[Discussion] Questions for theists

[Sagebee]

So you think God is selling products to...something?

No the point was certain things are purposefully made to end, I was curious what point the OP was even making

 

[Osmon]

Right cuz anime forum users aren't real people with knowledge in things outside of ani-man getcho dumbass outta here

I know you aren't, stop trying to sound relevant and smart and get your fatass a job, some money for gym and a haircut too

 

[Punk Hazard]

No the point was certain things are purposefully made to end, I was curious what point the OP was even making

Considering that God's intention of creating humans was for them to last forever, this clearly isn't the case.

I know you aren't, stop trying to sound relevant and smart and get your fatass a job, some money for gym and a haircut too

Don't get mad at me cuz you expect everyone else to know as little as you

 

[Osmon]

Considering that God's intention of creating humans was for them to last forever, this clearly isn't the case.


Don't get mad at me cuz you expect everyone else to know as little as you

lol that's cute

 

[Sagebee]

Considering that God's intention of creating humans was for them to last forever, this clearly isn't the case.


Don't get mad at me cuz you expect everyone else to know as little as you

What's your basis for believing that

 

[Punk Hazard]

What's your basis for believing that

I don't know about Islamic-based doctrines, though I assume it's the same, but the Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian doctrines make multiple references to mankind having everlasting life if not for sin, with that being the original state God created them to be in. That would be somewhat impossible if God had an expiration date for everything that exists

 

[Sagebee]

I don't know about Islamic-based doctrines, though I assume it's the same, but the Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian doctrines make multiple references to mankind having everlasting life if not for sin, with that being the original state God created them to be in. That would be somewhat impossible if God had an expiration date for everything that exists

But in all of those belief systems they say this reality will end and what's forever is the after life, and my point with built in obsolescence wasn't that everything expires, but things expiring with a purpose, in those belief systems what's believed is when your body expires your soul still exists

 

[Punk Hazard]

But in all of those belief systems they say this reality will end and what's forever is the after life, and my point with built in obsolescence wasn't that everything expires, but things expiring with a purpose, in those belief systems what's believed is when your body expires your soul still exists

Actually, those interpretations of the after-life is wildly argued to be misinterpretations. There is lots of support in the Bible for there being no such thing as an afterlife or immortal soul, so that doesn't automatically justify obsolescence of a physical universe outside of the plain God resides in.

 

[Sagebee]

Actually, those interpretations of the after-life is wildly argued to be misinterpretations. There is lots of support in the Bible for there being no such thing as an afterlife or immortal soul, so that doesn't automatically justify obsolescence of a physical universe outside of the plain God resides in.

What particular religion and scripture are you referring to

 

[Punk Hazard]

What particular religion and scripture are you referring to

Like I said, I'm mostly speaking of what I know from Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

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. Genesis 2:7

Living creates don't HAVE souls, they are a living soul. When you die, your soul dies because you ARE your soul.

 

[Sagebee]

Like I said, I'm mostly speaking of what I know from Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

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. Genesis 2:7

Living creates don't HAVE souls, they are a living soul. When you die, your soul dies because you ARE your soul.

Well the Muslim belief does have one, and if that's the correct interpretation of that passage which it more so seems like its saying we have become living beings. it contradicts all the passages that specifically are referring to a after life.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Well the Muslim belief does have one, and if that's the correct interpretation of that passage which it more so seems like its saying we have become living beings. it contradicts all the passages that specifically are referring to a after life.

I actually view the Bible to be filled with contradictions, so

 

[Sagebee]

I actually view the Bible to be filled with contradictions, so

I don't think in this particular issue it's contradicting itself

On a side note what's that in your signature from

 

[Punk Hazard]

I don't think in this particular issue it's contradicting itself

On a side note what's that in your signature from

It is. There are passages that say the dead know nothing upon death and that man himself is his soul(meaning it dies when he dies), but there is also a passage of Jesus observing tormented wailing in Sheol.

First if from the trailer for The Last of Us 2.

Second is Lucifer from Supernatural.

