WordWolf

I thought the context of the original post made it clear that I was trying to articulate different PHILOSOPHICAL POSITIONS. That this was the position was the fact I was trying to outline. It's like the difference between "The police believe he's involved with this crime" and "he's involved with this crime." It's a lot easier to document the fact that the police believe that.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but correct. (My internet was down again. We're looking into changing companies.) I didn't see it either, but "SF flick with Molly Ringwald" would have given me that one in an instant. I'm shocked how many SF 3-D movies came out in such a small time, relatively speaking. In other news, the answer to Raf's current movie eludes me at the moment.

Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant to say is: "There's no 'reason' for 'LIFE', so there's no reason to exist after 'life' in any form. That is, there's no big answer to "We are alive because...." thus no reason for life, so there's no great significance to it- other than whatever significance we GIVE it. So, likewise, there would be no 'reason', no big answer, that accompanied death. We each have one life, and it's everything to US, so naturally we'd like to hang on to it. Most people agree that if you die, you lose something important. I was NOT trying to take a shot at anybody, I was trying to make a flat statement of fact that was accurate. Sometimes around 4am I can miss the mark.

A) This British game show is not about people giving technically correct answers. It is far more concerned that the answers not be cliched (while being wrong) and that the answers given be INTERESTING. So, interesting trivia is worth points even if it did nothing to answer the question. Cliches are punished with a foghorn/ klaxon-like sound while the monitors behind the players displays the cliche. Returning players who are predictable while being wrong can lose points quite easily. (My favorite example....One comedienne was fond of making jokes at her own expense. "What was The Great Disappointment?" Comedienne: "Have you been talking to my husband?" *KLAXON* *the sentence "Have you been talking to my husband?" appeared on the monitors* ) Players are comedians, actors, and minor celebrities, occasionally including a PhD whose known in the UK. B) This British game show pits families against each other in attempts to answer more questions, and outscore all other families, to win a prize like a trip to the Kennedy Space Center. C) This US game show pit children against each other, answering incredibly difficult questions. An eidetic memory was quite useful. Neil Patrick Harris hosted this one. Each episode had 2 teams of 3 kids pitted against each other, with the kids getting to name their team. D) This US game show from decades ago was the only game show that was set in Oahu, and was the only game show filmed entirely on location in Hawaii. It was hosted by Bob Eubanks and the theme song was composed by Alan Thicke. The location is obvious when watching it- because it was Hawaii- themed. E) This "game show" was hosted by Rip Taylor. It used a lot of the crew from "the Gong Show" and was a takeoff on beauty pageants. The winner received a very small prize. She walked the runway as a winner, while Rip Taylor serenaded her in a takeoff of Bert Parks, then used a change-holder on his belt to dispense her winnings. If you remember the show, you remember how much she won.

This Sci Fi Western was eclipsed, one week after its release, by a major Sci Fi flick. It starred Peter Strauss, Molly Ringwald, Ernie Hudson, and Michael Ironside. It was released in 3-D, but didn't rely on that gimmick to carry the movie. It packed a lot of story and events into its run time. Reviews have either been good or bad (one extreme or the other), with complaints of bad editing and compliments on the imaginative sets, and a comment that this movie is better watched from the living room than the movie theater. Also released in 3D around this time were movies like "Starchaser: the Legend of Orin" and "Metalstorm: the Destruction of Jared-Syn." I definitely sense a pattern here. Worse, it continued just after this movie's release with "Star Wars Episode 6- Return of the Jedi." (Although that movie was not in 3D.) Executive Producer Ivan Reitman labeled this movie "a space adventure with a sense of humor". The film takes place in 2136. Ernie Hudson was cast as Washington due to a resemblance to Billy Dee Williams/ Lando Calrissian. Some movie posters for the film featured a long text preamble that read: "Wolff and Nikki. He's an interstellar adventurer. She's a young rebel. Together they set out on a mission to rescue three stranded women. From a planet no one has warned them about. Because no one has ever returned". Because of the film's 3D format, taglines on film posters boasted that this film was, "The first movie that puts you in outer space". Due to 3D projection requiring silver screens, cinemas and drive-ins which only had white screens showed the movie in 2D, so as such, the picture rolled out in both 2D and 3D formats, as well as in 70mm in select locations.

