oldiesman

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.

It may not, if it's not God's will. Jesus prayed in the garden "my Father, if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it; Thy will be done".

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?

And if it's true, someone has done me a great service warning me to avoid it at all costs. It's been said that in the beatific vision, "we'll understand it all by and by". I certainly don't right now.

Raf I agree with what you're saying. To me, it's simply logical that one doesn't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in morality. We all have brains. It's simply a matter of logic not religion, to want to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. (even though a religiously moral person said to do that too...)

Lemme know if I am saying this correct: To the Christian, Christianity is objective To the Jew, Judaism is objective To the Atheist, Atheism is objective But to everyone collectively, universally; there is no objective moral truth...

Objective

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that there's no such thing as universal moral values?

Possessed... that's what we all thought. (I was 17 years old.) It was a horrible experience for all of us to watch... so glad you are well now!

I don't get that it's comforting but I think you are brave. I can't imagine an eternity of nothingness, or even worse an eternity of torture. Both scare the hell out of me.

Got it, thanks. I hope the logistics of this discussion works to help improve mental clarity.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then wouldn't numbers 1 and 2 be "subjective" as well?