WHY ARE MANY OF US STILL HERE?

[bbyrd009]

What I have written stands. I do not respond to the rude demands of others.

My apologies ok, was trying my best to not be rude there

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh, sorry, you wanted to know what I thought was the difference between classical dialectics and Hegelian dialectics. Classical dialectics is generally thought to have been begun by Socrates and expanded upon by Plato. Up till that point, Greek philosophers were more preoccupied with thinking about "beauty" and were somewhat of the opinion that "truth" did not exist apart from beauty. They sought to "discover" truth as part of the search for beauty. Socrates, on the other hand, believed that truth could be found from analyzing ideas via the use of logic. He believed that a proper new goal of philosophy was the quest for morality. Discovering the truth would lead one to what was virtuous and ethical. He formulated dialectics where two opposing ideas were argued by real or imagined opponents as a companion to logical analysis.

Socrates demonstrated that a series of questions could be asked and the answers, it was hoped, would result in truth--truth for its own sake rather than as a subset of the search for beauty (aesthetics). (As Christians, we recognize that Jesus, Himself, often used a series of questions to prompt His hearers to allow God's Spirit to lead them to discover the "truth that will set you free"). Socratic methodology was highly regarded by subsequent philosophers.

Athens was a fledgling "democracy" during the times of Socrates. He would sometimes criticize the idea of democratic government, because he felt it could be as unstable as the whims of the people. He determined that, if the people were irrational or evil, injustices would occur and argued for just law as the basis for governing (as well as equal justice for individuals) --not the will of the people. This would be the essential difference between a republic and a democracy.

Socrates got himself in trouble with the governing authorities in Athens, for refusing, in his role as judge, to order the arrest and execution of a man named Leon, who had run afoul of the authorities. In turn, the authorities whipped up a demand from the people that Leon be arrested and executed. Socrates would not participate, believing the whole affair to be a miscarriage of justice. He was subsequently ordered executed himself for defying the political establishment, who had again whipped up support, among the people, for the execution of Socrates. The main accusation against Socrates was that he was "irreligious" for "not worshiping the pagan gods" of Athens. The moral of the story is that justice and equality are impossible in a democracy, when the people are easily manipulated through a lack of an accurate presentation of the facts (establishing facts is a main pursuit of a well-functioning justice system), or are irrational and evil themselves. In the Bible, God warns repeatedly of the evildoers who would pervert justice--they would punish the innocent and allow the guilty to go free. God says He detests those injustices.

Jumping forward to Hegel, the student of philosophy discovers that most of Hegel's work is exceedingly dry, boring and sometimes unintelligible. He goes on and on about the World Spirit and some of those ideas are used in silly New Age philosophy. Hegel's one solid contribution was the Hegelian dialectic where a thesis is stated by one side in the debate, the antithesis is argued by the other side of the debate, and often, a synthesis of both ideas is the outcome. Arriving at "truth" is really not a consideration because Hegel believed that it was relative to one's perception and that, in turn, was controlled by a variety of influences.

Marxist thinkers took Hegel's observations and methodology one step further when they determined that the use of Hegelian dialectic would make possible the political movement of the masses over time--through the use of propaganda. Propaganda would be distributed through a controlled mass media and result in the bland acceptance, by the masses, of the manipulated "reality". As such, Marxian dialectics (which is only kept at bay by a free and independent media) is a far cry from Socrates original purpose for dialectics. Much of modern higher "education" is deeply Marxist because those who are interested in promoting socialism/communism control the narrative of the textbooks and the thoughts of professors who have been well-indoctrinated by Marxism. It should be remembered by the academics (if they are able to think accurately--a dubious proposition) that all Marxist governments (in Russia, China, Cambodia, eastern Europe, North Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela under Maduro) have been quite genocidal toward their own citizenry. In such a failed state, one never knows when one will run afoul of the wrong people and end up in the gulag (or worse).

