Is death just another life?

[Idolater]

Right.

Be sure it is made to do so by a power source. In the mean time it isn't doing anything in some other place or existence.

It's also not really dead though. It's technically non-living, and it doesn't have the voltage needed to run its circuit board. Once it regains the voltage through charging from a power source, now it has the voltage. In the meantime the device hardly changes at all, certainly no more than how a rock for example changes over time.

Besides @Clete's definition for penance, I found this one:
2.a Christian sacrament in which a member of the Church confesses sins to a priest and is given absolution

I mentioned that one to Clete explicitly, yes.

It doesn't fit with yours, either.

I said that.

I'd like to think this is just a peculiar language disconnect, but I think I trust the normal definitions over yours.

See below.

And placing all good works a Christian desires to do in this category is the type of bondage Jesus' death was supposed to free us from.
Hebrews 2:15 KJV — And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

If that's what I were doing then I'd agree with you. That's the wrong category, but I have reason to use the signifier, it's not willy-nilly; again see below.

If such a meaning is allowed in Genesis, why not also in Ephesians:
Ephesians 2:1 KJV — And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

In the light of Genesis, you're proposing that Paul means that you have not been quickened, since you were never really dead yet anyway? I fail to understand the meaning of this clause unless "dead" signifies something nonfiction, not something metaphorical or only contingent. Not like, you have "been quickened" (in quotes ("air quotes") because obviously you weren't dead yet, so it's really just metaphorically quickened).

Christ, in mercy, doesn't have a replacement law

The New Covenant amends the Old, it doesn't do away with it, even one of the Old laws is repeated all throughout the New Testament, including in James----the "royal" law. The Old is amended in the New. Much remains, some is fulfilled, and there are new additions.

, but a spirit of joyful obedience to Him.

This is a false dichotomy, there can be "a replacement law" and a spirit of joyful obedience to Him without conflict.

In fact, worship of such law-like rituals was what severed communication between Him and those Jews who refused to allow the new commandments of loving God and each other to take hold of their hearts.

That's one take. They did not believe Who He was. If they had known, they would have listened to Him like all the people who followed Him around listened to Him. I don't think they couldn't see Him because of "law-like rituals," didn't Nicodemus see Who He was? (The exception doesn't prove the rule in this case, but falsifies the theory.)

Which doesn't fit any of the definitions of penance.

Then use whatever word you want, Derf; you and Clete. If you don't like penance then use sanctification or popular piety or good work done to be more Christlike. Carrying your cross. "A spirit of joyful obedience." Whatever. But what I'm getting from the both of you this thread is that not only do you reject my word choice (the signifier), but you are acting like the thing signified is fictional as well, and you know it's not.

The whole season of Lent is penitential, everybody knows that, even non-Catholics. The things done during Lent are penance, by definition. What are the things done? Corporal works of mercy, prayer, fasting, and the abstention from things we may have an inordinate attachment to, for example. What things don't count for Lent? Abstaining from grave sins. That's not penitential or Lenten, that is obligatory, required, it's therefore a different kind of good work from penance, that's what I'm calling liturgy. Obligatory is liturgy and voluntary is penance.

You won't find a lexical definition of liturgy which matches with my categories either, but again the thing signified is nonfiction. There is good work which is compulsory, on pain of grave sin, and avoiding grave sin is the most trivial example of that good work. Another grave sin is not going to Mass. Mass is liturgy. We have to go to Mass, we have to do the good work of liturgy.

But we don't have to fast. We don't have to read our Bibles or pray regularly. We don't have to help the destitute. Those are penitential. Some will say, "But we should," but that's going too far. We should go to Mass. We should avoid grave sin. Penance ought not be mixed with liturgy.

And like I said earlier in an earlier post, it isn't the absence of liturgy in a Christian's life which is decisive but the absence of penance (or popular piety, sanctification, carrying your cross, corporal works of mercy, or good work done to be more Christlike), which confirms a non-Christian.

But the grace is to the church from Him, and from the church to you and me as participants...of His grace, not of a bunch of rituals.

Do you consider the Lord's Supper just one of "a bunch of rituals?" (We don't even have to talk about a bunch of them, just one, the Eucharist.) Is this your correct estimation of the Eucharist, that it is merely a ritual, and that God does not provide grace directly in the Eucharist?

 

[Clete]

Another meaning, which makes it a different word from what you're talking about, is "popular piety."

Who cares?

I'm using the Catholic word penance (one of them, since Penance is one of the names of the sacrament aka Confession and Reconciliation) because I dislike the other word which commonly means the same thing, "sanctification." Perhaps you'd prefer to substitute the word sanctification when you see me using penance. "Faith without sanctification is dead," iow.

What I'd prefer you use is the common meaning of common words, not some secret meaning that only the initiated understand. If this were a Catholic website where most everyone was familiar with the special meaning then productive discussion would be possible but here it's just a practice in being either intentionally difficult or flatly stupid. What does it profit to use terminology that you know most people are going to think means something other than what you intend? Is there a more efficient way to waste everyone's time, including your own? Is it really that much more difficult to simply use the words that convey your thoughts accurately to those reading what you've written?

We celebrate "it is finished" every Mass.

