Poll: Do you think we are born with an immortal soul?

[captainbryce]

But, you see, what I may believe has not one iota of an effect as to whether anything is permanent. IOW, it's not like if I believe, then it must be true.

Therefore, why would one believe a "soul" is permanent? What evidence suggests as such? Why does one have to believe one way or another? Why can't one just say "I don't know?".

They can. It's called being agnostic. But if your expectation is for one to provide you with an agnostic answer like "I don't know", then what is the point of asking the question in the first place?

Faith isn't always about evidence or proof; in fact it usually isn't. Sometimes people believe things simply because it makes sense to them. Sometimes they believe things because they want them to be true. Some believe based on what they were taught, others based on what they've experienced. Nobody KNOWS anything! Agnosticism works for some people but it tends to leave most unfulfilled. People tend to "believe" because it gives their lives purpose and meaning. Saying "I don't know" and then walking away is a form of capitulation. It is giving up the search for truth! It's really saying "I don't know, and I'll never know in this lifetime, therefore I don't care".

 

[Shermana]

You claim that they are the same, therefore YOU must provide evidence that they are.

Before I even begin, did you not say that the Lake of Fire was different from Gehenna initially? Last I checked, I said that in reference to something you said that Gehenna was not the Lake of fire. Before I even bother addressing the rest of your post which presumptiously assumes that it's purely metaphorical, let's get this straightened out. Did you or did you not say that the Lake of Fire was different from Gehenna before I said anything?

I will make a correction though, when I said:

I'm assuming that the fact that Gen Hinnom was regarded as an actual fiery hell very early on and only later registered as a Valley of burning after the 1200s or so in tthe Talmud means nothing"

I meant "Trash burning". You made the claim that there was an "Everlasting fire" for the burning of babies that was never quenched there, of which you gave me a Wikipedia link that didn't say that whatsoever.

 

[captainbryce]

Before I even begin, did you not say that the Lake of Fire was different from Gehenna initially? Last I checked, I said that in reference to something you said that Gehenna was not the Lake of fire. Before I even bother addressing the rest of your post which presumptiously assumes that it's purely metaphorical, let's get this straightened out. Did you or did you not say that the Lake of Fire was different from Gehenna before I said anything?

In the literal sense, YES they are different. The Lake of Fire is the second death, while Gehenna was the Valley of Hinnom. In the metaphorical sense, Gehenna symbolically represents the Lake of Fire. If Jesus and the disciples were in North America at the time, he could have just as easily called it the Caldera of Mount St. Helens, or any such known location that would conjure images of a fiery lake of burning sulfer. The point is, it's used to paint a picture of what the Lake of Fire would be like to those who are familiar with Gehenna because the Lake of Fire itself is not geographically defined or even literally defined.

I meant "Trash burning". You made the claim that there was an "Everlasting fire" for the burning of babies that was never quenched there, of which you gave me a Wikipedia link that didn't say that whatsoever.

I gave you the link to explain to you what Gehenna actually was. It was meant to illustrate to you that it was in fact a literal place, and not necessarily "hell". The claim that it was a literal place where children were burned is not my claim, it comes from the bible itself (2 Chronicles 28:3). The claim that it was a trash dump comes from only one English translation of the bible (Jeremiah 7:31 New Living Translation). This is claim is supported by some ancient scholars (David Kimhi), but rejected by more modern scholars (Hermann Strack). The relevance over whether or not trash was dumped there or not is minimal at best. The statement of Gehenna being an everlasting fire is made in the metaphorical sense by Jesus (Mark 9:43).

 

[Shermana]

First off, when I said the Dead Sea Scrolls speaks of an actual place of burning, I meant in the afterlife where demons and fallen angels and their followers will burn after death. War Scroll. Check it out.

It doesn't matter whether I accept them or not, what matters is whether the references to Gehenna as hellfire predate the references to the Valley of Hinnom as a literal location. And that answer is NO, regardless of what scripture (or non-scripture) you're getting the information from.

Here we have another problem. It doesn't matter what predates what in this sense. You can't just assume that because Enoch was written at a certain date (Of which the exact dating of Enoch is very much up to dispute, and Ethiopian Scholars among others have a good argument against the 4th century dating) that it somehow changed the meaning or concept. 2 Esdras could very well have been written by Ezra. The arguments for the late dating are extremely weak, and based on the usual anti-prophecy bias given to apocalyptic works. We simply don't know if Enoch predates it or not, and that will get into a dispute on the dating of Enoch. With that said, there's no reason to assume that all of the sudden this idea came about as if invented. It very well could have been the original idea, and then the concept of "Gen Hinnom" was named after it. Furthermore, it seems you still don't understand my point about "Hell's kitchen".

