Let me rephrase: "What IS the soul is a fascinating question that doesn't decisively get answered by any religions I think."
What would it take?
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
Let me rephrase: "What IS the soul is a fascinating question that doesn't decisively get answered by any religions I think."
LOL - So who's gonna step up and say, "God has inspired me to re-write the Bible. Trust me, I know what he meant to say." Or maybe we should elect a committee to vote on it.
Re-write the Bible, yeah - that's funny.
Come on man, don't drop into rhetoric now. The "children of Israel" didn't do anything to the Egyptians, their animals, or their children. They simply recognized the plagues as acts of God. If you are suggesting that God's actions are the barbarity, then I once again refer you to the nature of God as described in the Bible - He is perfection, and has created a system that is perfect - which isn't to say that the system never sees physical suffering, but rather that the system always follows its own rules. Part of those rules allows for suffering - and as such God really isn't concerned with suffering. Because God loves us, he has provided us a means to transcend physical suffering - which doesn't mean we don't suffer, but rather means that our souls are not crushed by such suffering. In fact, our souls are usually strengthened by such suffering. So, if what you see as acts of barbarity actually serve to strenghten one's soul, I'm going to be quicker to follow the eternal option than the temporal one.
Omnipotence doesn't inherently mar one's perfection. The Bible paints a picture of a "Perfect" God. In His perfection, he is indeed limited by what he 'can' do - because doing something imperfect would make him imperfect. That's really just another way of saying that the only way God could act in the way Crunch Cat is describing would be for him to break his own perfection. While his omnipotence may make that TECHNICALLY possible, his perfection makes it PRACTICALLY IMpossible.
Again, see above - God's love is why he gives us opportunities for spiritual growth. The physical suffering so many complain about is simply irrelevant to him (and to Christians strong enough in their faith - such as Paul). IOW, your presumption is theologically inaccurate (in fact, the NT FLAT OUT disputes what you are saying).
As I said previously, miracles are only recognized as such who are moved by the Spirit. When I say "more overt" I am suggesting something that would be recognized by people who are NOT moved by the Spirit, IOW something that would actually break the rules God instantiated when he created the universe (and thus reflect imperfection in His Creation).
Post 97
This verse is breaking humanity out into groups of the "natural" and the "spiritual". Those who are "alive in Christ" have a "spiritual life" that "receiveth the things of the Spirit of God". Those who are not, don't.
My statement applies to either term.
You seem to be saying that the definitions and explanations that are given at the links I provided do not decisively answer the question about what the soul is - is that so?
If yes, why do you think so? What do you find insufficient about the definitions and explanations there?
The website below provides ample information about how what you know as the lake of fire probably isn't mentioned once in the Bible. Once again, we see that a long history of mistranslations has seeded the minds of modern man with false assumptions.
http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/
I only saw one link, and it isn't that I necessarily disagreed with anything it posited; I just felt like it did a lot of attribute description rather than substantive description. (e.g. "A stove is hot. A stove is square. A stove cooks things." All these statements tell me about a stove, but they don't really tell me what a stove is.)
Then you should check out the other link.
Still not seeing anything other than extremely verbose scriptures. Care to paraphrase for me?
SO WHAT.. you duck everything that tells you christianity is false ENTIRELY
They sure as heck teach there is a hell thats all that matters, your bible can't be trusted PERIOD.. just throw it away and grow up.
Why not? If you are a believer you must think either god isn't real or he doesn't talk to people anymore? You think ancient people with their slaves and genocide were more qualified to write it than me or you? foolish
If God created the entire universe, then how is it He didn't create
it's inhabitants, the way He said He did? By His will.
He say's "go forth and multiply". That suggests how the world is poplulated.
He didn't give intruction to one cell.
jan.
Yes, see you think some of the bible could be trusted because you obviously believe in Jesus. So where you would look to that book for a guideline I would look to common sense and ethics and maybe strive for better social justice like some of the bible actually does.. people miss that part entirely and fixate on the quibbles of doctrine.
Geez - what's with the anger? In any case, I'm really not sure what you are even saying here. Could you rephrase with complete sentences please?
I think the point is that Paul should be trusted when he said that the Scriptures are complete. One of the core tenants to the Christian theology is that man no longer needs intercession by others to speak to God directly. We are now capable of being guided by the Spirit without needing more scriptures to educate us.
You say "how is it He didn't create its inhabitants the way He said He did". First of all, "HE" didn't say anything. MOSES wrote Genesis - with inspiration from God, ok - but God himself didn't write Genesis. Secondly, Genesis DOESN'T address the WAY He did anything at all. It says what God did, but not how. Can you cite any scriptures that would preclude the notion that evolution is the how?
Once more we are in agreement. I think though that you don't realize how much your position is actually supported by the teachings of Christ and Christian theology.
So this is how evolution comes in ...
You're pointing at the wrong guy. I think the Bible is a book of myths and legends with a little history thrown in. Of no more real importance than The Illiad and The Odyssey.
I just think anyone who tries to re-write the Bible is going to be either ignored as a fringe loony. Or wind up a cult leader.
If I were to attempt to explain the spiritual reality with a physical explanation, then yes - that would be my guess. But a big point to Christianity is that you take the spiritual truth on faith (and those who do subsequently 'feel' it as well), instead of requiring the physical explanation.
I agree with gmilam, and in response to Signal's comment - it is for the simple fact that God DOES talk to people, indeed he now talks to ALL people, that a new testament is not necessary. Your disdain for the nation of Israel is irrelevant to Christian theology.
So you're saying genesis is not necessarily how it occurred?
That God didn't necessarily command nature to bring forth life?
Genesis say's that God commanded the earth to bring forth life after
their own kind.
Evolution say's that life came about through blind natural
processess.
If you argue that God set things up for evolution to occur, then you
aren't talking about evolution, as evolution is a blind process. No purpose,
no intelligence.
If you accept evolution, then why bother to believe in God?
jan.