It is not. Eubanks hosted quite a few game shows. The location of the one I mentioned is definitely a clue to which game show it is. (I sometimes suspect I'm the only one who remembers it who didn't work on it. Haven't seen it since it aired back then, either.)

Ok, next movie. This Sci Fi Western was eclipsed, one week after its release, by a major Sci Fi flick. It starred Peter Strauss, Molly Ringwald, Ernie Hudson, and Michael Ironside. It was released in 3-D, but didn't rely on that gimmick to carry the movie. It packed a lot of story and events into its run time. Reviews have either been good or bad (one extreme or the other), with complaints of bad editing and compliments on the imaginative sets, and a comment that this movie is better watched from the living room than the movie theater.

Jason had been a kid who went to Crystal Lake summer camp. He was teased, ridiculed, and otherwise ignored. He was believed to have drowned/died there, and that due to the counselors being more interested in sex, drinking, etc. rather than their jobs. (Thus the jokes about the movie being sponsored by the National Council of Churches, or something like that.) Mrs Voorhees later took revenge for that, on the counselors who were their successors (for some value of "successor"). I wondered why the juggling and stuff was a clue. "Friday the 13th Part 3-D" came out during the brief 3-D movie craze, along with "Jaws 3-D" and after "Coming At Ya!". I only saw that last one in the theaters. Actually, "Freddy vs Jason" is quite watchable. Freddy's made powerless by the remaining kids being kept from dreaming thanks to a medication, and being kept in the dark about him- so they can't actually fear him. So, he searches for some other way to instill fear, finding what was left of Jason, and figuring out a way to trick him and to return him to Earth. The plan works, and the kids start fearing- but Jason eclipses Freddy and Freddy can't add to his body count before Jason gets the kid. So, they end up in a sort-of fight. It's a shame that the titular line was left on the cutting room floor- "Freddy versus Jason, place your bets." This wasn't exactly Citizen Kane here, they could have gotten away with the line.

Ok, here's another round-up round. Answer any of these correctly to take the round. We're on game shows this time. A) This British game show is not about people giving technically correct answers. It is far more concerned that the answers not be cliched (while being wrong) and that the answers given be INTERESTING. So, interesting trivia is worth points even if it did nothing to answer the question. Cliches are punished with a foghorn/ klaxon-like sound while the monitors behind the players displays the cliche. Returning players who are predictable while being wrong can lose points quite easily. (My favorite example....One comedienne was fond of making jokes at her own expense. "What was The Great Disappointment?" Comedienne: "Have you been talking to my husband?" *KLAXON* *the sentence "Have you been talking to my husband?" appeared on the monitors* ) Players are comedians, actors, and minor celebrities, occasionally including a PhD whose known in the UK. B) This British game show pits families against each other in attempts to answer more questions, and outscore all other families, to win a prize like a trip to the Kennedy Space Center. C) This US game show pit children against each other, answering incredibly difficult questions. An eidetic memory was quite useful. Neil Patrick Harris hosted this one. Each episode had 2 teams of 3 kids pitted against each other, with the kids getting to name their team. D) This US game show from decades ago was the only game show that was set in Oahu, and was the only game show filmed entirely on location in Hawaii. It was hosted by Bob Eubanks and the theme song was composed by Alan Thicke.

We're open for discussion or the laying out of more positions, but I'm not going to wait for them to discuss the ones we have at hand. For the practicing (or professing) Christian, what's the standard for what to believe? For those most loyal to a denomination or a church, the answer is usually simple- the official stance of their group is correct no matter what. So, to them, truth is about conformity and/or popularity. That's definitely not my style, but I admit it sure keeps things simple and is very fast, requiring no work on their own behalf. For some, the answer may be more of "the long-held answers have been tested, so they're most likely correct". That can look just like the previous category, but has a bit more flexibility of idea, that is, that poor ideas may have been rejected. Certainly many of the silliest attempts at doctrine get excluded this way, so it's not without merit (although it's not my style, either.) Around this messageboard, it's no shock to see "sola scriptura" discussed or respected- that is, what's correct is what the Bible says, and mistakes are from either not reading it, or no understanding it, or not even trying to use it for a basis of doctrine or beliefs. Like all systems, this one isn't perfect, either. If your translation is faulty, your understanding will be faulty. If you don't understand your terms, your understanding will be faulty. If you come with preconceived notions, your understanding will be faulty. (Naturally, if the entire position is wrong, the same will result, but I count that under the translation being faulty.) That having been said, plenty of people who sincerely claimed they agreed with the Bible have disagreed with each other's positions, so it should come as no shock that those aforementioned problems are nothing small.