Not without doing one or both of two things:

1. Altering the meaning of the phrase "It is finished" and/or​

2. Contradicting vast quantities of your own doctrine.​

​

Practically the whole of what Catholics do and what defines what Catholicism is in the minds of every Catholic I've ever known is in contradiction to "It is finished." The fact that you even allow that sentence to escape your mind is something I cannot directly explain aside from knowing intuitively that you've altered the phrase's meaning or have one of the worst cases of paradigm blindness that I've ever encountered. It's probably both.

This question might seem disconnected from the topic at hand but I assure you that it isn't....
Catholics do not put nearly the same weight on the authority of scripture as practically all other sects of Christianity and you're one of the most consistently Catholic participants on TOL that I can remember ever being here and so I'm curious...

Are you willing to admit that your religion is not consistent with the plain reading of the bible? Put another way, do you believe the bible must be interpreted in whatever manner is required so as to make it consistent with the traditions of the church? Put yet another way, do you believe it impossible for the uninitiated (i.e. the non-Catholic) to understand the bible by simply reading it?

Clete

 

[Clete]

Besides @Clete's definition for penance, I found this one:
2.a Christian sacrament in which a member of the Church confesses sins to a priest and is given absolution

It doesn't fit with yours, either. I'd like to think this is just a peculiar language disconnect, but I think I trust the normal definitions over yours. And placing all good works a Christian desires to do in this category is the type of bondage Jesus' death was supposed to free us from.
Hebrews 2:15 KJV — And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

That's the archaic verb form of the word that I mentioned when I posted the definition. You're right that it also doesn't fit but I just didn't bring it up because practically no one uses the term to mean that anymore, including Catholics, and the point I was making is that we should strive to use terms with the common meaning in mind so that our audience will understand what we're talking about.

 

[Derf]

It's also not really dead though. It's technically non-living, and it doesn't have the voltage needed to run its circuit board. Once it regains the voltage through charging from a power source, now it has the voltage. In the meantime the device hardly changes at all, certainly no more than how a rock for example changes over time.

Hardly changes? From being able to do nothing to being able to do everything it was designed for?
Let's compare that with mankind. Let's say that the fall caused most of the power to drain from Adam and Eve, so that they were dying and "as good as dead". Now they would be running on low power mode their whole lives, feeling within that they not only can't fully do what they were originally designed for, but seeing the end in sight (maybe 1% power left), and the charger is proprietary technology and no longer available (tree of life, maybe). When that happens, the screen goes dimmer, the communication channels are closed down, except for barest minimum necessary to prolong life just a fraction longer. And what do we do with such a phone? We make final calls to people, or try to finish the text we started and don't want to lose, or maybe try to finish the game we're playing because we think we're about to beat the previous high score. We "eat drink and be merry" for in a moment we die.

I mentioned that one to Clete explicitly, yes.

I said that.

Yeah, @Clete is faster than I am. I like to thi,k he's more like a first responder, who comes in quickly to apply first aid and hose everything down with holy water, then the patients are delivered to me for the more accurate interventions!
(just kidding Clete--i know you know I love you).

See below.

If that's what I were doing then I'd agree with you. That's the wrong category, but I have reason to use the signifier, it's not willy-nilly; again see below.

In the light of Genesis, you're proposing that Paul means that you have not been quickened, since you were never really dead yet anyway?

Why is it any bigger a stretch to say "you're as good as quickened" over "you're as good as dead"? In other words, if death is a foregone conclusion, why can't resurrection also become a foregone conclusion when we believe in Christ who rose from the dead? And it hasn't happened to us directly yet, but it has happened to us "in Christ", just like we are in the heavenlies "in Christ".

I fail to understand the meaning of this clause unless "dead" signifies something nonfiction, not something metaphorical or only contingent. Not like, you have "been quickened" (in quotes ("air quotes") because obviously you weren't dead yet, so it's really just metaphorically quickened).

Does the above help?

The New Covenant amends the Old, it doesn't do away with it,

Doesn't it?
Hebrews 8:13 KJV — In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

even one of the Old laws is repeated all throughout the New Testament, including in James----the "royal" law. The Old is amended in the New. Much remains, some is fulfilled, and there are new additions.

Is "do not murder" introduced at Sinai, or earlier? It's definitely earlier, because Cain was punished for killing Abel. So in my mind it's not as much part of the covenant as the things they had to do to stone for breaking the commandments that already existed in some form (except maybe the Sabbath commandment).

This is a false dichotomy, there can be "a replacement law" and a spirit of joyful obedience to Him without conflict.

Not according to Peter:
Acts 15:10 KJV — Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

That's one take. They did not believe Who He was. If they had known, they would have listened to Him like all the people who followed Him around listened to Him. I don't think they couldn't see Him because of "law-like rituals," didn't Nicodemus see Who He was? (The exception doesn't prove the rule in this case, but falsifies the theory.)

I don't think a single individual faksifies the theory that a large portion didn't believe in.

Then use whatever word you want, Derf; you and Clete. If you don't like penance then use sanctification or popular piety or good work done to be more Christlike. Carrying your cross. "A spirit of joyful obedience." Whatever.

How about "loving your neighbor"?

But what I'm getting from the both of you this thread is that not only do you reject my word choice (the signifier), but you are acting like the thing signified is fictional as well, and you know it's not.

If it is satisfied by some kind of ritual, then yes, I reject it. I'm not rejecting all ritual, just the saving power thereof.

You won't find a lexical definition of liturgy which matches with my categories either, but again the thing signified is nonfiction.

