Are the religious people's beliefs of the soul - wrong?

[james2ko]

hahahahahahahahaha

I'm glad you thought it was funny, although I didn't mean it as a joke...but hey..to each his own..

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jesus didn't believe that Genesis is Jewish mythology. His teachings clearly reflect his conviction that the book of Genesis is true history. (Matthew 19:4-6, Luke 17:26,27)
I agree the Holy Spirit is not part of us. However, neither the word "Trinity" nor the idea of three persons in one God can be found in the Scriptures. The teachings of hellfire, trinity, and an immortal soul actually come from pagan religions, and these false teachings were adopted after the death of the apostles, when apostasy was developing among those who professed to follow Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5,7,8)

I doubt we have any Idea what Jesus thought were the origins of genesis. However as a Jew he would have been aware of many of the stories. and they are certainly useful as moral teachings.
Much of the "Jesus Quotes" are remembrances written long after, by who ever wrote the source material for the Gospels. They are certainly not "verbatim" and often confused.
Much of Christianity is diluted by Greek ideas particularly hell and concepts of the devil, which had by that time become well known through out the ancient world. The Trinity concept served a later purpose.
Christians today have as much chance to be correct in their beliefs as those early first century Christians, and an equal chance to differ from them.

I find some early concepts as attractive as Snake Oil.

 

[fishy]

It was you who brought "what John saw" in..........look

4. John noticed the difference in size (big and small) of those standing before Christ. They were definitely physical. You also have the rich man in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man who felt the heat of the flames which a spirit alone would not. It amazes me how many Christians feel a physical resurrection is so far fetched, when God performed them regularly throughout scripture.

If John saw what is supposed to happen and has described it, then tell us what weapons he saw. Don't have any idea, just like John? Oh come on. It's in your book, it's due to happen next Tuesday week in a small valley/mountain in Palestine. Tell us.

 

[waitasec]

I'm pretty sure we're all wrong.... We're children groping in the dark.

this...

 

[waitasec]

I'm glad you thought it was funny, although I didn't mean it as a joke...but hey..to each his own..

i thought it was funny.
you were game until...

 

[james2ko]

It was you who brought "what John saw" in..........look

If John saw what is supposed to happen and has described it, then tell us what weapons he saw. Don't have any idea, just like John? Oh come on. It's in your book, it's due to happen next Tuesday week in a small valley/mountain in Palestine. Tell us.

Attempting to appeal to my ego? That may work with a high school class but not here buddy. The comment was made within the context of the topic being discussed but you want to take it in a different direction. Why is that? Is it because I refuted your assertions concerning the resurrection in another thread so you want another shot at me?

 

[james2ko]

i thought it was funny.
you were game until...

You've been dying to get at me yourself. The problem you and others have run into is that the truth is impossible to refute.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Both Christianity and Islam teach how a soul can be judged after death, and either go to afterlife of eternal peace or torment.

If the soul comes ultimately from God, then how could a soul be tainted by one's own belief, or emotion, behaviour or decision, or one's own action?

Shouldn't a soul be incorruptible?

If the soul belonged to God, then how could a soul be judged and (if a person is bad in his lifetime) go to hell?

The belief of Christians and Muslims that a soul could be affected by person's action seemed contradictory of what a soul is.

You have to give ancient authors of religous texts a little leeway - they were trying to throw a bunch of random ideas together and they weren't exactly skilled at creating well-structured and plotted stories, nor were they particularly adept at detecting and eliminating continuity issues or logical inconsistencies. All things considered, they did what they could for simple nomads and farmers, but they're not going to be teaching any classes on writing.

 

[Trimijopulos]

You have to give ancient authors of religous texts a little leeway - they were trying to throw a bunch of random ideas together and they weren't exactly skilled at creating well-structured and plotted stories, nor were they particularly adept at detecting and eliminating continuity issues or logical inconsistencies. All things considered, they did what they could for simple nomads and farmers, but they're not going to be teaching any classes on writing.

That is exactly what the translators of the ancient Egyptian funerary texts thought of the authors of the texts, failing to understand that the “bunch of random ideas” found in the texts were actually empirical ideas of the …simple nomads and farmers which the clergy borrowed and mistreated.

The result of their mistake is their present inability to comprehend the texts although they have been translating them for two hundred years.

Theologians, in order to have their doctrines accepted by the people, have to base their preaching on what the people has been taught by their culture’s traditions.

You need an audience accustomed to the idea of gods impregnating common women in order to have the story of the birth of Jesus accepted.
With today’s popular beliefs, modern theologians – if they were to write the gospels- would have to teach that Jesus landed to the earth a grown-up already. Gods are no longer born into caves.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Do not mix up Jewish belief with Christian Beliefs. Ezekiel had no concept of Christianity, and had a Jewish concept of God and the afterlife..

Interestingly, on a side note, parts of the NT talk about men of the OT knowing the future of God's plan. So in certain situations it is within the limits of Christianity to use the OT as if they (the men) knew of the coming Christianity.

 

[work in progress]

That ascribes anthropomorphic properties to a non-anthropomorphic entity. For most of us who are embodied souls, we cannot remember anything before we were born, if you believe in re-birth.

I can't accept re-birth because that would depend on accepting the concept of a mind that exists separately from the brain and body. As mentioned previously, our memories and personality depend on the function of a physical system. And when it functions abnormally, as in brain-damaged or mentally ill, the mind is also damaged. It doesn't seem sensible that a mind that depends on a healthy functioning brain can exist after that brain is completely destroyed, and move on as some supernatural essence. Where is that soul in the patient with Alzheimers and other forms of dementia? Or in the people who have lost memories and had their personalities changed or disordered after suffering brain damage?

