The Myths of Christianity

[McBell]

When people start discussing or asking relevent questions instead of attacking the post and it's poster, I'll be here.

As all can see, that hasn't happened yet.

Post #10.

Of course, if you are unwilling (or unable) to define the word "soul" why do you even use the word?


So far you have done nothing but plagiarize the claims of the Watchtower.
I take that beck.
You have also gone to great lengths to avoid discussing what you have stolen.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Post #10.

Of course, if you are unwilling (or unable) to define the word "soul" why do you even use the word?


So far you have done nothing but plagiarize the claims of the Watchtower.
I take that beck.
You have also gone to great lengths to avoid discussing what you have stolen.

Then sue me.
When you want to do anything but attack just let me know.

 

[McBell]

Then sue me.
When you want to do anything but attack just let me know.

I have not attacked you.
I merely state the fact that you plagiarized your "Myths" from the Watchtower site.
Which you have.

I also asked for you to define the word "soul".
Thus far you have not even made an attempt.

However, you have gone to great lengths to avoid any actual discussion about the "Myths" you have stolen.

 

[Muffled]

The immortality of the soul is not so much borrowed from Greek philosophy as required by the doctrine of the resurrection. The continuity of the soul is what metaphysically underpins the notion that when I die, I can expect to be resurrected. If the soul -- however we understand it -- perishes at death, then when resurrection occurs, the "I" that died will not be the "I" that rises. It will only be a cunning facsimile. The notion of the immortality of the soul gets around this problem by saying that there is something that survives death and provides the continuity/unity between the person who dies and the person who rises.

Admittedly, none of this is spelled out in Christian scripture. But we can see this discussion developing almost from the get-go among Christians, and lots of speculation on this appears in Jewish writing as well.

As for hell, I certainly hope that that's a myth. Unfortunately, I doubt it.

This is not the case since soul is defined (as listed in the OP) as a combinantion of body and breath. Murph has interpreted breath as meaning the person has life, however I believe that breath means spirit. So the reality is that the spirit lives after death but the soul is dead. Confusion often arises in Christendom because soul is often used as an equivalent word with spirit.

The continuity of the spirit is proof of its existence. Resurrection could be performed by just bringing life back to a body and does not in itself necessitate a spirit. The continuity that we see in the Bible is the assertion that Jesus went somewhere after He died and before He was resurrected. Jesus explains in John 3:6 that flesh is not spirit and spirit is not flesh.

 

[Muffled]

Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

What is the origin of the myth? “Of all classical Greek philosophers, the one who has had the greatest influence on traditional views of Hell is Plato.”—Histoire des enfers (The History of Hell), by Georges Minois, page 50.
“From the middle of the 2nd century AD Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms . . . The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism [the teachings of Plato].”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 25, page 890.

“The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, page 270.
What does the Bible say? “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, . . . for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”—Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, Revised Standard Version.
The Hebrew word Sheol, which referred to the “abode of the dead,” is translated “hell” in some versions of the Bible. What does this passage reveal about the condition of the dead? Do they suffer in Sheol in order to atone for their errors? No, for they “know nothing.” That is why the patriarch Job, when suffering terribly because of a severe illness, begged God: “Protect me in hell [Hebrew, Sheol].” (Job 14:13; Douay-Rheims Version) What meaning would his request have had if Sheol was a place of eternal torment? Hell, in the Biblical sense, is simply the common grave of mankind, where all activity has ceased.
Is not this definition of hell more logical and in harmony with Scripture? What crime, however horrible, could cause a God of love to torture a person endlessly? (1 John 4:8) But if hellfire is a myth, what about heaven?
Compare these Bible verses: Psalm 146:3, 4; Acts 2:25-27; Romans 6:7, 23
FACT:

God does not punish people in hell

This isn't a myth because it is false doctrine and can be proved to be false.

This also is false doctrine although it appears to be a truism to a Christian. The non Christian probably won't give a ****** if he is separated from God or not.

This comes from the concept of a sleeping spirit in the grave. The concept is erroneous as Jesus makes clear but a person believing it would not likely leave the grave.

The Bible depicts a place of fire that a spirit may end up in. The English word that we use for that is Hell ( a mythological place of fire). The Greek word used was Hades (another mythological place of fire). However that does not mean usage of the words makes those mythological places euivalent to the Biblical place of fire and in fact when Jesus uses the word Gehenna to describe the place of fire, He is only doing so metaphorically.

