The Soul

[DLH]

You are projecting DLH.

We aren't attacking you first off. For all intents and purposes, you're probably a great guy. I probably would have no issues being your friend in real life.

Having said that, your beliefs are different than ours. You came here trying to defend the Bible to a bunch of atheists. The thing is, most of us have read the Bible, and the Quran several times from cover to cover. (Personally I've read the Bible twice but the Quran here and there as it was just too....meh to read cover to cover). We've been discussing everything you've thrown at us on these boards for years (many people for decades).

So when we say we've seen it, we know about it, we're not attacking you. We've just been down this road before. Your beliefs aren't bad unless you are trying to legislate against others based on those beliefs. Personally, I'm all for protecting your rights to believe whatever you want to...or don't want to.


To paraphrase a famous quote: Tell me why disregard all the other Gods but yours, and I'll tell you why I disregard yours too.

I don't think I'm being attacked, I think that our exchange is typical, just as many of you have been doing this for decades so have I. I expect that sort of thing needs to be gotten out of the way. It isn't about me, even though it might appear that way. you say I came here to defend the Bible, and that's true to an extent, but my purpose has always been more about educating than defending. Defending is only a part of it. I want the following:

1. For there to be acknowledgement that the Bible has been misrepresented by theist, and therefore misunderstood by theist and atheist alike.

2. That those misunderstandings can be discussed and debated among atheists who have an interest in the Bible.

3. That those who don't have an interest in doing that shouldn't confuse the matter by further misrepresenting it.

4. For it to be understood that in order to do this the atheists needn't convert or even contemplate in any meaningful way the possible existence of gods.

5. And that there is no real conflict between science and the Bible, only some disagreement.

Now, having said that if I ask you if you now have learned that the Bible doesn't teach the immortal soul how would you answer?

A. I don't care, but there is no such thing as a soul.

B. It doesn't matter, I'm not interested in that discussion.

C. Yes I see, you have convinced me.

D. No, you haven't convinced me.

E. Other ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which is it? First you say I'll do whatever I want no matter what anyone else thinks scripture says then you say I'll do whatever I want and interpret the Books necessary to support it.

It's the same thing. You hold to YOUR interpretation of scripture, not the common one held by anyone else, and it's your desire, not your understanding of the books, that guides you.

The next thing you know you will be telling me I can't think for myself and have to do whatever the Books or everyone else thinks the Books say.

That seems unlikely.

Any way that puts a negative spin on what I'm doing which is the same thing you're doing.

Negative spin?
No.
I'm just pointing out that i have absolutely no reason to think you're any different from any other apologist that comes through here, and your interpretation is entirely of your manufacture.
No reason at all to think that it matches what the original authors intended.

DLH So, the atheists think that it's silly for the theist to need scripture to support the good, bad, swearing and plagiarism that they, the atheists, don't need to do those things, is that what it is?

No, that's not what it is.
But in your claim to be able to fully explain the Books to us heathens, you did not fully explain the verses about 'vulgar language.'
You just threw up some loopholes so no one can say you're not following the Books.
But then again, no one can say that you are, either.

DLH Ahhh . . . I get it. It doesn't really matter what I think because I'm an online apologist.

And again, not what i said. Or meant.
IF you can't read a language we have in common without filtering it for your needs, what hope do i have that you can read the ancient texts and provide an objective understanding?
I'm not saying you're wrong BECAUSE you're an online apologist.
I AM saying you're just like all the others, full of assertions without support, and as easy to dismiss as a used car salesman.

 

[Sajara]

You are projecting DLH.

We aren't attacking you first off. For all intents and purposes, you're probably a great guy. I probably would have no issues being your friend in real life.

Having said that, your beliefs are different than ours. You came here trying to defend the Bible to a bunch of atheists. The thing is, most of us have read the Bible, and the Quran several times from cover to cover. (Personally I've read the Bible twice but the Quran here and there as it was just too....meh to read cover to cover). We've been discussing everything you've thrown at us on these boards for years (many people for decades).