Then find a word that everybody can recognize and understand.

Do you consider the Lord's Supper just one of "a bunch of rituals?" (We don't even have to talk about a bunch of them, just one, the Eucharist.) Is this your correct estimation of the Eucharist, that it is merely a ritual, and that God does not provide grace directly in the Eucharist?

What does "provide grace" mean to you? Once you go down the trail of using words with meanings only you know, where does it end? Does the Eucharist save? No. If "saved" is the same as "providing grace", then we should do away with the Eucharist entirely, because it has become a false idol, just like Hezekiah broke the bronze serpent-on-a-pole Moses had made, once the people had begun to worship it.

This discussion about penance and liturgy seems like a rabbit trail, but it illustrates the thread title. Do we believe "death" means "death", or do we go into great gyrations to redefine it to mean "life" in a different form?

 

[Idolater]

Hardly changes? From being able to do nothing to being able to do everything it was designed for?

What was a rock designed to do? To not change. That's why even today modern builders of skyscrapers want to build their buildings on (bed)rock. I mean your phone with a dead battery sits incorruptible, not like a cadaver which rots and putrefies.

Let's compare that with mankind. Let's say that the fall caused most of the power to drain from Adam and Eve, so that they were dying and "as good as dead". Now they would be running on low power mode their whole lives, feeling within that they not only can't fully do what they were originally designed for, but seeing the end in sight (maybe 1% power left), and the charger is proprietary technology and no longer available (tree of life, maybe). When that happens, the screen goes dimmer, the communication channels are closed down, except for barest minimum necessary to prolong life just a fraction longer. And what do we do with such a phone? We make final calls to people, or try to finish the text we started and don't want to lose, or maybe try to finish the game we're playing because we think we're about to beat the previous high score. We "eat drink and be merry" for in a moment we die.

So do you think there's a parallel to this in the Scripture, in one of the epistles for instance? I have an idea about it, which I've shared before, but even my proposal wouldn't be a phone that ultimately would die, but just one that is severely hampered such as like how your phone above is hampered, but that it would never actually "die," it would just be handicapped.

Yeah, @Clete is faster than I am. I like to thi,k he's more like a first responder, who comes in quickly to apply first aid and hose everything down with holy water, then the patients are delivered to me for the more accurate interventions!
(just kidding Clete--i know you know I love you).

Just so you know, in the context of my term penance, using holy water is penitential (not liturgy), voluntary. (It suggests another term, "sacramental," which is a noun and not an adjective, which also means c. penance.)

Why is it any bigger a stretch to say "you're as good as quickened" over "you're as good as dead"?

Because I don't see any reason to think that these terms signify nothing rn. The Scriptures aren't written to us as if they concern only "the life to come" but this life, rn and right here. They are applicable now, and not just mentally, but physically (cf. e.g. Colossians 3).

In other words, if death is a foregone conclusion, why can't resurrection also become a foregone conclusion when we believe in Christ who rose from the dead? And it hasn't happened to us directly yet, but it has happened to us "in Christ", just like we are in the heavenlies "in Christ".

On this reading we are both already dead and already risen from the dead, but not truly actually living rn, is that correct? iow it seems to go too far, since we have apparently null and void status rn, as we actually, biologically, live and breathe.

Does the above help?

Doesn't it?
Hebrews 8:13 KJV — In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

A little bit of equivocation; I meant not every element of the Old Testament is obsolesced, not that it categorically isn't obsolescent (it is).

Is "do not murder" introduced at Sinai, or earlier? It's definitely earlier, because Cain was punished for killing Abel. So in my mind it's not as much part of the covenant as the things they had to do to stone for breaking the commandments that already existed in some form (except maybe the Sabbath commandment).

Oh. OK. So you believe in something like natural law. I would say that the weekly Mass obligation (like the Sabbath) is equally unexpressed by any theory of natural law I've ever heard of (but I am far from an expert on natural law theories).

Not according to Peter:
Acts 15:10 KJV — Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

What about "loving your neighbor"?

I don't think a single individual faksifies the theory that a large portion didn't believe in.

I'm not sure what you mean, the theory that a large portion didn't believe in Christ? or the theory that a large portion didn't believe in? (i.e. which theory, that they didn't believe in?)

How about "loving your neighbor"?

Maybe. "Faith without loving your neighbor is dead."

If it is satisfied by some kind of ritual, then yes, I reject it. I'm not rejecting all ritual, just the saving power thereof.

Is reading your Bible a ritual?

Then find a word that everybody can recognize and understand.

I have a word, and I've also set out its definition, some examples, plus specifications.

What does "provide grace" mean to you? Once you go down the trail of using words with meanings only you know, where does it end? Does the Eucharist save? No. If "saved" is the same as "providing grace", then we should do away with the Eucharist entirely, because it has become a false idol, just like Hezekiah broke the bronze serpent-on-a-pole Moses had made, once the people had begun to worship it.

Even if Jesus said to never do away with it?

This discussion about penance and liturgy seems like a rabbit trail, but it illustrates the thread title. Do we believe "death" means "death", or do we go into great gyrations to redefine it to mean "life" in a different form?

:/ I do not understand why you clipped out the one part of my post which demonstrated obvious reasonableness in my choice of words. Lent is penitential, which we all agree with. Therefore Lenten practices are penances. You just ignored this part entirely, and it has me scratching my head. Is there some way in which I'm wrong, that this positively proved that using the word "penance" in this case is not unreasonable?

