The Soul
Offline
Plato, quoting Socrates said: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods." - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.
Ezekiel 18:4 - Look! All the souls-to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son-to me they belong. The soul that is sinning-it itself will die.
New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450 "There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N T word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being."
New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454 "The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine's] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism."
Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35 "Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato."
The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152 "The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh."
The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564 "The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture."
Hebrew And Greek
The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467 "Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O T means not a part of man, but the whole man-man as a living being. Similarly, in the N T it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)."
The Hebrew word for blood is dam, the Greek word for blood is haima. The Hebrew word for soul is nephesh the Greek psykhe. The words for soul are sometimes translated as life for the sake of context. The word nephesh itself means breather, one who breaths.
Blood And The Soul
Leviticus 17:11, 14 - For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for Your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. . . . For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."
Jehovah God created life (Psalm 36:9) so the soul, being the blood, belonged to him. (Ezekiel 18:4) He gave man the permission to take the life of animals to eat after the flood, but only if they poured the blood of the animal out on the ground as an indication that life, the soul or blood was His and sacred. (Genesis 9:1-6)
When Abel was murdered God told Cain his brother's blood cried out, meaning that something sacred, Abel's soul, his blood was wrongfully taken and that demanded retribution. (Genesis 4:10)The blood of a murdered person defiles the earth . (Numbers 35:33 / Genesis 9:5-6) A residential area where a murdered person was found, and it was not known who killed the person in order to pay soul for soul, or blood for blood, was defiled until a blood sacrifice was made. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) Sacrifice for the atonement os sins was the only acceptable use for blood with God, thus for the death to mankind Adam's sin brought only the blood of Christ could atone. (Leviticus 17:10-11 / Hebrews 12:24)
The term dead soul is used in the Bible simply meaning a dead person. No longer breathing, no blood pumping through the body, no longer animated. (Leviticus 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4 / Numbers 5:2; 6:6 / Hagai 2:13)
- Login to post comments
What about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
definition of what a soul is actually meant to be? We have blood, life, breath, an invisible immortal life force. It all sounds very subjective to me. Lol.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I believe he is attempting to make the argument that the Greek idea of a soul supplanted the Jewish and early Christian notion.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all three Abrahamic religions - believe in the resurrection of the body.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley, no offense, but he's not *as* crazy as you. You could learn a lesson on internal consistency from this guy- he doesn't believe in that nonsense (as he has stated elsewhere).
Though I'm not keen on him for the whole being a jerk thing, I have to appreciate this information as presented; this is a good argument for [at least part of] the bible not necessitating the irrational concept of a human soul. Obviously not evidence of a god, but evidence that some precepts of the biblical god may be taken incorrectly.
I would like to know if any of Saul, et al.'s writings of the new testament imply the newer concept of souls- and what of Biblical suggestions in the new testament that the old law no longer applies? You have explained the cleansing of original sin, but there are many others that this does not account for (I will not list them- but if you will, explain how this singular spilling of divine blood accounts for the given laws [a hundred or so], particularly kosher laws, no longer applying).
David, state a single sentence or two.
You are a flurge.
=
I prefer it when he just quotes information instead of speaking for himself. He's less inflammatory that way. His meaning was easily implicit, although I may be the only one who found it interesting.
Perhaps more relevant to a Christian audience, as we don't really care very much about what the Bible says; Christians usually don't read it anyway.
The Father is Jehovah, the Son Is Jesus and the Holy Spirit isn't a person. The trinity is a pagan teaching.
There is no invisible immortal life force in the teachings of the Bible.
Correct. The idea of the immortal soul began to infiltrate Jewish teachings about the time of Alexander the Great.
What is your basis for labeling me as crazy?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
That is what I am talking about. It isn't really the Bible or God that you are interested in. What, then, is the point in speaking out as an atheist?
What is a flurge?
Well, I'm not going to get into a trinitarian argument with you. The fact is that mainstream Christianity (i.e. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and the major Protestant denominations) subscribes to the doctrine of the Trinity. Having said that, Jesus said that God is spirit. So, what about the spiritual nature of God?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I am not interested in any holy book at all, neither the q'uran, The Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, the bible/torah. However I speak out as an atheist because I personally believe in the right of freedom of speech, that my ideas and views are just as important as those that believe in a god, as well I personally believe that those that believe in a god should not impose their views on others that have different views, gods than they do. Just as I do not believe christians should impose their morality on muslims, just as muslims should not impose their morality on atheists, as atheists should not impose their morality on hindu's etc, etc, etc, etc. We should however use more secular laws that apply to all equally.
