Hell

[Riverwolf]

It doesn't necessarily have to make sense to us, does it? If that's what God wills to do then that's what God wills to do.

Which, frankly, is about as convincing as "If it's what the beer bottle wills then it's what the beer bottle wills."

With such high stakes, I'd think any God would be obligated to explain his reasoning. Even if we don't entirely understand it right away, we can still analyze it and eventually come to understand it.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

For those of us here (especially those who believe in a God/Higher Power/A Source) who do not believe in a physical Hell, do you ever think if this is because you genuinely don't, or because you don't want to, because the thought of going to such a place for a long time or eternity is too frightening and too much to bear?

I genuinely don't believe in Hell, because it is a useless concept.

 

[james2ko]

It strikes me as strange in a way to awaken someone to put them to death the second time. They were already dead, if the aim was for them to die and cease to exist why not leave them in the dead (and presumably nonexistent) state they are already in?

1. Makes perfect sense when one understands they are physically resurrected for a period of time (judgment) to accept or reject Christ. A second chance at physical life, their first real chance at salvation. Only this time, with no deceptive influences in place, as is the case today. Those who reject Him will have no excuse and will be burned and cease to exist. Those who accept will inherit eternal life.

Also you make the point about why would a merciful Lord put people in fire for eternity, I think in a way the same question could be asked, why would a merciful Lord execute people by burning? Surely there are more kind methods of execution than fire? Consider this in light of for example; a Hindu who made great contributions to medical science that saved many lives, but didn't believe in Jesus so this Hindu in addition to whatever suffering is involved in his first death, is then raised up to be burned to death. Can you see how the same question you put to others regarding the actions of a merciful Lord still pertains to your interpretation of hell to a certain extent?

No. See point 1.

 

[GURSIKH]

Years ago the soviets accidently drilled a hole so deep they penetrated hell. There is even a audio of screams coming from the hole.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?53516-sounds-from-hell-a-very-scary-story-(audio-file-included)

thats interesting

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

1. Makes perfect sense when one understands they are physically resurrected for a period of time (judgment) to accept or reject Christ. A second chance at physical life, their first real chance at salvation. Only this time, with no deceptive influences in place, as is the case today. Those who reject Him will have no excuse and will be burned and cease to exist. Those who accept will inherit eternal life.



No. See point 1.

That takes a good amount of playing around with interpretations of Revelations to come up to that idea.

If Revelations should even be considered at all.

Also with no deceptive influences who would not choose God? Atheist who don't believe in God as far as I can tell do so because there is no actual evidence. Give them evidence (God showing himself), and they will have it. Other religions believe in God already, they'd have no problem accepting that one particular idea of God is the correct one, especially without the 'deceptive influences'...

Now what do you do about the mentally ill?

 

[captainbryce]

That takes a good amount of playing around with interpretations of Revelations to come up to that idea.

Really? Because for me that idea seems like it would be derived from the plain reading of the text. And it is actually the traditionally, warped idea of hell that requires much extrapolation, manipulation and misinterpretation of scripture.

If Revelations should even be considered at all.

Why shouldn't it? Or more to the point, which scriptures SHOULD be considered when determining how to interpret the nature of hell?

Also with no deceptive influences who would not choose God? Atheist who don't believe in God as far as I can tell do so because there is no actual evidence. Give them evidence (God showing himself), and they will have it. Other religions believe in God already, they'd have no problem accepting that one particular idea of God is the correct one, especially without the 'deceptive influences'...

That's an interesting perspective, but I think it is also one that kind of misses the point. Who would not choose God? There are plenty of atheists who believe that they should live life to satisfy themselves, at the expense of others. It's not just that many of them don't "believe" in God, it's that

A) many of them are selfish and don't care about anyone else's needs, only themselves

B) many of them reject/hate what God actually stands for (as far as they understand him)

C) many don't understand the nature of God, and don't care to understand it

D) many of them believe that we don't need God, and that we're better off without him.

E) ironically, many atheists would argue that their thinking process is already ABSENT of deceiving influences

So taking all of that into consideration, there will no doubt still be people who reject God despite the removal of outside, deceptive influences. There is nothing to suggests that they wouldn't. After all, one third of the angels rebelled against God (knowing full well that he existed), and so did Pharaoh (despite witnessing the curses that befell him).