I can use another word; I don't care. I invited you explicitly to pick another word or term of your choice, please, you are welcome to do it.

But instead that's skipped as well and I'm scolded for my word choice, by both of you----I don't get it. Pick another word then. Please pick another word.

But in skipping and clipping and ignoring all the salient responses to your critiques, you continue to do what I've already accused you all of, which is that you're continuing to refuse to even acknowledge that what I'm talking about is nonfiction. You all don't believe that it can be true to be internally eternally compelled and motivated to improve ourselves to be more like our Lord, and strictly out of that motive and not from any kind of guilty conscience. That's the desire to do penance that I've been talking about.

That's the life in us, is also my original point in my post suggesting that, "Faith without penance is dead." If your point is that for the non-believer /atheist that they're not really dead, because they were never first alive, that's fine, but I'm specifically proposing that the desire to do penance is live faith, and that dead faith is a lack of this desire. If you want to say that it's not dead but is "non-living," again, OK, but I think that's an ancillary point (but maybe I'm wrong).

 

[way 2 go]

That's the life in us, is also my original point in my post suggesting that, "Faith without penance is dead." If your point is that for the non-believer /atheist that they're not really dead, because they were never first alive, that's fine, but I'm specifically proposing that the desire to do penance is live faith, and that dead faith is a lack of this desire. If you want to say that it's not dead but is "non-living," again, OK, but I think that's an ancillary point (but maybe I'm wrong).

PneumaPsucheSoma reply to AB​

And you either didn’t read or didn’t understand what I posted. Action is irrelevant. The source OF the action is the issue. Judging by outward appearances is never the means of determining the quality of the SOURCE OF the action.

Self-righteousness and self-justification versus God’s in changing the condition and state of being of man’s heart are the distinctions.

All your positions and views are based upon your own conceptualizations and deductions, etc. In aggregate, this is all your own standard or set of standards as “whats”. God’s standards include ALL “hows”, including the ones about yourself you can’t or don’t know.

I’ve seen plenty of unbelievers do acts that are “good” Coram Mundo (before men), but are in no way “good” Coram Deo (before God). But you presume the resulting actIONs from actING out of a sin state of being are somehow acceptable because they appear to be the same by your external scrutiny. They’re not.

Unbelievers are incapable of righteous actions because the source OF the action is corrupt. You’re presuming that there is something innately wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit in Eden, when there was only something wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit that was forbidden by God.

Unbelievers are unable to do anything from a source of their state of being that is according to God’s standard. Anything. This explanation is replete within the term hamartia (sin) itself. It’s inarguable (validly).

Everything that an unbeliever does is sin. Everything. And much that Believers do is sin, including worshipping and praying and anything else that is not of faith. That which is not of faith (as the source) is sin (the noun demonstrating state of being and condition).

This doesn’t mean that a Coram Mundo standard that emulates God’s standard isn’t preferable and more functional for the benefit of man than a random standard that denies God’s standard. But God’s standard is regarding BOTH internal character AND external conduct, not just the latter.

Self-determination and human reasoning according to one’s own standard is sin (the corrupted state of being). So all your subjective opinions like this are sin. They’re the result of your inward condition. You’re seeking to establish a standard that is relative to external activity alone.

You don’t understand sin or repentance or redemption or justification or grace or mercy or faith or hope or love. And from all these things you have determined a standard that you insist is righteous. Your standard falls short of God’s standard, just as all other men’s standards fall short of His standards, and for all the same reasons. The primary underlying reason is the source OF the standard, which is yourself according to your own heart and mind, etc.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

Is it? A man executed as punishment is eternally in the process of being executed? Or is the resulting consequence of his punishment eternal... Bible does not say eternally executed , and your previous example was spanked which if you put the word "eternally" in front of spanked then the...

theologyonline.com

 

[Idolater]

PneumaPsucheSoma reply to AB​

And you either didn’t read or didn’t understand what I posted. Action is irrelevant. The source OF the action is the issue. Judging by outward appearances is never the means of determining the quality of the SOURCE OF the action.

Self-righteousness and self-justification versus God’s in changing the condition and state of being of man’s heart are the distinctions.

All your positions and views are based upon your own conceptualizations and deductions, etc. In aggregate, this is all your own standard or set of standards as “whats”. God’s standards include ALL “hows”, including the ones about yourself you can’t or don’t know.

I’ve seen plenty of unbelievers do acts that are “good” Coram Mundo (before men), but are in no way “good” Coram Deo (before God). But you presume the resulting actIONs from actING out of a sin state of being are somehow acceptable because they appear to be the same by your external scrutiny. They’re not.

Unbelievers are incapable of righteous actions because the source OF the action is corrupt. You’re presuming that there is something innately wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit in Eden, when there was only something wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit that was forbidden by God.

Unbelievers are unable to do anything from a source of their state of being that is according to God’s standard. Anything. This explanation is replete within the term hamartia (sin) itself. It’s inarguable (validly).

Everything that an unbeliever does is sin. Everything. And much that Believers do is sin, including worshipping and praying and anything else that is not of faith. That which is not of faith (as the source) is sin (the noun demonstrating state of being and condition).

This doesn’t mean that a Coram Mundo standard that emulates God’s standard isn’t preferable and more functional for the benefit of man than a random standard that denies God’s standard. But God’s standard is regarding BOTH internal character AND external conduct, not just the latter.