With that said, I can speak out against the ignorance and dangers of those that follow their holy books as if it was the literal word of god and that it should be followed literally, word for word, law by law. For me the moderate believer is no more dangerous than the average atheists, both just live their life without interfering in other people lives. Once however christians, muslims or jews start to impose their religious views on others, I will speak out against them, their gods, their beliefs and their views. Just as I spoke out when muslims wanted to i use sharia law in Ontario, and thankfully with that, jews and christians also lost the ability to use their religious courts within the province of Ontario to solve family disputes, the courts of canada are neutral and should be used to solve all disputes.
If you are going to make the claim that god exists and should be followed, you better have the evidence to back up your claim, if your going to say science is wrong, you better have your facts straight, and to claim that your ignorant of the teachings of science and then state science is wrong, is just plain ignorant and stupid.
The newer concept of souls? Do you mean were they influenced by Greek philosophy and the soul of the Christian Greek scriptures differed from the Hebrew? That wasn't the case. The Greek psykhe corresponded with the Hebrew nephesh. Actually the English word soul comes more from the Greek philosophy than it does the Hebrew and Greek, so it is the English idea of the soul which causes the confusion. The Jewish Publication Society of America, for example completely abandoned the english word soul in it's translation of the Torah. H. M. Orlinsky of the Hebrew Union College explained in the October 2, 1962 New York Times by stating: "Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.” It is a difficult concept to translate into English, the closest we can get is the "soul." The Biblical nephesh and psykhe differ from the Greek philosophy. There are, of course, inconsistancies in the Greek philosophies regarding the immortal soul. Some of them similar to the Biblical and others mixing the two. Plato thought the soul consisted of three parts, only one of them being immortal. There is no inconsistancy with the Hebrew and Greek bible writers regarding the soul. Paul demonstrated this by quoting Genesis 2:7 at 1 Corinthians 15:45-47.
As far as your question regarding the law, I'm not exactly sure I know what you mean.
Galatians 3:19, 24 - Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith.
Hebrews 7:11, 12, 19 - ) If, then, perfection were really through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it as a feature the people were given the Law,) what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the manner of Melchizedek and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law.
For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in besides of a better hope did, through which we are drawing near to God.
Hebrews 7:26-28 - For such a high priest as this was suitable for us, loyal, guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and become higher than the heavens. He does not need daily, as those high priests do, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for those of the people: (for this he did once for all time when he offered himself up) for the Law appoints men high priests having weakness, but the word of the sworn oath that came after the Law appoints a Son, who is perfected forever.
Hebrews 8:13 - In his saying "a new [covenant]" he has made the former one obsolete. Now that which is made obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.
Hebrews 9:11-14 - However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to [the] living God?
Hebrews 10:1-10 - For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. Otherwise, would the [sacrifices] not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away. Hence when he comes into the world he says: "'Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin [offering].' Then I said, 'Look! I am come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do your will, O God.'" After first saying: "You did not want nor did you approve of sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin [offering]" - sacrifices] that are offered according to the Law - then he actually says: "Look! I am come to do your will." He does away with what is first that he may establish what is second. By the said "will" we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.
It's not merely my opinion. The best and only objective definition of "crazy" to be obtained seems to be acceptance of contradiction- that is, believing a thing that knowingly leads to contradictions which are then believed, or do not change that belief to rectify the contradictions.
A number of your theistic beliefs are reliant on contradictions, and you make no valid attempt at reconciliation, but find yourself satisfied by ignoring them, yet nonetheless advocating them. You are crazy, in the most unbiased and objective sense of the word.
David, on the other hand, cites any contradiction as a fatal flaw, and has tailored his belief in his god to a system of internal consistency by rejecting notions that he finds to be contradictory- such as the trinity, and the typical omni-everything qualifiers given to the Abrahamic god.
He may not have had the benefit of a full review of his belief system by third parties to point out any lingering contradictions- and certainly the breadth is such that hidden contradictions can and no doubt do exist. The mindset, however, is that of reconciling and eliminating contradictory belief rather than accepting them and finding room among dead brain cells.