Now what do you do about the mentally ill?

What about them? People are held accountable to what they know, not what they don't know. In our inferior system of justice people can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why would you assume it would be different in a superior form a justice?

 

[Zanuku]

For those of us here (especially those who believe in a God/Higher Power/A Source) who do not believe in a physical Hell, do you ever think if this is because you genuinely don't, or because you don't want to, because the thought of going to such a place for a long time or eternity is too frightening and too much to bear?

No, I believe that when I die I'll be put in a hole in the ground and be in a permanent state similar to sleeping-without-dreaming.
Hopefully a tree or two will rise from the fertile Earth though

 

[StarryNightshade]

I don't believe in a literal hell, because I don't believe in a literal heaven.

If they actually exist, then I think they are states of being and not literal places of torment or punishment.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Really? Because for me that idea seems like it would be derived from the plain reading of the text. And it is actually the traditionally, warped idea of hell that requires much extrapolation, manipulation and misinterpretation of scripture. :shrug

Why shouldn't it? Or more to the point, which scriptures SHOULD be considered when determining how to interpret the nature of hell?

Because it's one of the texts that was widely debated on being even included in the Bible. As well whether or not it is supposed to be prophetic or being used an an allegory is also up to debate...it also draws a lot from several other sources (though I guess you can say it doesn't), such as Daniel, Zechariah and Ezekial. All written at times when Jews were suffering through the oppression of Babylon if I remember correctly.

That's an interesting perspective, but I think it is also one that kind of misses the point. Who would not choose God? There are plenty of atheists who believe that they should live life to satisfy themselves, at the expense of others. It's not just that many of them don't "believe" in God, it's that

A) many of them are selfish and don't care about anyone else's needs, only themselves

B) many of them reject/hate what God actually stands for (as far as they understand him)

C) many don't understand the nature of God, and don't care to understand it

D) many of them believe that we don't need God, and that we're better off without him.

E) ironically, many atheists would argue that their thinking process is already ABSENT of deceiving influences

So taking all of that into consideration, there will no doubt still be people who reject God despite the removal of outside, deceptive influences. There is nothing to suggests that they wouldn't. After all, one third of the angels rebelled against God (knowing full well that he existed), and so did Pharaoh (despite witnessing the curses that befell him). [/quote]

See I doubt that, because again there are the removal of deceptive influences. Deception would remove how people perceive God (what is Gods nature?), it would removed the fact that people are not sure if God exists. Many atheists are selfish? What are the numbers? THat's a broad sweeping generalization. I know of many selfish christians. One could say the idea of a God who personally saved you and left others to be condemned...is pretty selfish sounding. But Calvinist believe it without a sweat.

Pharoah's heart was hardened by God. There were plenty of times he was willing to let them go and then God hardened his heart. The Angel rebellion...IDK why people quote that still as if it is fact, unless you are talking about the ones who went down and ended up having sons with the daughters of man? Are those who you are talking about?

What about them? People are held accountable to what they know, not what they don't know. In our inferior system of justice people can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why would you assume it would be different in a superior form a justice?

What is the state of their souls.

 

[james2ko]

That takes a good amount of playing around with interpretations of Revelations to come up to that idea.If Revelations should even be considered at all.

They're not all in Revelation. Pick a verse and we'll discuss it, if you wish.

Also with no deceptive influences who would not choose God? Atheist who don't believe in God as far as I can tell do so because there is no actual evidence. Give them evidence (God showing himself), and they will have it. Other religions believe in God already, they'd have no problem accepting that one particular idea of God is the correct one, especially without the 'deceptive influences'..

That's the whole point. God intends to make it a no brainer:

1Ti 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Luk 3:6 AND ALL FLESH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD.' "​

Quite the opposite of what it's like to accept Him today.

Now what do you do about the mentally ill?

No problem for the Great Physician, who will heal all the disabled, and without side effects:

Isa 35:4-6 Say to those who are fearful-hearted, "Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, With the recompense of God; He will come and save you." 5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing. For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, And streams in the desert.

