Are you a liar?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I summarized the message of the Gospel. My answer was, "Submit to and obey what is said to be the will of God or face the music. You'd likely disagree, but the essential message of Christianity is that you're hellbound unless you quit sinning and ask for forgiveness. Sin is defined as disobeying God's will. It's very simple - obey the rules or burn. Dressing it up with words like grace doesn't make it any prettier." That is the message of the New Testament - obey or suffer. You didn't rebut it. Mere dissent without providing a counterargument is not a rebuttal.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. Justice is still required as a framework within which to offer mercy. There is no such thing as a Christian state on earth. You cannot have the state offering mercy to offenders. The state has a responsibility to provide justice. It's down to individual believers to offer forgiveness, in as far as their faith allows. The kind of religion that you refer to in your post is allied to the state. This means that it follows law, not grace. The reason that Christians see their true home as heaven is that their first allegiance is to Christ. Christ, in heaven, is head of the Church. The head of the Church is not an earthly king or emperor. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion he was placing his subjects under law. Law cannot save a man's soul. It is still an individual's responsibility to seek salvation 'with fear and trembling'. Salvation is by grace alone.

So then 'no' to the rebuttal. Apparently you have none. Why is that if you are correct or I am wrong? It suggests that it's the other way around. That's what it means when the other guy rebuts you but you can't identify any flaw in his argument. It means you were wrong.

Can you stop sinning by your efforts? If you can then there is no need for a Saviour.

There is no need for a savior because there is no such thing as sin. There is no deity giving commandments or providing revelation, just people.

 

[F1fan]

All the first believers in Jesus, the disciples of Jesus, were Jews living in either Galilee or Judea. The scriptures state clearly that Jesus 'came to his own'.

Religions evolve due to social preferences and political influence.

This Jewish base of belief expanded on the day of Pentecost when 3000 souls accepted Jesus as Christ. These were Jews from across the region who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate a pilgrim festival, Shav'uot.

Only 3000? I guess the early Christians didn't have a convincing case. Nor have they since as Jews remain in significant numbers.

There is no question that it was Jews who took the Gospel to the Gentiles. These were Jews who based their beliefs on the Tanakh. Let's be clear, there were no NT books in the initial stages of evangelism.

Eventually there was over 200 books spread all over the region. Of course this number was whittled down to 72 during the Ecumenical Councels. Many of those other holy books have been destroyed.

The rejection of Jesus by the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem was the point at which Judaism and Christianity went their separate ways. And, yes, from that point it was Gentiles who enthusiastically received the Gospel.

Many different disconnected sects until Constantine unified all of them. It was a clever political move.

I see your criticism of Christians as based on judgmentalism. I see, for example, you criticise the Graham family, whilst overlooking the great work that Billy did as an evangelist. We can all find fault in others if we look hard enough, but the scriptures make it clear that God judges the heart. What we cannot know is what a person would have been like had they not repented and believed!

Atheists aren't prohibited from judging as Christians are, yet Christians still judge atheists, and even their own. So what does that do to the eventual fate of the Christian who feels free to break the lessons of Jesus? You've judged us for not aligning to your beliefs, but you don't seem to be concerned about your fate. So why should I?

According to Christian belief only God is good. Jesus Christ was perfectly good because he was 'the image of God'. A believer is 'born again' and then has to begin a journey of growth. At no point on that journey from 'sinner to saint' is the victory won, for the battle between flesh and spirit is on-going until the day of salvation.

Belief can often be wrong. So think about that as you read back on how your God flooded the planet that killed new borns among others, and the seven people God saved still weren't all that moral and good. So this God is kind of a screw up.

It doesn't really matter how many Christian denominations there are, so long as the truth of Christ is recognised. What is this basic truth? It's that all men are sinners, and that sin brings death, whilst God's righteousness (Christ) brings life.