His more complete ignorance of science (while you fancy yourself aware, though falsely), is actually to his advantage here. For example: When people thought the world was flat, they were wrong, but they weren't crazy, because they had no conflicting evidence.
But you, Paisley, are brimming with knowledge of conflictions and have failed to reconcile them in any internally consistent fashion- ergo, you are crazy.
If you wish to visualize crazy as opposed to sane, see a big, floppy piece of cloth that's unraveling along all of the edges- covered in loose ends, and just so thrilled about it in your case, that sharing this unraveling mess seems to be a top priority.
David is a... smaller piece of cloth. He doesn't know as much about the world, but at least his edges are hemmed up reasonably well (at least those he has displayed).
-You did ask.
What? Isn't that the whole concept of the blood offerings?
You sin, you spill clean blood, it washes the sin away. Sin, rinse, repeat.
Where is this broken? OT seemed pretty explicit about those practices, and the principle behind them.
It was a reminder that their sin needed to be washed away. It was an imperfect temporary making awareness of sin.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
That is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone say. You believe in freedom of speech and that believers should not impose their views on others and yet you impose your own beliefs on god? It sounds to me like you are just young and foolish and wish that the believers would go away.
You don't see me on the science forum here do you? When asked repeatedly I gave my explanation of why I thought mutations, the basis of evolution, was folly. I have my reasons for thinking that way but you won't see me creating forums against science. You are the one on an atheism forum. If you are going to talk to me about God you better get your own facts straight, but the only fact with you regarding God is that you criticize what you know nothing of. Typical ignorant rebel without a clue.
They also teach hell. The immortal soul and other pagan teachings contrary to the Bible. I have been debating with Christians / Atheists for about 14 years and there are two subjects which I have learned to try and avoid at all cost , both of them due to their difficulty and the religious nature of those convictions. The trinity and evolution. It isn't worth the attempt at reason.
God is a spirit being, as opposed to a fleshly being.
Nope they have the right to say what they want, they can believe in private what they wish, it is when they wish to impose their views on the majority of the population in which i will speak up. Second just because I believe in freedom of speech does not mean I believe that no one is allowed to have an opposing view, I have an opposing view, freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from criticism of illogical ideas or beliefs. If you tell me god exists, you better have the evidence to back it up, if you tell me your god told you to follow these rules and impose them on society at large, again you better have the evidence that your god exists. See that is quite logical stance to take, you want me to follow the rules and laws of your god, then provide the evidence god exist, I don't see this as an illogical stance really. Nor a hypocritical one in regards to freedom of speech...you don't seem to understand simple concepts do you?
As for the young and foolish, well I have been around for quite some time, young not really, I have a young looking face but don't fool yourself, my father is 63 and everyone thinks he is no older than 50, my mom is 68 and everyone believes she is no older than 55, its genetics really. As for wanting believers to go away? no but illogical and irrational beliefs yes. If there is no evidence that a god exists, and there is no evidence that the bible is true or any other holy books (and there is more than enough evidence) then why should I not be able to refute them? Why should my freedom of speech be null and void because it opposed someone's religious views? If the argument is logical and sound then present it, if it is illogical and irrational why shouldn't I oppose such ideas?
What evidence do you have that your god exists? Your making the claim that your god exists, even more specific, that your version of god is correct, and that other christian version of god is wrong, what evidence do you have? Why is this such a problem for you to do? Don't avoid the question, simply answer it,. Is it that hard really? I am not a rebel with out a clue I understand exactly why I don't believe in claims of god(s), you seem to be the believer without a clue as to what your talking about. My claims of non-existence for god is simple really, no evidence that god exists period, no one bit of evidence, can you provide some? I know about god and various version of god and different types of gods, as well as god from the jewish perspective, various christian perspective, hindu perspective even muslim perspectives, I don't oppose that which I have no clue about, I have studied these religions, I speak with their clerics, priests and followers (helps when you volunteer at a community radio station that has religious broadcasts on saturdays and sundays.) The reason I oppose it is simply that there is no evidence and the reasons for belief in a god have been so far illogical and irrational presentations as to why god must exist and why it must be their god.
They are called "Human" Rights for a reason.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
You're not making any sense. Perhaps it's a semantic fallacy.