Second, it specifically says that "It will no longer be known as the Valley of Burning, but the valley of Slaughter". Did that prophecy not come true by the time of Jesus? What was the meaning of that prophecy?

I gave you the link to explain to you what Gehenna actually was.

You gave me a link explaining various views on Gehenna. If you want to completely discard Talmudic and early Jewish tradition on it, that's fine. But you're flagrantly stuck on the idea that this myth about the "Valley of Trash Burning" is somehow proven true, as if there's no possibility that the valley could have simply been named after Hell, like Hell's Kitchen.

What you fail to acknowledge is that there are indeed scholarly reasons for this view. I acknowledge that just because a scholar says something doesn't make it true. In fact, I take on "scholarly" arguments in favor of the Trinity all the time. However, in this case, the scholars are justified. This concept which you take for granted was not anything close to mainstream and by a stretch until the 13th century.

“The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi’s commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, “Gehenna: The Topography of Hell,” Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189. (p. 328n.17)

 

[captainbryce]

First off, when I said the Dead Sea Scrolls speaks of an actual place of burning, I meant in the afterlife where demons and fallen angels and their followers will burn after death. War Scroll. Check it out.

I don't believe that the mention of a place of burning for these characters is necessarily in dispute, because the bible also says that there is an place of burning for these individuals. It is called the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 20:10
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The part that is in dispute is whether or not these passages actually referring to a literal place that currently exists, a literal place that will exist in the future, or whether this is just symbolism and imagery to illustrate that these characters will be punished for their wickedness. Revelation isn't exactly a literal account if you know what I mean. I cannot comment on the War Scroll because I haven't read it. But if I were to read it, could you say for certain that only a literalist interpretation of it is correct?

Here we have another problem. It doesn't matter what predates what in this sense. You can't just assume that because Enoch was written at a certain date (Of which the exact dating of Enoch is very much up to dispute, and Ethiopian Scholars among others have a good argument against the 4th century dating) that it somehow changed the meaning or concept.

But that's just it, I'm NOT assuming anything; YOU ARE! Once again, your previous statement:

"I'm assuming that the fact that Gen Hinnom was regarded as an actual fiery hell very early on and only later registered as a Valley of burning after the 1200s or so in tthe Talmud means nothing"

That was an assumption that YOU made. But not only is that not supported by any facts whatsoever, but it is highly illogical that a specific location given in writings that predate references to Gehenna as hellfire would be named AFTER that concept, rather than vice-versa.

Secondly, I'm not assuming that the concept of Gehenna as hellfire has "changed". I'm saying that the concept of Gehenna as hellfire was inspired by the real Gehenna. There is no evidence that the concept existed before biblical references to it as a real place. Any and all writings that make allusion to it being hellfire come from writing that came centuries AFTER it was written as a literal place. Pardon the pun, but that's some pretty damning evidence against your theory.

2 Esdras could very well have been written by Ezra. The arguments for the late dating are extremely weak, and based on the usual anti-prophecy bias given to apocalyptic works.

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

We simply don't know if Enoch predates it or not, and that will get into a dispute on the dating of Enoch. With that said, there's no reason to assume that all of the sudden this idea came about as if invented. It very well could have been the original idea, and then the concept of "Gen Hinnom" was named after it.

That is not logical (for the aforementioned reasons). But even if I ignored that, there is also no evidence to support your hypothesis. That's why I don't accept it.

Furthermore, it seems you still don't understand my point about "Hell's kitchen".

Perhaps not. But I'm really more concerned over whether or not you understood mine. :sarcastic

Second, it specifically says that "It will no longer be known as the Valley of Burning, but the valley of Slaughter". Did that prophecy not come true by the time of Jesus? What was the meaning of that prophecy?

That depends on your interpretation. The fact that children were slaughtered there gives credence to the new expression. If you are an annihilationist, you recognize that the same fate awaits those who are punished in the Lake of Fire (the second death remember). The prophecy no doubt come true well before Jesus came. The Hebrews may very well have known of it as the Valley of Slaughter. But I don't see how this is particularly relevant.

You gave me a link explaining various views on Gehenna. If you want to completely discard Talmudic and early Jewish tradition on it, that's fine.

I'm not completely disregarding them, anymore than I completely disregard the various Christian interpretations of the book of Revelation. But the Talmud does not predate the written Hebrew bible. That casts serious doubt to any references to Gehenna as hell as being the inspiration for the Valley of Hinnom. More to the point is the fact that because certain interpretations have existed for a long period of time does not make them any more "correct". An interpretation is only correct if it is logical and consistent. If it is based on fallacious logic or is contradictory in any way with scripture, it is a faulty interpretation (regardless of age).

But you're flagrantly stuck on the idea that this myth about the "Valley of Trash Burning" is somehow proven true, as if there's no possibility that the valley could have simply been named after Hell, like Hell's Kitchen.

