7
   

If the soul is mortal why do christians believe in hell?

 
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2013 08:44 pm
@neologist,
Neologist wrote:
Quote:
Matthew 25:46 is more properly rendered eternal destruction


Dunno where you read that mate because the word "destruction" is not in any Bible version I've ever seen, it's just wishful thinking on your part no matter how much you atheists long for sweet oblivion!
The versions all say the soul lives on in eternal 'punishment' or 'pain' or 'suffering'-
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt 25:46)
Here's link to that verse in 45 different Bible versions- http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2025:46

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2013 09:19 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Brandon wrote:
Quote:
The mere fact that Jesus said something, if he even really did, does not constitute evidence. If you wish to present someone else's argument, it will be judged on its own merits as any argument should be


If there's no hard evidence, court cases are often decided purely on eyewitness testimony alone.
The whole of Israel and the roman garrison saw and heard Jesus, so are we to discount their eyewitness testimony?

We're not talking about evidence that Jesus existed. We're talking about evidence that the soul and an afterlife exist. Testimonial is not an argument. If you wish to argue the existence of these things, you need to actually present some evidence for their existence. Otherwise, you're assertion is not rationally justified.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2013 10:05 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon wrote:
Quote:
We're talking about evidence that the soul and an afterlife exist. Testimonial is not an argument. If you wish to argue the existence of these things, you need to actually present some evidence for their existence. Otherwise, you're assertion is not rationally justified


Our human senses are very limited, and if we were to rely on them all the time, the human race would become narrow-minded and stagnated, so we naturally look to philosophers, scientists and prophets etc to expand the frontiers of human knowledge.
Jesus spoke of the soul and the body being separate, so it's a matter of personal choice whether we believe him or not, after all why would he lie?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 01:50 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Matthew 25:46 is more properly rendered eternal destruction. Think of the "second death", from which there is no resurrection. Do you need a link?



You'll need to prove why it is more properly rendered in as eternal destruction... I have it as this:

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I'm just curious neo... prove it and I'll be impressed Wink
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 01:56 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Jesus spoke of the soul and the body being separate,

If they are separate how does the body and soul interact? You could just say I don't know but that does not remove the problem that if something is entirely separate it cannot interact with that which it is separated from.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 02:44 am
@igm,
Jesus was quite specific that the body and soul are separate-
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing" (John 6:63)
So we can regard the soul as the "battery" that powers the body..Smile
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 07:38 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Jesus was quite specific that the body and soul are separate-
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing" (John 6:63)
So we can regard the soul as the "battery" that powers the body..Smile

In battery powered devices the battery isn't separate from the thing it powers, how does the soul manage it? You can just say, 'I have faith alone that it does.' but something seperate cannot deliver power to that thing.'
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 08:03 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Brandon wrote:
Quote:
We're talking about evidence that the soul and an afterlife exist. Testimonial is not an argument. If you wish to argue the existence of these things, you need to actually present some evidence for their existence. Otherwise, you're assertion is not rationally justified


Our human senses are very limited, and if we were to rely on them all the time, the human race would become narrow-minded and stagnated, so we naturally look to philosophers, scientists and prophets etc to expand the frontiers of human knowledge.
Jesus spoke of the soul and the body being separate, so it's a matter of personal choice whether we believe him or not, after all why would he lie?

You cannot argue that something is true because someone said so. That is not evidence. You cannot claim that the limitations of our senses is evidence that something exists. Are you free to believe what you like? Of course. I am free to believe that there is a spacecraft with 17 little green aliens orbiting the solar system if I like, but if I can present no evidence that it's true, it's an irrational belief. The question isn't whether you have the choice to believe any dumb thing you want to. You do. The question is whether there is a rational basis for believing that it's true.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 08:51 pm
Brandon wrote:
Quote:
You cannot argue that something is true because someone said so. That is not evidence.


If your daughter arrived home from school in tears saying a teacher had groped her titties, but there are no marks or other evidence, what would you do?
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Sep, 2013 09:56 pm
http://www.walkerpestmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/german-cockroach.jpg

Former libtard/low-information voter, second reincarnation.....
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Sep, 2013 11:08 am
@gungasnake,
I don't get it
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Sep, 2013 11:13 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Brandon wrote:
Quote:
You cannot argue that something is true because someone said so. That is not evidence.
If your daughter arrived home from school in tears saying a teacher had groped her titties, but there are no marks or other evidence, what would you do?
I'd be furious. Surely, soon after, call the police. That does not mean I would believe I had heard the whole story.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Sep, 2013 11:34 pm
There's no hard solid evidence for the existence of a soul but so what?
For example the Theory of Evolution also contains no evidence of "missing links" that's why it's called a "theory", (i.e. a collection of guesses and hunches) without evidence of any creatures that bridged the "missing link gap".
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 12:07 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
In the Bible, “soul” is translated from the Hebrew ne′phesh and the Greek psy·khe′. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. For example, Genesis 2:7 tells us we are souls: "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."
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 12:22 am
Jesus was quite specific that the body and soul are two separate things-
"The spirit within gives life, the flesh alone is worthless" (John 6:63 )
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matt 10:28)

and I don't think he was in the habit of lying..Wink
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 09:56 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Jesus was quite specific that the body and soul are two separate things-
"The spirit within gives life, the flesh alone is worthless" (John 6:63 )
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matt 10:28)

and I don't think he was in the habit of lying..Wink
Romeo Fabulini, in an earlier post, wrote:
There's no hard solid evidence for the existence of a soul but so what?
So what are you taking about when you refer to 'soul'? The soul is you, your features, your memories, your personality. John 5:28 tells us of a resurrection. Will resurrected ones come back in the same body they had in their earlier life? It doesn't seem likely; but what seems sure is they will have the same features, memories, and personality. To them it will be as if they had awakened from sleep. So the body may die, but if God wills, the soul remains in His memory.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 11:09 am
Paul likens the death of the body to the sowing of a seed-

"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:42-50)

We can therefore regard resurrection as the final stage of human evolution, where we transform from flesh to a pure spiritual lifeform.
That's why cultists who think we come back in a material body on a material earth are way off the mark..Smile
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 12:41 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
. . . . That's why cultists who think we come back in a material body on a material earth are way off the mark....
It is true that some humans will go to heaven. What you have ignored is what those people will do there and who they will rule over as 'kings and priests' (Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6) God's purpose for earth to be inhabited has never changed. (Isaiah 45:18)

BTW, if the earth was not desirable, why would so many angels forsake their relationship with God in order to sojourn here before the flood?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 03:18 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Matthew 25:46 is more properly rendered eternal destruction.


You haven't responded to the replies about your erroneous rendition of the word kolasis as "eternal destruction" when it means "correction, punishment, penalty, torment."
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 07:40 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
neologist wrote:
Matthew 25:46 is more properly rendered eternal destruction.
You haven't responded to the replies about your erroneous rendition of the word kolasis as "eternal destruction" when it means "correction, punishment, penalty, torment."
That was my error, confusing a word from 2 Thessalonians.

So, again, I cut and paste: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment [“lopping off,” Int; Greek, ko′la·sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.” (The Emphatic Diaglott reads “cutting-off” instead of “punishment.” A footnote states: “Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.”)

Since there is no consciousness after death, eternal punishment is not possible. Eternal death is the consequence of unrepented sin.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 10:57:17