When you first said "impose their beliefs," what you meant was that you shouldn't force others to adopt your beliefs, or, at the very least, proselytize. So, there's no way someone could "impose their beliefs" on God; God believes whatever he wants.
Btw, also, you can't do anything to God. He doesn't exist.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Yes he does exist.
I was responding to latincanuck, who imposed his belief on god as a subject. He imposes his belief on the subject of god. As for God, you and I and everyone else can only assume that he exists or that he doesn't.
Human rights dictates that latincanuck can express himself regarding his disbelief in God and I can express my belief in God. We have both done that, but if you look at my post and his it is his words that seem to be implying that I "should not impose my beliefs upon others." Ii is dangerous for me to "follow [my] holy book as if it was the literal word of god."
I don't think that you people can think for yourselves. I think you are blinded by your hate of religion.
I think it's the other way round and clearly, so does LatinCanuck. We think the godly are not disposed to think for themselves and are blinded by their religions. And we think this doctrine should not be spread through an assault on defenseless minds.
It's a perspective thing.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Secular: of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
Law: the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the formof legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
By definition religion and your "god" are being imposed upon. You can't remove this imposition without removing "human" rights. I'm not sure I would call this hatred but if you would like to keep adding fuel to that fire be my guest. You are only justifying the reasoning behind it's existance...
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
You are correct when you state that I believe that you or any one following religious laws and rules should not impose those laws on society at large, especially those that take the bible literally. If we did, then when I work on the sabbath I could be stoned to death depending on which religious interpretation you take, same if someone is gay, if I wear clothes made from 2 different materials, as well parents would have the right to kill their children if they viewed them as disobedient, others would be allowed to beat their wives or women or just treat them as second class citizens. So yes my view is until you have proven god is real, which you still haven't, then I believe that society does not need to follow the laws and rules religion, no matter which religion that is, it should remain secular. I don't hate religious people, however I can hate the ideas behind religion, even then hate is a very strong word, I lean towards dislike and disagree, since hatred requires far more attention to religion than I have now. The truth is I have met people that take their holy books as literal words of their god, and make lives of others that do not agree with them completely miserable...or just stone them to death. I again, don't disbelieve because I don't have any knowledge of religion, I disbelieve because I have knowledge of religion, and because I see no evidence.
Now I won't stop an individual or a group of people from believing in god or gods or whatever supernatural deity they like, as long as they don't try to impose it on society at large without enough evidence to back up their claim that their god or supernatural deity is real. I don't see why that is such a hard thing for you to comprehend.
Not exactly. Now you are, as far as I can tell, having only been here a relatively short period of time, the voice of reason here. From the start I have made some pretty important things very clear.
1. I think that most people, Christians and atheists, don't know the Bible. They know the mythology of Christendom which was adopted by the later apostate Christian church.
2. I hate religion. It always transmogrifies the original teachings. The Jews rejected the messiah, God rejected the Jewish nation, Paul rightly foresaw the true teachings of Christ turned aside for the sake of myth or fables (From the Greek mythous and the Latin fabulas)
3. Satan is the ruler of the world and Jesus' followers were to be no part of the world; including meddling in the politics or nationalism of what they think is their "Christian nation." Stupid blind moral police of the globe goes down with the ship of fools.
4. Abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, evolution being preached in the school are all political issues. The only reason the modern day atheists have for objecting to self-righteous ignorant Christians meddling in political affairs is that even in their profound ignorance of the Bible they have obviously out organized the intellectually lazy and stupid atheist or, as I personally think, outnumbered them. That is the nature of politics.
Isn't it obvious that people who react to me in the sort of way that latincanuck is here, in a thread about what the Bible really says about the soul and anywhere else I say anything, is an obvious case of being blinded by their own thoughtless conclusions. Licking their wounds. Expressing dissatisfaction with the society in which they live.
Blake . . . you might want to look the other way . . .
So instead of educating yourself by actually reading and responding to the OP in this thread or actually doing any personal study about what the Bible really says about the soul you are going to stand up on your soap box and preach your fucking ignorance, eh? Whatever the Bible says is wrong and I believe in the Bible so I must be wrong and now I have to listen to you tell me how fucking stupid you are, correct? Hey, I know the game . . . lets dance!
If we did? Do we or do we not? Not if we did. If it was a question of if your best shot would be assumption and if we didn't you wouldn't have anything to bitch about, so which is it? Got a thought in your head or are you a "free thinker" free from thought? HUH!?
