All The Questions Dodged By Rayskidude.

[Phanta]

The Lion's Den Rules don't reflect that spirit, though. They make it sound like this is a place for basically, usually, civil informal debate. That's pretty different from the no-holds-barred bloodbath of reality.

Really? I guess my view is extreme, but it's because my mindset comes from the older website model where we allowed a lot more than we do today.

 

The risk is that we start moderating Lion's Den and just make it to another Colosseum. There's no need to have two places with two different names meaning the same thing.

 

Besides, even in boxing there are some rules. But the idea here is that there are fewer rules and rougher game than at a chess play.

 

Where I draw the line is when someone is constantly berating someone else without any cause. If it's part of a discussion and there are some content in what is being discussed, then I leave it. Put it this way, if someone is bringing up valid points and then suddenly call the other one an idiot for not getting it, I'm leaving it. But if someone only posts a series of posts telling the other person he's an idiot and is a waste of space, then I will step in. Does that make sense? There's a slight difference.

 

What I mean is that the posted rules don't match your announcement. The LD rules say you need to follow the forum guidelines. The Forum Guidelines say no vulgarity! Nothing hateful or harassing or abusive, too.

 

But that's all allowed here in reality. I'm not surprised when people call for moderator's action in terms of rule breakage.

[Ouroboros]

What I mean is that the posted rules don't match your announcement. The LD rules say you need to follow the forum guidelines. The Forum Guidelines say no vulgarity! Nothing hateful or harassing or abusive, too.

Oh, they do? Damn. That part I don't remember. And of course I can't find the link right now. Do you have the link?

 

But that's all allowed here in reality. I'm not surprised when people call for moderator's action in terms of rule breakage.

You're absolutely right, if those are the forum guidelines. I don't remember ever seeing those. I'd like to read it in context and of some reason I can't find the link right now (too late at night), so if you have it handy I'd like to read it in full.

 

Never mind, I found the link.

 

--

 

Yeah. I see. I totally forgot we had that there. Sorry about that. This means we'll just have to tighten up the moderation a bit then.

[Phanta]

What I mean is that the posted rules don't match your announcement. The LD rules say you need to follow the forum guidelines. The Forum Guidelines say no vulgarity! Nothing hateful or harassing or abusive, too.

Oh, they do? Damn. That part I don't remember. And of course I can't find the link right now. Do you have the link?

 

But that's all allowed here in reality. I'm not surprised when people call for moderator's action in terms of rule breakage.

You're absolutely right, if those are the forum guidelines. I don't remember ever seeing those. I'd like to read it in context and of some reason I can't find the link right now (too late at night), so if you have it handy I'd like to read it in full.

 

Never mind, I found the link.

 

--

 

Yeah. I see. I totally forgot we had that there. Sorry about that. This means we'll just have to tighten up the moderation a bit then.

 

You can't change it, or modify it for this forum only?

 

I mean, I'm all for people being polite, as you know...but if some folks want to box, who am I to tell them not to box? So long as there are places for me and others not to box, it's no skin off my nose.

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

You can't change it, or modify it for this forum only?

 

I mean, I'm all for people being polite, as you know...but if some folks want to box, who am I to tell them not to box? So long as there are places for me and others not to box, it's no skin off my nose.

I'm not in charge over that.

 

We could talk to Dave to change it since he's the one who created the forum policy.

 

I always saw LD as a place where people could say whatever they wanted, but it might be time now for tighten it up a bit. Especially since I completely forgot that this was in the forum policy. Oh, well. I can't crack down on everything, so I will have to give some leeway still. We can't just change this over night.

[Phanta]

You can't change it, or modify it for this forum only?

 

I mean, I'm all for people being polite, as you know...but if some folks want to box, who am I to tell them not to box? So long as there are places for me and others not to box, it's no skin off my nose.

I'm not in charge over that.

 

We could talk to Dave to change it since he's the one who created the forum policy.

 

I always saw LD as a place where people could say whatever they wanted, but it might be time now for tighten it up a bit. Especially since I completely forgot that this was in the forum policy. Oh, well. I can't crack down on everything, so I will have to give some leeway still. We can't just change this over night.

 

A lot of folks who complain about behavior have made reference to the "rules", meaning the forum guidelines and not the verbal/cultural code in place. I think that discrepancy has contributed to the kind of conflict we see in this thread.