Self-determination and human reasoning according to one’s own standard is sin (the corrupted state of being). So all your subjective opinions like this are sin. They’re the result of your inward condition. You’re seeking to establish a standard that is relative to external activity alone.

You don’t understand sin or repentance or redemption or justification or grace or mercy or faith or hope or love. And from all these things you have determined a standard that you insist is righteous. Your standard falls short of God’s standard, just as all other men’s standards fall short of His standards, and for all the same reasons. The primary underlying reason is the source OF the standard, which is yourself according to your own heart and mind, etc.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

Is it? A man executed as punishment is eternally in the process of being executed? Or is the resulting consequence of his punishment eternal... Bible does not say eternally executed , and your previous example was spanked which if you put the word "eternally" in front of spanked then the...

theologyonline.com

? What is your point?

 

[way 2 go]

? What is your point?

desire has nothing to do with it
(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,

you are trying to sell works

PneumaPsucheSoma​

The source OF the action is the issue

Self-righteousness and self-justification versus God’s in changing the condition and state of being of man’s heart are the distinctions.

Unbelievers are incapable of righteous actions because the source OF the action is corrupt. You’re presuming that there is something innately wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit in Eden, when there was only something wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit that was forbidden by God.

PneumaPsucheSoma​

What’s missing is understanding that faith is a (singular anarthrous) noun, and God can give that noun to anyone He chooses according to His eternal foreknowledge. Faith is the hypostasis (substance) of things hoped for, so it is the means of our hypsotatic union with Christ.

This is a problematically difficult thing to grasp for most anti-sacramental Protestants. Faith isn’t believING, it’s the thing given to man that does the believing

 

[Idolater]

desire has nothing to do with it
(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,

you are trying to sell works

No I'm not.

PneumaPsucheSoma​

The source OF the action is the issue

Self-righteousness and self-justification versus God’s in changing the condition and state of being of man’s heart are the distinctions.

Unbelievers are incapable of righteous actions because the source OF the action is corrupt. You’re presuming that there is something innately wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit in Eden, when there was only something wrong/bad/evil about eating fruit that was forbidden by God.

PneumaPsucheSoma​

What’s missing is understanding that faith is a (singular anarthrous) noun, and God can give that noun to anyone He chooses according to His eternal foreknowledge. Faith is the hypostasis (substance) of things hoped for, so it is the means of our hypsotatic union with Christ.

This is a problematically difficult thing to grasp for most anti-sacramental Protestants. Faith isn’t believING, it’s the thing given to man that does the believing

I don't care what that guy thinks.

 

[Derf]

What was a rock designed to do? To not change. That's why even today modern builders of skyscrapers want to build their buildings on (bed)rock. I mean your phone with a dead battery sits incorruptible, not like a cadaver which rots and putrefies.

I don't get the rock reference. We were talking about either a man, designed by God to function in ways that portray His own image, or a cell phone, designed by man to maintain communion (well, communication, anyway) with other men. What does a rock have to do with that?

So do you think there's a parallel to this in the Scripture, in one of the epistles for instance? I have an idea about it, which I've shared before, but even my proposal wouldn't be a phone that ultimately would die, but just one that is severely hampered such as like how your phone above is hampered, but that it would never actually "die," it would just be handicapped.

Yeah, that's what Satan said, too. "You will not surely die."

Just so you know, in the context of my term penance, using holy water is penitential (not liturgy), voluntary. (It suggests another term, "sacramental," which is a noun and not an adjective, which also means c. penance.)

I thought you would enjoy the reference.

Because I don't see any reason to think that these terms signify nothing rn. The Scriptures aren't written to us as if they concern only "the life to come" but this life, rn and right here. They are applicable now, and not just mentally, but physically (cf. e.g. Colossians 3).

No doubt about that.

On this reading we are both already dead and already risen from the dead, but not truly actually living rn, is that correct? iow it seems to go too far, since we have apparently null and void status rn, as we actually, biologically, live and breathe.

If one can called dead while still alive--because the future state of death is unavoidable, then one can be called alive when the future state of death is definitely going to be reversed (new life can not be taken away.)

A little bit of equivocation; I meant not every element of the Old Testament is obsolesced, not that it categorically isn't obsolescent (it is).

Oh. OK. So you believe in something like natural law. I would say that the weekly Mass obligation (like the Sabbath) is equally unexpressed by any theory of natural law I've ever heard of (but I am far from an expert on natural law theories).

I don't know how you define "natural law" (see how communication becomes difficult when you don't use definitions everybody else knows and accepts?), but Cain was to keep sin at bay by not be coming angry at Abel. What "sin" was crouching at the door if there was no law against it?

What about "loving your neighbor"?

You mean so we don't kill them? Yeah, I'm good with that. Paul was good with that one, too. So that must not be the ones that were being done away with.

I'm not sure what you mean, the theory that a large portion didn't believe in Christ? or the theory that a large portion didn't believe in? (i.e. which theory, that they didn't believe in?)

Maybe. "Faith without loving your neighbor is dead."

I'm good with that, too.

Is reading your Bible a ritual?

If it becomes so, it ceases to be for love of God, right?

I have a word, and I've also set out its definition, some examples, plus specifications.

Even if Jesus said to never do away with it?