What? You mean if you were a Jew living in Israel before the first century C.E.? Yeah, but now is it a religious interpretation? If it is now I suggest you get down off of your soap box and learn a little bit about the Bible so you can demonstrate where that is a pretty lame ass interpretation. . . oh, wait a minute . . . you can't do that because the Bible isn't important to you. You'd better stay up on that box.
Really? Hmmm . . . I'm gay. [looks around] I just see you and a fog of ignorance.
Yes. I see it every day. It must be hell in Canada.
Hmm . . . if only I had studied more carefully I could have prevented it from happening! Education is so important don't you think? No . . . I mean that. Really. Don't you think?
But either they do or they don't, it isn't a matter of if God is real or not they still bloody well do it, don't they? I doubt that your approach of blind ignorance even from atop that box is going to change that.
[laughs] Lets say you and I were standing in a cave looking at some primitive paintings of a buffalo hunt. Could we deduce that it was a fact that those people hunted buffalo? Lets say 2,000 years from now two people are standing in a newly discovered abandoned movie theater and saw a movie or poster of a space invasion, could they deduce that it was a factual event? Right here. Right now, most people believe that since the life expectancy was about 35 - 40 years during the dark ages that it must of been at least as little as that during Moses' time, but why did Moses say that the average lifespan was 70. 80 if you are fortunate and which would you trust - an eyewitness account or speculation based upon folly?
The Bible is all the evidence any sensible person needs to gage the possible reality of God, but I'm not here to discuss the reality of God, I'm here to discuss why atheist are so ignorant of that which they criticize. You hear me up there?
You exist deep in your beliefs and this obviously strongly shapes the way you see things. But in order to clearly see atheists you need to step out of god-think completely. The way you seem to see us is as being angry, stupid, mentally lazy, governed by satan. But you see us in your context, in the context of a world with a god in it. This godly substrate makes our motivations suspect. We're angry with god, we're rejecting god.
But fact is we just don't believe in a god. The world we are in has no god. It's a natural world governed by natural laws, not by what we see as supernatural beliefs unsupported by facts outside of books written with the goal of supporting the religions they address. There are people here who know bible well and others who know less. For my part, I have a reasonable basic comprehension downloaded pre-beer. But I don't just reject bible, I reject Koran, too, and while I have read hunks of Koran, I could not say I know the faith. And I reject mithras and jupiter and Isis and baal and all the rest of them I will never know anything about. They are all cultural expressions of human religiosity/spirituality that exist on an imagined plane in the confines of a believer's skull. I'd rather look at a fossil nautilus that actually was than a bible anecdote any day of the week.
Now I'm pretty sure that LatinC is just like me and he simply sees religion as detrimental. I agree with him, myself. Let me put it this way. If my child was being told by adults that they were going to hell for not accepting some unproven dogma I would react as if it was child abuse. That's how it is for me. And I'd rather see my kid with a microscope in her hand than a bible - or any other religious text, come to that. Now I know you don't subscribe to hell and I know your belief system is based on a detailed interpretation of the text but over this side of the fence we godless see you as religious even if you give your beliefs another name. You still see satan as real. You accept the garden of eden. For an atheist, which I think is a sort of personality or brain type, rather than a deliberate choice, all this stuff is fantasy. We mostly don't even believe there is a soul. Do we have executive function? Sure! Does it live forever? In the context of this reality we can never know.
Anyway - don't take it personally. Just consider it as a test of faith...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Personally, Dave, I'd trust micro-tomography to assess the death age of owners of teeth to establish Moses-era lifespan long before I would consider bible evidence that was unlikely to have been from an eyewitness. If you tested all the teeth discovered that date to the period you'd get a good feel for average mortality by establishing a median age of death for all individuals. The micro-tomography method tests the development of crown enamel, dentin and pulp and is highly accurate. While I was at it I'd have my lab rats employ low magnification stereomicroscopy to consider tooth wear and use lasers to vaporise particles of tooth enamel both which would give us an excellent feel for Moses' probable diet.
Now, when you come out with lines like: "The bible is all the evidence a sensible person needs to gauge the possible reality of god", you have winged your way off into a place no atheist here can follow you. We are not being recalcitrant. We just don't think there's actual evidence of god. And the bible, written by god's followers and devoid of external proofs, leaves us scrabbling for more...