 

RAY - I do hope you'll post. I am truly interested in your answers. I'm researching this sort of thing right now, but I don't know my way around the Bible very well, and so would appreciate a thoughtful reply.

[Ouroboros]

A lot of folks who complain about behavior have made reference to the "rules", meaning the forum guidelines and not the verbal/cultural code in place. I think that discrepancy has contributed to the kind of conflict we see in this thread.

Got it.

[Phanta]

A lot of folks who complain about behavior have made reference to the "rules", meaning the forum guidelines and not the verbal/cultural code in place. I think that discrepancy has contributed to the kind of conflict we see in this thread.

Got it.

 

Also, for the record, I am not a loin girl. However, as one of my best friend's says, you could coat it in shit, but if you'd fried it up, I'd still light up at the sound of sizzling bacon.

[Ouroboros]

Also, for the record, I am not a loin girl. However, as one of my best friend's says, you could coat it in shit, but if you'd fried it up, I'd still light up at the sound of sizzling bacon.

It's not my fault that you misspelled it! You put yourself there. Poke, poke...

[Phanta]

Also, for the record, I am not a loin girl. However, as one of my best friend's says, you could coat it in shit, but if you'd fried it up, I'd still light up at the sound of sizzling bacon.

It's not my fault that you misspelled it! You put yourself there. Poke, poke...

 

The funniest part is that I SAW my mistake as soon as I posted, but didn't reply because I am trying to be less anal about my grammar mistakes...essentially take myself less seriously. Boy did I get an opportunity to take myself less seriously! *laugh*

 

Excellent.

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

...essentially take myself less seriously.

One of the hardest things to do.

[Leinad89]

Lol, Ouroboros, and Phanta. Yeah this isn't derailing the topic at aaaaall:P

 

RAY! I WRITE THIS IN COMIC SANS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET YOUR ATTENTION! IF YOU WANT, THIS TOPIC CAN BE MOVED TO THE COLOSSEUM, YOU KNOW!

[bornagainathiest]

Oh, man. I logged in and saw 4 pages of comments and thought to myself that Ray finally answered something....

 

 

Joke's on me!

HAH! Me too, BP!

 

 

I log in and see movement!

 

"Lock and load!", I think to myself. He's finally done it! And then...

 

0

 

Zip from Ray (big surprise there!), but plenty of other shennaniggans from all you guys. Oh well, at least the traffic is keeping this thread high up in the Den. That's no bad thing.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Dangles bait over the side...

 

Looking at Ray's beam-me-up/down-at-death doctrine, adding it to his Creationist take on the age of the Earth and then looking at this passage...

Jesus Restores Two Demon-Possessed Men

28 When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[c] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29 “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.

...I've come to a horrible conclusion.

 

Here's how it runs.

 

1.

According to Ray, at death you either go directly to heaven or hell. (No Monopoly jokes, please!)

 

2.

Therefore, since unbelievers have been dying since the time of Adam, they have been going directly to hell.

 

3.

But the demons said to Jesus that they expected to be tortured (i.e., sent to on a one-way trip to hell) at an appointed time?

 

4.

So therefore, the demons (and perhaps not just these particular ones, but all of them) will not be cast into hell until that time.

 

5.

Now, has that appointed time arrived yet? If the answer is Yes, then this 'time' cannot be Judgement Day, because we'd have noticed the Four Horsemen (and other serious shit!) by now.

 

6.

If the answer is No, then the demons are still at large and free to go about their work until Judgement Day, whenever that is.

 

7.

Now for the nasty conclusion!

In either case, Yes or No, it's impossible not to conclude the following;

* Satan and his demons have been free and unpunished for many thousands of years. Free to enjoy the daughters of men, (See Genesis 6; 1 & 2) free to deceive and free to corrupt the minds and hearts of us humans.

* Meanwhile, non-Christian humans who died since the Fall have been thrashing around and screaming in unspeakable agony, chargrilled by the flames of hell. (See Lazarus and the Rich man, Luke 16:19 - 31.)

* God seems to be quite happy with this state of affairs - after all He set up the rules which angels, demons and humans have no choice but to follow.

.

.

.

.

 

Now, will Ray bite?

 

As Phanta says... patience, patience.