 

[captainbryce]

Because it's one of the texts that was widely debated on being even included in the Bible. As well whether or not it is supposed to be prophetic or being used an an allegory is also up to debate...it also draws a lot from several other sources (though I guess you can say it doesn't), such as Daniel, Zechariah and Ezekial. All written at times when Jews were suffering through the oppression of Babylon if I remember correctly.

Most Christians consider the book of Revelation to be "prophetic" (that's why it's called a revelation). The question is in how literally we take it. Yes, it is largely told through symbolism and allegory, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the content of the text, ESPECIALLY since it is essentially reinforcing ideas that come from other scripture.

So taking all of that into consideration, there will no doubt still be people who reject God despite the removal of outside, deceptive influences. There is nothing to suggests that they wouldn't. After all, one third of the angels rebelled against God (knowing full well that he existed), and so did Pharaoh (despite witnessing the curses that befell him).

See I doubt that, because again there are the removal of deceptive influences. Deception would remove how people perceive God (what is Gods nature?), it would removed the fact that people are not sure if God exists.

Correct! There will be no doubt that he exists once this happens.

Many atheists are selfish? What are the numbers? THat's a broad sweeping generalization.

Yes, I was making a broad generalization intentionally. I don't know what the exact numbers are. But even if the exact number is only ONE percent of all people on the fact of the earth, one percent of 7 billion is still 70 million people. While the term "many" is subjective and relative, hopefully you can see the point I am making now. It was not my intent to suggest that most atheists would fall into this category.

I know of many selfish christians.

I do as well. :yes:

Pharoah's heart was hardened by God.

Was it?

Turning to the book of Exodus, most Bible readers must admit that they were at least slightly startled the first time they read about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and then His punishing Pharaoh for that same hard-heartedness. In dealing with these allegations, three distinct declarations are made with regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. First, the text states that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8), and the hearts of the Egyptians (14:17). Second, it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15,32; 9:34), that he refused to humble himself (10:3), and that he was stubborn (13:15). Third, the text uses the passive form to indicate that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, without giving any indication as to the source (7:13,14,22; 8:19; 9:7,35). The questions that arise from this state of affairs are: (1) did God harden Pharaoh on some occasions, while Pharaoh hardened himself on others? (2) Did God do all the hardening of Pharaoh, with the references to Pharaoh hardening himself being the result of God forcing him to do so against his own will? (3) Are all three declarations given in the text actually parallel expressions that mean the same thing? (4) Are the three declarations distinct from one another in their meaning, but all true in their own respects? Is the God of the Bible an unjust, cruel Being?

In the case of Pharaoh, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to be forced to make a decision. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh. Moses merely announced God’s instructions. God even accompanied His Word with miracles—to confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist God’s demands. Of his own accord, he stubbornly refused to comply. Of course, God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the instigator and initiator. But He was not the author of Pharaoh’s defiance.

Apologetics Press - Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart?

There were plenty of times he was willing to let them go

Do you mind elaborating on that?

The Angel rebellion...IDK why people quote that still as if it is fact, unless you are talking about the ones who went down and ended up having sons with the daughters of man? Are those who you are talking about?

I'm talking about the war in heaven when Satan and his angels rebelled against God, and fought against Michael and his angels before being cast out of heaven. There are references in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation.

What is the state of their souls.

If they have already died, the state of their soul is "death". That is, they are "asleep" in death until the resurrection of the dead, at which point their soul will be alive again during final judgement. If you want to know what the state of their mind is after resurrection, I'd imagine that it would be a much better state at that point than they are now. If they have the metal capacity to choose to accept Jesus and they do, then they are saved. If they do not, then they most likely will have the same opportunity that everyone else will come final judgement. Since we will all have that opportunity, it is reasonable to assume that they would not suffer from the same mentally debilitating state then as they do now. Scripture says that the Lord judges in righteousness and that the deceptive influences will be removed. That suggests (to me at least) that there will be no "mentally ill" after the resurrection. And then there is Isa 35:4-6, which James already quoted.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Most Christians consider the book of Revelation to be "prophetic" (that's why it's called a revelation). The question is in how literally we take it. Yes, it is largely told through symbolism and allegory, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the content of the text, ESPECIALLY since it is essentially reinforcing ideas that come from other scripture.