Rebellion against God is enough. In this case it is a refusal of His salvation through Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

Myth 3: All Good People Go to Heaven

What is the origin of the myth? After the death of Jesus’ apostles, by the beginning of the second century C.E., the early Church Fathers gained prominence. Describing their teachings, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003), Volume 6, page 687, says: “The general stream of teaching was that heavenly bliss is granted to the disembodied soul immediately after whatever necessary purification follows death.”

What does the Bible say? “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.”—Matthew 5:5.
Although Jesus promised his disciples that he would “prepare a place” for them in heaven, he indicated that the righteous do not automatically go there. (John 3:13; 14:2, 3) Did he not pray that God’s will take place “as in heaven, also upon earth”? (Matthew 6:9, 10) In reality, one of two destinies awaits the righteous. A minority will rule in heaven with Christ, but the majority will live forever on earth.—Revelation 5:10

Over time, the early church changed its view of its own role on the earth. With what result? “The institutional church increasingly replaced the expected Kingdom of God,” states The New Encyclopædia Britannica. The church began solidifying its power by becoming mixed up in politics, ignoring Jesus’ explicit statements that his followers were to be “no part of the world.” (John 15:19; 17:14-16; 18:36) Under the influence of the Roman Emperor Constantine, the church compromised some of its beliefs, one of which involved the very nature of God.
Compare these Bible verses: Psalm 37:10, 11, 29; John 17:3; 2 Timothy 2:11, 12
FACT:

The majority of good people will live forever on earth—not in heaven

C'mon people, don't take my word for it, read what the Bible says.

You ought to actually try to understand what you read. Here is what it actually says:

Rev 5:9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, 10 and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth.

It does not indicate that the selected group is small nor does it say they will rule in Heaven.

You appear to have temporal issues. No doubt when the kingdom of God is on earth the majority of good (saved by grace) people will be on earth. However before that day comes Jesus will receive into Heaven those who know how to get there and who wish to go there.

Lu 18:22 And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

 

[ATAT]

Well, let's see. I don't believe in god, so I don't believe we were created, unless you want to credit my Mother and Father as gods, who themselves were, if you want to be correct, a part of the evolution process of all life on earth.

I do not believe in heaven nor hell, nor do I believe in the fantastical tale of Revelations and all that crazy, drug induced, ranting about the end of the world. Not only do I not believe that we will live forever, I am not in favor of living forever, in any case.

I am perfectly happy to live my life, with the most amazing woman on earth, do the best that I can to help my fellow man by doing no harm, and to be quite content in the knowledge that I will simply cease to exist one day. As Twain said, and I paraphrase, I was dead a very long time before I was born, I am none the worse for it, and I have NO issue with being dead for the rest of eternity after my time on earth is done.

You know for a fact there is no God with no day of judgment?

How do you feel about people who live their lives stealing from others?

If Bad Bob tricks a child into his van and rapes her and dumps her body into the river, weekly, he's very good at it, and he manages to never be caught, no problem for Bad Bob?

I'm not saying the only alternative is to put political power into men claiming to hear the Voice of God(s), but I'm asking a different point, what is the basis for morality if there is no God?

I'm *not* saying there is no morality without God, don't get me wrong, one can say, There is no God but there is morality. One can say that without any obvious inherent self-contradiction.

But what argument can you make to Bad Bob? He doesn't care that his murdering bothers others, so long as he gets away with it, he's happy.

What's the argument to him? It's 'wrong'?

How so? He heard that raping young girls helps cure his AIDS, what argument do I make to him that should compel him to stop? He should feel sorry for the girls?
He feels sorry for himself, moral arguments might not have any traction with him.
Then what do I say to him? Where's my proof that he should live morally? What's my argument to someone who doesn't care about my perceptions and intuitions of morality? Why should they care if being immoral serves them better than being moral?

 

[McBell]

You know for a fact there is no God with no day of judgment?

How do you feel about people who live their lives stealing from others?

If Bad Bob tricks a child into his van and rapes her and dumps her body into the river, weekly, he's very good at it, and he manages to never be caught, no problem for Bad Bob?

