If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[AK4]

My question concerns where souls have their inception, and where souls are to be found, ie who has them?

As it states in Genesis and in this order when a (1) body is given the breath of life (2) THEN it becomes a soul. Take away ingredient 1 or 2 and you dont have a soul.

Souls are on earth, you, me anyone alive is a soul. Anyone dead--not a soul.

The breath of life (spirit) returns to God, the body to dust. Until the God gives that spirit a body again is not a soul or living or anything.

The problem is soul and spirit definitions has been intertwined throughout the centuries now and now people confuse them with one another.

 

[cottage]

Then why are you even here? If you think that the concept of God, as it has been developed throughout history is nonsense, if you doubt the concept of the human soul, why bother with this pitiful little forum? Unless you're a troll?

It is rather unintelligent to believe that God and soul are beyond the bounds of criticism on a public forum.
And when you finished being abusive I can tell you that this isn’t a ‘pitiful little forum’ but actually a very good one, with more than its fair share of knowledgeable and interesting contributors.

Magic consists of human beings acting upon the supernatural. Spirituality consists of God acting upon human matters.

The answer is: no difference at all. It is simply invoking supernatural powers, which is what humans do.

What's presumptive and arrogant is claiming that the Xian POV has no basis in reality in a thread that approaches a spiritual question from a Xian POV.

No ideological viewpoint on a debate forum has the exclusive right to be heard over others, irrespective of the subject matter. The questioner was perplexed by the irrational concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his own creation’s faults. The OP is entitled to hear all views in response to that, not just the ones that you deem suitable!

No, my expectation is that you not pretend to be an expert when you're clearly not.

I know you find it hugely difficult, but just try to forget about your fixation with me, and instead try to deal with the argument.

See? You're not such an expert in matters of theology. Evil exists because love does not force its own way (as stated in I Cor. 13). You want love to be something it is not, and when it fails to meet your expectations, you say, "Well, that's not what love is." Talk about "falling back" from logic! Who died and made you God?

‘Love does not force its way’ isn’t an answer; it’s an apology. A state of pure love (if there could ever be such a thing), together with omnipotence, makes the existence of evil impossible.

There was a body. The body was dead. The body had been tortured to death. It was a sacrifice.
The crucial point here is that death had no power any longer. The torture was real, the sacrifice was real. Life is just as real. Until you understand that, there's no point in you debating the topic.

There was no sacrifice in death because Jesus was restored to life and called back to heaven. So all you can do here is make an issue out of the torture. A person is either dead or not dead. And if the person is brought back to life then that person is no longer d-e-a-d!

Nonetheless, don't pretend to spar scripture with me. Rome was the perpetrator. Read the gospels. REad Genesis. Death is "preordained" (I don't care for that term, personally) for every human being. Since Jesus was fully human, this was to be expected. That death came about because of something we have done -- not because of something God did.

There you are then! If death was coming to Jesus anyway, as a human being then there was no sacrifice!

And death does not prevail, unless, of course, you can show that it does. Since you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the soul, you've thrown away your best tool to accomplish that purpose.

I’m not sure how this works. First I need you to tell me what soul is and then, if you wouldn’t mind, perhaps you could point to an example or two of the deceased who continue to exist in an immaterial form? Am I asking too much? If so I have an easy one for you: describe what part or parts of Sojourner (or Cottage) exists in a disembodied form, in other words what identifies Sojourner or Cottage – prior to life and then after death?

Straw man.

Don't just make unsupported assertions. Identify the fallacy and I'll give you my response.

Hmm. Lots of the best people would call that "mercy," or "forbearance," or "grace." You call it "nonsense." Well, isn't your little world a lovely and gentle place to live?! You really don't understand the paradigm of forgiveness. Sad for someone who's so well-versed in sociology.

Missed the point completely, again! The nonsense has nothing to do with laudable aspirations of showing mercy or letting go of revengeful feelings. It is the absurdity of a loving God forgiving future sins instead of preventing them. ‘Well versed in sociology’ <blush> Why, thank you!

In what way are we not saved from evil?

It exists!

Shows what you know about Biblical literature and its critique.