Reinforcing or using for justification? For instance many Jews feel that Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah out of Context, could James not have done the same thing? But even further the allegory mix would work well given taht both Daniel and Ezekial were written at a time of oppression, so wouldn't

Correct! There will be no doubt that he exists once this happens.

Yes, I was making a broad generalization intentionally. I don't know what the exact numbers are. But even if the exact number is only ONE percent of all people on the fact of the earth, one percent of 7 billion is still 70 million people. While the term "many" is subjective and relative, hopefully you can see the point I am making now. It was not my intent to suggest that most atheists would fall into this category.

In the context of 7 billion however, 70 million is not many though. you are just using it to mean an undefined large number but is that actually true that it is large when looking at the overall population of 7 billion. Because that number can be less than one percent of the population as well.

I do as well. :yes:

Was it?

Turning to the book of Exodus, most Bible readers must admit that they were at least slightly startled the first time they read about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and then His punishing Pharaoh for that same hard-heartedness. In dealing with these allegations, three distinct declarations are made with regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. First, the text states that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8), and the hearts of the Egyptians (14:17). Second, it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15,32; 9:34), that he refused to humble himself (10:3), and that he was stubborn (13:15). Third, the text uses the passive form to indicate that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, without giving any indication as to the source (7:13,14,22; 8:19; 9:7,35). The questions that arise from this state of affairs are: (1) did God harden Pharaoh on some occasions, while Pharaoh hardened himself on others? (2) Did God do all the hardening of Pharaoh, with the references to Pharaoh hardening himself being the result of God forcing him to do so against his own will? (3) Are all three declarations given in the text actually parallel expressions that mean the same thing? (4) Are the three declarations distinct from one another in their meaning, but all true in their own respects? Is the God of the Bible an unjust, cruel Being?

In the case of Pharaoh, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to be forced to make a decision. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh. Moses merely announced God’s instructions. God even accompanied His Word with miracles—to confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist God’s demands. Of his own accord, he stubbornly refused to comply. Of course, God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the instigator and initiator. But He was not the author of Pharaoh’s defiance.

Apologetics Press - Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart?

I've seen that before but we still have matters were God would still harden Pharoahs heart. God hardens pharoahs heart way more times than pharoah hardens his own and grows stubborn....

Do you mind elaborating on that?

I'm talking about the war in heaven when Satan and his angels rebelled against God, and fought against Michael and his angels before being cast out of heaven. There are references in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation.

I figured that was what you were mention but I wanted to be sure. Isaiah mentions Lucifer which when read in it's entirity is talking about a Bablyonian King. Ezekial as well I guess you are talking about Ezekial 28? Which was about the City of Tyre? Mind you the story of being cast down in Ezekial is also found in Bablyonian mythology of Ethanu and Zu.

Revelations is the only one that makes a statement about Satan and his Demons, this came to be during the 2nd temple restoration where the Devil (Satan) began to take a more "I am the great evil f", rather than God sending the Devil to do it's duty of being the the one that accuses/opposes.

If they have already died, the state of their soul is "death". That is, they are "asleep" in death until the resurrection of the dead, at which point their soul will be alive again during final judgement. If you want to know what the state of their mind is after resurrection, I'd imagine that it would be a much better state at that point than they are now. If they have the metal capacity to choose to accept Jesus and they do, then they are saved. If they do not, then they most likely will have the same opportunity that everyone else will come final judgement. Since we will all have that opportunity, it is reasonable to assume that they would not suffer from the same mentally debilitating state then as they do now. Scripture says that the Lord judges in righteousness and that the deceptive influences will be removed. That suggests (to me at least) that there will be no "mentally ill" after the resurrection. And then there is Isa 35:4-6, which James already quoted.

What's the difference between the mind and the soul? More specifically what is the soul?

 

[danieldemol]

Not sure how much of this thread you've looked through, but this was actually already addressed by me in post #38 and by James' in post #50.

To be honest I only read about 5 or 10 posts before the one I replied to, my bad.