I'm not saying the only alternative is to put political power into men claiming to hear the Voice of God(s), but I'm asking a different point, what is the basis for morality if there is no God?

I'm *not* saying there is no morality without God, don't get me wrong, one can say, There is no God but there is morality. One can say that without any obvious inherent self-contradiction.

But what argument can you make to Bad Bob? He doesn't care that his murdering bothers others, so long as he gets away with it, he's happy.

What's the argument to him? It's 'wrong'?

How so? He heard that raping young girls helps cure his AIDS, what argument do I make to him that should compel him to stop? He should feel sorry for the girls?
He feels sorry for himself, moral arguments might not have any traction with him.
Then what do I say to him? Where's my proof that he should live morally? What's my argument to someone who doesn't care about my perceptions and intuitions of morality? Why should they care if being immoral serves them better than being moral?

So you think that for someone like Bad Bob the empty threat of God and Eternal Punishment are going to make him stop raping and killing children?
Seriously?

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
~Albert Einstein
​

I am really leery of someone who is good only because they fear that god will send them to hell.

 

[ATAT]

I was asking what your argument would be.

At least an empty threat that God might get angry and refuse to heal his gout might convince him.

1. What would you argue to him?

2. I'm curious how you know for a fact that it's impossible for there to be a God, or gods, or whateveer...?

I am not asserting that God speaks to men, if anything, I suspect that is an evil conclusion given how men have used that claim.

I'm curious about the nature of morality, and if God can be a part of morality.

I stipulate that God is not necessary for morality, but, if extant, God would be sufficient for moral values to have weight.

In other words, we can have morality without God, but I don't know that makes much of a persuasive argument against a Hitler or raping thief.

On the other hand, if there is a "God" (whatever that means) then morality is backed up because there will be consequences (I think it's probable)... in addition to the moral values.

I do know of an argument against assuming there is a God, but I don't think you phrased it quite the way I would pose it, so, I'm looking to learn why you, I think, state it's simply not a fact that there's a God.

I don't know if there is a secret Chinese base on the moon, I doubt it, I think it's very unlikely, but I don't know it for a fact. I'll bet money there's no secret base on the moon, but I don't know it for a fact. That would involve disproving a negative.

I don't know if there are space aliens orbiting around Pluto. I don't assume there is, but I don't know it for a fact. I wouldn't bet anyone's life on it, they might reveal thier presence tomorrow. I'd bet money against that event, I'd give great odds, perhaps a thousand to one (up to twenty thousand or even two hundred thousand dollars), but I wouldn't bet the life of someone I loved, because I don't know it for a fact.

Do you know for an absolute fact there is no God?

What would you argue to Hitler or a thief or a rapist with AIDs in Africa (who believes that having sex with a child will help them get cured) to get them to alter their plans?

Let's say someone on death row hates mankind and won't donate a needed shin bone. There's a poor child who needs a shin bone and the prisoner won't donate his because he doesn't want to endure ten minutes of mild pain. What's the argument?

 

[sojourner]

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal

What is the origin of the myth?
“The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul’s immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 11, page 25.
What does the Bible say?
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”—Ezekiel 18:4, King James Version.
Regarding the creation of the first human soul, the Bible says: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul [Hebrew, ne´phesh].”—Genesis 2:7

The Hebrew word ne´phesh, translated “soul,” means ‘a creature that breathes.’ When God created the first man, Adam, He did not infuse into him an immortal soul but the life force that is maintained by breathing. Therefore, “soul” in the Biblical sense refers to the entire living being. If separated from the life force originally given by God, the soul dies.—Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 18:20.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul raised questions: Where do souls go after death? What happens to the souls of the wicked? When nominal Christians adopted the myth of the immortal soul, this led them to accept another myth—the teaching of hellfire.
Compare these Bible verses: Ecclesiastes 3:19; Matthew 10:28; Acts 3:23
FACT:

At death a person ceases to exist

The preponderance of the Xian faith is highly mythic. That lends itself very well to a polyvalent range of theology. There are no facts. There is belief.

 

[logician]

I was asking what your argument would be.

At least an empty threat that God might get angry and refuse to heal his gout might convince him.