Religioos explanations formed thousands of years ago, can't tell us anything about how the brain works, which means that religion can't tell us anything about thinking and cognition, impaired thinking or cognition, memories, or anything else relevant to the human mind. Science, in contrast, keeps providing more and more information about exactly those subjects. I can accept that science cannot provide much of a guide (except possibly how to rank choices) for finding meaning and deciding how ethics and morality should be arrived at. But, when religious explanations of the world and who we are, are directly in conflict with modern evidence, then the religious explanations need to be re-formulated, reinterpreted, or used in other applications. All a doctrine of souls does today is sow the same kind of confusion I had in my early years when I was being taught the Adam and Eve creation stories at the same time we were learning about prehistoric "cave men."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interestingly, on a side note, parts of the NT talk about men of the OT knowing the future of God's plan. So in certain situations it is within the limits of Christianity to use the OT as if they (the men) knew of the coming Christianity.

That just leads to replacement theology.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can't accept re-birth because that would depend on accepting the concept of a mind that exists separately from the brain and body. As mentioned previously, our memories and personality depend on the function of a physical system. And when it functions abnormally, as in brain-damaged or mentally ill, the mind is also damaged. It doesn't seem sensible that a mind that depends on a healthy functioning brain can exist after that brain is completely destroyed, and move on as some supernatural essence. Where is that soul in the patient with Alzheimers and other forms of dementia? Or in the people who have lost memories and had their personalities changed or disordered after suffering brain damage?

Religioos explanations formed thousands of years ago, can't tell us anything about how the brain works, which means that religion can't tell us anything about thinking and cognition, impaired thinking or cognition, memories, or anything else relevant to the human mind. Science, in contrast, keeps providing more and more information about exactly those subjects. I can accept that science cannot provide much of a guide (except possibly how to rank choices) for finding meaning and deciding how ethics and morality should be arrived at. But, when religious explanations of the world and who we are, are directly in conflict with modern evidence, then the religious explanations need to be re-formulated, reinterpreted, or used in other applications. All a doctrine of souls does today is sow the same kind of confusion I had in my early years when I was being taught the Adam and Eve creation stories at the same time we were learning about prehistoric "cave men."

Memory and though are functions that resides in the brain. When we die it stops functioning.
The soul has nothing to do with thought or memory, at least not ours.

 

[Sgloom]

You've been dying to get at me yourself. The problem you and others have run into is that the truth is impossible to refute.

i think your truth is impossible for you to prove. thats the real problem

 

[james2ko]

i think your truth is impossible for you to prove. thats the real problem

Not at all. It was possible for me to prove it to myself, right? Besides I didn't say anything about proving the truth to anyone. What I said was that it cannot be refuted.

 

[waitasec]

You've been dying to get at me yourself. The problem you and others have run into is that the truth is impossible to refute.

still it was funny...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not at all. It was possible for me to prove it to myself, right? Besides I didn't say anything about proving the truth to anyone. What I said was that it cannot be refuted.

It would be very nice indeed if there was a universal truth that every Christian could agree on and follow.
However it seems there is not, nor ever will be, nor was intended to be.

Faith is not accidental, I suspect that this mystery of truth is not accidental either, we are not expected to know everything, any more than the apostles were. We have not been told everything. Some things we must find for ourselves with Gods help.

We are on a journey, where our brains thoughts and prayers play an equal part.
Some of us step off the train early, and are happy to accept what we have been told.
For others the Journey is more convoluted and takes longer and shows a greater breadth of landscape.
For others the journey itself is important in exposing new ideas and truths.

For two thousand years Christians have been making this Journey and in the process have left their mark on many new denominations each a path to God, each a part of the greater Church universal. Each of equal worth.

 

[james2ko]

It would be very nice indeed if there was a universal truth that every Christian could agree on and follow.
However it seems there is not, nor ever will be, nor was intended to be.

Faith is not accidental, I suspect that this mystery of truth is not accidental either, we are not expected to know everything, any more than the apostles were. We have not been told everything. Some things we must find for ourselves with Gods help.

We are on a journey, where our brains thoughts and prayers play an equal part.
Some of us step off the train early, and are happy to accept what we have been told.
For others the Journey is more convoluted and takes longer and shows a greater breadth of landscape. For others the journey itself is important in exposing new ideas and truths.

For two thousand years Christians have been making this Journey and in the process have left their mark on many new denominations each a path to God, each a part of the greater Church universal. Each of equal worth.

I enjoyed the poetic tone of your post. You'd make a great children's story writer. But unfortunately there's some truth lacking:

They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Isa 11:9)
​

I don't believe the God I read about in the bible would allow us to remain at odds with each other forever. God will one day lift the current veil of deception (Isa 25:7). Everyone, from the staunchiest Atheist to the most sincere but deceived Christian, will one day have the knowledge of the one true God. Each will get a fair opportunity to choose their own fate. Either (a) Eternal life or (b) eternal death (cease to exist for all eternity). And that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

 

[gnostic]

Boy are we jumping to conclusions. Did I miss something? I don't remember making any "end of the world" predictions

Prediction of end of the world. Prediction of modern weapon.

John did the best he could trying to describe modern day weapons with first century knowledge.

I think people have to read more into any "sign" or "symbol" then it warranted.

 

[james2ko]

Prediction of end of the world. Prediction of modern weapon.

You're confusing prediction with interpretation. A prediction is a forecast or declaration of something that has yet to occur. An interpretation is an expression of a person's conception on a subject. I'm merely "interpreting" John's vision.

I think people have to read more into any "sign" or "symbol" then it warranted.

Glad to finally see someone who can think for himself.