There is a judgment day which lasts through the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ when people will be judged for the deeds they do during that reign, this happens after the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. People will not be judged for the sins they committed before they died because their death paid for those sins, but they will be judged for what they do during the thousand years Jesus rules over the earth. For Christians, the death of Christ paid for all sins (past, present and future) and they are saved from the second death and part of the first Resurrection.

I think in a way this is a sweet deal for me, because I admit I doubt people will have their bodies come back after they have been decomposing for thousands of years, but I would easily change my mind if I was dead and then got my body back, or was alive and saw millions of others coming back to life. So I could go through this life as a Baha'i then just change my mind when I come back after I die

If this happens it will be weird seeing Hitler, and I will sort of wonder why Jesus is rewarding someone who killed millions of Jews with another thousand years of life, but then again who knows, maybe Hitler will just believe in Jesus and become a good Christian too?

The whole thing could very well just be a symbolic metaphor for "the second death".

Well that sounds like a good direction to go in.

Remember, we are not all judged by the same standard. Christians are judged to a higher standard than someone who has never known Christ. People are ultimately held accountable to what they know, not what they don't know.

Luke 12:47-48 (Parable of the master and faithful servant)
47 “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. 48 But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.

I confess to feeling confused here, if Jesus died for their sins, why would Christians get punished at all let alone more severely, it sounds like repeat punishment if Jesus serves the sentence and then Christians are sentenced and punished again afterwards?

 

[captainbryce]

Reinforcing or using for justification?

Reinforcing.

For instance many Jews feel that Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah out of Context, could James not have done the same thing?

You mean John?

Could he have done the same thing? Sure. The question is DID he! And one requires evidence that this was indeed the case in order to justify the assumption that he did. In other words, is there some scripture out there (either New Testament or Old) that directly contradicts what the Book of Revelation says?

In the context of 7 billion however, 70 million is not many though. you are just using it to mean an undefined large number but is that actually true that it is large when looking at the overall population of 7 billion. Because that number can be less than one percent of the population as well.

We are essentially saying the same thing, just in a different way.

I've seen that before but we still have matters were God would still harden Pharoahs heart. God hardens pharoahs heart way more times than pharoah hardens his own and grows stubborn....

I think you're still ignoring what "God hardening Pharaoh's heart" actually means.

I figured that was what you were mention but I wanted to be sure. Isaiah mentions Lucifer which when read in it's entirity is talking about a Bablyonian King. Ezekial as well I guess you are talking about Ezekial 28? Which was about the City of Tyre? Mind you the story of being cast down in Ezekial is also found in Bablyonian mythology of Ethanu and Zu.

They are all referencing the same event. The stories are analogous. Satan, Lucifer, King of Tyre, the Serpent, etc. they all represent the same being, the opposer/accuser/adversary. In any case, this is getting off topic. The issue is, whether or not Christians should accept John's revelation to be authentic. My answer to that is, there is no reason why we shouldn't, unless you have some biblical evidence to suggest that we shouldn't.

What's the difference between the mind and the soul?

Nothing.

More specifically what is the soul?

The quality which endows living beings with self-awareness, free-will, and emotions. Also known as "consciousness".

 

[captainbryce]

I confess to feeling confused here, if Jesus died for their sins, why would Christians get punished at all let alone more severely, it sounds like repeat punishment if Jesus serves the sentence and then Christians are sentenced and punished again afterwards?

Because some people who claim to believe in Christ, and claim to act in accordance with his teachings, continue to do the opposite. Just because someone is aware of Jesus Christ and his message doesn't mean that they are saved.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

 

[captainbryce]

I'm bumping this so that all of the people who keep asking all these questions about hell can actually take a moment to consider what hell really is first. Much of it is explained from various points of view on this thread.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Reinforcing.

You mean John?

Could he have done the same thing? Sure. The question is DID he! And one requires evidence that this was indeed the case in order to justify the assumption that he did. In other words, is there some scripture out there (either New Testament or Old) that directly contradicts what the Book of Revelation says?

We are essentially saying the same thing, just in a different way.

I think you're still ignoring what "God hardening Pharaoh's heart" actually means.