"He formulated dialectics where two opposing ideas were argued..."

and brb, lol, arg...good stuff btw imo.
Ok, what diff in the above and the below, iyo? Ty
I'll bold them in the body up there for other's easier ref...painfully now, bc I am old and staring at a postage stamp lol

"Hegel's one solid contribution was the Hegelian dialectic where a thesis is stated by one side in the debate, the antithesis is argued by the other side of the debate..."

 

[bbyrd009]

Eastern/"Naive" Dialectics has no opposing side, will hopefully be the takeaway here

Hence why "the battle is over, the fight is already won," and similar expressions I would Quote if I could still see lol.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I am not sure I have an answer that fits, but... let us look...

I guess we would have to know what a soul is... or should it be a living soul? Adam and Eve seemingly were living souls until they ate of the wrong tree:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Gen 2:7

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 2:17

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Gen 3:6

When they had eaten of that wrong tree, were they still living souls or were they then dead souls or simply with no soul involvement? It would appear to me that they, whatever "they" is were dead.

Later Solomon writes of the soul of a man enjoying things:

"There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God." Ecc 2:24

Was it however perhaps that dead soul acting as if he were alive and enjoying the of good in his natural labor, which seemingly has no definite reward beyond this world of flesh?

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Ecc 3:21

What spirit are we of? How does that pertain at all to the soul, dead or otherwise?

"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezek 18:4

Yes, the sinning soul dies, but what if the soul of a man is already dead because he never yet received the Life God provided through Jesus? Who of us was sinning before we met Jesus and who was simply already dead "living" as a zombie without renewal or rebirth or God?

"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." Luke 9:54-55

What was our spirit prior to receiving the Holy Spirit... if we have...? What is our spirit, when and if we have received the Holy Spirit?

Paul writes as to how it has been:
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." I Cor 15:45

Were there any living spirits at all once Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden ate of that forbidden tree? But... then came the "quickening spirit" [the Holy Spirit that brings to Life?]. Is this what Jesus was? Is this what Jesus brought?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10

Do we have an answer or do we have more questions that perhaps we don't really even understand? Hmmm?

"And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man; and every living soul died in the sea." Rev 16:3

What is see here is the "living souls", that is those quickened by the Holy Spirit made Alive as Jesus was Alive... but then a number of them chose to jump back into the sea which is a place of overly salted waters which when drunk will kill a man. This is the rebuttal I guess for OSAS if you can see it.

I still don't know if it answers your question, however... The spirits may return to God, but the souls not already dead do die if they have not been quickened. The quickened ones, the one that do not choose to jump back into that sea of death, should then find a place with God.

One of the problems is likely translational. The Hebrew of the Old Testament only contains approximately 5,000 words. English, in comparison, has approximately 110,000 words (with more added every day). The word for "spirit" is, in Hebrew, ruach and the word for "soul" is nephesh. The Hebrew-Israelite understanding was that animals as well as humans possessed nephesh. It is what, in their thinking, animated a body (in Hebrew, body=guf), which would be dead when the soul departed. Not sure if that helps but when it says that Christ is a life-giving Spirit, it is suggesting that He is God because God is Spirit. The Holy Spirit is, in Hebrew, "Ruach ha Kodesh".

 

[amadeus]

One of the problems is likely translational. The Hebrew of the Old Testament only contains approximately 5,000 words. English, in comparison, has approximately 110,000 words (with more added every day). The word for "spirit" is, in Hebrew, ruach and the word for "soul" is nephesh. The Hebrew-Israelite understanding was that animals as well as humans possessed nephesh. It is what, in their thinking, animated a body (in Hebrew, body=guf), which would be dead when the soul departed. Not sure if that helps but when it says that Christ is a life-giving Spirit, it is suggesting that He is God because God is Spirit. The Holy Spirit is, in Hebrew, "Ruach ha Kodesh".