If there was a proven, biblical reference to hell as "Gehenna" before there was a biblical reference to the Valley of Hinnom as Gehenna, then your argument would be more convincing. Alas, there isn't. Therefore, since there is no evidence giving your interpretation any more validity, that leaves me with the option of believing something that is inherently illogical and contradictory, verses believing in something that is logical and consistent. Which way do you think I'm going to go?

What you fail to acknowledge is that there are indeed scholarly reasons for this view. I acknowledge that just because a scholar says something doesn't make it true.

Thank God! We finally agree on something. :yes:

However, in this case, the scholars are justified.

Well, for one thing "the scholars" are not in agreement on this issue. Secondly, the scholars that believe that Gehenna as hell inspired the naming of the Valley of Hinnom are WRONG. Because all of the evidence suggests the opposite.

This concept which you take for granted was not anything close to mainstream and by a stretch until the 13th century.

And, but, so, therefore? It sounds like you are contradicting your previous statement about "just because a scholar says something doesn't make it true". Is it honestly your contention that just because a belief has existed for a long time, it is true by default, and therefore automatically justified on these grounds without any evidence? :sarcastic

 

[metis]

They can. It's called being agnostic. But if your expectation is for one to provide you with an agnostic answer like "I don't know", then what is the point of asking the question in the first place?

Faith isn't always about evidence or proof; in fact it usually isn't. Sometimes people believe things simply because it makes sense to them. Sometimes they believe things because they want them to be true. Some believe based on what they were taught, others based on what they've experienced. Nobody KNOWS anything! Agnosticism works for some people but it tends to leave most unfulfilled. People tend to "believe" because it gives their lives purpose and meaning. Saying "I don't know" and then walking away is a form of capitulation. It is giving up the search for truth! It's really saying "I don't know, and I'll never know in this lifetime, therefore I don't care".

NO, it's not giving up, just an acceptance of the reality, which is we really don't have any real evidence that there is a "soul". Matter of fact, try and even define what "soul" supposedly is?

And why would being an agnostic leave one supposedly "unfilled"? Buddhists, which do not believe in a soul ("atman"), are supposedly "unfilled"? And why do you assume one cannot have "purpose" and "meaning"? I am non-theistic, and yet there's no way that my life is "unfilled" and "meaningless".

There is indeed a problem when there's a theological construct put forth and then people blindly accept it because what they are doing is to defy reason and then teaching others to defy it as well. This is not to say that a "soul" cannot exist, however defined, but why should one just accept it carte blac without questioning?

Yes, questioning in one area can lead to questioning in others, but is that really a bad thing to do?

 

[metis]

If I may use your thinking as a jumping off point. I am an atheist. I simply do not accept the common garden variety notions of "god". Period, full stop. However, I still retain an expanded notion of personality that some might deduce is the legendary "soul". I dislike the term due to all the religious baggage it has collected over the centuries, but I have experienced aspects of being that are not accepted as common knowledge in our enlightened era. It took some time, but now I am open to the idea that such a viewpoint may well be delusional however I am still struck by how delicious the delusion is. For the record, that extended, expanded sense of self eclipses notions of god prevalent within our various societies, though I heartily expect that those notions of god arose from latent memories of this extended, inner self.

Thanks for your input here.

If one says they believe we have a "soul", I think the first order of business is for them to define exactly what it is, and rarely do I ever see someone doing that. Once a definition is in place, if that happens at all, then we can discuss whether it exists and what are the parameters and consequences.

Finally, even if one doesn't believe there's a "soul" because of a lack of verification, that doesn't necessarily mean the person is an atheist or agnostic.

 

[captainbryce]

NO, it's not giving up, just an acceptance of the reality, which is we really don't have any real evidence that there is a "soul". Matter of fact, try and even define what "soul" supposedly is?

I have no problem defining the soul. I know exactly what it is, although I'm sure everyone has their own, subjective definitions of it. But again, faith isn't always "evidenced" based. I don't need evidence of the soul in order to believe that I have one. All I need is a "reason" to believe that I have one.

And why would being an agnostic leave one supposedly "unfilled"? Buddhists, which do not believe in a soul ("atman"), are supposedly "unfilled"?

I'm not saying that EVERY agnostic is left unfulfilled. I'm saying that most people are not agnostic because it would leave THEM unfulfilled. The default position of "I don't know" and "we can never truly know" are not satisfying to most people seeking the truth. Most people have an instinctive drive to "know" things that they do not. And they will instinctively keep searching for such answers instead of being satisfied with the fact that they don't know.

And why do you assume one cannot have "purpose" and "meaning"? I am non-theistic, and yet there's no way that my life is "unfilled" and "meaningless".