Sorry, this sounds like damage control. I mean it is a pretty wide gulf to have sects that include liberals like the Universalists all the to the Klu Klux Klan, a Christian organization, and all those in between are all saved by the sacrifice of Jesus? I'd think to have salvation being offered to murderers who have no regrets while Hindus who mind their own business are cast into hell is a bit awkward. I know some Christian insist there is a final judgment but I've never once met a Christian who thinks they are bound for hell. If I was a believers I would be bending over backwards trying to make sure I met the standard that jesus taught. I just don't see it in the majority of Christians. Maybe God is tolerant and just lets everyone off the hook. Wouldn't a loving God do that?

The question is how to receive God's righteousness. I believe, and am happy to show from scripture, that this is accomplished through faith.

That sounds self-serving. What do you do in service for others?

 

[F1fan]

You are making a habit of talking in generalisations about 'Christians', as if you know who in any given society has given their life to following Christ. I don't happen to believe that outward appearance tells us much, and l'm of the understanding that Jesus Christ is not a 'religion'.

You want to present your religion in the best light possible, I get that. No one likes when the group they belong to has members and leaders that have immoral and unethical stands. But that is just the baggage you adopted along with your religion. You have no choice but to accept that Christians have done horrible things AS Christians. Christians get no exceptions. In fact, I would say that since christians have a huge burden to be EXTRA moral, and a DUTY to follow what Jesus taught. What Jesus taught isn't controversial, or even that difficult. Heck, most of the atheists you're debating are better Christians than many fervent believers because we are typically tolerant and open minded, and haven't adopted a rigid and fundamentalist set of prohibitions. So I disagree that outward appearances don't tell us much. An unethical person is going to be a bad Christian regardless. A liar is going to be a bad Christian. A conman is going to be a bad Christian. A cheater is going to be a bad Christian. People with good character and integrity is what would make a good Christian. This is why good people make good believers. Bad people make bad believers, but religion doesn't make bad people good.

Reason happens to be used by people of faith, and some of the greatest scientists have also been believers in God.

Studies in psychology explain how people like scientists can compartmentalize expertise and knowledge from their ties to ideology. This is why even the Nazis had many scientists and doctors that were cooperating with the government. Loyalty to a nation or religion is largely a non-rational attachment, but these people can still perform expert work.

Jesus knew that there was more to life than outward appearances. He taught that when it comes to morality man was corrupt. Why? Because the Spirit that animated human beings was 'out of touch' with its Creator.

Too bad no one told Tammy Fae.

I think of Benny Hinn, Joel Olsteen, etc. who all put on a performance to their audiences as part of their message. So they too disagree with you and insist that appearance is crucial. And look at you. You make your claims of salvation and other Christian rhetoric and this is very much an appearance. You aren't offering us objective explanations why your dogma is true. You are giving apologetics that are not reasoned conclusions based on fact. So you also appear to appear rational, reasonable, logical, but you presenting a false case because your beliefs are not factual.

This is a fundamental error Christians make in these debate forums. There's an assumption that just because a case appears to be logical these fail because they are not based on facts. You can't take a faith and try to present it as reasoned. A better approach would be to explain how faith works its magic on the lives of people, and how they are motivated to do service for others. We seldom see this. For example if you relayed a story how your devotion to Christ motivated you to travel to Poland and help feed the Ukraine refugees, not could come back with a criticism.

Here's an extract that deserves our attention:
Matthew 7:16-18. 'Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of [from] thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit'.

And what fruits have you shown us? Why should we think you are a good Christian versus a believer just taking advantage of Jesus' sacrifice and a free ride to heaven?

The labels that people carry with them are not important. Jesus didn't care about labels or outward appearances. He always read the heart, and the heart is the dwelling place of the spirit. If your heart is corrupt, its the same as saying you do not have a clean spirit. If your heart is good, its the same as saying you have the Spirit of God.

I agree that the essence of a person is what they are. Being a Christian or some other devotee to dogma doesn't guarantee any virtues.

Jesus came to give people a clean Spirit, so that their fruit might be good fruit.

Well that doesn't work with the mantra of humans being filthy rags, sinners to the core.

 

[sayak83]

Once again, we have the biblical record to refer to. How do you think Abraham came to believe that God was real? How did Noah come to believe God was real? How did Moses come to have faith in God?

The answer is that God spoke to them in a clear and unequivocal manner. They responded with faith, and the words of God were fulfilled.