When you talk about people not knowing bible, I think you're confusing the words knowing and believing, as theists often do. For a theist, to know god is to believe in him. Those who don't believe are considered not to be trying hard enough, or they are thought to be refusing to understand so they can live their own lives or something. But this is an intrinsically biased view. If there is a god he's awful good at hide and seek...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
That doesn't matter. None of that matters. I see you the way I see me - we are not that different. I keep saying that God doesn't have anything to do with this. My perception of you is that you believe the Bible teaches the soul is some hokey bullshit immortal part of us that lives on after we die. I demonstrated how that isn't the case. The soul is, according to the Bible, something far more practical. It doesn't matter if God exists or not or if you or I believe in God to have this conversation.
ME (Believer): The idea of the immortal soul is not a Bible teaching.
YOU (Unbeliever): We don't care.
ME: Oh . . . sorry . . . I thought that was an important point.
YOU: We don't care, don't say anything bad about science.
ME: I, uh . . . say, do you guys all have the same tailor? Is it a fraternity or something?
YOU: Don't talk bad about science.
ME: Okay . . . [looks at watch] . . .
I understand that. Not an issue for the most part.
So do I.
It doesn't have anything to do with calling it another name. Do you actually think that Galileo had to choose between the two? I was on a message board talking with atheists [The SAB, in fact] and an atheist and his wife had a still birth. He was upset because his wife told their young daughter that the baby had gone to heaven, and that really bothered him. All the other atheists on the SAB board said they didn't see any harm in it, let the kid think that until she gets old enough to know better. I couldn't believe it. I told the guy that I would be upset as well, and, upon being asked I said that I would make it a point to have a discussion with the wife and the child explaining the differences in belief so that she could foster her own beliefs and so that he, the atheist father, wouldn't have to have a belief that he so strongly disagreed with being irresponsibly taught to his child.
I hear you. I don't agree with you and I don't think you understand where I am coming from and I think that what you are really saying to me is that you would prefer I leave you in ignorance and peace to rag on the Bible and slap each other's backs and laugh at how stupid people who don't only know "science" are and I know that is what it will come to.
YOU (Believer): The immortal soul is a Bible teaching.
US (Unbelievers): Show us objective, repeatable laboratory tests that we can rely on
YOU: It's it the bible and that's the word of god, so it's true
US: Ummm, the bible is some stuff people made up a long time ago to explain things they could not understand. We want to know how it works, not just believe what we are told.
YOU: You're not listening to me!
US: You're not listening to us!
WE ALL: Look at watches. . .
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Oh boy you really have a reading comprehension problem don't you. I wasn't responding to the OP I was responding to other points brought up after the OP. I don't care what the bible states about the soul, no evidence that a soul exists either. I never said whatever the bible says is wrong either, but you can think that I said that, it's ok, you seem to add a lot of stuff that people didn't say at all. But yes lets dance.
Lets see, you can't seem to comprehend the most basic part of what I am stating, if we were to allow as a society those that interpret their holy books as literal and should be followed to a T, then yes this would occur, I have seen this in other countries in which if you break a religious law, you are killed. Personally witness a woman killed because she walked with a man not of her family, as per religious law she was killed. Hmm yeah I am ignorant?, your the fucking twit that can't read or comprehend what people are saying.
Now we don't have that here my country because we have secular laws, not religious laws. Your a fucking moron so far.
for someone that claims to have education of some sorts, your comprehension level is abysmal, lets see I said religious interpretations, never said the fucking bible now did I, another showing of your great intellect, unable to distinguish the fact that I am not speaking about the bible, but various different religious interpretations of different holy texts.
Go to Iraq or Iran, head off to Uganda if you like, tell them your gay, see what happens when their religious laws are enacted regarding gays. So far you still a fucking moron.
Nope we have more or less secular laws enacted, not religious hence the reason we don't have such thing occurring.
Yes I do, yet still in countries of theocracies women can be and are treated as second class citizens, check out Saudi Arabia, although women have it better there than various other middle eastern countries in which women are not allowed to have education and are killed because they want to learn to read or just have an education, since it goes against religious beliefs held in those countries.
