oldiesman

Rocky, I went to watch the video you posted but am getting the message to sign in to confirm I'm not a BOT (below), that I have gotten repeatedly before while signed in. Hopefully Raf can fix... thanks..

Tell it Ringo!

John Adams letter to Abigail -- July 3, 1776 (excerpt): "I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Days Transaction, even although We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not."

One of the best TV shows of all time:

I'd like to take a stab at answering this even though it's rhetorical. In a word, experience. God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost (each individual persons) desire people to love them each personally from the heart. What do you do when you love someone? You talk to them. Ask them things. Spend time with them, think about what they want and try to do what pleases them, because you love them and want to make them happy. And they in turn love you back. All of this takes time, energy, patience, persistence, and faith. And at times, suffering and inconvenience. I believe this is how a relationship is formed with these great persons without any middleman.

Generously sufficient, thank you! Can you explain further what you mean by "quantitative immeasurable"? That brings back a memory of a blood test with my "quantitative covid antibody results" i.e. numerical antibody count. LOL

Hold on a minute... I don't think (or hope) any of us in this discussion on either side is being arrogant about their beliefs.

I appreciate and have no dispute what John is teaching, only adding an opposite opinion above. Put in legal terms, for me; let's say I'm still in the "discovery" phase of the argument...

After watching the tape, I have to say his argument is a good one. But I need to pray about and further study his teaching but must also include St. Thomas Aquinas' opposite take that the soul is immoral. In sum, Aquinas has argued that the soul (a spiritual entity) cannot be destroyed by fire (a physical entity). Here's some of what Aquinas argued: AI Overview St. Thomas Aquinas' most renowned work, the Summa Theologica, contains his arguments concerning the soul as a spiritual, simple, and indivisible entity, which cannot be destroyed in the same way that material substances can. Explanation: Aquinas elaborates on the nature of the soul and its relation to the body in the Summa Theologica, particularly in the First Part. He argues that the soul is the substantial form of the body, meaning it is the principle by which a human being is animated and unified. He maintains that because the soul is immaterial, it is not composed of parts and thus cannot be broken down or corrupted like material substances. Key Points in the Summa Theologica concerning the Soul: Simplicity and Indivisibility: The soul is considered simple because it is a spiritual substance, unlike material objects which are composed of matter and form. This simplicity makes it indivisible, meaning it cannot be broken down into smaller parts. Immateriality: The soul's spiritual nature allows it to know universal truths, which cannot be contained within the limitations of material organs. This immateriality makes the soul incorruptible, as it is not subject to physical decay. Incorruptibility: Because the soul is not composed of parts and is not dependent on matter for its existence, it cannot be destroyed through the decomposition of the body. Note: Aquinas also explores the relationship between the soul and the body in his Commentary on Aristotle's Treatise on the soul and the Quaestiones Disputatae de Anima. These works provide further insight into his understanding of the human soul.

I was thinking more along the lines of accurately defining the Old and New Covenants using objective/subjective standards which appears to be the topic of this thread.

How does one talk about this issue only biblically then? That's what I'm trying to do. If you can develop some rules of the game that would satisfy everyone it would be terrific.

How do I know? I don't. I picked a Catholic version (notice I say "a" because there's a schism in catholicism as well) because a friend thought I'd be wanting to return after decades of absence. I took the RCIA course of her church, enjoyed it, and was confirmed. Then I strayed from that and joined a staunch traditional, Latin version. Both guns blazing. It's what I'm doing right now but I'm not opposed to checking out other versions. I've been to other versions and it's all interesting. I'm even open to attending a Muslim meeting if a friend invited me to one.

This is not political... please follow... With the U.S. bombing of Iran, I've gotten into a couple of debates with Jews who believe God gave them that land for eternity and American Christians are supposed to understand that and acquiesce. (Old Covenant) However some Christians (myself) believe that Jesus' crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension and glory began a New Covenant wherein Jews who believe in Christ are no more Jews but now members of the body of Christ along with the Gentiles who also believe. The Old has been supplanted by the New (according to my belief). Here are the questions: Would it be accurate to say that both of these beliefs are subjective? Or, is the Jewish religion really the objective one, and the Christian religion the subjective (being an adaptation of the first)?

Maybe it has to do with God giving specific officials in the church the power to forgive sins, but it's only an observation that maybe has some connection with that.

Had to post this one... too funny...

The antidote is quite simple: go to the confessional... make a thorough and honest confession, then the priest will absolve sins and you're back in the state of grace with God (in TWI terms... back "in fellowship with God"). As we know this differs from the TWI version. But in Catholic and some other Christian traditions, a priest acts as a representative of Christ and is able to forgive sins. This is not the priest's own power but a conferral of God's forgiveness through Christ. The priest through the power given to the church acts as an instrument of God's mercy. The practice stems from Jesus's giving authority to forgive sins to the Apostles, who passed this authority down through apostolic succession to priests. In this manner, Catholics believe that when a priest absolves sins, it is ultimately God who forgives. NOTE: IMO, I consider this method more substantial and ultimately valid than simply asking God for forgiveness without a witness.

This 15 min. clip was sent to me and it's highly recommended. Please note this is not about politics (not my intention) -- its all about answering the question "What is Israel". Note that Atheists (I think Jimmy Dore is one too) know more about biblical truths than some Christians. If we owe the modern state of Israel anything as Christians, it'd be converting them to Jesus Christ as it says in Romans Chapter 10.

Yes. I know nothing about it and I think the Christian hell is enough to keep me concerned.

I don't know about that... so I did a quick AI search: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has clearly stated that no woman is expected to stay in an abusive marriage and encourages these women to seek an annulment. However, studies on the experiences of battered, Christian women indicate that this is not always enough to free women from abusive marriages.May 23, 2024

Wow now there's a question I was never asked in my 68 years. Should I be concerned?