I haven’t finished yet!
A very, very brief summary of my view in a highly compressed form: In the Old Testament God came across as blood thirsty and vindictive, but there weren’t any real contradictions that couldn’t be overcome with a touch of allegory or appeal to symbolism. But things change over time, and God’s transmogrification had become necessary in the New Testament. Meek and mild Jesus took over the helm and, apart from a few lapses, was morally superior to the blood and guts deity in the OT. Now poor old Jesus had the job of bringing love and salvation into the world. Unfortunately the OT couldn’t be unwritten and it was God himself, the cause of all things, who had created evil and sent it into the world (Isaiah 45:7). Although evil existed right from Genesis it wasn’t a problem until the advent of the New Testament. After all, why should God be morally good? The answer is because that is what people want. And as long as that is what people want (and who can blame them?) the problem of evil will remain, along with the only demonstrable proof that God does not exist. Remove that one attribute (all loving), which in any case has no necessary connection with the concept of Supreme Being, and at a single stroke all the contradictions at once disappear!

Or is the detail and interpretive diversity a good thing? Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way. You want it all to be a neat and tidy package. It isn't, because humanity itself isn't. Since we were made good, and since God advocates for us, I'd say we're on the safe side of OK here.

What I’m saying is that the diversity of understanding and interpretation found in the Bible and in Christianity itself is just a wide representation of views, at the very extreme of which are to be found my own. Christianity isn’t what someone says it is, and there is no authority that awards absolute definition and meaning to the Bible. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t simply criticise the Resurrection as I do, as being an illogical aspect, but deny it outright, claiming that although Jesus was sent from heaven he was not God. They are entitled to that view, as I am to mine. Willi Marxsen, says that “resurrection language is just a way of saying that the idea of the kingdom of God continues to have meaning for some today”, and a similar view is held by Paul Tillich, but in more expressive terms! These people have reached the same conclusion as me, which is that the resurrection didn’t happen, although we come to it from manifestly different directions.

You could at least spell them correctly. It's Tillich. In any case, opinions vary. Even these folks would acknowledge that theology exists in a range of understanding.

Thank you. I have a copy of The Essential Tillich on my bookshelf at home, and a copy of his response to St Anselm’s ontological argument, and yet I frequently misspell his name, moreusually by omitting an ‘l’.

Yep. Sure is. That's what you create with every post. A logical absurdity. You want to force solidity on something that is fluid.

More than three quarter’s of your response on this occasion was taken up with complaining about me, plus your usual flippant one-line remarks in lieu of argument. (I've not bothered to included most of the child-like remarks).
It would be much better (and far more interesting) if you were to make your case, and give me an argument!

 

[cottage]

As it states in Genesis and in this order when a (1) body is given the breath of life (2) THEN it becomes a soul. Take away ingredient 1 or 2 and you dont have a soul.

Souls are on earth, you, me anyone alive is a soul. Anyone dead--not a soul.

The breath of life (spirit) returns to God, the body to dust. Until the God gives that spirit a body again is not a soul or living or anything.

The problem is soul and spirit definitions has been intertwined throughout the centuries now and now people confuse them with one another.

Perfectly logical. Thank you!

 

[sojourner]

It is rather unintelligent to believe that God and soul are beyond the bounds of criticism on a public forum.
And when you finished being abusive I can tell you that this isn’t a ‘pitiful little forum’ but actually a very good one, with more than its fair share of knowledgeable and interesting contributors.




The answer is: no difference at all. It is simply invoking supernatural powers, which is what humans do.




No ideological viewpoint on a debate forum has the exclusive right to be heard over others, irrespective of the subject matter. The questioner was perplexed by the irrational concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his own creation’s faults. The OP is entitled to hear all views in response to that, not just the ones that you deem suitable!




I know you find it hugely difficult, but just try to forget about your fixation with me, and instead try to deal with the argument.




‘Love does not force its way’ isn’t an answer; it’s an apology. A state of pure love (if there could ever be such a thing), together with omnipotence, makes the existence of evil impossible.




There was no sacrifice in death because Jesus was restored to life and called back to heaven. So all you can do here is make an issue out of the torture. A person is either dead or not dead. And if the person is brought back to life then that person is no longer d-e-a-d!