I would think it's appropriate, if we go anywhere with this, to at least mention all the main positions that are held or discussed, one way or another. So, we've mentioned reincarnation, and oblivion. One popular position among Christians is immediate, eternal judgement. The idea there is that the moment after death is a moment for one's eternal judgement. Those that are judged worthy (for some standard of worthy) make it into Heaven for eternity. Occasionally, there's levels of Heaven, but in Heaven for eternity no matter what. Those that are not judged worthy (for some standard of worthy) do NOT make it into Heaven. From those, there's a division. Some people believe in a Purgatory- a temporary place of punishment and/or purification, which is NOT eternal- after which the inmate is released and gets into Heaven for eternity. Some people believe in a Hell- a permanent place of punishment where the inmates suffer for eternity with no hope of release or Heaven. Some people believe in all 3 (where some go immediately to Heaven, some to Purgatory, and some to Hell), some believe in only 2 (with no Purgatory.) There used to be a fourth place called "Limbo" which was for unbaptized babies. Officially, it's been called off, but there may be some people who still believe in it.

I'm thinking that this is the prequel "Enterprise", which outlasted the original "Star Trek" series' 3 seasons. There were different ships called "Enterprise", including a real space shuttle named after the Star Trek ship, and so on.

It was. The poster's entire "raison d'etre" was to start from the position that vpw was always correct and was God Almighty's Chosen Mouthpiece. From there, it followed that anything Bible-related vpw did was done with the approval of God Almighty, and usually by His direct instruction. So, that meant God Almighty endorsed the most ridiculous BS. When the BS piled up, things changed to vpw still being the Chosen Mouthpiece, but occasionally making errors, and the occasional errors were gigantic because he was such a titan of a person while he walked the earth that both his good deeds and his evil deeds topped the scales. I SWEAR I'm not exaggerating. If anything, I'm understating it.

The Kramdens and Nortons lived at that address, with the Nortons living directly upstairs, and shouted at in front of the fire escape. Ralph's idea of a night out kept invoking going to the Hong Kong Gardens. (I don't remember ever seeing a scene there.) Norton could tell the time by the smell of the Chinese food. Once, he stopped a train conductor. Instead of asking him to consult his pocket watch for the time, he asked if there were any Chinese restaurants in the area. :) I was surprised that Spanish has both the concept of the honeymoon (which translates word-for-word as "luna de miel" , moon of honey) but also has a word for honeymooners (something like "mieleneros".) The show was short-lived because it was 39 episodes long. It's been in syndication for over 50 years, which is a long time for a show. Ed Norton once described his job (he works in the sewer) as an "engineer of subterranean sanitation." Pet names got slightly confused. Ralph told Norton he'd call Alice what he called her when courting- "little buttercup." "No, wait, she used to call ME "Buttercup", I used to call her 'Bunny.' What's so funny, Norton?" "Back then, you were a little cup of butter, but now you're a whole tub of lard!!!!" Another episode, Ralph made a recording for Alice to apologize to her. He began with "Hello, Bunny? This is old Buttercup...." and continued from there, starting with how they used to call each other that. The year the hurricanes all got named after the show, TRIXIE (Ed's wife) got left out when they got to the letter "T". I thought they should make an obvious exception. Interestingly, Ralph and Ed's bowling team was "the Hurricanes." It came up when Ralph's team jacket was in the wash just before a game. "HOW WILL PEOPLE KNOW I'M A HURRICANE?" "Just open your mouth!" Ok, George.

