»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Christians and Salvation
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Christians and Salvation |
|
|
Philmont Member
since 2004-01-10
Posts 61 |
After reading the responses in the logic thread and being satisfied with Brad's idea, I thougt it might be interesting to talk about the soul in a separate thread. fractal007 and ~DreamChild~ were hashing it out for a while and it sort of bothered me. I wonder if the Christians around here can answer whether your religion can hold water if there is no such thing as a soul. fractal007's a Christian and he seems to think it can, but I wonder why. How can there be a heaven in Christianity without there being a soul? |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Phillip R. Montgomery - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
/pip/Forum8/HTML/000534.html |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Does Christianity hold water if disembodied consciousness after death differs from the Platonic conception of the soul? Sure. Christianity does not stand or fall on the doctrine of the soul - it stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think we need to begin by defining our terms. The concept of "soul" is abstract and can mean many different things to many different people (after all, since words are poor mediums for framing the invisible and spiritual, why should we be surprised to discover posthumously that reality differs from our living imagination?). Jim |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Amen, Jim! |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
If a disembodied consciousness after death does not exist, how can one be ressurected, as the same person? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Okay. Prove it doesn't exist. As can be inferred from what I mentioned above, the resurrection provides evidence that some manner of consciousness (or potential consciousness) exists after death, or else there would be no person to resurrect in the first place. At a minimum, the resurrection demonstrates that consciousness can be restored (assuming it was completely lost in the first place). Whether consciousness is restored to it's bodily home or reconsistuted at one's resurrection from the dead is immaterial. As is the question of "how" such a feat is accomplished. If I'm wrong, please tell me why. Jim |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Philmont: I believe that you are proceeding from the commonly held and false assumption that Christianity predicates the existence of a platonic soul, and that the existence of this entity is a must in order for Christian life to work out. I would not be afraid to claim that exactly the opposite is true. The concept platonic soul throughout the history of Christinity has done far more harm than good. Consider puritanical groups who hold that the only good things are spiritual - like the Bible or the Church - while everything else in all creation is in some way at best immoral and at worst irredeemably evil. Thus, Christians are to close themselves off from this world -- "this world" meaning anything not holy and spiritual -- and lead the holy lives that should innevitably result. I will allow the critics of Christianity to demonstrate - should they so choose - the flaws of holding such a belief. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I'm not out to prove or disprove whether the soul exists. The hypothetical question was if there is no such thing as a soul, does Christian view of ressurection/heaven hold water? quote: But it does.Resurrection of the same being, is dependant on their existing soul.How do you resurrect Jesus' dead body without his soul/spirit to animate it? Likewise, heaven depends on an incorporeal self, as our remains lay on earth. If Christianity is dependant on the resurrection, and resurrection is dependant on the existence of a soul, then Christianity does indeed, stand or fall on the existence of a soul. To answer Philmont's initial question, if we assume there is no such thing as 'soul', then no, they would not hold water. As we can't prove the existence either way, it's all hypothetical. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, right. And Kirk wasn't really Kirk after Scottie beamed him aboard, because after all, the transporter used entirely different molecules to reassemble what it sucked out on the other end. If you accept transporter technology, you accept that consciousness, like matter, can be torn apart and reassembled. If you accept the limited reversal of entropy and resurrection from death, it seems a bit strange to quibble over whether the resurrected is the same person, either with or without a soul. Maybe the consciousness is recreated in the same manner it was created? Or, since time has little meaning in the face of omnipotence, maybe it is simply plucked from the micro-second prior to death? That would even, I think, make a passable definition of soul, i.e., that which leaves the body upon death and travels elsewhere (or elsewhen). It's supernatural. By definition, you can't bind it to natural laws or logic. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
well, who said i accept transporter technology?  and I never claimed my answer was the definitive lol i'm only offering an opinion based on hypotheticals that can't be proven or disproven. but let me ask you can also clone a being. as an exact molecular duplication, do you believe a clone has the same consciousness or 'soul' as the original? is it the same being? and is heaven a physical or incorporeal place? as bodies remain and decay on earth, i assume that if heaven exists, and we exist in heaven, then the form would have to be an incorporeal one? but then i'm not sure how heaven works. all hypotheticals |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you think the soul needs the sun to live? What if the sun no longer sustains life someday on earth, but may only bear life on venus or on mars, shall that determine where the soul may live, and where heaven may be? Or shall the soul, and heaven perhaps, still be on earth, no matter what the sun is doing? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I wrote a short story once about a computer program that became sentient (the result of a magnet-induced mutation and two days of electronic evolution) and faced much the same questions. His conclusion was that replication was just a far more efficient form of reproduction. And, he noted to the heroine, without the pain of childbirth. quote: If bodies are to be resurrected after hundreds and even thousands of years of death, to live for one thousand years on Earth, I think it's probably safe to assume your assumptions should be reevaluated. Okay, seriously. Resurrection, almost by definition, is the reversal of entropy, if only perhaps localized. After reversing it, staying the course of entropy for a thousand years should be easy. Besides, in Genesis, just about everyone from Adam to Methuselah lived to be a ripe nine-hundred-plus years. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think the body is probably the "fleshy and physical" part of the body and soul, not just the body; and the soul is the "spiritual" part of the body and soul, not just the soul. Just because the body and soul lose the flesh, doesn't mean there's no more a body and soul, it just means that the chief nature of the being which, seems always both a body and a soul, becomes highly and chiefly spiritual, and therefore is referred to by the name that refers to the spiritual side of the body and soul, the "soul". This is completly parallell with Spirit and Nature being always part of each other. It may be that light and darkness have a similar relationship. Everything may be part of the same spectrum, just graduating from different grades of that spectrum, and never being seperated from former or future "grades" If there was no supernatual intervention by God or other beings, there probably would be no difference from just an evolutionary going, completly dependant on the behavior of the sun and temperature, and with only a few accidents. Fortunatly though there is always supernatural intervention in men's lives, especially by women |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: well that's the thing, depends on the definition of heaven. does heaven exist now? real-time? or is it something that happens after judgement day? if it exists now than i would think there's an incorporeal element at work. unless, it's on another plane which is also physical and the transporter theory is applicable...um..nevermind..my heads spinning too many hypotheticals. i wouldn't say i'm right, but i wouldn't say im wrong either. guess we'll have to wait and see. if i'm wrong i'll buy the drinks, provided there are drinks in heaven and that i'm allowed to visit you there grins |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Does the past exist now, Raph? The future? Are "you" incorporeal all but the one indivisible, ever changing instant we call now? If I lived in a completely two-dimensional world, say on the surface of a sheet of paper, what would I see if you tapped your finger onto my world? Assuming you didn't squash me (an obvious misnomer in a 2D world), I would see your finger tip appear, disappear, appear for each rhythmic tap. Would your finger be incorporeal except when I could see it? Extend that now to me living in a three-dimensional world and you moving through the fourth dimension of time; same thing. For what it's worth, super string theory seems to suggest there are actually 11 dimensions at least at the sub-sub-sub-atomic level. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Does the past exist now, Raph? The future? Are "you" incorporeal all but the one indivisible, ever changing instant we call now?" That's a good question. I think the past and the future are the same matter just in different shapes. We remember the old shape, but that shape is not seperated from us. That old shape is become the new, including us! If the present was a "square", and is now a circle, the square didn't cease to exist, it just became a circle. Referring to "square" or "circle" is a distinction of shape, not a distinction of existance. Everything exists, just not always in the same shape Omnia mutantur, nihil interit - Everything changes, nothing perishes. - Ovid |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: quote: Ah, but it can be bound to quantum theory/physics? grins. |
||
|
Arnold M Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195 |
Seems to me you are all searching for the truth, when it is right under your nose. Who knows our frame, our makeup, except the One who created us, who reveals it through His Word. Do you want to know about soul, life, death, the past, the present, and the future? Then study the Scriptures. Adam (and all humans) each are a living soul. A separate "soul" was not joined to a prepared body. "God breathed the spirit of the breath of life into the formed body and he became a living soul." Gen.2:7. Study all the verses regarding soul, and you will gain a clearer understanding. You will find soul is the consciousness, the feelings, the desires produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body. Animals are soul creatures because they can move independently and have blood. See Gen. 1:20,21,24,30; 2:19; 9:3,4,8-10, and 12, etc. Many times man is called a "soul" in the scriptures. Even today we hear the expression, "Oh, that poor soul." Gen.12:5...Abram took his wife...and the souls they had gotten in Haran. Acts 2:41...and the same day there were added unto them, about three thousand souls. Acts 2:43...And fear came upon every soul.. Is the soul said to die or be killed? Of course. Here are a few verses: Num.23:10.."Let my soul die the death of the righteous." Josh.11:11.."They smite all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them." Judges 16:30.."And Sampson said, let my soul die with the Philistines." Often the translators use "life" for "soul". The RSV, and perhaps other translations, use "being" instead of "soul", thus, "man became a living being." Please, check this out. Use a concordance. Bick |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Arnold, Some are come to further beliefs, or simply further ways of referring to things, than what the bible says though. People associate the distinction of the spiritual part of our soul (OR body) as "soul" and the physical part of our soul (Or body) as "body" I don't think that is in disagreement with the bible. We are still one soul/body, but we distinguish two conditions and use the two names that we have for the whole, to refer respectively to these conditions. Just like the universe is still "one" universe but we distinguish a rock from a cloud. Doesn't mean a rock and a cloud are universally seperate and not still the same universe. But we are bound distinguish one from the other. |
