14 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadNone of the above. Your essence is you (or more precisely, you are your essence in existent form).
My problem with the whole concept is that according to your description, my soul is not me. It appears to be based on some pattern that my body is creating in the universe but it is not me. Christianity and most Christians that I have talked to have mentioned salvation for me. They never explained that it was not actually me that they were offering salvat ...[text shortened]... Christians are extremely ignorant of the facts or they are extremely deceptive in their ways.
14 Nov 06
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou can simply Google "Apostle's Creed" to see that most Christians believe in a physical resurrection.
You can simply Google "Apostle's Creed" to see that most Christians believe in a physical resurrection.
[b]if we humans are physical entities when we are resurrected, one would assume that by some mechanical process we can detect their presence no?...what tests could we perform, what apparatus would we require?
I suppose you could just touch each other. That's what Thomas did.[/b]
Are you really trying to equate the belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus on Earth with the belief in the physical resurrection of our own ahem...*souls* such that we may go to heaven and such???
Please LH...try again!
I suppose you could just touch each other. That's what Thomas did. So if I touch my mum it means she could be dead and I never knew it???
EDIT actually if this is the only sort of thing you're going to hit back with...please don't try again LH because *you thinking I will accept this attempted rebuttal* is rather offensive ðŸ˜
15 Nov 06
4 edits
Originally posted by AgergAre you really trying to equate the belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus on Earth with the belief in the physical resurrection of our own ahem...*souls* such that we may go to heaven and such???
[b]You can simply Google "Apostle's Creed" to see that most Christians believe in a physical resurrection.
Are you really trying to equate the belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus on Earth with the belief in the physical resurrection of our own ahem...*souls* such that we may go to heaven and such???
Please LH...try again!
I suppose you co ...[text shortened]... in LH because *you thinking I will accept this attempted rebuttal* is rather offensive 😠[/b]
Please LH...try again!
Have you actually read the Apostle's Creed? Come back when you have.
EDIT: One of the things I like about the Apostle's Creed over the Nicene Creed is that it explicitly points out the physical nature of the resurrection of the dead.
So if I touch my mum it means she could be dead and I never knew it???
Please read what I wrote again. The test is for when the physical resurrection of humanity happens -- which isn't till the end of the world as we know it.
actually if this is the only sort of thing you're going to hit back with...please don't try again LH because *you thinking I will accept this attempted rebuttal* is rather offensive ðŸ˜
If anything, it is your obstinate ignorance that is offensive. I am trying my best to patiently explain my position to you.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI disagree. Your description of 'essence' differs substantially from my understanding of 'me'. You appear to have a different concept of what I mean when I say me. I suspect it also differs from most peoples understanding of the word and therefore my claim that you are being deceptive when saying I (me) will be reserected (or not).
None of the above. Your essence is you (or more precisely, you are your essence in existent form).
I feel no incentive whatsoever to have my body and consciousness at say age 5 reserected. However you described something even less desirable, you described a being made from a concoction of my body and consciousness throughout my life time or from some specific period of my life (you were not too clear on that) but in no way is that a continuation of my current consciousness. I do not think it would be me.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said the physical body would be ageless; I said nothing about your consciousness (e.g. your memories) not being continued from the point of death.
I disagree. Your description of 'essence' differs substantially from my understanding of 'me'. You appear to have a different concept of what I mean when I say me. I suspect it also differs from most peoples understanding of the word and therefore my claim that you are being deceptive when saying I (me) will be reserected (or not).
I feel no incentive ...[text shortened]... in no way is that a continuation of my current consciousness. I do not think it would be me.
You're simply making false allegations of duplicity.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou most definitely did not specify that the consciousness would continue from the point of death. This is very critical to the whole theory and it is interesting that you left it out.
I said the physical body would be ageless; I said nothing about your consciousness (e.g. your memories) not being continued from the point of death.
You're simply making false allegations of duplicity.