Yes, very nicely and concisely expressed. Thank you!

This also will help, [maybe], some people understand why when they try to sort out the meaning of written scripture without God's help they quite easily can and likely very often do misunderstand His message to them.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Eastern/"Naive" Dialectics has no opposing side, will hopefully be the takeaway here

Hence why "the battle is over, the fight is already won," and similar expressions I would Quote if I could still see lol.

I think that Greek philosophers before Socrates and Plato were likely more "naive" in their thinking as you put it. Others might say that they were intellectually primitive. Rigorous testing of ideas is, to the Western mind, essential to the process of establishing truth--thus pitting one point of vew against another. Today, we in the Western tradition, take it for granted, that the goal of all intellectual engagement is truth. Judeo-Christian thought has had, to my mind, a profound influence on the Western tradition. If the Jews became "Hellenized" before the advent of Christ, it is likely that the Greeks became "Judaized" as well. The Greeks, well before the Romans, sought, in the cultures of others, not only what was materially better but intellectually and religiously better. The Jews posited a God who was involved with mankind and planned for mankind's good.

 

[Jay Ross]

You say all are candidates to die a physical death, yet why would that be less than a definite end [not just a candidacy] for every man of flesh without regard to his quality be it unrighteous/unjust or righteous/just? Why is that not simply the body of dust returning to the dust as per these verses?

"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again" Ecc 3:20
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecc 12:7

These 120 years are speaking, are they not, of the time allotted to each man [OT or NT] in the fairness of God to choose as well as possible and use as well as possible that which God has provided given the Door which Jesus is opening. In the NT this may be easier for us to understand because our sense of time for any person seeking God after [man's time] the out pouring of the Holy Ghost as per Acts chapter 2.

For those who spent their allotted time prior [man's sense] to that apparent availability [OT?] I hesitate to try to explain and would question my own conclusions if I did. But I believe God to be fair and the final judgment for each would be according to what they did with what they had:

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

​

Does everyone whose flesh dies, sleep in the dust of planet Earth awaiting an awakening? Those who never chose rightly, who in the NT never really chose Jesus, or in the OT chose what God desired of them, to me would simply be completely and finally dead. They had their opportunity and chose mammon rather than God. Was not their judgment finished when the dirt was thrown over their faces? They never attained real Life [as God sees real Life in Jesus]. What does it mean to sleep anyway in this reference? Was Jesus not clarifying this in these verses?

"He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn." Matt 9:24

"And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth" Mark 5:39

Then in the following instance, Jesus serves as the interpreter for his disciples who clearly did not understand his meaning initially:

"These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." John 11:11-14

People have talked about Jesus emptying the tombs and the graveyards by saying "Lazarus come forth" if he had failed to specify, Lazarus, but that would only apply I would guess for anyone who was no longer even a candidate for real Life. Would this excluded group perhaps be what Paul has named "reprobate"?

My point or question remains as to why anyone who has never received real Life, should ever have to stand in a final judgment or to expect a second death?

"The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous." Psalm 1:4-5​

Considering verse 13 of your quoted Rev chapter 20, who would those dead requiring judgment be as opposed to those clearly excluded by Psalm 1:4-5?


Your final words here are well stated indicating a need for man to understand God's message... Our friend @bbyrd009 mentioned speaking in tongues and Apostle Paul wrote these words:

"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." I Cor 14:28

Jesus was clearly the interpreter for his disciples in the question of Lazarus I cited above. Now should not the interpreter for us always be the Holy Spirit if and when we are IN the Spirit rather than quenching the Spirit as we read or listen?

[Consider that the "church" in my cited verse should be equal to where 2 or 3 are gathered together in His name (in the Spirit?). We should remain quiet among brethren in the Spirit if it is not presently time to speak (Ecc 3)]

It seems that you have the same issues that the others have had over time. If a person sins but does not "die" then in his future whether he is alive at the time or resurrected from the grave to be alive once more, will

he ​

be judged at that time to die the second death. This was Satan's "loop hole" that he used to deceive Eve and Adam when he said that they would not die, immediately, if they ate from the Tree of the knowledge of God and evil.