There you are then! If death was coming to Jesus anyway, as a human being then there was no sacrifice!



I’m not sure how this works. First I need you to tell me what soul is and then, if you wouldn’t mind, perhaps you could point to an example or two of the deceased who continue to exist in an immaterial form? Am I asking too much? If so I have an easy one for you: describe what part or parts of Sojourner (or Cottage) exists in a disembodied form, in other words what identifies Sojourner or Cottage – prior to life and then after death?



Don't just make unsupported assertions. Identify the fallacy and I'll give you my response.




Missed the point completely, again! The nonsense has nothing to do with laudable aspirations of showing mercy or letting go of revengeful feelings. It is the absurdity of a loving God forgiving future sins instead of preventing them. ‘Well versed in sociology’ <blush> Why, thank you!



It exists!




I haven’t finished yet!
A very, very brief summary of my view in a highly compressed form: In the Old Testament God came across as blood thirsty and vindictive, but there weren’t any real contradictions that couldn’t be overcome with a touch of allegory or appeal to symbolism. But things change over time, and God’s transmogrification had become necessary in the New Testament. Meek and mild Jesus took over the helm and, apart from a few lapses, was morally superior to the blood and guts deity in the OT. Now poor old Jesus had the job of bringing love and salvation into the world. Unfortunately the OT couldn’t be unwritten and it was God himself, the cause of all things, who had created evil and sent it into the world (Isaiah 45:7). Although evil existed right from Genesis it wasn’t a problem until the advent of the New Testament. After all, why should God be morally good? The answer is because that is what people want. And as long as that is what people want (and who can blame them?) the problem of evil will remain, along with the only demonstrable proof that God does not exist. Remove that one attribute (all loving), which in any case has no necessary connection with the concept of Supreme Being, and at a single stroke all the contradictions at once disappear!





What I’m saying is that the diversity of understanding and interpretation found in the Bible and in Christianity itself is just a wide representation of views, at the very extreme of which are to be found my own. Christianity isn’t what someone says it is, and there is no authority that awards absolute definition and meaning to the Bible. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t simply criticise the Resurrection as I do, as being an illogical aspect, but deny it outright, claiming that although Jesus was sent from heaven he was not God. They are entitled to that view, as I am to mine. Willi Marxsen, says that “resurrection language is just a way of saying that the idea of the kingdom of God continues to have meaning for some today”, and a similar view is held by Paul Tillich, but in more expressive terms! These people have reached the same conclusion as me, which is that the resurrection didn’t happen, although we come to it from manifestly different directions.




Thank you. I have a copy of The Essential Tillich on my bookshelf at home, and a copy of his response to St Anselm’s ontological argument, and yet I frequently misspell his name, moreusually by omitting an ‘l’.




More than three quarter’s of your response on this occasion was taken up with complaining about me, plus your usual flippant one-line remarks in lieu of argument. (I've not bothered to included most of the child-like remarks).
It would be much better (and far more interesting) if you were to make your case, and give me an argument!

Your floccinaucinihilipilification of Christianity, indeed spirituality and theological thought in general, is worthless.

 

[sojourner]

Perfectly logical. Thank you!

This is the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. It may be logical, but it's WRONG! -- On so many different levels!
Dear God! Have you read his theological meanderings in the "Do you understand the NT" thread?!
:biglaugh:

You really don't have any clue about Christian theology, do you?!

 

[sojourner]

A state of pure love (if there could ever be such a thing), together with omnipotence, makes the existence of evil impossible.

You really want evil to just go away, don't you? "God's existence is impossible because of the existence of evil." Since when is God's existence informed by the status of evil???
Your theology and your logic are completely skewed on the issue of theodicy.

 

[cottage]

This is the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. It may be logical, but it's WRONG! -- On so many different levels!
Dear God! Have you read his theological meanderings in the "Do you understand the NT" thread?!
:biglaugh:

You really don't have any clue about Christian theology, do you?!

It depends on what you mean by 'wrong'. AK4's exposition makes sense, whereas yours does not! And there is no self-appointed authority when it comes to Christianity, for Christians are believers divided by a common religion (if I may borrow heavily from either Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw).