:/ I do not understand why you clipped out the one part of my post which demonstrated obvious reasonableness in my choice of words. Lent is penitential, which we all agree with. Therefore Lenten practices are penances. You just ignored this part entirely, and it has me scratching my head. Is there some way in which I'm wrong, that this positively proved that using the word "penance" in this case is not unreasonable?

It ceased to be useful in the conversation about the OP. Let it go.

I can use another word; I don't care. I invited you explicitly to pick another word or term of your choice, please, you are welcome to do it.

Let it go.

But instead that's skipped as well and I'm scolded for my word choice, by both of you----I don't get it. Pick another word then. Please pick another word.

Maybe move it to another thread.

But in skipping and clipping and ignoring all the salient responses to your critiques, you continue to do what I've already accused you all of, which is that you're continuing to refuse to even acknowledge that what I'm talking about is nonfiction. You all don't believe that it can be true to be internally eternally compelled and motivated to improve ourselves to be more like our Lord, and strictly out of that motive and not from any kind of guilty conscience.

Oh, is that what you were talking about? Now I understand you better!

That's the desire to do penance that I've been talking about.

That's not what penance means.

That's the life in us, is also my original point in my post suggesting that, "Faith without penance is dead." If your point is that for the non-believer /atheist that they're not really dead, because they were never first alive,

I don't remember ever saying that.

that's fine, but I'm specifically proposing that the desire to do penance is live faith, and that dead faith is a lack of this desire. If you want to say that it's not dead but is "non-living," again, OK, but I think that's an ancillary point (but maybe I'm wrong).

Faith in what?

 

[Idolater]

I don't get the rock reference. We were talking about either a man, designed by God to function in ways that portray His own image, or a cell phone, designed by man to maintain communion (well, communication, anyway) with other men. What does a rock have to do with that?

The dead cell phone doesn't change but a cadaver putrefies. The former is similar to a rock in this way, quite unlike a dead human, who /which will continue to rot and degrade and disintegrate. The dead human will get worse and worse and worse, in a moral sense. It's not just like, one has breath and the other does not, that might coincide with the occasion of death, but long after the occasion of death, the dead cadaver is going to be disgusting and inhuman.

I can think of people throughout history who've clearly been morally dead in this way, who just got more and more vile as their years went onward.

Anyway that's what I meant in comparing a dead phone to a rock, and how that's not how dead people work. They change.

I don't know how you define "natural law"

Everybody has their own definition. Natural law theorists all agree natural law is real /nonfiction but they disagree on what it exactly is. You sound like a natural law theorist. You really can only provide specifications for natural law, I think is the gist of the matter for those of us who aren't convinced natural law theorists. Most natural law theorists I think agree in broad strokes on the specifications of (the) natural law.

, but Cain was to keep sin at bay by not be coming angry at Abel. What "sin" was crouching at the door if there was no law against it?

Was it a sin to not keep the Sabbath? This is why I mentioned the weekly Mass obligation, similar to the Sabbath obligation it too is not expressed in any formulation of natural law that I've ever seen, but my range is not very wide, so easily I could have missed where a natural law theorist does explicate how natural law includes the Sabbath and or Mass obligation.

... If it becomes so, it ceases to be for love of God, right?

Even if everybody in the world abuses a ritual which Jesus told us unequivocally to not ever stop doing, we cannot ever stop doing it, licitly and with His authorization.

... Faith in what?

In Whom: Jesus.

 

[Derf]

The dead cell phone doesn't change but a cadaver putrefies. The former is similar to a rock in this way, quite unlike a dead human, who /which will continue to rot and degrade and disintegrate. The dead human will get worse and worse and worse, in a moral sense. It's not just like, one has breath and the other does not, that might coincide with the occasion of death, but long after the occasion of death, the dead cadaver is going to be disgusting and inhuman.

I can think of people throughout history who've clearly been morally dead in this way, who just got more and more vile as their years went onward.

Anyway that's what I meant in comparing a dead phone to a rock, and how that's not how dead people work. They change.

Cell phones will rust and eventually can't even be powered up anymore, if that helps the illustration. I have several old ones around like that.

But regarding people, they do indeed get more corrupt without a saving influence. But they can repent. Some do even without Christ, to some extent. And there isn't anything that won't be forgiven them, except rejecting the Holy Spirit's call to believe (my understanding of what Jesus said).

Everybody has their own definition. Natural law theorists all agree natural law is real /nonfiction but they disagree on what it exactly is. You sound like a natural law theorist. You really can only provide specifications for natural law, I think is the gist of the matter for those of us who aren't convinced natural law theorists. Most natural law theorists I think agree in broad strokes on the specifications of (the) natural law.

Was it a sin to not keep the Sabbath?

Not from anything I can see in the old testament, prior to the decalogue. And it was uniquely Jewish.
Exodus 31:16 KJV — Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

This is why I mentioned the weekly Mass obligation, similar to the Sabbath obligation it too is not expressed in any formulation of natural law that I've ever seen, but my range is not very wide, so easily I could have missed where a natural law theorist does explicate how natural law includes the Sabbath and or Mass obligation.

I don't see the "mass obligation", and the Sabbath one seems to have been replaced by something much more effective--resting from your works and trusting in the grace of God.
Hebrews 9:14 KJV — How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Why do you think the conscience needs to be purged of works the Hebrews were told to do in the first place? They were even to repent of them:
Hebrews 6:1 KJV — Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Even if everybody in the world abuses a ritual which Jesus told us unequivocally to not ever stop doing, we cannot ever stop doing it, licitly and with His authorization.