False gods give false hope, and ultimately they prove powerless.

I am still interested in continuing this conversation with you. Or are trying to only convince the atheists here?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The evangelist John asks a very challenging question in his first epistle (1 John 2:22). He asks, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

This is one of the many, many reasons I reject the New Testament (and Jesus). It is ridiculous to call someone a liar simply because they disagree with you. Lying is the CONSCIOUS decision to mislead someone. That is not what is happening when people reject Jesus as the Messiah -- there is no intent to mislead. They simply disagree, and have their own reasons.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I agree with the historical method. Prophecy is magic and essentially not credible. However, its use in the politics of the Tanakh is interesting.
First there has to be an historical Moses, and an Egyptian captivity. You may have noticed that archaeology in recent times has thrown doubt on both those claims; and indeed long beforehand doubts existed because of the total lack of evidence in Egyptian historical records and the failure to identify the story's pharaoh with any real pharaoh. And such episodes as Moses and Aaron turning rods into snakes and back, and the waters of the Nile into blood and back, only for pharaoh's magicians to match these tricks, and the seven plagues, is the very essence of folktale.
If Jesus was a prophet, he wasn't a good one. Those promises in each of the synoptics that the Kingdom would be established on earth in the lifetime of Jesus' hearers was an unequivocal dud, for instance.
Yes ─ and without telling any lies at all.
As I said, that's how you sell snakeoil. Jesus was not in fact qualified to be a Jewish messiah, nor was he ever a leader of the Jewish people whether in governance, religion or war. The authors of the NT, none of whom had ever met an historical Jesus, were blatant in choosing passages from the NT which appealed to them as messianic "prophecy" and moving Jesus through them, from which I infer that the author of Mark didn't know much about Jesus' bio but was determined to provide one. The author of Matthew's "massacre of the innocents" to engineer Jesus "coming out of Egypt" to satisfy the "prophecy" and "fulfill" Hosea 11.1 is only one of many examples of pure fiction.
You said yourself that the Jews got what they deserved, and no group in history has been more murderously oppressive towards them than Christians, even to this day.
And Jesus was the agent of that curse, you say?

You haven't told me why God would send a messiah that [he] knew the Jews wouldn't recognize as a messiah. And then have the Christians torment [his] chosen people for two thousand years.

Your assessment of 'Christian' attitudes to Jews is far from the truth. There are numerous examples of believers who have risked their own lives to save Jews in times of persecution.

The root of your warped understanding is that you think that all the citizens of a so-called 'Christian society' must be followers of Christ. This is not true.

A believer in Jesus as Christ understands that Jesus was himself a Jew. Being anti-semitic is indicative of a poor understanding of the Bible. If you bothered to get to know the scriptures, you would know what Paul says about humility in faith, and how Jew and Gentile redemption is connected in God's grand design [Romans 11].

It should also be said that both Jew and Gentile believers are at risk of correction by God. But a Christian is under a 'better' form of covenant than the Torah Jew.

As regards the history of lsrael, its true that there are gaps in the archaeological record. This does not mean, however, that the biblical record is faulty in an way. There are many gaps in human knowledge and understanding. What cannot be denied, with regard to lsrael's history, is the evidence of lsrael's existence in Canaan, so there must have been a history prior to the conquest of Canaan. Are you able to provide a history of how lsrael came to be in Canaan? No, l thought not!

Other issues, such as miracles, will remain a matter of faith. Given that signs and wonders only occur in response to the prayers of the faithful, such things will forever remain outside the sceptics realm of understanding.

And why would God send a Messiah whom He knew would be rejected? Well, for a number of reasons. Firstly, to provide a Saviour from sin for all men. This requires a blood sacrifice. Secondly, to provide a covenant based on faith, not law.

As scripture teaches, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews is only temporary and allows for Gentile evangelisation. The return of Jews to the land of lsrael is an indication (and prophecy) that God's face will once again be turned towards lsrael.

Scripture says, 'All lsrael shall be saved', meaning that all 'in Christ', both Jew and Gentile, will be saved.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am still interested in continuing this conversation with you. Or are trying to only convince the atheists here?