 

BAA.

[Mriana]

You can't change it, or modify it for this forum only?

 

I mean, I'm all for people being polite, as you know...but if some folks want to box, who am I to tell them not to box? So long as there are places for me and others not to box, it's no skin off my nose.

I'm not in charge over that.

 

We could talk to Dave to change it since he's the one who created the forum policy.

 

I always saw LD as a place where people could say whatever they wanted, but it might be time now for tighten it up a bit. Especially since I completely forgot that this was in the forum policy. Oh, well. I can't crack down on everything, so I will have to give some leeway still. We can't just change this over night.

 

She has a point. The contradiction does make it confusing and thus why I had to ask if I could get away with what I did. However, I wouldn't want the general forum to be relaxed as the LD is. Remember, and this is my opinion of course, the mods should be held to the same level of the forum guidelines too. Maybe what should be added to the forum guidelines is that the rules are more relaxed in the LD or something to that affect.

[Ouroboros]

She has a point. The contradiction does make it confusing and thus why I had to ask if I could get away with what I did. However, I wouldn't want the general forum to be relaxed as the LD is. Remember, and this is my opinion of course, the mods should be held to the same level of the forum guidelines too. Maybe what should be added to the forum guidelines is that the rules are more relaxed in the LD or something to that affect.

I pointed it out to Dave now, so we'll see what he chooses to do.

 

He explained that how we're supposed to treat issues in Lion's Den is a case by case basis and not something fixed. He also agrees that there's a need for people to be able to be free in expressing themselves. So yes, I agree, it's just a matter of making sure the Forum Policy reflects that a little better to avoid this confusion.

[Ouroboros]

Lol, Ouroboros, and Phanta. Yeah this isn't derailing the topic at aaaaall:P

 

RAY! I WRITE THIS IN COMIC SANS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET YOUR ATTENTION! IF YOU WANT, THIS TOPIC CAN BE MOVED TO THE COLOSSEUM, YOU KNOW!

Impossible to fix this one. Might be better to just start a new one.

[Mriana]

I agree and that is what I was trying to suggest, but my wording, I realize wasn't the best.

[Ouroboros]

I agree and that is what I was trying to suggest, but my wording, I realize wasn't the best.

It's not you, it's me. I'm very stubborn.

[Mriana]

I agree and that is what I was trying to suggest, but my wording, I realize wasn't the best.

It's not you, it's me. I'm very stubborn.

 

So am I. You say that like it's a bad thing. Just teasing.

[Ouroboros]

So am I. You say that like it's a bad thing. Just teasing.

No. I pride myself of my faults.

[rayskidude]

Well, my panties aren't in a bunch, Ray, and I can't speak for BAA, but I am interested in your answer to #8, particularly, what were Abraham, Isaac, Paul, and John's ideas, respectively, about what would happen to them immediately after death and through the return of messiah/rapture/end times (if they had a conception of such). I am curious about the personal perspective of each as presented in the Bible.

 

Thanks for considering my request.

 

Phanta

 

Thnx - happy to oblige. But just an initial note to everyone - when someone asks a question, I am not obligated to answer, unless I promise to do so. I have had a myriad of conversations with dozens of ex-C's and I will not allow anyone to dominate my time on this site. The fact that BAA throws out what he considers numerous valid points does not make them valid. The fact that he demands certain answers from me, and then refuses to answer my questions on the same topics indicates no real desire to converse - only his desire to make his 'points.' How does that advance the conversation. I invite any and all to review my several answers to his questions.

 

Is BAA a stalker? Well, when I go to other threads - he feels compelled to chase me down and present his "points" again - with another bogus charge that I have dodged him. Again, if I have promised to answer questions, - I will. But if I choose to engage others on a new topic, do I not have that freedom? Am I compelled to give comments to one person on numerous related questions - never having committed to do so?

 

Re: the appropriateness of my latest response - could someone plz enlighten me. I thought we were in the Lion's Den - doesn't that imply that you'd better be prepared for some rough action? I believe that nearly all my posts have been offered with a genuine desire to interact on the topic; to offer what I consider a Biblical perspective. And yet when I take certain liberties to point out the fatuousness or nastiness of someone's post - well, youd've thought I was a thoroughly the mean person.