So when we say we've seen it, we know about it, we're not attacking you. We've just been down this road before. Your beliefs aren't bad unless you are trying to legislate against others based on those beliefs. Personally, I'm all for protecting your rights to believe whatever you want to...or don't want to.


To paraphrase a famous quote: Tell me why disregard all the other Gods but yours, and I'll tell you why I disregard yours too.

I don't think I'm being attacked, I think that our exchange is typical, just as many of you have been doing this for decades so have I. I expect that sort of thing needs to be gotten out of the way. It isn't about me, even though it might appear that way. you say I came here to defend the Bible, and that's true to an extent, but my purpose has always been more about educating than defending. Defending is only a part of it. I want the following:

1. For there to be acknowledgement that the Bible has been misrepresented by theist, and therefore misunderstood by theist and atheist alike.

2. That those misunderstandings can be discussed and debated among atheists who have an interest in the Bible.

3. That those who don't have an interest in doing that shouldn't confuse the matter by further misrepresenting it.

4. For it to be understood that in order to do this the atheists needn't convert or even contemplate in any meaningful way the possible existence of gods.

5. And that there is no real conflict between science and the Bible, only some disagreement.

Now, having said that if I ask you if you now have learned that the Bible doesn't teach the immortal soul how would you answer?

A. I don't care, but there is no such thing as a soul.

B. It doesn't matter, I'm not interested in that discussion.

C. Yes I see, you have convinced me.

D. No, you haven't convinced me.

E. Other ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

1. The Bible certainly has been misrepresented by theists.
2. Discussion and debate are why we are here.
3. We are here aren't we? How are we misrepresenting the Bible?
4. Contemplating God is easy. Believing is the hard part. We discuss/debate the Bible without converting constantly. Been doing it with you for a bit now no?
5. No conflict between science and God sure. No conflict between science and religion...meh. No conflict between science and the Bible...sorry but I disagree.


The following Bible quotes seem to disagree with you:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.

 

[Sajara]

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Something to chew on...

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

What is a soul made of? Do trees have them, chimps, basset hounds, bagle hounds, cats, paramecia? By what process does a soul enter a body? By what process does it leave a body? Can there be a man without a soul?


Eldarion Lathria

 

[NobleSavage]

The thing about the Bible is that there are enough vagaries and intellectual rabbit holes that anyone with sufficient intelligence can spend a lifetime creating a logical castle with ramparts where they can safely proclaim: "I am a Christian and this is what Christianity means!"

I've followed a few different trains of Christian thought before and the destination is always disappointing, lacking, and incongruous. I find watching flies fuck much more interesting.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Agreed. It's endless and boring, too. Are there Christian practitioners who can remove one's soul and implant it in a believer who needs an extra boost of soul therapy (like a recovering televangelist... like Creflo Dollar?) I'm willing to part with mine if the recovery time is reasonable. Being an atheist, I would like to make a little profit on the deal.

 

[DLH]

It's the same thing. You hold to YOUR interpretation of scripture, not the common one held by anyone else, and it's your desire, not your understanding of the books, that guides you.

Then you say . . .

I'm just pointing out that i have absolutely no reason to think you're any different from any other apologist that comes through here, and your interpretation is entirely of your manufacture.

So, we are not sheeple incapable of thinking for ourselves. We don't adhere to the rigidity of scientific dogma unanimously without question and spread the propaganda without thought.

No reason at all to think that it matches what the original authors intended.

So it doesn't matter to you what anyone says regarding the Bible unless it amounts to an agreement on your part that the Bible shouldn't be considered relevant in any fashion. I could have assumed that. It's weak. Your uninformed propaganda is no more an indication of this than anything you would reject, you've just assumed a position you assume is correct because it is contrary to the Bible. You have less say than I or any other apologist. You simply happen to be surrounded by those who agree with you in an equally uninformed manner.