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying that some DON'T see purpose or meaning. People commit suicide all the time because they seen no value to their own lives. Many such people don't believe in God or a soul. They only see the worldly existence that they've led and are left unfulfilled by it. Why do you assume that EVERYONE who "does not know" will be fulfilled, or that they will recognize some meaning to their lives? Clearly, that doesn't always happen, and just because something works for you doesn't necessarily mean that it would work for everyone else.

There is indeed a problem when there's a theological construct put forth and then people blindly accept it because what they are doing is to defy reason and then teaching others to defy it as well.

I agree. But you are not exercising "reason" with this particular dialogue. This is a straw man argument because I neither endorse, nor encourage "blind acceptance". What I'm trying to explain to you is that not everyone is motivated by the same things, and not everyone is satisfied by the same answers. Some people want MORE answers, and they will search for those answers in the way that they view most beneficial to themselves. You asked: "Why does one have to believe one way or another? Why can't one just say "I don't know?" The answer is, because that is not a satisfactory answer for many people.

This is not to say that a "soul" cannot exist, however defined, but why should one just accept it carte blac without questioning?

Who says that they should? I never made that argument.

Yes, questioning in one area can lead to questioning in others, but is that really a bad thing to do?

Absolutely not. Everyone should question their beliefs at some point. But at the end of the day, people still have to find their own path, and proceed in a way that they feel will be most beneficial to them.

I don't accept the agnostic outlook on life because I view it as "defeatist" in nature. The agnostic standpoint doesn't bring anyone closer to a resolution. It makes no attempt to answer questions, it only states that we either don't know the answers, or that we cannot know such answers. How can one advance themselves if they've already resigned themselves to the "reality" of (we don't know). How can you hope to reach "enlightenment" if you don't even know what the end goal is? What does enlightenment even mean? Is your definition of it the same as everyone else's? At what point could you consider yourself truly enlightened? What measure would you use to calculate your level of enlightenment? How do you get 100% enlightened? If you cannot define the soul to yourself, and you have no reason to believe it even exists, then you can never reach enlightened in my opinion. At best, you could only ever hope to be "more enlightened" (in a completely subjective sense of the word) than other people, until you die. Again, that might be satisfactory for some people, but I don't think it would be for most.

 

[captainbryce]

If one says they believe we have a "soul", I think the first order of business is for them to define exactly what it is, and rarely do I ever see someone doing that. Once a definition is in place, if that happens at all, then we can discuss whether it exists and what are the parameters and consequences.

My definition of the soul is: the quality of a living being that endows them with self-awareness, free will, and emotions. Any being that experiences "consciousness" has a soul in my opinion (ie: Human beings, mammals and birds have a soul; plants, bacteria and viruses do not because they are not conscious forms of life)

Finally, even if one doesn't believe there's a "soul" because of a lack of verification, that doesn't necessarily mean the person is an atheist or agnostic.

It wouldn't mean they are an atheist true. But by definition, it would mean that they are agnostic on matters concerning the soul.

 

[metis]

I don't need evidence of the soul in order to believe that I have one. All I need is a "reason" to believe that I have one.

First of all, I'm going to apologize in advance since I'm going to have to be very brief.

As far as the above, why should I assume I have a "soul" even if I really have "reason" to want one? I don't base my approach on what I want, especially since I'm a scientist (retired anthropologist).

I agree. But you are not exercising "reason" with this particular dialogue. This is a straw man argument because I neither endorse, nor encourage "blind acceptance".

But if there's no real evidence, then it is "blind faith". Obviously if that's what you wish, then that's obvioiusly your choice.

You asked: "Why does one have to believe one way or another? Why can't one just say "I don't know?" The answer is, because that is not a satisfactory answer for many people.

It's satisfactory to me since I have no desire to believe in something for no reason. If there's reason for you, and it appears there is, then I certainly won't tell you to stop. It's just not my approach.

Absolutely not. Everyone should question their beliefs at some point. But at the end of the day, people still have to find their own path, and proceed in a way that they feel will be most beneficial to them.

I pleased you said that because so many take the "my way or the highway" approach.

I don't accept the agnostic outlook on life because I view it as "defeatist" in nature. The agnostic standpoint doesn't bring anyone closer to a resolution.

As a scientist, I'm very used to not having "resolution"-- it sort of goes with the territory. But neither does it bother me because I've long accepted the idea that there are so many questions I'll never know the answer to.

It makes no attempt to answer questions, it only states that we either don't know the answers, or that we cannot know such answers.

Completely the reverse is true. Once one believes they know "the truth", they tend to stop looking for other possibilities.

How can one advance themselves if they've already resigned themselves to the "reality" of (we don't know).

Good point, but since I have a time problem, I'll try and get back later to tell you my approach dealing with this.