So what happens to people who go insane 5 minute before death?
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadPresumably they are healed of their insanity but remember their actions and thoughts during the phase anyhow.
You most definitely did not specify that the consciousness would continue from the point of death. This is very critical to the whole theory and it is interesting that you left it out.
So what happens to people who go insane 5 minute before death?
Not too different from people who recover from various other psychological ailments.
15 Nov 06
7 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is what I found for Apostle's Creed:
[b]Are you really trying to equate the belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus on Earth with the belief in the physical resurrection of our own ahem...*souls* such that we may go to heaven and such???
Please LH...try again!
Have you actually read the Apostle's Creed? Come back when you have.
EDIT: One of the things I like about the Ap e ignorance that is offensive. I am trying my best to patiently explain my position to you.[/b]
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.
Have you actually read the Apostle's Creed? Come back when you have.
No reference to any *physical* resurrection here..have I got the wrong Apostle's creed?
If you say "but how can resurrection not be physical?" then following from what you believe about this resurrection at the end of the world then so far no one who has ever died has ever re-manifested it's essence in the afterlife by virtue of the fact it is not yet the end of the world...If this is not the case then either physical resurrection is moot and the intital problems are still very much unresolved or the time at which this resurrection is meant to occur is incorrect and we have a whole new can of worms to deal with
Please read what I wrote again. The test is for when the physical resurrection of humanity happens -- which isn't till the end of the world as we know it.
That comment was given in response to your response to how we test for these physical souls which it transpires only now come into being at the end of the world!!!
If anything, it is your obstinate ignorance that is offensive. I am trying my best to patiently explain my position to you.
I apologise if it seems I'm being ignorant but...I'm chasing ghosts here(as it were!), I have a specific problem with this soul concept. Solutions offered merely take me into different arenas that only resolve problems by trying to craftily sweep up their own shortcomings under the carpets of other arenas...I am simply trying to find these flaws and have a short fuse when I feel that I'm being palmed off with an incomplete/un-justified/fallacious idea and sent on my way.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by AgergThe first thing I would say is that talking about the "soul" is never going to be as straight forward as talking about things like trees or paperclips because of the very nature of the debate. We can't get too aggitated if things get a bit mysterious.
Firstly, when I saw this:
[b]The soul is supposed to have a mass of 21 grams. Its chemical composition is still unknown.
my initial thought was "bollox" 😉 ...reading that wiki link shows that most people would regard this claim as *dubious*...very VERY dubious...with regards to clearing other things up...it merely talks about the faith of differ ...[text shortened]... logical or rational answers?...again please refrain from convenient or off the cuff answers.[/b]
The second thing I would say is that the idea that there is some "thing" called a soul (that has mass and weight for example) could be a red herring. So here's one way of looking at it..
We all have a "self" . Some of us are more in touch with ourselves than others. We all to varying degrees "know" who we are or don't know who we are. Someone who has lost touch with who they really are can be said to be "lost". This idea that we can either be true to ourselves or untrue to ourselves is important because to my mind a person who has lost touch with who they are is starting to lose their soul.
In Christianity the ultimate fulfillment of life is for a person to become ressurected at the end of time when God brings things to an end on earth. At that point the ressurected are given a spiritual body with which to inhabit heaven. To not fulfil the only purpose for which you are created would be to lose who you are or lose your soul. So in essence WE are souls by this I mean that we have a physical body but we are also are on the way to becoming spiritual beings ready to inhabit a different layer of existence (spiritual ). So all you really have is physical , biological beings who have a choice to make about whether they will allow themselves to be interfered with by an outside spiritual power (God). If they do this they find themselves and have a "soul" if not the soul(person) becomes withered and lost. I think "the soul" is probably best understood as a metaphor or way of describing the process of fully becoming who we are supposed to be (or really are).