Again, provide the evidence or just shut up, why should any society with a large population that has different beliefs in general have to follow the religious beliefs of a few? Which christian views would you like to follow? Catholic? Protestant? JW? Lutheran? Mormon? Christadelphian? Or your interpretation? How about muslim or any of it's sets? orthodox jewish? hindu or any of it's sects? or how about we just follow secular laws since we cannot prove that any of those gods are real and that any one of those version or interpretation of god(s) or their holy texts are correct. That's probably the best solution, until we can prove that a god exists, and then that it is a specific god, say the christian version or the jewish etc, etc, etc. Why shouldn't I oppose those that wish to enact their religious laws or view on society at large again? Keep on avoid the question regarding the evidence for god ya fucking moron.
Wow great fucking education you have (and I love the fact that you just ignored everything I stated), they followed the Gregorian calender in mose's time? Or did they use a different method for giving people their age? such as moon cycles, seasonal cycles. Should we believe the bible that states that people lived to be 900 years old, or should we believe the evidence, such as the bones from those times. Even better moses didn't write a damn thing, why should I believe what is written there in the bible since the bible has been shown to be incorrect in a few different events, and statements such as how the universe and earth where formed? Could he have lived to 80, sure it's possible, however the average age of life was 35 - 40 due to the hardships of living in that time, less medical knowledge or medical advancement that has allowed us to live as long as we live now. Now what speculation based on what folly are you talking about? Science? Is that the speculation and folly you are talking about? Please provide the evidence that science is wrong, provide the evidence your god exists, until then your just talking from your ass you fucking moron. AS for your evidence why not use the Vedas for evidence, or just the torah forget the NT, or hey why not the q'uran? They all have some historical accuracies.....they also all have massive inaccuracies, and they all have the same amount of evidence for their god.....NONE.
See I can insult you as well, and properly answer you back, while you just avoid answering any question I pose to you.
and emotional reaction. I think it's fair to say you depend on the bible for your beliefs and atheists depend on observation of the natural world. I know you disagree with us, that the world according to god is so real for you there's no way to step out of it. My family are all the same as you are and as a former christian I'm quite familiar with the general feeling of god-life to be honest with you, though I think you're further in than I was. There are people here familiar with both sides. In any case, I wouldn't worry too much. You'll be eating plump olives on a golden couch listening to tinkling music and splashing fountains while we're being stabbed endlessly with red-hot daggers by demons anyway, so be happy.
Others may disagree with me but I think we're actually all on the forum because it's never possible to be entirely sure about what's going on in the universe as a human and we're kind of schooling together like crowd of conceptual fish, partly for support but partly to learn from each other. It's also easier to fend off predatory creationists as a group. Personally, I am compelled to keep thinking about this stuff, somehow. It's sort of broad area of tension inside my brain. I just want to know. I've always wanted to know - really know. Not just accept, but know from the point of physical reality. I think this is what distinguishes atheists as a sub-type. They're hungry for what they see as provable truth.
Like others here I have to come to outspoken unbelief from the point of growing up with god. By the time my brain was functioning completely it was obvious bible made no sense to me. Invisible deities, souls, rising from the dead, inability to explain a complex universe that demands an impossibly complex creator we can't perceive to be here first, god who made universe just for us - you know the rest. And of course, being told that not accepting this welter of confused dogma is immoral - well - that's going to go down just fine. Personally, I don't think your beliefs are right. But that's an opinion and in any case, I don't think you're in any way immoral or deserving of any sort of igneous punishments.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
No. It isn't.
You can't test everything in a laboratory. I have showed you enough to at least begin an objective discussion
Bible translation isn't inspired, I can show you stuff that is in the Bible that obviously isn't true, that was added on later. That is why the Bible itself warns to test the inspired expression, not to blindly believe it.
The writers of the Bible wrote some stuff that they themselves didn't understand. That no one at that time understood, like the earth was spherical and hanging upon nothing. You can't know how it works if you won't even look at it, I'm not asking you to just believe what you are told.
I'm done. Thats it. I fold. You win.
It also states the earth sits on four pillars.....did you forget about that part? It's amazing that for the most part many believers just pick and choose what is true, but always avoid the errors in the bible.
The four pillars are obviously not literal, are they. Like "the foundation of our marriage" or "the cornerstone of our faith."
I'm done here LC, if any of you were any dumber you'd be Gommer Pyle, you ain't worth my fucking time.