It seems to me that you are getting hung up on the term, "candidate," because it is being used a way that is unusual to you. All of mankind will be judged at the end of the age of the ages as to whether they are righteous in God's eyes or not. Whether they have repented of their sins and chosen to live by faith in God by believing His promises, i.e. His covenants with mankind which have been their since the beginning of time when Adam and then Eve were created, become the question being answered by God at the time of Judgement as to what is recorded in the "books" that will be opened.

Do I have to know how this will work in my particular case, or do I have to simply believe, and trust that this belief is then countered as righteousness. For many people this is a big ask. The fruit of my belief in God/Christ is found in how I chose to live my life and it is by this record of my life that I will be judged. Believing and trusting God is a way of life that become our very being. We either have it or we do not. It is easily discerned.

Shalom

 

[bbyrd009]

Ok, ty :) LC.
(hmm, God is suddenly my judge up there, @Jay Ross , not buying that sorry)
(or I guess not suddenly at all, huh, that is the whole point there right?
"tomorrow" God is going to take all judgement back from the Son, and judge us, only where is that v?)

I was casting about for a good reflection of the Naive Dialectic, but it is expressed in Dao. After all who reads a Tao story and disagrees? Now it is certainly hard to imagine the same authorship in our Bible, but I suggest that that is bc the authors elevated the Naive Dialectic to a higher form, and made it more difficult to see on purpose. the term "tao" is even buried in our Bibles, I ran across it again last night, and foolishly did not mark it.

Anyway, that one cannot state any Absolute Truth from the Bible--at least according to a dictionary def--is an important pointer imo, as is prolly hidden from the wise, and for anyone interested in following this out in further study it might be discovered that little children employ the naive dialectic of necessity, until they learn the Hegelian that we are all so intimately fam with, and allay themselves to a team like we all do--which is why we sometimes ask their opinion, for a laugh usually--or that Western adults tend to reason more dialectically (less logically) as they age, whereas Eastern adults do not tend to reason more Hegelian (logically) as they do so. Hopefully google can help if you just highlight/search the relevant phrases in here, and bam post any nuggets, ty.

Hate your life, hate your family are also involved, and I guess I should warn you that this will truly turn you into a sheep among wolves, so don't forget to count the cost here I guess

 

[Phoneman777]

There you go again...projecting your own character flaws on others.

It is I who have rebuked you. Yet you persist in your campaign against the finished work of Christ - against Christ.

You keep throwing around the "h" word like a special snowflake, leftist, SJW, beta male, so I finally decided to show you just what the Bible says about "hate".

It's anyone who refuses to rebuke the brethren for their sin, which is breaking God's Law, the Ten Commandments.

That be you.

 

[ScottA]

You keep throwing around the "h" word like a special snowflake, leftist, SJW, beta male, so I finally decided to show you just what the Bible says about "hate".

Quotable.

 

[Phoneman777]

Quotable.

Here's another: "The truth is regarded as "hate" by those who hate the truth."

 

[ScottA]

Here's another: "The truth is regarded as "hate" by those who hate the truth."

It wasn't a compliment.

 

[aspen]

You keep throwing around the "h" word like a special snowflake, leftist, SJW, beta male, so I finally decided to show you just what the Bible says about "hate".

It's anyone who refuses to rebuke the brethren for their sin, which is breaking God's Law, the Ten Commandments.

That be you.

Your mother would be proud, I am sure

 

[brakelite]

"Unlike later leanings, the Bible writers held foreign traditions in the highest regard (Isaiah 28:11, 1 Corinthians 14:21, Luke 4:26-28; also read our article on Homer)."
www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Mary.html#.XHaxhPZFzIU
("fractals, fractals everywhere")

Homer and Moses contemporaries? I can see no justification for that without some mind-bending historical gymnastics, but would like to hear the basis for that anyway out of curiosity.