 

[cottage]

You really want evil to just go away, don't you? "God's existence is impossible because of the existence of evil." Since when is God's existence informed by the status of evil???
Your theology and your logic are completely skewed on the issue of theodicy.

Do I really want evil to just go away? Yes, of course - if that were even possible.
Your third sentence hits home at the foundation of the problem, the very thing that I’m constantly blathering on about. God’s existence is no more contingent upon evil than it is upon goodness. Good and evil have no bearing on the existence of a Supreme Being. The existence of evil does not mean there is malevolent God, and examples of goodness do not mean that God is all loving. Again, it all comes down to what people want to understand of God. Quite simply the God of the Old Testament is just not acceptable to modern sensibilities. People today are a good deal more sophisticated and are no longer inclined to worship a deity who is seen to be racist and extraordinarily violent. In contrast, the concept of Jesus as a kindly figure who scorned violence and taught that we should love one another, hits the right spot with most people. But there is the evident absurdity of wanting to understand the deity in terms of omni-benevolence, when the everyday facts inform us otherwise. And the contradiction apart, it remains the case that there is no logically necessity for a Supreme Being to be all loving or entirely benevolent towards its creation. Nor is it coherent to believe the deity desires a relationship with its creation. These are examples of people wanting to God to conform to a human ideal.

 

[sojourner]

It depends on what you mean by 'wrong'. AK4's exposition makes sense, whereas yours does not! And there is no self-appointed authority when it comes to Christianity, for Christians are believers divided by a common religion (if I may borrow heavily from either Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw).

Again, it may appeal to logic, BUT IT'S WRONG! It doesn't appeal to orthodox and accepted theology. There is, and always has been a recognized authority in the Church, whether some choose to follow it or not. The Apostles and their descendents have always held theological and ecclesiastical authority. And what AK4 says in his post flies in the face of what the historic and apostolic Church have always held.

 

[sojourner]

Do I really want evil to just go away? Yes, of course - if that were even possible.
Your third sentence hits home at the foundation of the problem, the very thing that I’m constantly blathering on about. God’s existence is no more contingent upon evil than it is upon goodness. Good and evil have no bearing on the existence of a Supreme Being. The existence of evil does not mean there is malevolent God, and examples of goodness do not mean that God is all loving. Again, it all comes down to what people want to understand of God. Quite simply the God of the Old Testament is just not acceptable to modern sensibilities. People today are a good deal more sophisticated and are no longer inclined to worship a deity who is seen to be racist and extraordinarily violent. In contrast, the concept of Jesus as a kindly figure who scorned violence and taught that we should love one another, hits the right spot with most people. But there is the evident absurdity of wanting to understand the deity in terms of omni-benevolence, when the everyday facts inform us otherwise. And the contradiction apart, it remains the case that there is no logically necessity for a Supreme Being to be all loving or entirely benevolent towards its creation. Nor is it coherent to believe the deity desires a relationship with its creation. These are examples of people wanting to God to conform to a human ideal.

I'm not going to argue God's existence based upon your ideas of theodicy.

 

[cottage]

Again, it may appeal to logic, BUT IT'S WRONG! It doesn't appeal to orthodox and accepted theology. There is, and always has been a recognized authority in the Church, whether some choose to follow it or not. The Apostles and their descendents have always held theological and ecclesiastical authority. And what AK4 says in his post flies in the face of what the historic and apostolic Church have always held.

Then please give me a coherent and authoritative definition of 'soul'?

 

[cottage]

I'm not going to argue God's existence based upon your ideas of theodicy.

Theodical arguments are not my ideas. Theodicy is the Christian response to the problem of evil.

 

[Willamena]

Perfectly logical. Thank you!

Can you explain the logic to me? What is a 'soul'?

 

[sojourner]

Theodical arguments are not my ideas. Theodicy is the Christian response to the problem of evil.

you brought it up here...
And you seem to use it as the basis for your dismissal of Xy. A lot.

 

[sojourner]

Then please give me a coherent and authoritative definition of 'soul'?