||
|
Arnold M Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195 |
Ess: I know that mankind have been debating this subject for millenniums, but to what conclusion? There are many views; surely there must be the truth revealed somewhere. Are there no writings inspired by our Creator who knows our very being: body, soul and spirit? Arnold |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Arnold The whole universe is "written" by our Creator. What may possibly be a better "writing" than that? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-24-2005 06:39 PM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Don't make the same mistake as the Hindus, in deifying the creation. Why is it a mistake? Because of a failure to take into account that creation is fallen. Nature teaches us much about God's will, but it teaches us much about rebellion and perversion too. Newborns at their mother's breast, and harmful parasites both work off of the same principle. Nature has a dark and foreboding side, as well as a loving side. So somewhere in all the mixture, in this vast "knowledge of good and evil", we need a more clear, more definite revelation of truth. That's where the Bible (and the history permeating it) comes in. Why else do you think the Hindus worship "Kali", the divine mother, who has feral fangs and writhing snakes about her head? Because in Hinduism, nature is supreme, with no means by which to qualify goodness over evil, purpose over meaninglessness, or non-cruelty over cruelty. So nature is a defaced beauty. A masterpiece fallen in the mud. My own heart tells me so, that's one poignant way I can see that the "Fall" of the Bible, is a true revelation about the way things are. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
The bible says that a person "became" a living soul... not something a person "has." Of course, the mainstream christians would quote their famous learned fathers and other modern day chrisitan writers (like at least one whom is quoted ad nauseum) prove otherwise. Like a child, without any interference from any human being, from any carnal mind... "... and man became a living soul." Sounds like a man is a soul and doesn't have one. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"creation is fallen." It is not heaven, earth, beasts, birds, ants, trees, rocks, air, water, or the rest of creation that disobeys God, or that is the fallen creation; But it is man that disobeys, and is man that is the fallen creation after his wrong choice. Man has the choice to do only better or worse, and therefore does worse sometimes, and never does best. Other things however, don't have that choice: they are as pure as God set them into the universe. Just as angels are pure ghosts, animals are pure creatures. And so is the rest of the universe a pure creation, until we come to the part known as: Man. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The bible says that a person "became" a living soul... not something a person "has."" That may be true; but the bible is only one chapter of the universe. What do the other chapters say? |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"That may be true; but the bible is only one chapter of the universe. What do the other chapters say?" ~ I am not sure what you mean. I was arguing from a biblical standpoint only. The other chapters of the universe, meaning what? ~ Personally, I don't buy the Adam & Eve story. ~ What type of a Creator would create 2 young people, put them in a garden with an forbidden tree placed in it, along with a sly ageless evil and cunning snake, tell them not to eat from the said tree, and when they were duped by the ageless evil one, throw them out of the garden on their arses? Answer? Not a Creator that I would ever believe in. Unless, biblically speaking, it was what God expected and Adam & Eve's actions did not create an "original sin." Which is what I believed when I did believe in the bible. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
" I am not sure what you mean. I was arguing from a biblical standpoint only. The other chapters of the universe, meaning what?" I'm trying to argue for other peoples lores as well. There are strong truths in other peoples lores that refer to the same truth of the soul, but in a different way. What makes those reference strong truths, is that life and other learnings also support them; just as life and lores support the bible. Just as the bible may say "the soul is this" there are other bibles that say "the soul is that" There are things that truly support what the bible says. But there are things at the same time that truly support what other people say as well. In the end I think it reveals this: there is more than one to get to something, including the truth. Some ways may be swifter and safer than others. But all of them get there. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
If that is what you think it reveals, I have no reason to argue with you. However, Christians would argue with that statement - they believe their way is the only way. Certainly, you know that. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Christianity may be the truest way; but it is not the only way. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-31-2005 04:26 PM).] |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Christianity may be the truest way; but it is not the only way." ~ Protestant and Catholic faiths don't teach that at all. They teach that their way is the only way. ~ Those faiths also don't teach that Cristianity is a derivative from previous religious yore. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Verba mea delevi. Studium altius me vocat. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-01-2005 01:21 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