 

So - plz lemme know the rules - if I break them, I will seek a sincere forgiveness for my sins.

 

Now, Abraham. He doesn't really speak of what he expected after death, so we work through strong implications.

 

8 Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Genesis 25:8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Gathered to his people indicates that he thought 'his people' still existed; so there was a belief in life after death. This same principle was spoken to Moses by God Himself.

 

6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Exodus 3:5–6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

We know that Jesus pointed to this Scripture to teach the Sadducees that the resurrection of the dead is true, a reality (see Matthew 22:29-32). So, according to Jesus, in some sense, at the time of Moses - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had already experienced a resurrection.

 

Being that Abraham believed God and God counted it to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6) also indicates that Abraham expected to be in God's presence after he died.

 

Job was a contemporary of the Patriarchs, and Job believed that he would have a physical body and would see God in the after-life >> and he was overwhelmed by the glory of that truth.

 

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,

and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,

yet in my flesh I shall see God,

27 whom I shall see for myself,

and my eyes shall behold, and not another.

My heart faints within me!

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Job 19:25–27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

So, I believe Abraham held to an immediate after-life of conscious existence, and one which included a body.

 

I'll answer re: the others later.

 

I hope this adds to the conversation.

[Mriana]

I hope this adds to the conversation.

 

Not really. I'm thinking with your appeal to [non] authority, you still dodging the questions, but that's my opinion.

[Phanta]

Thanks. This is helpful. I'm going to spend some time doing some of my own reading based on what you've written.

 

Be well,

Phanta

[bdp]

 

 

Is BAA a stalker?

 

 

No, you're just clearly insecure. Learn what the word 'stalker' means. Moron.

[Phanta]

Now, Abraham. He doesn't really speak of what he expected after death, so we work through strong implications.

 

8 Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Genesis 25:8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Gathered to his people indicates that he thought 'his people' still existed; so there was a belief in life after death. This same principle was spoken to Moses by God Himself.

 

6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Exodus 3:5–6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

We know that Jesus pointed to this Scripture to teach the Sadducees that the resurrection of the dead is true, a reality (see Matthew 22:29-32). So, according to Jesus, in some sense, at the time of Moses - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had already experienced a resurrection.

 

Being that Abraham believed God and God counted it to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6) also indicates that Abraham expected to be in God's presence after he died.

 

Job was a contemporary of the Patriarchs, and Job believed that he would have a physical body and would see God in the after-life >> and he was overwhelmed by the glory of that truth.

 

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,

and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,

yet in my flesh I shall see God,

27 whom I shall see for myself,

and my eyes shall behold, and not another.

My heart faints within me!

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Job 19:25–27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

So, I believe Abraham held to an immediate after-life of conscious existence, and one which included a body.

 

I'll answer re: the others later.

 

I hope this adds to the conversation.

 

A couple quick questions come to mind.... Abraham expected to have a physical body?

 

2nd question... When Jesus raised the widow's son from the dead, if what you say is correct, wouldn't that mean the son was already somewhere else...an afterlife, in another body?

 

Thanks for considering my questions.

 

Phanta

[rayskidude]

A couple quick questions come to mind.... Abraham expected to have a physical body?

2nd question... When Jesus raised the widow's son from the dead, if what you say is correct, wouldn't that mean the son was already somewhere else...an afterlife, in another body?

Thanks for considering my questions.

 

Phanta

 

God's revelation in Scripture is progressive - so as time goes on the revelation grows and becomes more specific. Yes, I think that Abraham expected to have a physical body in the after-life. Now, as we look at what God has further revealed >> the immediate after-life is as a disembodied spirit, since death is the separation of our soul from our body.

 

26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (James 2:26). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Then, after God destroys this sin-polluted universe and creates a New Heavens and a New Earth, we will receive glorified bodies. I Corinthians 15.

 

But I will address the other persons you asked about - but certainly David anticipated a physical, conscious after-life

9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices;

my flesh also dwells secure.

10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,

or let your holy one see corruption.

 

11 You make known to me the path of life;

in your presence there is fullness of joy;

at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Psalm 16:9–11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

I also need to study this more, and I'll get back to you next week - but I would say the young man raised from the dead was a spirit in the current heaven, whom Jesus returned to his earthly body. One day - after the conclusion of this age, he will receive a physical body.