YES! Ralph kept shaking his fist and threatening to send her to The Moon. Eventually, the shorthand became "Bang! Zoom!" with a mimed punch and mimed escape velocity. Once, Saturday Night Live's news segment talked about some woman astronaut in the news. They said she was joining the ranks of Sally Ride, and Alice Kramden, who was sent to The Moon by her husband in 1954 (or some similar year.)

In the original Friday the 13th, Jason Voorhees was believed dead, and had a movie body count of ZERO. He was NOT the movie's killer. Come on, watch the opening scene of "Scream" again, or something! Joe Bob Briggs pointed this out, also, during "Movies For Guys Who Like Movies" one October.

The address of the main characters- and the setting for many scenes- was 328 Chauncey Street, in Brooklyn. The main restaurant mentioned was "the Hong Kong Gardens." One character didn't seem to wear a watch, but could tell the time by smelling out his window. They had a Chinese take-out place downstairs, and-they cooked by a strict schedule. So, based on the dish he could smell, and whether he was at his own window or his downstairs neighbor, he could tell what time it was, unless someone ordered a family special, which threw him off completely. Although none of the characters were astronauts, and despite all of the scenes taking place on Earth, there were frequent mentions of one of the 4 main characters possibly being sent to the Moon or going there- some of them outright, some of them rephrased but obvious in context. BTW, not really a clue per se, but I was surprised that the title of this series actually can translate properly into Spanish without losing meaning or connotation. Depending on how you define the concept, this was either a short-lived show, or a very long-lived show. Some time before this show, 2 of the main characters had used "pet names" for each other- "Buttercup" and "Bunny." Another of the principal cast was an "engineer of subterranean sanitation." This show is so famous that the people who come up with the official names for hurricanes and tropical storms set aside one year to name them after characters in this show. They alternated between male and female names. Unfortunately for one of the principal characters, her name was skipped for that reason, and "Tommy" was the name they used- after the little neighbor who left his realistic-looking water pistol behind, resulting in a plot point in one episode.

Mark S: I am writing a new article on the subject of ends times through Jesus Christ. Some of this article deals with the very symbolic book of Revelation. Here is some of the content. Is this interesting to you? Regarding the unjust also being reconciled and at peace with God through Jesus Christ. The writer of the book of Revelation, named John got a vision of a “new heaven and a new earth” as stated in Revelation 21:1. This was very favorably seen. Since the writer was likely an Israelite named John, he saw this as the New Jerusalem, which to the Israelites was a very favorable place since for a number of years it was the political and religious capital city of their nation. John also got visions of twelve gates around Jerusalem as stated in Revelation 21:12-13. He also saw foundations of the twelve gates made of precious earthly stones or minerals. From verse 13 to 24 he had symbolic visions which looked very good. These were gates, which people outside the gates could enter into. Otherwise they would have been seen as brick walls around Jerusalem to keep everyone not inside the gates permanently out of the new visional and symbolic Jerusalem. This shows good on the inside of the gates and not good on the outside of the gates. Revelation 21:25-27 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. NIV The question is what is the “Lamb’s book of life” and who is part of this? The Lamb’s book of life represents Jesus Christ and those who follow him. Only good or pure will enter into this. Next we have verses which show the free will of humanity. The choice being given to humanity of doing good or not doing good. In a favorable way, I see this as the followers of Jesus Christ being fully persuaded in heart to follow Jesus Christ. This is through the gift of Holy Spirit and the new spiritual body patterned after the Lord’s resurrected body that his followers will receive when he returns from heaven. Or as 1 Corinthians 15: 49 says, “so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven”, who is Jesus Christ. For an explanation of this see 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Revelation 22:10-11 10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. KJV Next we have more symbolic language of those who wash their robes. This shows that those who change from bad to good through Jesus Christ will be able to go through the gates into the city. However, outside of what he thought as the New Jerusalem John still saw those who were bad with him comparing them to dogs. Dogs are seen favorably today, but during the first century before dogs were trained to be good, dogs were symbolically seen as bad. However, just like dogs have been trained today to be good in nations like the United States. In the future under Jesus Christ more and more of humanity will be retrained to be good and followers of Christ. Revelation 22:14-15 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. KJV The final outcome was not seen by John the writer of the book of Revelation. What John saw was the free will ability to do good or not to do good.