I'm sorry, Sakya! I'm old and l find it hard keeping up with all the responses. Give me time and l will make a reply.

 

[sayak83]

I'm sorry, Sakya! I'm old and l find it hard keeping up with all the responses. Give me time and l will make a reply.

No issues. I know that there are too many replies to keep track of.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is one of the many, many reasons I reject the New Testament (and Jesus). It is ridiculous to call someone a liar simply because they disagree with you. Lying is the CONSCIOUS decision to mislead someone. That is not what is happening when people reject Jesus as the Messiah -- there is no intent to mislead. They simply disagree, and have their own reasons.

Others have made similar arguments about the meaning of 'liar' in this context. I have tried to demonstrate that the word is used in the same way as 'sinner'. The Bible is unequivocal in calling all men sinners, yet many people refuse to acknowledge that they are sinful. To my understanding the same is true of liars. All men are liars, just as all men are sinners. Until, that is, they come to a knowledge of the truth.

My explanation of the difference in understanding is to suggest that there is an objective view, and a subjective view. Man provides the subjective view, having limited understanding of truth, and God provides the objective view because only He is omniscient. Therefore, if God knows the Truth, He has every right to call a man a 'liar'. Any denial of God's truth is a 'lie'.

 

[Elihoenai]

Yes, l believe we do our own works of righteousness, as under the law, before we receive the righteousness of God (grace) through faith.

Acts 2:1

2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Are you saying that we should do Works under the Law? Is Pentecost/Feast of Weeks Works under the Law? Did the the Apostles practice Feat of Weeks/Pentecost?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The evangelist John asks a very challenging question in his first epistle (1 John 2:22). He asks, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

He goes on to say, 'He is an anti-christ, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:'

Strong words from a man who preached a God of love!

But, how does one arrive at the position that a man is a liar if he denies that Jesus is Christ? I guess the opening premise is that God is Truth [Deut. 32:4 etc]. From here one can reasonably deduce that God's Word is true, and that Christ, coming from God, is the Word of God [Rev. 19:13]. If this be the case, then a denial of Christ is a denial of truth [John 14:6]. To deny truth is to make truth a lie. Is this, therefore, the unforgivable sin?

Christ deniers really have no rock to stand on when 'truth' becomes a victim, as happens in war. Where is the hope of justice if there is no God to hear your cry? If your daughter is raped and murdered by soldiers, or your son tortured, tied and shot in the back of the head, how do you respond? Hate and seek revenge? Add your vitriol to the great hell of war? Seek justice from courts that may never provide justice? Give up on life itself, with no hope of glory?

I'm with Paul, who said, 'For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.' [Phil.1:21]

I do not believe that this test applies to all people - but rather those who first believed - and perhaps even knew the truth - but then turned away from it.

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:18-22)

No one can be "antichrist" without first knowing Christ.

 

[F1fan]

This is one of the many, many reasons I reject the New Testament (and Jesus). It is ridiculous to call someone a liar simply because they disagree with you. Lying is the CONSCIOUS decision to mislead someone. That is not what is happening when people reject Jesus as the Messiah -- there is no intent to mislead. They simply disagree, and have their own reasons.

To my mind Christians and Christianity assumes an authority over all people, and over all religions. I challenge Christians when they ask questions and make assertions that imply THEIR belief has an inherent authority. They tend to deny they mean it, but their attitudes, claims, and questions still imply they do. It's likely they simply inherited this assumption and attitude from their indoctrination. What's interesting is that this implies the Christian with this subconscious attitude might be the liar. And they were lied to by their tradition and carry on this behavior unknowingly.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Acts 2:1

2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Are you saying that we should do Works under the Law? Is Pentecost/Feast of Weeks Works under the Law? Did the the Apostles practice Feat of Weeks/Pentecost?

I am following the Gospel of grace, which only came into effect on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts). Living under grace frees a man from following a religious code because, l believe, the new commandment is to live according to the spirit of love, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Those living under grace are still required to do works, but these works follow faith. To place works before faith is to adopt a self-righteous approach to God, whereas acting by faith is a work of God's righteousness.