1. What would you argue to him?

2. I'm curious how you know for a fact that it's impossible for there to be a God, or gods, or whateveer...?

I am not asserting that God speaks to men, if anything, I suspect that is an evil conclusion given how men have used that claim.

I'm curious about the nature of morality, and if God can be a part of morality.

I stipulate that God is not necessary for morality, but, if extant, God would be sufficient for moral values to have weight.

In other words, we can have morality without God, but I don't know that makes much of a persuasive argument against a Hitler or raping thief.

On the other hand, if there is a "God" (whatever that means) then morality is backed up because there will be consequences (I think it's probable)... in addition to the moral values.

I do know of an argument against assuming there is a God, but I don't think you phrased it quite the way I would pose it, so, I'm looking to learn why you, I think, state it's simply not a fact that there's a God.

I don't know if there is a secret Chinese base on the moon, I doubt it, I think it's very unlikely, but I don't know it for a fact. I'll bet money there's no secret base on the moon, but I don't know it for a fact. That would involve disproving a negative.

I don't know if there are space aliens orbiting around Pluto. I don't assume there is, but I don't know it for a fact. I wouldn't bet anyone's life on it, they might reveal thier presence tomorrow. I'd bet money against that event, I'd give great odds, perhaps a thousand to one (up to twenty thousand or even two hundred thousand dollars), but I wouldn't bet the life of someone I loved, because I don't know it for a fact.

Do you know for an absolute fact there is no God?

What would you argue to Hitler or a thief or a rapist with AIDs in Africa (who believes that having sex with a child will help them get cured) to get them to alter their plans?

Let's say someone on death row hates mankind and won't donate a needed shin bone. There's a poor child who needs a shin bone and the prisoner won't donate his because he doesn't want to endure ten minutes of mild pain. What's the argument?

No god is necessary or needed in a chaotic/random multiverse. :clap

 

[Dunemeister]

This is not the case since soul is defined (as listed in the OP) as a combinantion of body and breath. Murph has interpreted breath as meaning the person has life, however I believe that breath means spirit. So the reality is that the spirit lives after death but the soul is dead. Confusion often arises in Christendom because soul is often used as an equivalent word with spirit.

The continuity of the spirit is proof of its existence. Resurrection could be performed by just bringing life back to a body and does not in itself necessitate a spirit. The continuity that we see in the Bible is the assertion that Jesus went somewhere after He died and before He was resurrected. Jesus explains in John 3:6 that flesh is not spirit and spirit is not flesh.

I'm not so much interested in one person's defnition of "soul" as how the concept has been used by Christians. The early Christians took the view that there was something that accounted for (what we call) the numerical identity of the body that dies and the body that rises. They rightly perceived that if someone dies and everything about that person perishes, then at the resurrection, we would have cunning facsmilies but not the original resurrected. The soul came to mean that which provided the numerical identity between the body that dies and the body that rises. Yes, this discussion owed its terms of reference to Greek philosophy, but the concept -- resurrection -- was thoroughly Jewish. It's just that the intellectual world of the first few Christian centuries operated in Greek categories. The first Christians can't be faulted for having the culture they did.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not so much interested in one person's defnition of "soul" as how the concept has been used by Christians. The early Christians took the view that there was something that accounted for (what we call) the numerical identity of the body that dies and the body that rises. They rightly perceived that if someone dies and everything about that person perishes, then at the resurrection, we would have cunning facsmilies but not the original resurrected. The soul came to mean that which provided the numerical identity between the body that dies and the body that rises. Yes, this discussion owed its terms of reference to Greek philosophy, but the concept -- resurrection -- was thoroughly Jewish. It's just that the intellectual world of the first few Christian centuries operated in Greek categories. The first Christians can't be faulted for having the culture they did.

I can't say that I am well read on Greek philosophy (probably Plato's "Republic" is it) but I never heard of resurrection in the context of Greek philosophy. The concept of life after death was present but that does not mean that the church borrowed it or even incorporated it but simply that it recognized the concept as somewhat consistent with the Resurrection.

For a long time the church held the belief that the former body would be resurrected ( I suppose this comes from Jesus having done it that way). As a result the concept of immolation of the body was considered counterproductive and burning at the stake the worst thing you could do to the person because it would end the opporunity of being resurrected. This concept is a myth of course because God is creator and does not require the previous body to return a spirit to a new body. Not only that but if a person is re-incarnated the question arises as to which body the person would be resurrected. My wife thinks she ought to be resurrrected into a glamorous movie star type body. Maybe she will get her wish.

