Danger, sin, egregious sin, ungodly lifestyle, commands of God, hardened hearts, salvation maintenance, suffering, hell, ... Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to believe. (tangled web = a complex, difficult, and confusing situation or thing)
Yeah, decided not to go down this rabbit hole again (rabbit hole = a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself)
"What has been seen cannot be unseen, what has been learned cannot be unknown." Cynthia Woolf.
Entangle me once, shame on you...entangle me no more, shame be gone.
I'll stop now.
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.
Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit?
Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit?
There’s a Bible version for that.
In that video I half watched about "What is the Destiny of the Unsaved?" JS claimed twice that you need to have "the right translation" in order to get to the truth about hell, the second death, etc. I can't remember if he mentions his bible by name, but any verses he puts up show they come from the REV.
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.
Yes. I know nothing about it and I think the Christian hell is enough to keep me concerned.
There are over 45,000 different Christian religions in the world, so if you accept that Christianity is the correct religion, how do you know you have picked the right version? How have you eliminated the other 44,999 as not being God’s accurate version of hell?
There are over 45,000 different Christian religions in the world, so if you accept that Christianity is the correct religion, how do you know you have picked the right version? How have you eliminated the other 44,999 as not being God’s accurate version of hell?
Accepting both your premise and your source, you're jumping to the conclusion that there are exactly 45,000 completely different, mutually-exclusive concepts of hell, exactly one for each denomination. Your source called them "denominations", as in variations on a theme, but you changed that to "religions", which is more like the differences between Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism, etc. The same source pointed out that there are 3 major and 6 minor denominational branches of Christianity.
Even if every one of those had a mutually-exclusive vision, that would be 9 positions, not 45,000- which is a significant difference. That having been said, a quick look at what they teach shows that there's not 9 different, mutually-exclusive positions, because even a glance shows some of them have the same positions with cosmetic differences- Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican to name 3. Most of the other minor branches they mentioned agree with each other and with Protestantism. Even if one can argue that those 2 are mutually-exclusive positions (I'm not going to weigh in on it either way), that's not 45,000 different religions, that's 2 denominational positions. The difference is rather pronounced.
There are over 45,000 different Christian religions in the world, so if you accept that Christianity is the correct religion, how do you know you have picked the right version? How have you eliminated the other 44,999 as not being God’s accurate version of hell?
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.
Accepting both your premise and your source, you're jumping to the conclusion that there are exactly 45,000 completely different, mutually-exclusive concepts of hell, exactly one for each denomination. Your source called them "denominations", as in variations on a theme, but you changed that to "religions", which is more like the differences between Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism, etc. The same source pointed out that there are 3 major and 6 minor denominational branches of Christianity.
Even if every one of those had a mutually-exclusive vision, that would be 9 positions, not 45,000- which is a significant difference. That having been said, a quick look at what they teach shows that there's not 9 different, mutually-exclusive positions, because even a glance shows some of them have the same positions with cosmetic differences- Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican to name 3. Most of the other minor branches they mentioned agree with each other and with Protestantism. Even if one can argue that those 2 are mutually-exclusive positions (I'm not going to weigh in on it either way), that's not 45,000 different religions, that's 2 denominational positions. The difference is rather pronounced.
Your point well taken of me interchanging denominations and religions. Thank you.
The article states there are approximately 45,000 different denominations and I posted there are over 45,000. Let’s give or take a few thousand then. And you are correct many denominations have the sames rules for salvation.
Let’s assume there are only a total of 9 major/minir denominations to chose from. How are you going to choice the one you want yo follow? What was your process of eliminating the other eight?
Then throw in Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism - what is your thought process for not accepting/rejecting them as the way to salvation?
In that video I half watched about "What is the Destiny of the Unsaved?" JS claimed twice that you need to have "the right translation" in order to get to the truth about hell, the second death, etc. I can't remember if he mentions his bible by name, but any verses he puts up show they come from the REV.
I need to correct the above post. After listening to the tape again, John Schoenheit did not use the phrase "right" translation, he said a "good" translation.
I need to correct the above post. After listening to the tape again, John Schoenheit did not use the phrase "right" translation, he said a "good" translation.
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 theSumma 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 hisCommentary on Aristotle's Treatise on the souland theQuaestiones Disputatae de Anima. These works provide further insight into his understanding of the human soul.
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 theSumma 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 hisCommentary on Aristotle's Treatise on the souland theQuaestiones Disputatae de Anima. These works provide further insight into his understanding of the human soul.
If you go over to the doctrinal subforum, there is the thread "Salvation Universal or Not?" where I shared John Schoenheit's Appendix 4 from his REV bible. It's basically the written form of the doctrine he teaches in the tape.
His point #6 is called "The 'immortal soul' is not biblical; the Bible never says the soul is immortal," if you are interested in reading it.
If you go over to the doctrinal subforum, there is the thread "Salvation Universal or Not?" where I shared John Schoenheit's Appendix 4 from his REV bible. It's basically the written form of the doctrine he teaches in the tape.