The idea of actually locating someone's soul like you might locate their spleen seems a bit bizarre to me and is probably what causes much of the confusion. I think the soul is best understood like you might understand the concept of time. We know time exists and we sense it is real but we can't locate a "piece" of time and weigh it . No-one knows what it's made of or even what it looks like , smells like or sounds like. Where is time? Nevertheless one would be reluctant to say that time doesn't exist. Have I confused you even more?
16 Nov 06
10 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe first thing I would say is that talking about the "soul" is never going to be as straight forward as talking about things like trees or paperclips because of the very nature of the debate. We can't get too aggitated if things get a bit mysterious.
The first thing I would say is that talking about the "soul" is never going to be as straight forward as talking about things like trees or paperclips because of the very nature of the debate. We can't get too aggitated if things get a bit mysterious.
The second thing I would say is that the idea that there is some "thing" called a soul (that has m reluctant to say that time doesn't exist. Have I confused you even more?
I know 😉 in all my face to face debates thus far people have tied themselves up in knots trying to answer this set of questions before walking away from me with a line tantamount to "we mere mortals are not fit to know such things, only God can know"etc...Figured I'd get more satisfaction online where my argument can be pitched at the better informed...I get agitated when a serious point of mine is met with an ill thought or convenient answer...I get even more annoyed when someone who knowing my position as an atheist (one who lends as much credibility to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as he does the Bible/Qu-ran) counters my points *only* with excerpts from the bible, and then proceeds onwards as though my point was totally resolved. (though mercifully, this has not occured in this thread yet)
We all have a "self" . Some of us are more in touch with ourselves than others. We all to varying degrees "know" who we are or don't know who we are. Someone who has lost touch with who they really are can be said to be "lost". This idea that we can either be true to ourselves or untrue to ourselves is important because to my mind a person who has lost touch with who they are is starting to lose their soul.
starting to lose ther soul...but what causes this soul to be lost?...where does it go? some people lose touch with who they are as a result of physical influence (be it drugs or trauma etc...) and so if this soul in your conception is a physical entity then firstly, what is it that our souls facilitate that our brains do not (ie: why the need for our consciousness (or me)to be described in terms of a soul?) secondly...what happens when we lose the functionality of our brain either through death, dementia, destruction etc...? does this physical entity suddenly become supernatural?...what is this process in detail? Or do our souls take on the characteristics of our physically induced state of mind just for the sake of consistancy?
If to avoid this problem you'd argue our soul is spiritual in nature (ie: not physical), how do these physical influences actually manipulate this supernatural entity?
In Christianity the ultimate fulfillment of life is for a person to become ressurected at the end of time when God brings things to an end on earth. At that point the ressurected are given a spiritual body with which to inhabit heaven. To not fulfil the only purpose for which you are created would be to lose who you are or lose your soul. So in essence WE are souls by this I mean that we have a physical body but we are also are on the way to becoming spiritual beings ready to inhabit a different layer of existence (spiritual ). So all you really have is physical , biological beings who have a choice to make about whether they will allow themselves to be interfered with by an outside spiritual power (God). If they do this they find themselves and have a "soul" if not the soul(person) becomes withered and lost. I think "the soul" is probably best understood as a metaphor or way of describing the process of fully becoming who we are supposed to be (or really are).
So where are we whilst it is *not* the end of the world and we are dead? are we supernatural/spiritual beings? do we cease to exist? Much as I'd love to argue the point with respect to the difference between us and animals (whats in it for them?...why does my dad's dog get excited when I visit and jump around with total contentment when I launch a ball somewhere...why does a cat that sometimes without any bidding on my part nestle itself on my lap and start purring...why must it be so that they do not have souls?...are they robots?)...All anybody ever gets with this question is the convenient and off the cuff answer that resembles: "humans are special"
The idea of actually locating someone's soul like you might locate their spleen seems a bit bizarre to me and is probably what causes much of the confusion. I think the soul is best understood like you might understand the concept of time. We know time exists and we sense it is real but we can't locate a "piece" of time and weigh it . No-one knows what it's made of or even what it looks like , smells like or sounds like. Where is time? Nevertheless one would be reluctant to say that time doesn't exist. Have I confused you even more?