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms offers this basic definition (which does not seek to develop or promote a theology with regard to the soul -- only a brief theological definition):

"Primarily, 'soul' is the life prinicple (Gen. 2:7). For Hebrews it indicated the unity of the person as a living body. The New Testament term also refers to one's life or existence after death."

 

[cottage]

Can you explain the logic to me? What is a 'soul'?

I've absolutely no idea what soul is, and there doesn't appear to be anyone who can explain it to me. But, whatever it is, the relationship as explained by AK4 made no logical errors. The soul is born, the soul dies, is the same as the body is born and then the body dies. The two things are spoken of in the same terms. I therefore see no distinction to be made between them.

 

[sojourner]

I've absolutely no idea what soul is, and there doesn't appear to be anyone who can explain it to me. But, whatever it is, the relationship as explained by AK4 made no logical errors. The soul is born, the soul dies, is the same as the body is born and then the body dies. The two things are spoken of in the same terms. I therefore see no distinction to be made between them.

AK4 is wrong, because he doesn't understand what it means for a lump of clay to become a "living soul." Even in the Hebrew understanding, there is something eternal about the nature of humanity, precisely because of the introduction of ruach into the body. He is, essentially, right that both spirit and flesh comprise "soul." He is mistaken, however, about the eternal nature of that soul, because he is, I believe, mistaken about just what comprises a "body."

I think that the Christian understanding is decidedly more Platonic than Genesis. Our physical bodies are more like "representatives" of our "real," spiritual bodies. Our spiritual bodies are housed within our physical bodies, and when the physical dies, the spiritual, which is part of the "image" of God in which we are made, lives on.

That may not "make sense" to you, because you will be likely to claim that "there's no evidence to support it." But That's what "authoritative Christians" have to say about it.

 

[cottage]

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms offers this basic definition (which does not seek to develop or promote a theology with regard to the soul -- only a brief theological definition):

"Primarily, 'soul' is the life prinicple (Gen. 2:7). For Hebrews it indicated the unity of the person as a living body. The New Testament term also refers to one's life or existence after death."

Exactly! ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’. And in Gen 27:4 and 27: 25 Isaac speaks of his ‘soul’ as he lives. Where does it say the soul pre-existed the living person? Genesis doesn’t start: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth - and souls’. I'm interested to know how can what the person is be the person it is before God created the person?

 

[sojourner]

Exactly! &#8216;And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul&#8217;. And in Gen 27:4 and 27: 25 Isaac speaks of his &#8216;soul&#8217; as he lives. Where does it say the soul pre-existed the living person? Genesis doesn&#8217;t start: &#8216;In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth - and souls&#8217;. I'm interested to know how can what the person is be the person it is before God created the person?

you quote Genesis, I quote the Psalms: God knew me before I was in my mother's womb.
If our souls are part and parcel of God's Spirit, then that would seem to indicate eternal life, no?

 

[cottage]

AK4 is wrong, because he doesn't understand what it means for a lump of clay to become a "living soul." Even in the Hebrew understanding, there is something eternal about the nature of humanity, precisely because of the introduction of ruach into the body. He is, essentially, right that both spirit and flesh comprise "soul." He is mistaken, however, about the eternal nature of that soul, because he is, I believe, mistaken about just what comprises a "body."

I think that the Christian understanding is decidedly more Platonic than Genesis. Our physical bodies are more like "representatives" of our "real," spiritual bodies. Our spiritual bodies are housed within our physical bodies, and when the physical dies, the spiritual, which is part of the "image" of God in which we are made, lives on.

That may not "make sense" to you, because you will be likely to claim that "there's no evidence to support it." But That's what "authoritative Christians" have to say about it.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here, evident where you say [the explanation] may not make sense to me because there is no evidence to support it.’ Metaphysical reasoning doesn’t need evidence; it simply needs to be logical. ‘Ruach’ is a metaphysical explanation similar to mind/body dualism. There may not be proof for the concept of disembodied existence but it is not illogical. Reincarnation isn’t illogical. There is nothing logically absurd in the idea of a thing existing in a different form, even though we cannot be aware of it through our sensible faculties. But if God is the creator then we exist at the point of our creation and not before. And from my understanding Bible speaks differently of soul and spirit. Soul is of the body whereas spirit is indestructible.