How can you hope to reach "enlightenment" if you don't even know what the end goal is? What does enlightenment even mean? Is your definition of it the same as everyone else's? At what point could you consider yourself truly enlightened? What measure would you use to calculate your level of enlightenment? How do you get 100% enlightened?

Most Buddhists that I have ever read don't have a belief in the "100% enlightenment" idea, and neither do I. There are some who believe the Buddha did, but that certainly is not binding on faith. Quite the reverse, as we're expected to question even the most basic teachings.

As far as the "end goal" is concerned, I'll deal with that later as well.

If you cannot define the soul to yourself, and you have no reason to believe it even exists, then you can never reach enlightened in my opinion. At best, you could only ever hope to be "more enlightened" (in a completely subjective sense of the word) than other people, until you die. Again, that might be satisfactory for some people, but I don't think it would be for most.

Maybe not for most people, but all people are not most people.

Again, sorry for the brevity, and I'll get back with ya in a bit. However, just to make certain you understand where I'm coming from, I'm not telling you what I think you should believe, only what my approach is and why. I am not anti-Christian nor anti-religion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

We are all born with a soul and this is fact as individuality has proven to us. But to say that it is immortal is going outside of the realm of natural reasoning.

 

[Shermana]

We are all born with a soul and this is fact as individuality has proven to us. But to say that it is immortal is going outside of the realm of natural reasoning.

Going outside the realm of "natural" reasoning is not necessarily illogical.

The very idea of the "Supernatural" is the heart of Metaphysics and (classical) Spirituality.

And on an observable level, Quantum Mechanics goes a bit against "natural" too.

Movement of pyrrole molecules defy

 

[Shermana]

I don't believe that the mention of a place of burning for these characters is necessarily in dispute, because the bible also says that there is an place of burning for these individuals. It is called the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 20:10
.

You're under the presumption the "Lake of Fire" is somehow not connected to Gen-Hinnom, which Jesus speaks of in very similar terms. It could very well be the same exact thing, just a specific description. With that said, we don't know what "Hinnom" means exactly. It could very well be the exact equivalent of "Lake of Fire", but "Valley of Fire", and it just so happens that Enoch uses the expression "Valley of fire" to define it. A "Lake" and a "Valley" of fire are both the same thing if they're made of fire. You are presuming that it was simply a name for a region. In fact, there are several places called "Gen Hinnom".

2. Situation:
The Valley of Hinnom has been located by different writers in each of the three great valleys of Jerusalem. In favor of the eastern or Kidron valley we have the facts that Eusebius and Jerome (Onom) place "Gehennom" under the eastern wall of Jerusalem and the Moslem geographical writers, Muqaddasi and Nasir-i-khusran, call the Kidron valley Wady Jahamum. The Jewish writer Kimchi also identifies the Valley of Jehoshaphat (i.e. the Kidron) with Hinnom. These ideas are probably due to the identification of the eastern valley, on account of its propinquity to the Temple, as the scene of the last judgment-the "Valley of Jehoshaphat" of Joe 3:2-and the consequent transference there of the scene of the punishment of the wicked, Gehenna, after the ancient geographical position of the Valley of Hinnom, had long been lost. In selecting sacred sites, from the 4th Christian century onward, no critical topographical acumen has been displayed until quite modern times. There are three amply sufficient arguments against this view: (1) the Kidron valley is always called a nachal and not a gay' (see KIDRON); (2) the "Gate of the Gai" clearly did not lie to the East of the city; (3) En-rogel, which lay at the beginning of the Valley of Hinnom and to its East (Jos 15:8; 18:16) cannot be the "Virgin's fount," the ancient Gihon (2Sa 17:17).

So why must we assume that the Gen-Hinnom Jesus was referring to was only in reference to the place where the Canaanites were burning babies exactly?

The part that is in dispute is whether or not these passages actually referring to a literal place that currently exists, a literal place that will exist in the future, or whether this is just symbolism and imagery to illustrate that these characters will be punished for their wickedness. Revelation isn't exactly a literal account if you know what I mean.

It is full of Symbolism, but that doesn't mean everything in it is purely symbolic. In fact, I'm of the belief that it's not as "Symbolic" as many people think but it's actually referring to actual events and things quite directly, using very bare symbolism, but that's best for a specific thread on Revelation.

I cannot comment on the War Scroll because I haven't read it. But if I were to read it, could you say for certain that only a literalist interpretation of it is correct?

I would say so.

But that's just it, I'm NOT assuming anything; YOU ARE! Once again, your previous statement:

Of course you are. You are assuming that those books don't predate the accounts in the Tanakh for one thing. Also, we don't even know what Hinnom means! It could very well be the equivalent of "Lake of Fire". "Valley of Fire" instead. We simply don't know when Enoch was written. You are also assuming that even if Enoch is later, that the reference must have changed and adapted.