His point #6 is called "The 'immortal soul' is not biblical; the Bible never says the soul is immortal," if you are interested in reading it.
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...
Since this is the "atheism" side of the fence as far as conversation goes, it's not off topic to posit that the soul simply does not exist. It is a function of the body, the name we give to this complex firing of synapses that I cannot begin to articulate because of its chemical complexity, but when the body stops, so does the soul.
We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But in our arrogance as a species, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies.
I know, the alternative is to have "no hope," and that leads to a feeling of, well, hopelessness.
Then again, 10 trillion trillion years from now, I will not be burning in hell, so I have that going for me.
I thought I was clear that this was as a species, not a criticism directed at you personally. I thought I was as far from singling you out as I could possibly be.
But it is inherent in our opposing views that we will occasionally step on each other's toes.
So allow me to rephrase, please, in a way that does not insult anyone directly or indirectly:
41 minutes ago, Raf said:
but when the body stops, so does the soul.
We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But for no logically defensible reason that I can discern, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies. I contend there is no basis for this belief.
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...
If you go over to the doctrinal subforum, there is the thread "Salvation Universal or Not?" where I shared John Schoenheit's Appendix 4 from his REV bible. It's basically the written form of the doctrine he teaches in the tape.
His point #6 is called "The 'immortal soul' is not biblical; the Bible never says the soul is immortal," if you are interested in reading it.
2 hours ago, oldiesman said:
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...
My mistake - the thread is in the Matters of Faith forum.
Recommended Posts
oldiesman
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Could you?
J/k
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Had to post this one... too funny...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Why would God need a witness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit?
There’s a Bible version for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
A couple of book titles that might relate to this thread:
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Wrong-Adventures-Margin-Error/dp/0061176052/
and
https://www.amazon.com/Coherent-Mind-Quantum-Lali-Love-ebook/dp/B0F6YCDP2Z/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
In that video I half watched about "What is the Destiny of the Unsaved?" JS claimed twice that you need to have "the right translation" in order to get to the truth about hell, the second death, etc. I can't remember if he mentions his bible by name, but any verses he puts up show they come from the REV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
There are over 45,000 different Christian religions in the world, so if you accept that Christianity is the correct religion, how do you know you have picked the right version? How have you eliminated the other 44,999 as not being God’s accurate version of hell?
https://www.christianwebsite.com/how-many-denominations-of-christianity-2024/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Accepting both your premise and your source, you're jumping to the conclusion that there are exactly 45,000 completely different, mutually-exclusive concepts of hell, exactly one for each denomination. Your source called them "denominations", as in variations on a theme, but you changed that to "religions", which is more like the differences between Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism, etc. The same source pointed out that there are 3 major and 6 minor denominational branches of Christianity.
Even if every one of those had a mutually-exclusive vision, that would be 9 positions, not 45,000- which is a significant difference. That having been said, a quick look at what they teach shows that there's not 9 different, mutually-exclusive positions, because even a glance shows some of them have the same positions with cosmetic differences- Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican to name 3. Most of the other minor branches they mentioned agree with each other and with Protestantism. Even if one can argue that those 2 are mutually-exclusive positions (I'm not going to weigh in on it either way), that's not 45,000 different religions, that's 2 denominational positions. The difference is rather pronounced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Your point well taken of me interchanging denominations and religions. Thank you.
The article states there are approximately 45,000 different denominations and I posted there are over 45,000. Let’s give or take a few thousand then. And you are correct many denominations have the sames rules for salvation.
Let’s assume there are only a total of 9 major/minir denominations to chose from. How are you going to choice the one you want yo follow? What was your process of eliminating the other eight?
Then throw in Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism - what is your thought process for not accepting/rejecting them as the way to salvation?
RC - Confessnmortal sins to a priest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I need to correct the above post. After listening to the tape again, John Schoenheit did not use the phrase "right" translation, he said a "good" translation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
If you go over to the doctrinal subforum, there is the thread "Salvation Universal or Not?" where I shared John Schoenheit's Appendix 4 from his REV bible. It's basically the written form of the doctrine he teaches in the tape.
His point #6 is called "The 'immortal soul' is not biblical; the Bible never says the soul is immortal," if you are interested in reading it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Since this is the "atheism" side of the fence as far as conversation goes, it's not off topic to posit that the soul simply does not exist. It is a function of the body, the name we give to this complex firing of synapses that I cannot begin to articulate because of its chemical complexity, but when the body stops, so does the soul.
We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But in our arrogance as a species, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies.
I know, the alternative is to have "no hope," and that leads to a feeling of, well, hopelessness.
Then again, 10 trillion trillion years from now, I will not be burning in hell, so I have that going for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My apologies to you personally.
I thought I was clear that this was as a species, not a criticism directed at you personally. I thought I was as far from singling you out as I could possibly be.
But it is inherent in our opposing views that we will occasionally step on each other's toes.
So allow me to rephrase, please, in a way that does not insult anyone directly or indirectly:
Again with my apologies, is that better?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
That's cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
My mistake - the thread is in the Matters of Faith forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.