DLH So, the atheists think that it's silly for the theist to need scripture to support the good, bad, swearing and plagiarism that they, the atheists, don't need to do those things, is that what it is?

No, that's not what it is.
But in your claim to be able to fully explain the Books to us heathens, you did not fully explain the verses about 'vulgar language.'
You just threw up some loopholes so no one can say you're not following the Books.
But then again, no one can say that you are, either.

I've stated my position and I've indicated here and elsewhere to you that I'm not a Christian. What obligation have I to appease your insistence that my language is an indication that I don't "follow the books" and what difference would that make anyway? If what I say is against the books then show me where the books state this, if I follow the books or not what I say the books say the books must say or you should show otherwise. If I know what the books say and I want to put on a show for you that I follow them it follows logically that I could do that and you could demonstrate that show to be true or false, but it would still be a show. What you are trying to do is make me out to be a hypocrite on a moral level because you can't defend your uninformed position on the books, but the books themselves are full of examples of people who couldn't, or didn't follow the books that to some lesser or greater extent they wrote themselves. It's called sin. You are accustomed to judge the books by the imperfections of those who profess to follow them? We all fall short in this capacity, that is what the books indicate. Your point is moot.

I AM saying you're just like all the others, full of assertions without support, and as easy to dismiss as a used car salesman.

Bullshit. You are the salesman, you are lacking support and simply stating you are not interested in my evidence, support, testimony. You can't stand the competition.

- - - Updated - - -

The following Bible quotes seem to disagree with you:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.

How in the world does that disagree with me?

 

[DLH]

What is a soul made of? Do trees have them, chimps, basset hounds, bagle hounds, cats, paramecia? By what process does a soul enter a body? By what process does it leave a body? Can there be a man without a soul?


Eldarion Lathria

The soul is the life of any breathing creature, represented by the blood. Trees don't have them. Basset hounds, beagle hounds, cats, and chimps have a soul. The soul enters a body, so to speak, upon life and leaves it upon death, in that it is simply the life and life experiences, the blood of a breathing creature. A man without a soul would be a dead man. The point is, that according to the Bible, the soul isn't a separate part of us that lives on immortal. That is a pagan teaching.

 

[Sajara]

How in the world does that disagree with me?

The first and last quotes appear to show that the soul is immortal as long as it is not destroyed/killed (whether by sin or demon or whatever). The Ecclesiastes quote says that the soul returns to God who is immortal.

- - - Updated - - -

What is a soul made of? Do trees have them, chimps, basset hounds, bagle hounds, cats, paramecia? By what process does a soul enter a body? By what process does it leave a body? Can there be a man without a soul?


Eldarion Lathria

The soul is the life of any breathing creature, represented by the blood. Trees don't have them. Basset hounds, beagle hounds, cats, and chimps have a soul. The soul enters a body, so to speak, upon life and leaves it upon death, in that it is simply the life and life experiences, the blood of a breathing creature. A man without a soul would be a dead man. The point is, that according to the Bible, the soul isn't a separate part of us that lives on immortal. That is a pagan teaching.

Where in the blood does the soul reside? What happens when someone has a full blood transfusion so that the blood in their body is no longer their blood?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

The soul is the life of any breathing creature, represented by the blood.

We alrady have a word for that: blood. No need to go making up a new one.

 

[Juma]

The point is, that according to the Bible, the soul isn't a separate part of us that lives on immortal. That is a pagan teaching.

And who bloody cares? It as interesting as the shoe size of harry potter

 

[skepticalbip]

What is a soul made of? Do trees have them, chimps, basset hounds, bagle hounds, cats, paramecia? By what process does a soul enter a body? By what process does it leave a body? Can there be a man without a soul?