That was an assumption that YOU made. But not only is that not supported by any facts whatsoever, but it is highly illogical that a specific location given in writings that predate references to Gehenna as hellfire would be named AFTER that concept, rather than vice-versa.

You are assuming what's logical and illogical in this case. I find it illogical to believe Jesus was being 100% metaphorical in his references to Gehenna being a hot and firy place.

Secondly, I'm not assuming that the concept of Gehenna as hellfire has "changed". I'm saying that the concept of Gehenna as hellfire was inspired by the real Gehenna. There is no evidence that the concept existed before biblical references to it as a real place. Any and all writings that make allusion to it being hellfire come from writing that came centuries AFTER it was written as a literal place...

As we see with the Septuagint, there's a big difference between SON Of Hinnom, and Valley of Hinnom....

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

Many works like Mark are given a late dating because they assume prophecies can't possibly come true, on that basis alone.

That is not logical (for the aforementioned reasons). But even if I ignored that, there is also no evidence to support your hypothesis. That's why I don't accept it.

The evidence is that Jewish culture for whatever reason referred to it as an actual hell, we simply don't know at what point they started referring to it as such, or more importantly.....WHY? WHY would they refer to their idea of hell as the same name as Gen-Hinnom? That's a very important question. Apparently the Rabbis at one point, probably before 200 A.D., started calling their idea of the fiery place of torment, after the idea of where Children were burned. Why? Why did they do that? Were they so uncreative? Or maybe "Valley of burning" simply does not refer to one place? It's illogical to assume it would. Again, it would be like assuming "Hell's kitchen" has to mean the place where Hell's food it cooked. Obviously the name was used for more than one place.

Perhaps not. But I'm really more concerned over whether or not you understood mine. :sarcastic

I do. I simply don't see your view as the more "logical" view. Your view implies everything that refers to it as a firey place for souls as purely "metaphorical" automatically, as if a plain reading won't do.

That depends on your interpretation. The fact that children were slaughtered there gives credence to the new expression.

So Jesus wouldn't be referring to it as the Valley of Burning. He wouldn't refer to it as a firey place. He wouldn't call it "The Fire". It's that simple.

If you are an annihilationist, you recognize that the same fate awaits those who are punished in the Lake of Fire (the second death remember). The prophecy no doubt come true well before Jesus came. The Hebrews may very well have known of it as the Valley of Slaughter. But I don't see how this is particularly relevant.

It's very relevant because Jesus wouldn't use such imagery of it as a place of fire.

I'm not completely disregarding them, anymore than I completely disregard the various Christian interpretations of the book of Revelation. But the Talmud does not predate the written Hebrew bible.

Actually it very well predates the Masoretic. And so do the Targums. Thus we have nothing but the Septuagint to enforce your OT view. And what does the Septuagint say? It says the valley of the SON of Hinnom. Hmmm. Is that the exact same thing? I don't think so. Why not call it the valley of the Son of Hinnom in the NT instead? Why shorten it? Many place names have similar names but a little difference makes a change in the meaning.

That casts serious doubt to any references to Gehenna as hell as being the inspiration for the Valley of Hinnom.

I don't see why it should cast doubts. Especially when it's "SON of Hinnom" to compare it to.

More to the point is the fact that because certain interpretations have existed for a long period of time does not make them any more "correct". An interpretation is only correct if it is logical and consistent...

I think the idea that it's a purely metaphorical description is illogical and inconsistent, and based on fallacious logic.

If there was a proven, biblical reference to hell as "Gehenna" before there was a biblical reference...

I really don't buy the argument that something has to predate it in our known collections to vindicate works that are produced around a similar time. It may add weight to an argument, but certainly doesn't prove it.

Alas, there isn't. Therefore, since there is no evidence giving your interpretation any more validity, that leaves me with the option of believing something that is inherently illogical..../QUOTE]

It would be illogical and inconsistent to assume that they would simply use a metaphor of one of the many "Gen Hinnoms" (called SON of Hinnom in our earliest copies) where children were burned to define a place where the Soul is destroyed if it weren't an actual physical supernatural place they believed in.

Well, for one thing "the scholars" are not in agreement on this issue. Secondly, the scholars that believe that Gehenna as hell inspired the naming of the Valley of Hinnom are WRONG. Because all of the evidence suggests the opposite.

They aren't, but they have very solid reasoning for their points which you are trying to call "illogical" and "inconsistent".

And, but, so, therefore? It sounds like you are contradicting your previous statement about "just because a scholar says something doesn't make it true". Is it honestly your contention that just because a belief has existed for a long time...