To me (and I'm not an expert), time is not something that is substancial in the sense that it is some form of entity (physical or spiritual)...To me the concept of time is taken to extremes that it does not deserve (I do not believe in the possibility of time travel etc...). Either everything happens at once or it doesn't...that everything does not happen at once means that it happens at different moments or periods, (or whatever word you think is suitable here) and the gaps between such are measurable...how long it takes us to perceive or deduce that something has changed (or not changed) is given a value in units that make sense to us (such as 7 years, 13 minutes, a while ago, etc...)...A persons perception of time can be altered, and we can look into past. (ie: the light hitting our eyes from distant objects does not hit us instantaneously, and thus we percieve all objects as they were...not how they are) To say that time is an entity that can be used analogously with a soul however, is something I would argue is not really justified.
A soul on the otherhand is supposed to be an entity and therefore if it is physical then it should surely be detectable by some mechanical means!...if supernatural, by what process does it manipulate physical entities such that it can change/displace/etc.. them?
16 Nov 06
Originally posted by AgergNo reference to any *physical* resurrection here..have I got the wrong Apostle's creed?
[b]This is what I found for Apostle's Creed:
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third ...[text shortened]... m being palmed off with an incomplete/un-justified/fallacious idea and sent on my way.[/b]
What is #11 in the creed you just cited?
16 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe resurrection of the body...not *physical* resurrection of the body. I also followed up with the implication of the latter itself aswell though LucifersHammer
[b]No reference to any *physical* resurrection here..have I got the wrong Apostle's creed?
What is #11 in the creed you just cited?[/b]
16 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThe "body" *is* the physical aspect of the person. I don't see a difference between "resurrection of the body" and "physical resurrection of the body" -- can you think of non-physical variations?
The resurrection of the body...not *physical* resurrection of the body. I also followed up with the implication of the latter itself aswell though LucifersHammer
Your "follow up" of the implications of the latter simply referred to some unspecified past concerns you claim to have raised. Could you summarise them again?
16 Nov 06
Originally posted by AgergSo where are we whilst it is *not* the end of the world and we are dead? are we supernatural/spiritual beings? do we cease to exist?
[b]The first thing I would say is that talking about the "soul" is never going to be as straight forward as talking about things like trees or paperclips because of the very nature of the debate. We can't get too aggitated if things get a bit mysterious.
I know 😉 in all my face to face debates thus far people have tied themselves up in knots trying t ...[text shortened]... ate physical entities such that it can change/displace/etc.. them?[/b]
The answer is that the moment we die we go straight to the end of the world. It's instantaneous. After death time has no meaning . We all go to the end of the world at the same time, even though we die at different points in time. This sounds bizarre I know but it's a simple time paradox if you think about it . Once you die you transcend time so you don't have to wait for "time to pass" for others to go to the end of the world/ressurection. This is similar to the idea that God can see what you are doing tomorrow without having to "wait" a day.
16 Nov 06
" To say that time is an entity that can be used analogously with a soul however, is something I would argue is not really justified.
A soul on the otherhand is supposed to be an entity and therefore if it is physical then it should surely be detectable by some mechanical means!...if supernatural, by what process does it manipulate physical entities such that it can change/displace/etc.. them?"
A soul is an entity . It's you. YOU are a soul. For Christianity the physical is not nearly as real as the spiritual which lies beyond it. You ARE a spiritual being , it's just you've forgotten that you are. All religions teach that we need to be enlightened or wake up in some way to another reality or realm of existence.You've been watching too many re runs of Ghost with Patrick Swayze! The soul is not a separate thing from you it's who you are and who you can become if you allow the spirit of God to get to work on you. As to the process? that is what Christianity is all about. Haven't you heard of growth in Christ or the Holy Spirit ?, it's all there for anyone to read, it's not a secret!