Love me or else (Part One) (Where is it now?)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 19:22 (4330 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Presumably this will be when all life on earth has been extinguished, or else there would be an ongoing intermingling of the living and the resurrected. Therefore it will be when God has got rid of the old earth and built the new earth. On this there will be no meat-eating, but I note that the new earth will also be without seas. I can't help feeling this will lead to a bit of a water shortage, not to mention the difficulty of growing fruit and veg. Does the bible give us any indication of what we're going to eat and drink?
> -All life extinguished? No oceans? Where did that come from? Well for food, it states quite clearly all seed bearing plants and animals get the leafy vegetation. Not sure where some of your other stuff came from.
 
> TONY: There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again.
> 
>DWH: It's not clear to me when this 1000 year reign is to happen in relation to the ongoing resurrection, but you say that after it "we will have had the opportunity to learn the standard 100%." Would it then be right to assume that this is the period on new earth during which all of us will undergo our resurrection, including all pre-Christians and all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Waga-Waga tribesmen, who will be taught the one and only truth, which is Christianity? What else could it be, if Christ is the ruler?) -I do not think it will be Christianity as we know it, no. Religion as we think of it is a purely human concept. One thing I want to re-emphasize is that even though I do take a lot from the bible, and take it seriously, I am not professing to a given religion. Rather, I think what we will be taught is what amounts to universal truth. i.e. This is the way reality REALLY is, this is how you can exist in harmony with it, and these are the consequences if you don't. It is not religion in the sense of all the pomp, dogma, doctrine, and all that other fluff.-Christianity only exists, CAN ONLY exist, in the context of the current world system, or this current incarnation if that floats your boat better. If you have died, and paid the price for your sins, and have been resurrected, and have not sinned, then you are no longer in need of a ransom sacrifice. At that point, Christianity as we know it could no longer apply.-Similarly, faith at that point would gradually be replaced by accurate knowledge, something the Bible actually states directly. '[For this means everlasting life, taking in the accurate knowledge of you and the one whom you sent forth..'-
>Would it also be right to assume that capital crimes committed by our resurrected bodies, such as fornication, murder and agnosticism, will continue throughout the 1000 years? If not, when will they take place, and when exactly will we sinners be "immediately cut off"? -The implication is that the possibility for them will exist, but that something will forestall it from happening. While this is only a guess, I think the example of Abraham points the right direction. When the act is committed too in the heart and mind of the person, that point of no return, that is when I think they would be cut off. Abraham was tested right up to the split second before he would have plunged the knife, and then stopped. -Agnosticism would actually be non-existent at that point. Not because it is wrong, but simply because presented with direct evidence it would not be possible. :P ->Before and/or after the arrival of Satan? (I'm surprised you believe in him, but that's a different subject.)-Satan is a title, not a name. It means the opposer. Likewise for devil, which means deceiver or accuser. Call it the spirit of the world, or an attitude shared by many, or an individual, it matters little. Whether it was an actual entity or not is rather irrelevant. Sometimes I am just as torn by the personification of Satan as I am by other things. According to the Bible, he was a beautiful angel. If I believe in god, I see no reason not to be believe in one or more other spirit creatures. But wouldn't you say that sums up the attitude of the world nicely? Opposed to the rules God set forth, accusing him of everything in the book? Even the Original Adam and Eve story was about opposing the rules and accusing God of keeping something good from his children. -> 
> TONY: YHWH's laws are laws of freedom, not restraint.
> 
> "Thou shalt not etc." = freedom, but I like your rider to this statement: "treat everyone/everything with perfect love and respect." That's practically all we need, isn't it?-".. and the greatest of these is love.' Yes, it is all we need. Look at the thou shalt nots... they can all be summed up by that one golden rule. It is the one rule that grants perfect freedom to everyone, without letting anyone impugn the freedom or happiness another. -
There were many, many holes in your last paragraph, but unfortunately, for me to address them would take more time than I have at the moment. All I can tell you is that even a very cursory reading of the bible would pretty much demolish that entire last paragraph. Hell, even a cursory reading of Genesis and Revelation along would demolish it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.