You're missing the point. Your argument entails that the Jews just suddenly made up this concept and went with it as the mainstream view all of the sudden.

 

[captainbryce]

As far as the above, why should I assume I have a "soul" even if I really have "reason" to want one? I don't base my approach on what I want, especially since I'm a scientist (retired anthropologist).

It's not about having a reason to WANT one, it's about whether you have a reason for believing that you have one. That's two different arguments. There are people out there who have reasons for believing in the existence of extraterrestrial aliens. If you ask them, they'll tell you that these reasons are logical reasons that are irrespective of their "wants". And that despite the lack of evidence to support the existence of aliens, they believe they exist anyway (because it makes more sense that they'd exist than not exist). Now, apply that same logic with a belief in a soul, or a belief in God. There is no difference. There are a lot of things that I would WANT to be true that I know aren't true. My beliefs aren't based on my desires, they are based on what makes sense to me. For me, the belief in a soul "makes sense", moreso than a belief that there is no soul.

But if there's no real evidence, then it is "blind faith".

There are many different kinds of "evidences" out there. There is direct evidence, tangible evidence, circumstantial evidence, mathematical correlation, etc. In addition, there are many different ways of drawing conclusions as to what constitutes evidence (experimentation/observation, mathematical equations, inference, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, etc). What you might consider "evidence", I might dismiss as a coincidence, and vice-versa. The point is, "evidence" is often in they eye of the beholder! Just because you don't consider there to be any evidence supporting the existence of a soul doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) will have drawn the same conclusion. There is no evidence to support the existence of the Oort cloud, or extrasolar, Earthlike planets, or the existence of aliens, yet many astronomers and astrophysicists have faith that these things exist, because they "make sense" to them. In fact MANY scientific concepts (M-theory, quantum gravity, the multiverse, etc) lack evidence, but are still "believed" by scientists. Why aren't they held to the same standard of exercising "blind faith"?

Obviously if that's what you wish, then that's obvioiusly your choice.

What I "wish" is irrelevant. Wishing and hoping never solved any problems or answered any questions. What I can rationalize to be true based on my own experiences in spite of the lack of evidence, is relevant.

It's satisfactory to me since I have no desire to believe in something for no reason.

Nobody has a desire to believe in something for "no reason". This describes EVERYONE's outlook on life. It's the one thing we (as a species) have in common with one another.

If there's reason for you, and it appears there is, then I certainly won't tell you to stop. It's just not my approach.

That's generally the difference between the agnostic and the faithful.

I pleased you said that because so many take the "my way or the highway" approach.

Deciding that there is a universal truth that applies to everyone with no universally accepted evidence of such a truth is as unreasonable to me as deciding that the truth can never be attained, and that we should be content with what we don't know.

As a scientist, I'm very used to not having "resolution"-- it sort of goes with the territory. But neither does it bother me because I've long accepted the idea that there are so many questions I'll never know the answer to.

That's the difference between us. I am driven to live my life as though I WILL find the answers to life's questions someday. Whether or not that actually happens remains to be seen, but I'll always strive to seek those answers. I don't accept that there are some things about the nature of my "life" that I'll never know. If that is what "science" declares, then it's time to pursue another avenue. There is more than one avenue that we can take when it comes to seeking the truth. Science is a useful one, but it only takes you so far.

Good point, but since I have a time problem, I'll try and get back later to tell you my approach dealing with this.

Copy that!

Most Buddhists that I have ever read don't have a belief in the "100% enlightenment" idea, and neither do I.

As far as the "end goal" is concerned, I'll deal with that later as well.

Gotcha!

Maybe not for most people, but all people are not most people.

Again, sorry for the brevity, and I'll get back with ya in a bit. However, just to make certain you understand where I'm coming from, I'm not telling you what I think you should believe, only what my approach is and why. I am not anti-Christian nor anti-religion.

Fair enough. Likewise, I'm not in any way attempting to impose my own beliefs upon you. I simply tend to explain to other people what drives me specifically, and WHY I believe that way I do. Till next time!

 

[metis]

How can one advance themselves if they've already resigned themselves to the "reality" of (we don't know).

OK, sorry for taking so log to get back, but let me deal with the two items I didn't have time to elaborate on.

There are a great many things we can do to "advance" ourselves, and one of them indeed is to be more "enlightened". It's a matter of stripping away the attachments we tend to accumulate, many of them undoubtedly being harmful in some way, including the obscuring of reason.

I not longer have to try and force myself to believe in that which I struggled with pretty much most of my life. In science, we are trained and re-trained to deal with evidence, thus eliminating bias as much as possible. Therefore, I tend to think that with that kind of background, most of as scientists probably tend not to be conventional theists because we're always going to be questioning-- it just goes with the territory.