 

[Cruciatus]

Considering that God's intention of creating humans was for them to last forever, this clearly isn't the case

I don't know about Islamic-based doctrines, though I assume it's the same, but the Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian doctrines make multiple references to mankind having everlasting life if not for sin, with that being the original state God created them to be in. That would be somewhat impossible if God had an expiration date for everything that exists

Actually, those interpretations of the after-life is wildly argued to be misinterpretations. There is lots of support in the Bible for there being no such thing as an afterlife or immortal soul, so that doesn't automatically justify obsolescence of a physical universe outside of the plain God resides in.

Like I said, I'm mostly speaking of what I know from Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

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. Genesis 2:7

Living creates don't HAVE souls, they are a living soul. When you die, your soul dies because you ARE your soul.

It's not really fair to lump "Judeo-Christian" beliefs together on this issue, since Judaism and Christianity differ so greatly at a pivotal point in religious history. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, son of God, became man to suffer and die for their sins, thus granting them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus made eternal life possible for the Christians, and while the Jews regard Christ as a major religious figure, they are still waiting for the savior that was promised to them by the Prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah.

As for the issue of this living soul. . .I think it's very presumptuous if we can assume to interpret text that has been the subject of scrutiny by religious leaders for thousands of years. When it comes to interpreting Biblical text, if you want to actually know what the Church officially believes, I would always recommend referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that 'then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

In Sacred Scripture the term 'soul' often refers to human life or the entire human person. But 'soul' also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: 'soul' signifies the spiritual principle in man.

The human body shares in the dignity of 'the image of God': it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the 'form' of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people 'wholly', with 'spirit and soul and body' kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. 'Spirit' signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God."

So, if I understand the Catechism correctly, our soul and our bodies are intimately linked while on earth--that is the "living soul." However, our soul is what allows us entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. If you're familiar with Christian doctrine, this is the exact reason animals don't go to Heaven (sorry Fasha). Because we humans are unique. We have been made in the likeness of God. We have been granted a soul, and our godliness is what admits us into eternal life.

I actually view the Bible to be filled with contradictions, so

It's written by humans. What do you expect? But it's hard to judge a whole faith off of one book. It's perfectly true that the Bible is full of contradictions, but much more than the Bible goes into Catholic dogma. Christian beliefs have been molded and formed by centuries of Tradition. And remember that the Pope speaks infallibly from the pulpit--that is to say, the Pope can fundamentally alter the course of the faith.

And besides, people always want to point out the massive discrepancies between the Old and the New Testament, which is really quite ironic because. . .that's the point. Jesus came to suffer and die for our sins, fundamentally, but in doing so he undermined the corrupt practices of religious leaders at the time and established a new order. That's why we see such a tonal difference between the Old and the New Testament.

 

[Punk Hazard]

It's not really fair to lump "Judeo-Christian" beliefs together on this issue, since Judaism and Christianity differ so greatly at a pivotal point in religious history. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, son of God, became man to suffer and die for their sins, thus granting them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus made eternal life possible for the Christians, and while the Jews regard Christ as a major religious figure, they are still waiting for the savior that was promised to them by the Prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah.

Well, yeah, I know they're not all the same and have major differences between them. I was speaking on more of the general concept of the Christian God to make sure he knew I wasn't speaking on any Islamic or Hindu or other beliefs. I probably should have just said Christian

As for the issue of this living soul. . .I think it's very presumptuous if we can assume to interpret text that has been the subject of scrutiny by religious leaders for thousands of years. When it comes to interpreting Biblical text, if you want to actually know what the Church officially believes, I would always recommend referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that 'then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

In Sacred Scripture the term 'soul' often refers to human life or the entire human person. But 'soul' also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: 'soul' signifies the spiritual principle in man.

The human body shares in the dignity of 'the image of God': it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the 'form' of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people 'wholly', with 'spirit and soul and body' kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. 'Spirit' signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God."