I assume you're referring to
Eucharist/communion. Can you tell me where He said "never stop doing it"?

In Whom: Jesus.

In what about Jesus?

 

[Idolater]

Cell phones will rust and eventually can't even be powered up anymore, if that helps the illustration. I have several old ones around like that.

But regarding people, they do indeed get more corrupt without a saving influence.

Glad we can agree on something.

But they can repent. Some do even without Christ, to some extent. And there isn't anything that won't be forgiven them, except rejecting the Holy Spirit's call to believe (my understanding of what Jesus said).

Sure, again agreed.

Not from anything I can see in the old testament, prior to the decalogue. And it was uniquely Jewish.
Exodus 31:16 KJV — Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.


I don't see the "mass obligation",

See below, 1st Corinthians 11:26

and the Sabbath one seems to have been replaced by something much more effective--resting from your works and trusting in the grace of God.

OK. I think the Mass obligation has fulfilled the Sabbath obligation, but it's not the point of the thread so I won't contend.

Hebrews 9:14 KJV — How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I notice that's in the future tense. Do you think this epistle is written to those contemplating believing in Christ, or those who already do?

Why do you think the conscience needs to be purged of works the Hebrews were told to do in the first place? They were even to repent of them:
Hebrews 6:1 KJV — Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

It depends on what "dead works" is here.

I assume you're referring to
Eucharist/communion. Can you tell me where He said "never stop doing it"?

1st Corinthians 11:26 "shew the Lord's death till he come."

In what about Jesus?

Lots of things, but for starters, Son of God and God the Son, and that He is nonfiction risen from the nonfiction dead.

 

[Derf]

Glad we can agree on something.

Sure, again agreed.

See below, 1st Corinthians 11:26

This also is from there:
1 Corinthians 11:34 KJV — And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

In other words, when it becomes something it wasn't meant to be, then stop doing it.

OK. I think the Mass obligation has fulfilled the Sabbath obligation, but it's not the point of the thread so I won't contend.

Thanks.

I notice that's in the future tense. Do you think this epistle is written to those contemplating believing in Christ, or those who already do?

This is an excellent question, for a poor cause, imo. Why does it matter if the result being sought is future? I'm hesitant to assign all targets of the letter to either category, since the author seems to be trying to convince his readers that Jesus is the awaited Christ, then goes on to explain what faith means, as if they need to have it, or need to exercise it more, then signs off as if they are all brothers in Christ.

This next verse helps (a little) with the future question.

Hebrews 9:15 KJV — And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Notice that He "is" the mediator (present tense), that they which "are called" (present perfect, I think, meaning something that has presently been completed), "might receive" is future, the word "promise" is by its nature all about a future event/result, and "eternal inheritance" is indicative of a future event

It depends on what "dead works" is here.

At least it's something to consider when pushing ritual and obligation, don't you think? Are "dead works" merely the old form of ritual and obligation, while live works are the new form of ritual and obligation? It seems like an awkward and less freeing position to me, anyway.

1st Corinthians 11:26 "shew the Lord's death till he come."

Let's look at the whole verse:
1 Corinthians 11:26 KJV — For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It's not in the form of imperative, as it looks like from your excerpt. So if that's your evidence, it's unconvincing.

Plus, further down in the passage it says what I was mentioning:
1 Corinthians 11:34 KJV — And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

That if it was causing idolatry, like greed or selfishness, then stop doing it--just eat at home.

Lots of things, but for starters, Son of God and God the Son, and that He is nonfiction risen from the nonfiction dead.

Good! And what about that helps us to be able to act and think differently? Why is any of what you said somehow of benefit to us?

 

[Idolater]

This also is from there:
1 Corinthians 11:34 KJV — And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

In other words, when it becomes something it wasn't meant to be, then stop doing it.

But it's not telling the priesthood to stop. It's talking to individuals.

Why does it matter if the result being sought is future?

I'm suggesting the opposite, see below.

I'm hesitant to assign all targets of the letter to either category, since the author seems to be trying to convince his readers that Jesus is the awaited Christ, then goes on to explain what faith means, as if they need to have it, or need to exercise it more, then signs off as if they are all brothers in Christ.

Fair.

This next verse helps (a little) with the future question.

Hebrews 9:15 KJV — And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Notice that He "is" the mediator (present tense), that they which "are called" (present perfect, I think, meaning something that has presently been completed), "might receive" is future, the word "promise" is by its nature all about a future event/result, and "eternal inheritance" is indicative of a future event

Perhaps. But also it could be that that "promise" can just refer to the written promise in the Old Testament, in which case it's not necessarily indicative of future, and "inheritance" could mean the same thing. "Might" in this reading merely means c. "are permitted to."

At least it's something to consider when pushing ritual and obligation, don't you think? Are "dead works" merely the old form of ritual and obligation, while live works are the new form of ritual and obligation? It seems like an awkward and less freeing position to me, anyway.

Yeah, I wouldn't think that that's what it means. Obviously while the temple still stood, the Apostles were continuing to participate in temple liturgy (Old Testament, Levitical (Zadokian) priesthood, liturgy), so they weren't repenting of celebrating that liturgy, they weren't sinning. I don't think it could plausibly be thought to mean Old Covenant liturgy when Hebrews says repenting of dead works.