How can you hope to reach "enlightenment" if you don't even know what the end goal is? What does enlightenment even mean? Is your definition of it the same as everyone else's? At what point could you consider yourself truly enlightened?

Who says there has to be an "end goal"? To me, helping others attain greater "enlightenment" and happiness is probably as close to an "end goal" as I can enunciate. But what is also important is that, as I was pretty much abandoning my theism, I was worried about what would set morality for me or would it be "if it feels good, do it!"? By nothing but sheer coincidence (I think), I began delving deeper in Buddhist dharma, and that very much has helped to set direction for me.

When the Dalai Lama was asked what set his morality without a belief in a creator-god, his response was that it's the most basic experience we first learn as a child: when we're loved and treated well, that makes us happy, but if we're neglected and treated badly that makes us sad. Now, what could be more basic than that? Therefore, treating others with compassion and fairness is basic, and then we can also help with the enlightenment to love ourselves and all others.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Going outside the realm of "natural" reasoning is not necessarily illogical.

The very idea of the "Supernatural" is the heart of Metaphysics and (classical) Spirituality.

And on an observable level, Quantum Mechanics goes a bit against "natural" too.

Movement of pyrrole molecules defy

I never said it is illogical. Indeed an immortal soul can exist but there is no evidence for it's existence.
If it did exist then it would evidently be limited to natural existence then as our knowledge of the human brain has shown us.

Without the uhkil there is essentially nothing else for us to comprehend. The additional part of the soul added is usually the spirit and this to a greater extent has been pretty much debunked in accordance to theistic claims.

 

[metis]

It's not about having a reason to WANT one, it's about whether you have a reason for believing that you have one...

But for me, reason should be based on some objective evidence, and to not do so can lead to vociferous arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And, again to me, that which lacks evidence can be put into the "Maybe" department.

What you might consider "evidence", I might dismiss as a coincidence, and vice-versa. The point is, "evidence" is often in they eye of the beholder!

True, which is why I tell you which way I lean but am fully aware that you may well differ, and that's quite OK with me.

In fact MANY scientific concepts (M-theory, quantum gravity, the multiverse, etc) lack evidence, but are still "believed" by scientists. Why aren't they held to the same standard of exercising "blind faith"?

In order to by a scientific hypothesis, there must be at least some evidence that it could be correct. M-Theory, for example, has some mathematical justification for its possibility, but don't ask my how since I'm not a mathematician.

Deciding that there is a universal truth that applies to everyone with no universally accepted evidence of such a truth is as unreasonable to me as deciding that the truth can never be attained, and that we should be content with what we don't know.

That's the difference between us. I am driven to live my life as though I WILL find the answers to life's questions someday. Whether or not that actually happens remains to be seen, but I'll always strive to seek those answers...

I think you totally misunderstood what I said. I haven't read a fiction book in over 20 years as all my books, except one that's unread, are non-fiction, and I've had a subscription to "Scientific American" for over 40 years. I didn't say I don't inquire, just that I know that I'll never know all the answers. I'm a scientist who seeks answers and not a theists who thinks he has the answers.

Gotcha!

Huh?

Fair enough. Likewise, I'm not in any way attempting to impose my own beliefs upon you. I simply tend to explain to other people what drives me specifically, and WHY I believe that way I do. Till next time!

Nice discussing things with you.

 

[Shermana]

Now what do we do with Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


"Neither shall their fire be quenched".

If the worm shall not die, and it's talking about a reference to worms in the grave, then it can't be talking about merely burning the bodies in some abstract way. Especially since Jews didn't cremate.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Now what do we do with Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


"Neither shall their fire be quenched".

If the worm shall not die, and it's talking about a reference to worms in the grave, then it can't be talking about merely burning the bodies in some abstract way. Especially since Jews didn't cremate.

I suppose it shows the shift from a God who would kill you and punish until the 4th generation and one who now condemns you to eternal fire...One could argue that it's the influence of surrounding mythology...also wasn't Isaiah 66 (I think that is the second half) written during their time in Babylon?

 

[Shermana]

I never said it is illogical. Indeed an immortal soul can exist but there is no evidence for it's existence.
If it did exist then it would evidently be limited to natural existence then as our knowledge of the human brain has shown us.

Without the uhkil there is essentially nothing else for us to comprehend. The additional part of the soul added is usually the spirit and this to a greater extent has been pretty much debunked in accordance to theistic claims.

There's some evidence, it's a matter of whether you throw it out immediately just because it doesn't come from a mainstream source, or whether you throw out the conclusions because the mostly atheist scientific establishment doesn't like it. For instance, the criticism of the 21 grams experiment is mostly very shoddy. Their desparate attacks on the methodology in no way discredit the basic findings. But I'm interested in what you mean "It's been debunked". Please elaborate on what exactly has been debunked and how.