So, if I understand the Catechism correctly, our soul and our bodies are intimately linked while on earth--that is the "living soul." However, our soul is what allows us entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. If you're familiar with Christian doctrine, this is the exact reason animals don't go to Heaven (sorry Fasha). Because we humans are unique. We have been made in the likeness of God. We have been granted a soul, and our godliness is what admits us into eternal life.

Well, I don't really know enough to argue about this. I was always taught that that humans aren't a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, but then again, I was taught by what's damn near an insane cult, so I'm probably not one to talk.

It's written by humans. What do you expect? But it's hard to judge a whole faith off of one book. It's perfectly true that the Bible is full of contradictions, but much more than the Bible goes into Catholic dogma. Christian beliefs have been molded and formed by centuries of Tradition. And remember that the Pope speaks infallibly from the pulpit--that is to say, the Pope can fundamentally alter the course of the faith.

This has always been a strange thing to hear for me, especially from Christians. That the flaws of the Bible are due to it being written by man. I mean, doesn't Timothy say the word of the Bible is the word of God himself, and that the Holy Spirit guided man to do the physical writing, but the wording is from God's influence? Again, insane cult, so I might be wrong.

And besides, people always want to point out the massive discrepancies between the Old and the New Testament, which is really quite ironic because. . .that's the point. Jesus came to suffer and die for our sins, fundamentally, but in doing so he undermined the corrupt practices of religious leaders at the time and established a new order. That's why we see such a tonal difference between the Old and the New Testament.

Well, there seem to be contradictions in not just tone, but in blatant facts of things. In Genesis God creates trees, then man, and then in the next chapter, god then trees. Same thing with birds. Nephilim after the flood, even though everything is meant to be gone before. I dunno

 

[Marin]

Well, yeah, I know they're not all the same and have major differences between them. I was speaking on more of the general concept of the Christian God to make sure he knew I wasn't speaking on any Islamic or Hindu or other beliefs. I probably should have just said Christian

Honestly, even that is a big statement since there are a LOT of disagreements among Christians (the big 3 denominations are only the tip of the iceberg). More than half the stuff said so far isn't universal.

Well, I don't really know enough to argue about this. I was always taught that that humans aren't a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, but then again, I was taught by what's damn near an insane cult, so I'm probably not one to talk.

As I said above, there are heavy differences in interpreting the soul, even among Christians. Some will take soul to be the essence of life, others will find it to be a synonim for mind and this too can be interpreted in both dualistic and monistic terms. Soul means a lot of different things depending on where and how it is mentioned.

This has always been a strange thing to hear for me, especially from Christians. That the flaws of the Bible are due to it being written by man. I mean, doesn't Timothy say the word of the Bible is the word of God himself, and that the Holy Spirit guided man to do the physical writing, but the wording is from God's influence? Again, insane cult, so I might be wrong.

The Bible? Never. The Bible is merely a compilation of books, writings, letters and a bunch of other stuff and is to be viewed as such. When people say that it is the word of God inspired by God but written by men it isn't necessarily to be taken as word-for-word inneracy. I'll gladly conceed that the Bible contains incorrect information, that certain books aren't to be attributed to traditional authors and that some writings are straight-up interpolations and yet here I am, still a Christian.

When I say that the Bible is word from God what I mean by it is the overall message of salvation, not really word for word. I consider most of the Genesis as mythological, some Pauline epistles as forgeries and Gospels as simple ancient biographies and treat them as such. The "holy" part comes from the goal of the writing, not the writing itself.

Well, there seem to be contradictions in not just tone, but in blatant facts of things. In Genesis God creates trees, then man, and then in the next chapter, god then trees. Same thing with birds. Nephilim after the flood, even though everything is meant to be gone before. I dunno

I don't think there are any contradictions in the biblibical books, there are only differences between these books. Each book is on its own fairly consistent but since the books are written by different authors at different times it's natural that there would be disagreements. (You don't need genesis to give you that, just look at the differences between the Gospels.) The genesis you're reffering to (if my memory serves me right) actually features 2 distinct creation stories. (Written by different authors!)

As I said, the Bible is a collection of books, not a sole literally piece on it's own like Quran, so the alleged contradictions are most of the times just differences in depictions or theological opinions between different people who wrote the respective books the Bible is composed of. I don't see this as much of a problem.

 

[Cruciatus]

Well, yeah, I know they're not all the same and have major differences between them. I was speaking on more of the general concept of the Christian God to make sure he knew I wasn't speaking on any Islamic or Hindu or other beliefs. I probably should have just said Christian



Well, I don't really know enough to argue about this. I was always taught that that humans aren't a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, but then again, I was taught by what's damn near an insane cult, so I'm probably not one to talk.


This has always been a strange thing to hear for me, especially from Christians. That the flaws of the Bible are due to it being written by man. I mean, doesn't Timothy say the word of the Bible is the word of God himself, and that the Holy Spirit guided man to do the physical writing, but the wording is from God's influence? Again, insane cult, so I might be wrong.



Well, there seem to be contradictions in not just tone, but in blatant facts of things. In Genesis God creates trees, then man, and then in the next chapter, god then trees. Same thing with birds. Nephilim after the flood, even though everything is meant to be gone before. I dunno

I'm not telling you it's the Word of God. I'm telling you that it was written by humans. I'm not really arguing for the validity of the text one way or another, but if you find it inconsistent, I think it's fair to consider that it was written by fallible people. It was also worked on by such a myriad of authors without collaboration that it's unsurprising it's the jumbled text it is today. You also have to bear in mind that it has been carefully curated by the Church to include certain stories, and that the Church regards it less as a history book and more as a spiritual guide.

However, Christians do believe that God writes through the authors, therefore making the text divinely inspired.

Honestly, even that is a big statement since there are a LOT of disagreements among Christians (the big 3 denominations are only the tip of the iceberg). More than half the stuff said so far isn't universal.

And this is absolutely true, too. Most of what I'm saying applies to Roman Catholic dogma and may cover the bases of some other Christian denominations. But there are major disagreements throughout Christianity; it's nearly impossible to put Christian beliefs under some generic umbrella statement.

 

[Deadlift]

I'm not telling you it's the Word of God. I'm telling you that it was written by humans. I'm not really arguing for the validity of the text one way or another, but if you find it inconsistent, I think it's fair to consider that it was written by fallible people. It was also worked on by such a myriad of authors without collaboration that it's unsurprising it's the jumbled text it is today. You also have to bear in mind that it has been carefully curated by the Church to include certain stories, and that the Church regards it less as a history book and more as a spiritual guide.

However, Christians do believe that God writes through the authors, therefore making the text divinely inspired.



And this is absolutely true, too. Most of what I'm saying applies to Roman Catholic dogma and may cover the bases of some other Christian denominations. But there are major disagreements throughout Christianity; it's nearly impossible to put Christian beliefs under some generic umbrella statement.

I think that the big four Christian denominations agree about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy: The original manuscripts are inerrant because the Holy Spirit is co-author of them. The supposed contradictions are due to the fact that human authors used construct that were typical of their time, and highly symbolic.
By the way, there have eventually been errors because of the scriptures being copied several times (these things always happen).

What the denominations disagree on are the number of the books (Orthodox Bibles have more books than Catholic Bibles, that have more books than Protestant Bibles) and the level of authority they're regarded with: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (no, they're not the same thing) put the Bible into the Holy Tradition, Anglicans teach a doctrine named prima scriptura, while the rest of the Protestants teach sola scriptura (they regard the Bible as the sole authority)

 

[Amenotejikara]

the 1st question. alot of religious folks say from god's view point there is no before and after, we humans can't comprehend it. normally I'd say it's a copout excuse but on the other hand the same could be said about the universe. from a scientific view point, we humans think were relevant but inreality we are so insignificant it's not even funny, we would never even come close to be able to comprehend it and the beyond. infact the only reason we got this far in astromony is because we were fortunate enough to witness stars moving away from each other. (suggesting there was moment when everything was together. i.e big bang) but will never be able to comprehend what happened before it even with the theories.