 

[brakelite]

Do you recall clicking "reply" first or what? And yes the prompt from me is evident there, see, your quote is on top. Btw if you could reduce that to a sentence or two ty, but you might see that they are identical dialectics in diff dresses anyway. Competition v cooperation, an implied winner and loser v a give and take of equals, etc. I could peruse your post and reflect it in those terms as well I guess. Essentially Classical Dialectic is not Eastern or "Naive" Dialectic, but an older version of Hegelian, goes the premise anyway.

Today the Hegelian dialectic has become so refined and removed from its original purpose it has become a global political masterpiece.

 

[brakelite]

One of the problems is likely translational. The Hebrew of the Old Testament only contains approximately 5,000 words. English, in comparison, has approximately 110,000 words (with more added every day). The word for "spirit" is, in Hebrew, ruach and the word for "soul" is nephesh. The Hebrew-Israelite understanding was that animals as well as humans possessed nephesh. It is what, in their thinking, animated a body (in Hebrew, body=guf), which would be dead when the soul departed. Not sure if that helps but when it says that Christ is a life-giving Spirit, it is suggesting that He is God because God is Spirit. The Holy Spirit is, in Hebrew, "Ruach ha Kodesh".

And yet in Genesis 2:7 we are informed that man became a soul, in Youngs Literal Translation, and the man becometh a living creature. It is the spirit that is received...the breath of life, which is what animates the body, the now animated body becoming a living creature/soul. Later in Genesis it is seen that not just men were spoken of as being souls, and when we see verses such as and ye shall afflict your souls, to make an atonement for your souls, I think it a mistake to infer that because of these we ought to think of humans as possessing souls that needed to be afflicted or saved, but rather that soul is a metaphor for life...the living creature, the man or woman that is activated by spirit until such time as the spirit returns to God when at such time the soul simply ceases to exist...dies in other words, and the body returns to dust.

 

[brakelite]

@bbyrd009 Your questions regarding the second death are challenging, as there is no explicit theological explanation in scripture, but that must be derived from a variety of sources and put together in as harmonious relationship as makes sense. Jesus spoke of two resurrections. One to life, one to damnation. The first resurrection we know is for the redeemed...those elected to life. We must assume that judgement has already taken place, as all the relevant decisions must have been made prior to the first resurrection...the remainder waiting their fate still in the ground. So the second resurrection (the one specifically for the wicked at the end of the millennium) is not to face judgement, but to face the execution of their sentence...the second death. Why does God go through such a scenario? I guess it is all about justice...and being seen to be just. He will not be arbitrarily destroying anyone without a fair hearing, and although the pronouncements against the wicked are in absentia, when raised to hear the charges brought against them and the verdict, they will, along with everyone else, confess that Jesus is truly worthy and God is just.

 

[bbyrd009]

Rigorous testing of ideas is, to the Western mind, essential to the process of establishing truth--thus pitting one point of vew against another

i grew up with this myself, ya...God I can only wonder how many times it was walked by me in plain language like that without me even blinking lol, man. You suggest this MO establishes Truth where I see Facts fwiw, facts that have goat us to...here. Ipad did that but I guess I'll leave it lol
Ok, ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Homer and Moses contemporaries? I can see no justification for that without some mind-bending historical gymnastics, but would like to hear the basis for that anyway out of curiosity.

Um, was that the assertion being made there? If you would quote it I'd like to follow it up and see

 

[bbyrd009]

Today the Hegelian dialectic has become so refined and removed from its original purpose it has become a global political masterpiece.

It almost certainly culminates in The Prince I guess, ya. And the connections to logic are plain...I guess we even have some vv about attempting to find God with our minds, at least so to speak, sense/nonsense comes to mind