God knows what you believe in. On some things you're classic fundamentalist, with others, you're way off on your own.
There are so many gods not to believe in it's hard to keep up with them all.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
David,
This really caught my attention. Let me ask you this...do you feel like part of the Christian community or do you feel like a red headed step-child because you question many of todays beliefs? I remember when i was a Christian, i began going down a different road than many Christians. I no longer believed in the rapture or any of the end times bs. I was told by many of my Christian friends that i was not a “true Christian” because of this. I didn’t believe Jesus was trying to convert people or get everyone to an altar. I believed Jesus was trying to establish this Kingdom on Earth. That one concept is completely lost by todays Christians. They truly have no clue what the Good News even is. Humility was also a lost concept. But i felt like i was somewhere in between a Christian and something else and i didn’t know what. Id like to hear more of your views about what you believe is wrong with Western Christianity.
You love to project a lot, well lets admit the truth here, you pick and choose what you want to believe of the bible, which parts are interpretations, which are metaphorical etc, etc, etc. You fail to even properly respond to any of my questions, and when you make the bald assertion that god is real and exist, you cannot provide any evidence that he does, and no the bible does not count as evidence, because if holy texts count the fuck there are a lot more gods that your god. Of course I am not worth your time, you can't answer my question, you avoid them so that you don't have to face the facts, you have no evidence, there is no god. However your lack of intellect is showing, thanks for dancing, but I can't dance with stupid people like you, it's kinda like picking on the retarded kids, its no real challenge.
You quote Plato but you are not a polytheist? What is your problem? He wrote his stuff long before the babble.
BTW the "soul" is an incoherent steamy pile of a naked assertion. I am quite sure the Egyptians believed in souls too, but yet you don't believe in the sun being a thinking being or Isis or Horus.
It is absurd to claim that a brain with no brain exists be it a "soul" or a god.
The bible is nothing more than a book of myth falsely believed to be fact, no different than the Egyptians falsely believing that the sun was a giant thinking brain with super powers.
You merely like the idea of having a super hero swoop you off the train tracks.
Plato was just as wrong in claiming "souls" exist as any Hindu, Muslim or Jew or Christian today.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Sure, you CAN keep up with them. Your trash can merely keeps growing along with all the naked assertions people utter.
The believer (insert deity claim here) does not want to consider that they merely like what they believe and that is nothing but a utopia they project on the world around them because of the fear of their finite existence.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"subjective" is not the word I would use. "Bullshit" I think is more fitting.
"I believe in brains with no brains". Yea, that makes sense.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
This is no doubt obvious to the smart people on the boards but I think one of the big problems for theists is their propensity to approach life from the 'end' - by that I mean from now. For the theist all the shit going on around us seems to have meaning. There are systems that work, they must have been made by god, blah, blah, blah. But you obviously need to approach life from the other end - from a nasty, unpleasant earth with no oxygen, on which tough archeobacteria developed (the type that still live around deep ocean vents), and then you need to go forward from there. Early earth had no systems, those systems are a product of life on this earth, just as intelligence is a product of life on this earth, not a product of the meta-universe. The organic systems we're part of are systems shaped by the lives of all the ancestral forms we are related to right back to the first microbes in a symbiotic relationship with our now apparently supportive environment. Earth has shaped us and life has shaped earth in a way that to me profoundly amplifies the legitimacy of evolution as an entirely natural process. Life is so much more inclusive looked at this way but getting a theist to change their end-game perspective is fucking hard work.
As for the giant brain connected to all other molecules in the universe without any physical connections (let's ignore quantum theory), a mind like that would have to fill the entire universe. Wouldn't it, Bob?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
David, it's not that everyone here is so ignorant of the bible. Many here used to be Christian and most of us know how easily it is to build up completely different perspectives on such ambiguous religious texts, all you need is a massive amount of apologetics.
Our perspective on the soul is simply that we don't care one way or the other and that seems to have you frustrated. It doesn't matter how much you attempt to rationalize biblical passages, there's no evidence for corpses surviving rigamortis or some sort of consciousness "out" there somewhere. All the unverifiable anecdotal evidence in the world amounts to jack in most of our perspectives.
Yeah, what belief do I have that is contradictory?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Does your God interact with the physical world? If so, then how is the God-world relationship of your theology different from the putative dualistic soul-body relationship of traditional Christian theology?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead