterly wrong for any human to take a gun and kill another person with it. It is murder.

But you've said it is no big deal if someone dies; indeed since they deserve to die it sounds like they're just getting their just desserts. So why is it totally wrong to kill someone else? After all they will be resurrected anyway, unless God decides they don't deserve to be, in which case they're no loss.


So if you want to prove my beliefs wrong blow the earth to bits.
Scott

Blowing God to bits is much easier, and I'm quite satisfied I can prove your beliefs to be incorrect quite without needing to kill both of us and everything else on earth in the process. Whether I convince you in the process is another matter.

Of course if God existed and wanted to, God could allow us to blow the earth to bits and just immediately make another one (in the process resurrecting every innocent person killed in the process who She felt like resurrecting.) So even if we destroyed the earth, again, what's the big deal?

Oepty
04-01-2011, 12:37 AM
No problem.

This just doesn't make sense, except when seen as a rationalisation to get God off the hook for not doing anything about it. In any other context it would not be considered that a person who does something wrong automatically deserves to die. You'd need to ask what they have done. You'd also need to ask, if they have done the wrong thing now and then, what is their overall record of behaviour like.

To say that doing the wrong thing earns death like a job earns wages is an interesting analogy. A job earns wages, sure, but nobody deserves to be paid one cent for working 100 hours in a week, or a million dollars for working for 15 minutes. To say that doing the wrong thing earns death as a general statement is like saying that working for 15 minutes earns you a million dollars, except that one case is negative while the other is positive. The concept of earning must be proportional. Yours isn't, unless you say that the worst thing we all do is offend against God. And even if that is the case it doesn't make the slightest sense, since if God exists and is all powerful, then God if offended against has the option of just getting over it.

Indeed, some people would argue that nobody deserves to die prematurely, at all. Others would argue that some people do deserve to die prematurely, but only those who have either harmed others in really terrible ways or else persistently been massively careless about their own safety.

Furthermore, if everyone who dies of gun death has earned death, then anyone who is shot is only getting what they deserve and it really doesn't matter that people are shot. It doesn't even matter if other people are affected since they either deserve to die prematurely or else will deserve that when they get older.

But you've said it is no big deal if someone dies; indeed since they deserve to die it sounds like they're just getting their just desserts. So why is it totally wrong to kill someone else? After all they will be resurrected anyway, unless God decides they don't deserve to be, in which case they're no loss.

Blowing God to bits is much easier, and I'm quite satisfied I can prove your beliefs to be incorrect quite without needing to kill both of us and everything else on earth in the process. Whether I convince you in the process is another matter.

Of course if God existed and wanted to, God could allow us to blow the earth to bits and just immediately make another one (in the process resurrecting every innocent person killed in the process who She felt like resurrecting.) So even if we destroyed the earth, again, what's the big deal?

The wages analogy is one straight out of the Bible. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"
The Greek word translated wages means specifically a soldiers allowance including non money pay like rations.

To clarify what I said about it being no big deal for people to die. I meant that ONLY about people who are going to be resurrected and given immortallity to live forever. For people who die without that hope it is definitely a big deal. The death ends the opportunity for them to become faithful followers of God. Yes they deserve death and God cannot be faulted for letting them die but it is still the end of everything unnecessarily.

It is totally and utterly wrong to kill another person because God has said it is wrong to do so. It also, as I said, takes away from the person killed the opportunity to become faithful followers of God if they are not already so.
Scott

antichrist
04-01-2011, 12:44 AM
what you are sort of saying Scott is that God has the biggest gun, as well it can work in reverse? would like to see that

Oepty
04-01-2011, 12:47 AM
what you are sort of saying Scott is that God has the biggest gun, as well it can work in reverse? would like to see that

Well God has the ultimate power over life and death. It is His to give and His to take away and His to grant forever.
Scott

antichrist
04-01-2011, 12:53 AM
Well God has the ultimate power over life and death. It is His to give and His to take away and His to grant forever.
Scott

Hitler with guns sort of outgunned God I would say - as God did not intervene to save the Jews was he ambivent about them? in your scenario it does not seem to make any difference if people were gunned down or lived to death in peace. so why should murderers be penalised. It is all part of God's plan anyhow. Do you agree with how the Jews, with Joshua's and God's connivence of freezing the sun, outgunned the Canaanites? Was this a good use of weaponry? Or would yoou have supported gun control prior to that?

Desmond
04-01-2011, 07:04 AM
God allows man to govern himself, in the future God will be the government.
God will remove the tendancy people have to be attracted towards doing evil things from those who have served him faithfully. He will also give them immortality and the ressurection to life of dead will occur.
Scott
But you've not answered the question. Will you still be you? If God takes away your sense of greed, will you still care if you win at chess? If he takes away your pride, will you still care to be well-presented each day? And so on. For eveything he changes, he takes something away from you. At what point do you stop being you and start being a lobotomised, zombified, harp-toting minion.

Also can you elaborate on what God setting up government means in a practical sense? It sounds like vague nonsense to me. Is he going to live in Canberra? Is he going to be the one pulling people over for speeding?

Oepty
04-01-2011, 08:48 AM
But you've not answered the question. Will you still be you? If God takes away your sense of greed, will you still care if you win at chess? If he takes away your pride, will you still care to be well-presented each day? And so on. For eveything he changes, he takes something away from you. At what point do you stop being you and start being a lobotomised, zombified, harp-toting minion.


Of course I will be me.



Also can you elaborate on what God setting up government means in a practical sense? It sounds like vague nonsense to me. Is he going to live in Canberra? Is he going to be the one pulling people over for speeding?

No he will not live in Canberra, Jerusalem will be the center of government.
Speeding, why would people speed?
Scott

Desmond
04-01-2011, 08:55 AM
Of course I will be me.A neutered version, IMO.
No he will not live in Canberra, Jerusalem will be the center of government.Why?

Speeding, why would people speed?
Scott
Maybe they enjoy it.

Oepty
04-01-2011, 09:19 AM
A neutered version, IMO.

No it would not be a neutered version. God is only going to give eternal life to those who want to serve God perfectly. The changes will allow this to happen.



Why?


The Bible says so.


Maybe they enjoy it.

Not an option.
Scott

antichrist
04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
Hitler with guns sort of outgunned God I would say - as God did not intervene to save the Jews was he ambivent about them? in your scenario it does not seem to make any difference if people were gunned down or lived to death in peace. so why should murderers be penalised. It is all part of God's plan anyhow. Do you agree with how the Jews, with Joshua's and God's connivence of freezing the sun, outgunned the Canaanites? Was this a good use of weaponry? Or would yoou have supported gun control prior to that?

Scott, if God condoned the Jews/Hebrews using weaponry against the Canaanites isn't it okay? So is God's mind changeable on weaponry? Other people also have the power to decide life and death if backed up by Scripture?

Desmond
04-01-2011, 10:06 AM
No it would not be a neutered version. God is only going to give eternal life to those who want to serve God perfectly. The changes will allow this to happen. But of course it will be. You're talking about removing certain personality traits and replacing them with perfect servitude programming. Lobotomized. Zombified. Harp-toting. Minions.


The Bible says so.I see.


Not an option.
ScottWhy not? Are you saying that post-zombification we wont be be needing any police, laws etc? If so, why a government? What is its purpose? And when you say Jerusalem would be the "centre" this implies other branches. Could Canberra not be one?

antichrist
04-01-2011, 10:09 AM
If in the meantime if Jerusalem gets nuked bombed, by Iran for an example, and so nothing left at all, would it still be the new capital?

If people are vaporised by such weaponry, are you sure that God can ressurect them?

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2011, 11:22 AM
It is totally and utterly wrong to kill another person because God has said it is wrong to do so.

So if God said that killing was great and it was wrong not to kill, would that make it right to kill and wrong not to kill?


It also, as I said, takes away from the person killed the opportunity to become faithful followers of God if they are not already so.

But it only takes it away because God refuses to give them another chance, although doing so is completely within God's powers (if god exists). Thus it is not solely the murderer who takes the chance away, but God, and doubly so because God could also have stopped the murderer, but didn't.

It's not surprising that a belief system that has endured so long portrays it in those sorts of terms because the idea is to scare people into immediate conversion with the idea that if you don't believe immediately you are risking your immortal soul, whatever that is. But it still doesn't make any sense unless you assume that an all-powerful deity is actually completely obsessed with whether insignificant and puny beings it has created worship it or not, which if true says some very unhealthy things about that deity's psychology.

Rincewind
04-01-2011, 11:29 AM
But it still doesn't make any sense unless you assume that an all-powerful deity is actually completely obsessed with whether insignificant and puny beings it has created worship it or not, which if true says some very unhealthy things about that deity's personality.

It reminds me of a friend from my days as a computer science undergraduate who changed his UNIX prompt to "Yes O Master>". I wonder if instead of writing programs that simply print "Hello World" there are those that print "Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic."

antichrist
04-01-2011, 11:32 AM
strictly speaking we are wasting our time here. Scott is non-intellectal and reasoning just does not appeal or convince him. this is obvious. He has been got at well and truly - though he is still totally respectable.

So lets call it a day. He can only repeat the Bible - what's in it for any of us.

Oepty
04-01-2011, 01:11 PM
I will not be posting any more in this thread

Adamski
04-01-2011, 11:08 PM
Well God has the ultimate power over life and death. It is His to give and His to take away and His to grant forever.
Scott
I completely agree with Scott on this. God is indeed sovereign.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 12:29 AM
I completely agree with Scott on this. God is indeed sovereign.

Adamski, I was getting unfortunate Scott out of line of fire then you want to be the target. Dont let yourself down like that. the world, even atheists, sometimes wishes that was a god to sort things out but we would know that we are just fooling ourselves, are being childish and wishful thinking.

Dont you think Jews thought that wau during Holocaust. Thats life, thats all we can conclude and try to get on and be positive.

Just try and leave the world a better place for our children, but actually many times worse.

Desmond
08-01-2011, 07:06 PM
I will not be posting any more in this thread
Here (http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/Home_Page.html)'s something Scott et al may like to take advantage of.

Spiny Norman
08-01-2011, 07:27 PM
If its true (Rev 20) that God will separate the righteous from the wicked; and
-- if its true (Rev 20 again) that the wicked are then destroyed; then
---- only the righteous are left
---- if its true (Ps 37:4) that God will give the righteous the desires of their heart; then
------ its reasonable to conclude that righteous people don't want to sin (if they did want to sin, then they would be wicked, not righteous); and
------ its reasonable to conclude that God would want to make it possible for those righteous people not to sin; and
------ its reasonable to believe that simply removing free will at time t+1 would call into question the whole idea of granting free will at time t; then
-------- one can conclude that God will retain human free will whilst also removing the ability of humans to sin

One way He might do this is via limits on said free will ... give humans the ability to do good, very good, and great ... but not evil.

Someone may try to mount an argument that God ought to have only granted limited free will in the first place, however the so-called "problem of evil" argument is a very thorny area of theology and I am not at all sure that either side of the argument actually makes a very convincing case one way or the other ... both seem to presume that they know the motives of an omniscient and omnipotent God concerning a matter where God doesn't seem to have revealed His motives (at least, this is true for Christians and Jews, though I cannot speak for other religions) ... and somehow I find that thought rather preposterous.

antichrist
08-01-2011, 07:43 PM
Someone may try to mount an argument that God ought to have only granted limited free will in the first place, however the so-called "problem of evil" argument is a very thorny area of theology and I am not at all sure that either side of the argument actually makes a very convincing case one way or the other ... both seem to presume that they know the motives of an omniscient and omnipotent God concerning a matter where God doesn't seem to have revealed His motives (at least, this is true for Christians and Jews, though I cannot speak for other religions) ... and somehow I find that thought rather preposterous.


AC
Now Spiny you have castled on the King side 0-0 whereas it should have been on the Queen side 0-0-0, the difference is crucial.

Your definition of god being 0-0, i.e., omniscient and omnipotent, whereas 0-0-0 has the extra ingredient of omnibenevolent.

That is if god knows everything (omniscient) , is all powerful (omnipotent), AND also all-good (omnibenevolent) than his motives should be entirely predictable.

The only pathetic defense of this I have seen is that God moves in mysterious ways, well this only tells us that those speaking on his behalf dont really know what they are chatting about - that is what I find preposterous - and go back to philosphy 101 for omitting OMNI-BENEVOLENT

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2011, 08:21 PM
If its true (Rev 20) that God will separate the righteous from the wicked; and
-- if its true (Rev 20 again) that the wicked are then destroyed; then
---- only the righteous are left
---- if its true (Ps 37:4) that God will give the righteous the desires of their heart; then
------ its reasonable to conclude that righteous people don't want to sin (if they did want to sin, then they would be wicked, not righteous); and
------ its reasonable to conclude that God would want to make it possible for those righteous people not to sin; and
------ its reasonable to believe that simply removing free will at time t+1 would call into question the whole idea of granting free will at time t; then
-------- one can conclude that God will retain human free will whilst also removing the ability of humans to sin

One way He might do this is via limits on said free will ... give humans the ability to do good, very good, and great ... but not evil.

First point here is that you've defined righteousness as including not wanting to sin.

But if you're in the same camp as Scott (and I don't know if you are) then you'd say virtually everyone sins, including the righteous.

So that means that the righteous sin and can't entirely stop sinning (perhaps they can make it happen less often but it still happens) - but on account of that sinning Scott reckons (and I don't know if you agree) that they deserve to die. That means that a person deserves to die over something they have no control over, something that in fact is contrary to their desires and that they're probably trying to conscientiously avoid.

Now that's a very strange concept of moral deserving. It makes no more sense than to say someone deserves to die from an accident they were trying to avoid, an addiction they were having treated or an allergy they were seeing the doctors about. It is the exact opposite of how the concept of deserving something is usually used.


Someone may try to mount an argument that God ought to have only granted limited free will in the first place, however the so-called "problem of evil" argument is a very thorny area of theology and I am not at all sure that either side of the argument actually makes a very convincing case one way or the other ...

I don't even need to get into all that since "free will" is an elementary contradiction in terms and a fundamental absurdity. :lol:

I will point out though that your argument above doesn't need God placing limits on so-called "free will", since by definition any sinning by the righteous can't be an exercise of their will (otherwise they wouldn't be righteous). Rather, you just need to posit a God that will (at the given time) insert into the brains of the righteous an organ that converts every otherwise uncontrollable urge to sin to an uncontrollable urge to jump up and down on the spot and pretend to be a penguin. Problem solved - except it doesn't solve the problem of why God doesn't do that now.

Furthermore if the righteous are sinning when they don't want to (since if they do want to they're not righteous) then that kills the argument that the existence of evil is fully justified by free will. It shows that there is some evil done by humans to each other that is not caused by "free will", and that could be abolished without affecting "free will" in the slightest (not that the concept makes the slightest sense anyway).

Desmond
09-01-2011, 08:51 AM
If its true (Rev 20) that God will separate the righteous from the wicked; and
-- if its true (Rev 20 again) that the wicked are then destroyed; then
---- only the righteous are left
---- if its true (Ps 37:4) that God will give the righteous the desires of their heart;I reckon a fairly common desire of the heart from one of those righteous would be to spend their eternal days with their partner (husband, wife etc). Surely there would be many cases where one person is considered righteous and the other not. But s/he would be destroyed, so presumably God isn't just going to give eternal life to a wicked. Doesn't that introduce a fundamental contradition in those beliefs?

Spiny Norman
09-01-2011, 09:24 AM
I'm arguing that a fundamental characteristic of all righteous people is to avoid sin; that there is not one righteous person lacking that desire ... that desire to avoid sin is therefore basic in respect of righteousness.

You, on the other hand, are arguing about things which "just happen to be so" (such as a person's marriage status); marriage is not basic to righteousness.

Therefore we are talking about two quite different states of affairs.

Spiny Norman
09-01-2011, 09:31 AM
I will point out though that your argument above doesn't need God placing limits on so-called "free will", since by definition any sinning by the righteous can't be an exercise of their will (otherwise they wouldn't be righteous). Rather, you just need to posit a God that will (at the given time) insert into the brains of the righteous an organ that converts every otherwise uncontrollable urge to sin to an uncontrollable urge to jump up and down on the spot and pretend to be a penguin. Problem solved - except it doesn't solve the problem of why God doesn't do that now.
Perhaps, at that given time, that is the mechanism He will use. I am not positing the mechanism of the limiting, only that such a limiting might occur.


Furthermore if the righteous are sinning when they don't want to (since if they do want to they're not righteous) then that kills the argument that the existence of evil is fully justified by free will. It shows that there is some evil done by humans to each other that is not caused by "free will", and that could be abolished without affecting "free will" in the slightest (not that the concept makes the slightest sense anyway).
Christian theology deals with "humanity's sin nature" extensively; this is in no way contrary to the exercise of free will ... it just means that due to our sin nature we have a tendency to do things which in the cold hard light of righteousness we would otherwise prefer not to have done. Its a bit like drowning ... nobody wants to drown, but sometimes we just don't have enough strength (or good sense) to avoid getting into situations where we do drown..

Desmond
09-01-2011, 10:23 AM
I'm arguing that a fundamental characteristic of all righteous people is to avoid sin; that there is not one righteous person lacking that desire ... that desire to avoid sin is therefore basic in respect of righteousness.

You, on the other hand, are arguing about things which "just happen to be so" (such as a person's marriage status); marriage is not basic to righteousness.

Therefore we are talking about two quite different states of affairs.
Marital status is irrelevant. You said that 1. God will destroy non-righteous people, 2. He will give the righteous their hearts' desires. So what if the desire is something that God destroyed? Oopsy daisies, God.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2011, 11:31 AM
Christian theology deals with "humanity's sin nature" extensively; this is in no way contrary to the exercise of free will ... it just means that due to our sin nature we have a tendency to do things which in the cold hard light of righteousness we would otherwise prefer not to have done. Its a bit like drowning ... nobody wants to drown, but sometimes we just don't have enough strength (or good sense) to avoid getting into situations where we do drown..

Still doesn't explain why a supposedly all-good God chooses to give even the most "righteous" humans that unnecessary limitation.

antichrist
09-01-2011, 11:45 AM
Still doesn't explain why a supposedly all-good God chooses to give even the most "righteous" humans that unnecessary limitation.

Kb, you must understand that God's rules are like chess', liked I mentioned about castling on wrong side earlier.

To drawn an analogy, that I know you love, it is like this. God, when making us, decided that we would limited by choosing only a second rate decision, that is to promote a pawn to a rook instead of a queen, the result being a stalemate instead of a checkmate. So there we have it, it is as simple as that.

Ever since theologians and preachers up and down the planet throughout the ages have been commentating on it in a manner that would do Ian Rogers proud. JUst like the tens of thousands of chess books there are also tens of thousands of religious books, and every man is an expert.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2011, 11:50 AM
I'm ignoring your silly analogies AC.

Spiny Norman
09-01-2011, 11:52 AM
Marital status is irrelevant. You said that 1. God will destroy non-righteous people, 2. He will give the righteous their hearts' desires. So what if the desire is something that God destroyed? Oopsy daisies, God.
In a rather remarkable parallel, Mark 12 records:

19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.
20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children.
21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third.
22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too.
23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?
25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

The righteous, in heaven, will not have earthly desires or passions, "they will be like the angels" ... so as Jesus pointed out all those long years ago: "you are badly mistaken".

antichrist
09-01-2011, 11:55 AM
I'm ignoring your silly analogies AC.

at least they are original, I thought the first one re castling was a beauty, but I may have had the wrong term for omnibenevolent? just as there are only 2 pieces between K & R on kings side there are 3 on Queen side castling, that is what tripped up Spiney

I am sure Garrett appreciates them

Desmond
09-01-2011, 12:09 PM
The righteous, in heaven, will not have earthly desires or passions, "they will be like the angels" ... so as Jesus pointed out all those long years ago: "you are badly mistaken".Yet you were the one to bring up desires.

antichrist
09-01-2011, 12:14 PM
The righteous, in heaven, will not have earthly desires or passions, "they will be like the angels" ... so as Jesus pointed out all those long years ago: "you are badly mistaken".

AC
But according to Mohammodism the righteous in Paradise will have damn strong passions for those 72 virgins promised. won't be like angels, will be like animals.