They are all referencing the same event. The stories are analogous. Satan, Lucifer, King of Tyre, the Serpent, etc. they all represent the same being, the opposer/accuser/adversary. In any case, this is getting off topic. The issue is, whether or not Christians should accept John's revelation to be authentic. My answer to that is, there is no reason why we shouldn't, unless you have some biblical evidence to suggest that we shouldn't.

Nothing.

The quality which endows living beings with self-awareness, free-will, and emotions. Also known as "consciousness".

Then Good luck separating the Soul from the brain then and even explaining these things without the brain.

Not ignoring. God hardened Pharaoh's heart (which can be saying God made pharoah stubborn, which would be focused on pharoah's brain not his heart as all the heart does is pump blood. Though I think the ancients use to believe that that the heart was where consciousness was held).

But God did it to prove Gods glory. Pharaoh did have his own choices, but it would appear given those verses that even if Pharaoh had wanted to let them go he had no say in the matter, until God had made his point across.

IF you want to go beyond the text, then Gods reasoning for doing it was to prove Gods superiority to the egyptian gods, as they would be helpless to stop him. Which fits with the ancient beliefs that when a group lost a war it was because their God was weak.

 

[captainbryce]

Then Good luck separating the Soul from the brain then and even explaining these things without the brain.

Why would I need to separate my soul from my brain?

Not ignoring. God hardened Pharaoh's heart (which can be saying God made pharoah stubborn, which would be focused on pharoah's brain not his heart as all the heart does is pump blood.

No, that's NOT what it means. Did you even read the link I posted that explains this?

Though I think the ancients use to believe that that the heart was where consciousness was held).

Come on! There is really no evidence of that. It is merely an expression, and a rather common one that is still used today. (ie: "home is where the heart is", "don't go breakin my heart", etc)

But God did it to prove Gods glory. Pharaoh did have his own choices, but it would appear given those verses that even if Pharaoh had wanted to let them go he had no say in the matter, until God had made his point across.

Everything you said here is wrong. And it ultimately demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scriptures.

IF you want to go beyond the text,

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why would I need to separate my soul from my brain?

No, that's NOT what it means. Did you even read the link I posted that explains this?

Come on! There is really no evidence of that. It is merely an expression, and a rather common one that is still used today. (ie: "home is where the heart is", "don't go breakin my heart", etc)

Everything you said here is wrong. And it ultimately demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scriptures.

With a strong hand and an outstretched arm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn — both men and animals —and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD"
—Exodus 12:12

The reason for the plagues appears to be twofold:[4] to answer Pharaoh's taunt, “Who is Yahweh, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?”[5] and to indelibly impress the Israelites with Yahweh's power as an object lesson for all time, which was also meant to become known “throughout the world”.[6][7]
According to the Torah, God hardened Pharaoh's heart so he would be strong enough to persist in his unwillingness to release the people, so that God could manifest his great power and cause it to be declared among the nations,[8] so that other people would discuss it for generations afterward.[9] In this view, the plagues were punishment for the Egyptians' long abuse of the Israelites, as well as proof that the gods of Egypt were powerless by comparison.[10] If God triumphed over the gods of Egypt, a world power at that time, then the people of God would be strengthened in their faith, although they were a small people, and would not be tempted to follow the deities that God put to shame. Exodus portrays Yahweh explaining why he did not accomplish the freedom of the Israelites immediately:
“ I could have stretched forth My hand and stricken you [Pharaoh] and your people with pestilence, and you would have been effaced from the earth. Nevertheless I have spared you for this purpose: in order to show you My power and in order that My fame may resound throughout the world. ”

— Exodus 9:15–16 (JPS)

What did I not understand about that? God wanted to show Gods power off to Pharaoh wanted to let them go, God would make sure he didn't until Gods point was made.

Also Ancient Egyptians believed that when one died it was your heart that was weighed and if found heavier than a feather it would be eaten. Some cultures around the world believed that eating a human heart would give one courage or strength.

Even today we still say we feel love in our hearts, drawinmg from the belief that emotions came from the heart or that the heart was the vassal.

 

[Prophet]

A god who uses fear to coerce obedience is at war with love. If hell exists, god is evil.