socks: Cool, and yes it's intriguing! In any inquiry I'll usually go to the two extremes of the topic, just to see what that looks like and see what's in-between. "Grace" is a very interesting thing in the extreme. So the question, what is the extreme and does it accurately reflect what it is? The context of how it's used puts the borders around it and fills in the meaning. When it says we are saved "by grace, not of works, lest anyone should boast"........the knee jerk Sunday sermon on that is about how we can't take credit or glory in salvation.... but in that verse-statement is some very hard cast reality - 1. that the opportunity to be made whole and have the relationship restored with God, through Jesus Christ is not one we created - by negotiation, good behavior or any other effort on our part. There's no "after much discussion God and I came to an agreement"....Man is like Humpty Dumpty there for awhile before God lays out a path for the full restoration of the relationship. It comes into fruition in Christ. 2. that the relationship develops once it's been restored. If I gave you a rock for your birthday, the rock will always be a rock. Time passes....rock. Our "gift" is different, it's living, and the restored relationship develops for us in this life, as we live it. That's something that I've come to appreciate more and more over time - there's a LOT of the Christian doctrine that comes in under that part of it. The new birth and the relationship and the nurturing and growth of it aren't all separate things, divided from each other, they should be understood as part of the same thing. As with time - if I say it's 3 pm, it's part of a reality being shared by all of creation. For a lot of Christians the development of the relationship is one of angst, struggle and lots of on again off again misunderstandings. When it's young it's like having a crush on some girl in high school and every day is a tortured exercise in finding out what she said, what her friends said and if she said anything about me like does she like me? does she know I like her? and which table she's going to be sitting at for lunch today and can you give her this note and tell me EXACTly what she says and how she looks when you say it's from me........but in reality the "grace" part of the opportunity through Christ eliminates all that, ALL of the back and forth. We're now in a position of basically enjoying the new car smell of our New Life and learning what all this stuff does. Bell's position could be understood as one of "extreme grace"....and if grace is "unmerited divine favor" then who are we to put requirements on it other than what God puts.....and THAT'S where my focus is on - he's straddling uber Calvinism and universalist grace in a way that's really kind of conservative and fundamentalist. (and it's realllllly funny how he got thrown under the bus for insinuating burning hell isn't the end game for disobedience to God - it's almost like he threatened their money streams....)..........I don't like the way he presents the whole thing, like the list of seemingly contradictory and confusing definitions of what salvation is - he knows that isn't a correct way to view it but he still does in order to set the table for his argument. And any part time theologian or philosopher knows the answer to "why" would God do this or that or whatever even though it seems whacky to me inside my big beautiful brain.....and it's "because"..............once that's accepted the exercise of understanding something I didn't already have my mind made up on is possible.

Rocky: The question(s) about free will seem to be basic (fundamental but not necessarily fundamentalist) to coming to grips with what we see in the Bible. I don't have "the" answer but I get why people ponder the question. My underlying concern with Christian churches/religions, including twi, goes to the issue of -- as Skyrider recently put it -- subjugation (or obedience). There might be some value to "freely availing" ourselves of fellowship(s) with like-minded believers. Such fellowship can, I suppose, give rise to positive group dynamics. But it can also very easily turn dark when the ideas motivating such a team (or subculture) are not so wonderful. I really am not in a position to parse or argue the specifics of the philosophical questions you (very reasonably) raise. I just haven't had my head into such questions, as you may have. But I have looked at various types of group interactions (from team sports to carrying out civic responsibilities) at least somewhat through the lens of what I learned early on in my adulthood from and about Biblical stories/topics. I find Bell's viewpoint highly intriguing in that regard. However, I also find your discussion quite valuable. Thank you.