 

[F1fan]

Your assessment of 'Christian' attitudes to Jews is far from the truth. There are numerous examples of believers who have risked their own lives to save Jews in times of persecution.

The problem is you ignore that it is often Christians who are doing the persecution in the first place. The Germans of Nazi Germany were mostly Lutherans. Hitler himself was Catholic. The pro-slavery Confederate States of America were mostly Baptists. So you can't insist that it was Christianity that saved Jews when it was Christians who were killing them.

The root of your warped understanding is that you think that all the citizens of a so-called 'Christian society' must be followers of Christ. This is not true.

OK, describe an authentic Christian society from a "so-called" Christian society. And explain what goes wrong with the Christians who don't meet your standard. And point out where in the Bible it explains what a Christian of your standard is written.

A believer in Jesus as Christ understands that Jesus was himself a Jew.

Assuming a Jesus actually existed.

Being anti-semitic is indicative of a poor understanding of the Bible. If you bothered to get to know the scriptures, you would know what Paul says about humility in faith, and how Jew and Gentile redemption is connected in God's grand design [Romans 11].

Do you think Jews go to hell if they don't accept Jesus?

It should also be said that both Jew and Gentile believers are at risk of correction by God. But a Christian is under a 'better' form of covenant than the Torah Jew.

How do Christians get corrected by God? For example, how did God correct the Christians who were part of the Holocaust?

And why would God send a Messiah whom He knew would be rejected?

Probably the same reason it created Adam & Eve who were incapable of being obedient to rules, and unable to resist temptation, God is either inept or corrupt.

Well, for a number of reasons. Firstly, to provide a Saviour from sin for all men. This requires a blood sacrifice. Secondly, to provide a covenant based on faith, not law.

It's a Rube Goldberg plan. Why can't an all-powerful God just make it happen? Or have planned ahead when it created the Earth and humans?

I'm critical of the whole creation since it is riddled with incompetence or corruption. God messed up the Garden which led to the Fall of man, and in time people got so evil that God decided to flood the planet as a fix. As we know this didn't fix anything, so God tried to save mankind with a blood sacrifice, and this involved impregnating a women, letting him grow up and teach new ideas about compassion, and then let the Romans execute him just so humans have a choice to save themselves by accepting the sacrifice? (Yes, believers save themselves. Jesus doesn't, he is just the mechanism and done his job by being killed. The only thing that stands in the way of salvation is the human accepting the gift or not.)

It makes for a good story, but it's absurd. And spreading this message took centuries, and never got to many places in the Pacific. And by the time this religion did spread all over the world there were so many competing versions that even Christians fought each other over the "truth". It's a catastrophe.

As scripture teaches, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews is only temporary and allows for Gentile evangelisation. The return of Jews to the land of lsrael is an indication (and prophecy) that God's face will once again be turned towards lsrael.

Just like the End Times, it just isn't happening.

Scripture says, 'All lsrael shall be saved', meaning that all 'in Christ', both Jew and Gentile, will be saved.

It could be argued that all humans are already saved, and there is no need to accept Jesus as savior as a ticket to heaven. But religion knows it can't sell that and maintain control over the people. So hell is a convenient extortion threat for anyone who disagrees with the powers that be. The thing is, we outsiders don't know which Christians are correct, if any of them. you yourself have condemned some of your fellow Christians by referring to them living in "so-called Christian societies". But what if you are wrong? How would we know?

 

[Elihoenai]

This is the text:

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.​

I'm not convinced any gods exist, but I'm not sure what this text is supposed to be teaching anyone. It looks to be the King James, middle English wording which is difficult to cobble together when operating with modern English.

So perhaps you can comment on what this text is supposed to teach.

Romans 3:4

4 let it not be! and let God become true, and every man false, according as it hath been written, `That Thou mayest be declared righteous in Thy words, and mayest overcome in Thy being judged.'

Psalm 116:11

11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

It's teaching to accept the Need for God/Elohim and that every man is a Rotten Liar.