And if it's not specifically liturgy but other general normative ethics, such as dietary strictures, then the grammar doesn't connect for me because those aren't actually "works," since they're the abstention from doing, rather than doing.

Let's look at the whole verse:
1 Corinthians 11:26 KJV — For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It's not in the form of imperative, as it looks like from your excerpt. So if that's your evidence, it's unconvincing.

The mood doesn't matter in the way you're portraying, "till He come" means indefinitely.

Plus, further down in the passage it says what I was mentioning:
1 Corinthians 11:34 KJV — And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

That if it was causing idolatry, like greed or selfishness, then stop doing it--just eat at home.

Or gluttony, which is lust, which is also idolatry.

But again, this doesn't substantiate your position either, because it only means that individuals should be judicious and sober when considering whether to go to Communion, or to abstain. It doesn't speak to whether Communion as liturgical ritual should ever be stopped by the Church priests.

Good! And what about that helps us to be able to act and think differently?

Then it's genuine faith in Christ, and we are truly Christians (no matter how strange). It means we are alive, and resurrected. That's what helps us to be able to act and think differently. An ontological, metaphysical, substantial change.

Why is any of what you said somehow of benefit to us?

Because with genuine faith we now continually strive to become Christlike.

 

[Right Divider]

But it's not telling the priesthood to stop. It's talking to individuals.

There is no priesthood for the body of Christ. If there was, Paul would have mentioned it.

 

[Derf]

There is no priesthood for the body of Christ. If there was, Paul would have mentioned it.

Assumming, as you do, but not all of us do, that Paul is the only one who wrote to the body of Christ. Which also assumes that the body of Christ is some odd thing that the 12 apostles were unwelcome in. But that's for another thread, unless you can connect it to the OP.

 

[Right Divider]

Assumming, as you do, but not all of us do, that Paul is the only one who wrote to the body of Christ. Which also assumes that the body of Christ is some odd thing that the 12 apostles were unwelcome in. But that's for another thread, unless you can connect it to the OP.

Your extreme bias does not allow you to even consider the truth.

• The body of Christ is not "some odd thing", it is something that God had decided to do before the foundation of the world.
• The 12 apostles were NOT "unwelcome" in the body of Christ. They simply already had been given their own responsibilities that were not the same as those given to Paul.

 

[Derf]

But it's not telling the priesthood to stop. It's talking to individuals.

Weren't we talking about individuals, whether they were obliged to do something?

I'm suggesting the opposite, see below.

Fair.

Perhaps. But also it could be that that "promise" can just refer to the written promise in the Old Testament, in which case it's not necessarily indicative of future, and "inheritance" could mean the same thing. "Might" in this reading merely means c. "are permitted to."

Agreed, but if we're talking about the same inheritance Paul talks about, it's referring to the resurrection of bodies.
Ephesians 1:14 KJV — Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Yeah, I wouldn't think that that's what it means. Obviously while the temple still stood, the Apostles were continuing to participate in temple liturgy (Old Testament, Levitical (Zadokian) priesthood, liturgy), so they weren't repenting of celebrating that liturgy, they weren't sinning. I don't think it could plausibly be thought to mean Old Covenant liturgy when Hebrews says repenting of dead works.

Again, if Paul has anything to say about, it does mean that. And it makes sense if Christ fulfilled the pictures in the law, then such foreshadowing was no longer needed, and it was passing away. If they clung to it in a way that was putting aside the true sacrifice, then it needed to be repented of.

And if it's not specifically liturgy but other general normative ethics, such as dietary strictures, then the grammar doesn't connect for me because those aren't actually "works," since they're the abstention from doing, rather than doing.

Tell that to a fasting man.

The mood doesn't matter in the way you're portraying, "till He come" means indefinitely.

Or gluttony, which is lust, which is also idolatry.

Right!

But again, this doesn't substantiate your position either, because it only means that individuals should be judicious and sober when considering whether to go to Communion, or to abstain. It doesn't speak to whether Communion as liturgical ritual should ever be stopped by the Church priests.

No, that's handled in terms of whether such law abidance is helpful for salvation--it's not.
Galatians 3:3 KJV — Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Then it's genuine faith in Christ, and we are truly Christians (no matter how strange). It means we are alive, and resurrected.

Not yet you aren't resurrected, since you haven't died. Resurrection is only applied to a corpse.
Acts 2:29 KJV — Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Acts 2:34 KJV — For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

That's what helps us to be able to act and think differently. An ontological, metaphysical, substantial change.

Yes...in Christ. Not in us yet--we are ontologically still as we were, sons of Adam. We currently need to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (which IS an actual imperative: be ye transformed...), but we have assurance that it will, because it has happened to Christ, and we are considered to have these things "in Christ".
1 Corinthians 15:51-52 KJV — Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(future, right?)

Because with genuine faith we now continually strive to become Christlike.

Or, perhaps because the fear of death has passed, since...by faith we believe we will be resurrected. It's a faith that is looking forward to something hoped for, as Hebrews 11:1 tells us.

 

[way 2 go]

eating doesn't take years


if it didn't say "day that you eat" , you might have something

this is your version
Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For if you eat of it you shall surely die.


Genesis 2:4
just a gigantic flaw in your theory
creating took days eating didn't

(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Why do you leave out “in”?

why do you ignore "eat" ?

why do you ignore "eat" to define the time duration ?