socks: At the expense of seeming like the ant peering back up through the microscope, I have the same question about Bell's view of God's "universal acceptance" plan.... Everything religion teaches about "the Devil", Lucifer, the angel that rebelled and fell and that is at odds with God.... Is that Lucifer is NOT going to change and align with God....free will, choice, etc. Lucifer may be part of a different creative plan than ours....some of the same rules may apply but all may not....we don't really know, however we do know from what we're told that we're all rolling out to the same point in the future where there will be a convergence of sorts where we're all cross paths. A lot of Judeo-Christian religion tends to put us all in the same basket of creation but I don't know that that's true....it's less that we're told we're not and more that we're not quite told enough to come to that conclusion without any question or reservation. So - my point being - going by Bell's theory and postulations, Lucifer (and all others of that group) may be part of the win-win of Love, in the end but not as a win, as a you-no-winnah-nuttin' scenario, which appears to be a dead end, literally. Which isn't really any of my business so to speak but ... based on what we've seen the separation between God and Lucifer is one of Lucifer's choice and the expectation is that Lucifer's mind won't change. So - this brings up a very interesting point and that is that our "Free Will", our ability to choose and therefore "believe" is fundamental- But not truly within or under our complete total command. Because we can choose yes, but there aren't a million possibilities between yes and no there's only two choices we're given, and if we don't choose to follow God's direction we automatically fall into the second choice. So really I could say that there's only "one choice" and in a very real way that's "no choice".....there's just the one thing, that really matters.... So the default state of man's creation is or was - a "yes". However the ability to do anything other than what we were designed to do allows/ed for that default state to essentially fail, to break. The break was like a computer or any machine - a computer in it's simplest form is built to do certain things, even one thing say, and it will do that one thing forever given the right set up. There's no self development over time - it just does that thing forever. Or until it stops, which means it may still be "powered on" but it's essentially broken. It didn't really "choose" to do that it just reached some point where it was no longer able to do that for whatever reasons. We haven't been told we're designed to do many different things or that the rules change at some point, so it's not a bad way to look at it. The unsaved person is called a "child of disobedience", condemned and unable to change. "Broken" would be another word. Christ "unbreaks" us, puts us back together, rejoins us to God. We then become a "child of God", and able to be back in that default state of "yes", a creation that can now work right, so to speak. (drum roll) so it took awhile to get here but what I'm saying is that heaven isn't and doesn't need to be a big back of sparkly candy nor is hell an eternity of torment......if the net result of salvation is being back in the correct state of God's design. As we are now - our "spirit", our "Christ in us", our "faith of Jesus Christ", isn't making the wrong choices, it's not exercising a freedom of will where we in "new life in Christ" can somehow actually do the wrong thing or sin or skank it all up, the "holy spirit" in us isn't tainted by our choices......it can't feed back a toxic lifestyle to God. There is a perfection to this treasure of new life we're given that is the new standard for all time, now and the future. Love wins......? It has to if Love is whatever God wants. It's His show. Whatever God doesn't want to have happen won't produce a result that will survive and thrive in future of eternity. "Sin", disobedience, the wages of sin, etc. etc. etc. etc. There's no need for that in eternity. Unless that's what God wants. (insert LOL)

Hope Beyond Hell The Righteous Purpose of God's Judgment Here is a book that I have read that was written by a dentist from Texas. Yes, it is OK to have worked as a dentist and written a biblical book. As an example, Luke the biblical writer of the book of Acts and Gospel of Luke was a physician or doctor and not an apostle. https://www.amazon.com/Hope-Beyond-Righteous-Purpose-Judgment-ebook/dp/B001T4Z81C/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Hope+Beyond+Hell&qid=1569788663&s=books&sr=1-1

TLC: He's sure not the first to speak out against hell being some place of eternal torment, which incidentally, I agree with (and quite frankly, have known from a time that was many moons before twi..) Seems to me that doctrinally speaking, even vpw and twi would (have) agree(d) with him on that. (Which gives be pause in pondering why this particular thread was introduced here...) What is questionable, however, is the notion of universalism... that eventually, none can - or will - resist the will (i.e., love) of God, and will (inevitably) be saved. Although Bell appears to lean in that direction in his book, it also appears that (perhaps for questionable reasons) he is (intentionally) rather vague, if not downright elusive, on the matter.