I do not agree. It appears the spirit has intelligence and memory. When a person dies all of his experience is again available to him. When a person is re-incarnated most things are blocked from memory by God so that the person would not get too confused. I remember some of my past life becuase it is a lesson that God is teaching me by experience and is relevant to my current life.

 

[Dunemeister]

I can't say that I am well read on Greek philosophy (probably Plato's "Republic" is it) but I never heard of resurrection in the context of Greek philosophy. The concept of life after death was present but that does not mean that the church borrowed it or even incorporated it but simply that it recognized the concept as somewhat consistent with the Resurrection.

That's okay, you needn't be up to speed on Greek philosophy. The classical Greeks held that resurrection was icky. This view was preponderant even in Jesus' day. They believed in life after death, whereas Christians believed in life after life after death. The Christians, as you say, borrowed the notion that the soul (whatever that is) survives death and provides the metaphysical continuity between the person that dies and the person that rises. If I die and completely cease to exist, what gets raised at the resurrection? A facsimile to be sure, but it's not "me." In other words, if I cease to exist at death, I have no hope of continuing experience later. A simulacrum, one that looks and thinks like me and has my memories maybe, but not me.

I do not agree. It appears the spirit has intelligence and memory. When a person dies all of his experience is again available to him. When a person is re-incarnated most things are blocked from memory by God so that the person would not get too confused. I remember some of my past life becuase it is a lesson that God is teaching me by experience and is relevant to my current life.

Well, you can call it a spirit or soul or shakra or pranabinduwhatchamacallit. Whatever label you give it, it's that thing that provides the metaphysical continuity between the two bodies.

 

[sojourner]

Well, you can call it a pranabinduwhatchamacallit.

Hey, buddy! Not in this forum you can't. There are ladies present!
:flirt:

 

[MurphtheSurf]

hey, buddy! Not in this forum you can't. There are ladies present!
:flirt:

:d :d :d :d :d

 

[ATAT]

No god is necessary or needed in a chaotic/random multiverse. :clap

What if God is the 'fuel'?

Are electrons needed in a universe without order?

And is this universe completely chaotic and random?


If so, then our bank accounts would fluctuate in and out of existence... or just out.

It's one thing to say that typing 'God' does not answer the question as to how the universe came to be, doesn't move the answer forward... that may be.

It's another thing to assert there is no question. I think there is a legitimate question, how did something, such as ourselves, come to be when there should have been nothing.

To say that a wrist watch has always been here infinitely into the past misses the point, even if the watch has always been, there still seems to be a legitimate question, Why is there a watch when there should have been nothing?

If that is not a good question, then we would equally have no legitimate question if all sorts of things existed. Imagine the most fantastic machine exists, and it's been in existence since forever backward. My ipod, for instance. Everybody happens to have an ipod, they float out in space, we can scoop them up on the moon...

How did they get there?

Well, so long as they've always been there, there's no question.

Really?


I dig under the crust of the moon and find an alien looking super futuristic computer.

"It's always been in existence." is a poor answer, so poor as to be wrong.

 

[Pegg]

I didn't bother to read them. The fact is that on questions of the soul, there are no facts.

There is at least one fact that can be agreed upon and that is that the original hebrew word for 'soul' (nephesh) means the living person.

That is a fact.

When the bible writers wrote about the 'soul' they were talking about the living person...not some mystical part of the person which survives after death.

SOS means 'save our souls' because when we are in danger we are asking for someone to save us from the danger so we dont die. It is our physical selves that we are trying to save....not some separate part of ourselves that is apparently able to survive a physical death.

 

[logician]

It's another thing to assert there is no question. I think there is a legitimate question, how did something, such as ourselves, come to be when there should have been nothing.

To say that a wrist watch has always been here infinitely into the past misses the point, even if the watch has always been, there still seems to be a legitimate question, Why is there a watch when there should have been nothing?

.

Here's where you logic fails, "something" may the the normal state of existence.

 

[bain-druie]

Facts can be proven; these are opinions.

Thank you, Storm - precisely my thoughts on reading said 'facts'.