Eldarion Lathria

The soul is the life of any breathing creature, represented by the blood. Trees don't have them. Basset hounds, beagle hounds, cats, and chimps have a soul. The soul enters a body, so to speak, upon life and leaves it upon death, in that it is simply the life and life experiences, the blood of a breathing creature. A man without a soul would be a dead man. The point is, that according to the Bible, the soul isn't a separate part of us that lives on immortal. That is a pagan teaching.

Then what the fuck was Jesus talking about in Matthew 10:28?

ETA:
Although I like your atheistic position that death is the end, that there is nothing that lives on to experience heaven or hell afterwords even if there were a heaven or hell. But that is hardly Christian thought.

 

[Kharakov]

The soul is the life of any breathing creature, represented by the blood. Trees don't have them.

That's sappy.

Basset hounds, beagle hounds, cats, and chimps have a soul. The soul enters a body, so to speak, upon life and leaves it upon death, in that it is simply the life and life experiences, the blood of a breathing creature. A man without a soul would be a dead man. The point is, that according to the Bible, the soul isn't a separate part of us that lives on immortal. That is a pagan teaching.

Resurrection of the dead? Ultimate victory over Sheol?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Soul is breath, blood is a life force, taboo to eat. But neither has anything to do with a part of us apart from the body that lives forever, at least in the earliest books of the bible. There is a singular lack of any immortal after life in the Torah. No heaven, no hell. Thus the Sadducees rejected eternal life as a pagan heresy. Which the NT notes. Never once in the OT does God threaten the Israelites with eternal hell or loss of eternal life for their wrongdoings. I have no real idea of what is current orthodox Judaism's dogmas on the issue.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What is a soul made of? Do trees have them, chimps, basset hounds, bagle hounds, cats, paramecia? By what process does a soul enter a body? By what process does it leave a body? Can there be a man without a soul?

Sort of like your computer's magic smoke. Let the magic smoke out and the computer is useless and no longer works. But the magic smoke dissipates and is gone forever.

 

[skepticalbip]

Soul is breath, blood is a life force, taboo to eat. But neither has anything to do with a part of us apart from the body that lives forever, at least in the earliest books of the bible. There is a singular lack of any immortal after life in the Torah. No heaven, no hell. Thus the Sadducees rejected eternal life as a pagan heresy. Which the NT notes. Never once in the OT does God threaten the Israelites with eternal hell or loss of eternal life for their wrongdoings. I have no real idea of what is current orthodox Judaism's dogmas on the issue.

Jewish mysticism has the soul going to Eden, (their equivalent of Christian's heaven?). Some may spend up to elevens months being cleansed if they were not judged good enough before they get into Eden.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361897/jewish/The-Soul-and-the-Afterlife.htm

 

[Malintent]

in nature there is nature, anything supernatural isn't going to be found in nature

Okay, but the soul, according to the Bible, isn't supernatural. The Hebrew word for soul comes from a word meaning "breather." Any animal or person who breathes. It isn't supernatural.

You can define anything you want into existence, if people accept your definition. I don't think that many Christians will accept your definition of "soul" to be synonymous with "respiration", beyond the Genesis statement that says that only that which breaths air has a soul. It is not commonly taught that the soul IS breath, just that what has breath has a soul.

 

[Malintent]

So you carefully redefine your good/bad boundaries and continue to do what you want to do, no matter what anyone else might think scripture says.

So, no matter what I say it must be a terrible thing because, what? I don't think like you, or there are people who think like me that are politically but fairly in opposition to a few social issues you feel emotionally fixated with, or is it that you are afraid God is going to control you, because I've looked at every other possibility and it's all bullshit. Everything every atheist has ever told me regarding the answer to that question - like as if by rote - was a fucking lie. You want to be the first? You want to be the first to tell the truth?

Why do atheists pretend not to believe in God?

Why do Christians pretend to believe in a god when they act like there is no god?

You were responding to someone pointing out that Christians tend to use the bible to justify their actions, not to regulate their actions... Not sure how you got to your response from that.

 

[Sarpedon]

Like I said, its no use arguing with the one-man cult. He's just making it up as he goes.