socks: Well, yes, that seems obvious. In my own exposure to this topic and those who might agree or disagree with Bell's premises, I don't thinks there's a real disagreement on that particular idea or translation across the board on every verse it appears in, the problem seems to be more in what someone thinks it means in relation to what the speaker or writer was saying, what they meant by it. Like Matthew 28:20 - Christ may have been telling them He'd be with them for some specific reason that He'd be with them for a specific period of time, but as part of His greater message, the "big picture", of being the Son of God He would want them to understand that He would "always" be with them in the way we understand words like forever. More practically and I think this is more to the point, the assurance He's giving His disciples throughout His life is that He's with them, cares for them, loves them and will help them. For humans, "forever" is most seen in the quality of "unconditional love" and forgiveness, I think, and this goes back to ol' Bell's ideas. We can talk all day long about what's eternal and what's not but like a child I care about my next meal.....will it be there Dad? Next time? How about the next? Will there always be food? What about when it rains and snows, will you still be with me to make sure I'm cared for? We know that children have to learn to live by time. Babies don't understand "tomorrow" or "later" very well. The earliest development is around what we see, hear, taste, touch, smell, our senses. It's immediate experience, we aren't born with the sense of time because we - haven't been alive very long. SIDE BAR ALERT - : ) There's always been a HUGE theological butt bust over whether the "natural man" of body and soul brings anything to the table for his own salvation, and we do know that nothing we do creates the opportunity or produces the result - it's all there by God's grace.....the idea of our developing understanding of time, our own selves as unique individuals and our needs for basic sustenance to live are learned though. We don't pop out ready to go. So while I believe "not by works but by grace", I also think there's an intrinsic in-the-face kind of "duh" moment when we realize that the conscious growth in our understanding of time and our own existence is something that's absolutely necessary to "be saved". Put another way, a person who never develops mentally and has the understanding of a 3 year old can't "believe to be saved" the way we know it from the Bible. And they may not "need to be".........which accounts for the convoluted doctrines of Catholicism to create a channel of salvation for them.........but when Jesus said that we should BECOME saved, converted and then be LIKE children, one has to weight that statement and come to certain conclusions about it - because if He meant like a 3 year old, it would relinquish any responsibility of our part. Yet, we can see from context He meant "childlike" not "babylike". And more importantly "sinless" ..... ? It's very simple then - it's about acceptance and trust. And to be that trusting doesn't require a lot of work, but if you're an adult you're going to need to position yourself to accept and trust completely in God's grace.....Food for thought.... Which gets into another idea here - as you say, for God there's no "end of time". Eternity doesn't have a beginning by definition (which is why I think conceptually it's a struggle to use it that way, it's like saying something weighs 47 minutes.) So from God's view the end of the world or an age is in relation to us and this part of His mmmm....stuff. Or others, for all I know. But again, it's like saying "what time is it" to Spock on Star Trek - surely he'd answer "on which of the billions of stars and their trillions of planets did you wish to calculate the time?" It's a matter of perspective, even excluding Vulcan where they may not care about what time it is anyway. So yeah. I'm going to re read Bell's book again, where he was going with this. I do think from my previous reading that he didn't put forth a position that accounts "for everything", but I don't think he was trying to. PEACE!

Mark S: People should see if they use their brain, the Greek word "aion" should only be looked at as eternal as it relates to God the creator or Jesus Christ his son. Thank you Jesus Christ for passing salvation onto regular man. Here are some of the usages of this Greek word. I give credit to the people who know Koine Greek who are able to do New Testament translations with improvement. Matthew 13:39-40 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world (aion); and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (aion). King James Version (KJV) Matthew 13:39-40 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age (aion), and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age (aion). English Standard Version (ESV) Matthew 13:49 49 So shall it be at the end of the world (aion): the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, KJV Matthew 13:49 49 So it will be at the end of the age (aion); the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, New American Standard Bible Matthew 24:3 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world (aion)? KJV Matthew 24:3 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age (aion)? Jubilee Bible 2000 Matthew 28:20 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world (aion). Amen. KJV Matthew 28:20 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age (aion). New English Translation Clearly from the above usages age or aion in the Greek has an ending. Quote