 

[F1fan]

Romans 3:4

4 let it not be! and let God become true, and every man false, according as it hath been written, `That Thou mayest be declared righteous in Thy words, and mayest overcome in Thy being judged.'

Psalm 116:11

It's teaching to accept the Need for God/Elohim and that every man is a Rotten Liar.

This is a letter from Paul, yes? And he was trying to sell his religious belief to the Romans, just as you are trying to sell your religion to we heathens. But this doesn't work. You are citing Paul who is just making a claim. You are repeating the claim as if it is true. We are not convinced you or Paul are correct. So present the facts that any of this is true and relevant that DOES NOT assume the Bible has some sort of authority.

11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

And you are a man, yes? All men are liars, yes? And we should believe you at our peril, yes?

And since you brought up Johnny Rotten and the song Liar by the Sex Pistols, here it is:

 

[Elihoenai]

I am following the Gospel of grace, which only came into effect on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts). Living under grace frees a man from following a religious code because, l believe, the new commandment is to live according to the spirit of love, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Those living under grace are still required to do works, but these works follow faith. To place works before faith is to adopt a self-righteous approach to God, whereas acting by faith is a work of God's righteousness.

The Apostles received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Fiftieth). Did the Apostles practice Feast of Weeks/Pentecost to get the Holy Spirit? Is Pentecost/Feast of Weeks.Works under the Law? These are critical questions, given a seeker yearns to revive the Church of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Human beings are already immmortal, merely shifting between old bodies and new bodies as one changes clothes after a day's work. Why would I care about either death or resurrection? Life I already have for eternity.
Were any of your great teachers remember all their past lives and the past lives of all beings that have existed?

To continue!

Many people would argue that reincarnation is not a blessing but a curse.

The big difference between reincarnation and resurrection is 'the flesh'. In resurrection the flesh dies forever, for the one who is resurrected is changed from 'corruption into incorruption', or from mortal into immortal; hence, a resurrected man is become a spiritual being.

I understand that at some point a reincarnated soul will break free of the cycle of rebirth, but do you know where that soul then goes?

 

[Elihoenai]

This is a letter from Paul, yes? And he was trying to sell his religious belief to the Romans, just as you are trying to sell your religion to we heathens. But this doesn't work. You are citing Paul who is just making a claim. You are repeating the claim as if it is true. We are not convinced you or Paul are correct. So present the facts that any of this is true and relevant that DOES NOT assume the Bible has some sort of authority.


And you are a man, yes? All men are liars, yes? And we should believe you at our peril, yes?

And since you brought up Johnny Rotten and the song Liar by the Sex Pistols, here it is:

Hasn't history and the present time provided you enough evidence that All Men are Liars? You must be aware they have made Lying an Art Form.

 

[sayak83]

To continue!

Many people would argue that reincarnation is not a blessing but a curse.

The big difference between reincarnation and resurrection is 'the flesh'. In resurrection the flesh dies forever, for the one who is resurrected is changed from 'corruption into incorruption', or from mortal into immortal; hence, a resurrected man is become a spiritual being.

I understand that at some point a reincarnated soul will break free of the cycle of rebirth, but do you know where that soul then goes?

From the Hindu POV, resurrection is part of the reincarnation cycle only. What you call resurrection we call it the case of reincarnation in a spiritual body in one of heavenly realm under one of the Gods. Yet the spiritual body is still a body, and even that body will undergo spiritual decay and will die (here we reject the claim that the heaven or the new earth, whatever that is, is eternal). This may take quadrillion of years, but it will happen. Thus a soul will again reincarnate (maybe back to earth or in some lower of higher realms under the stewardship of other Gods or anti-Gods). This process will continue till the soul finally realizes the true nature of things...that its self is the same Self as that of the Absolute Reality-Being (Brahman) and acts in accordance to this realization (so not theoretical knowledge about actual experienced and acted on knowledge). At this point the self of the Soul retracts itself from this creation flux and becomes one with the Self of the Brahman. The involuntary reincarnation cycle stops, but active aspects of Brahman can still enter the creation flux as incarnations who act in the world (or in the Heavens) while being completely aware of its true identity as the Self of the Ultimate Being.